The ‘I AM’ Sayings in John’s Gospel

1.                        The Name of God in the OT

In Exodus 6.2-3, YHWH states (ESV): ‘God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD [YHWH]. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them.”’ The Hebrew is:

wayy edabbēr ’ elōhîm ’el Mōšeh : וַיְּדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־משֶַַַַָָׁה ויּאֹמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְהוָה verse 2

wayyōmer ’ēlāyw ’ anî YHWH

wā’ērā’ ’el abrāhām ...be’ēl šadday וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל־יִצְחָק וְאֶל־יַעֲקֹב בְּאֵל שַׁדָּ֑י verse 3

However, a perusal of Genesis shows that the Name YHWH was indeed known to them, which is why scholars such as W.J. Martin have identified this as an Elliptical Interrogative (e.g. when a mother tells a naughty child ‘Didn’t I tell you not to do that?’), so it should read:

(+) Verse 3a         I revealed myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as (in the character of) ’El Shadday and my name YHWH.

(+) Verse 3b         Was I not known to them?

The answer to the query in v3b is obviously ‘Yes!’ – God was indeed known to Abraham, etc., as YHWH, e.g. Gen. 13.4b: ‘And there Abram called upon the name of YHWH’; 15.7: ‘And he said to him, “I am YHWH who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”’

2.                        Moses’ query and God’s answer in Ex. 3.13-14

In Ex. 3.13 we read: ‘Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”’ Remember, the Israelites had lived for centuries in a polytheistic society – Egypt. In such a society, with many gods, simply referring to ‘God’ would not identify the Deity of Israel. Hence, God says:

אֶהְֶיה אֲשֶׁׁר אֶהְֶיה (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh) — “I AM that which I AM”/ “I WILL BE what I WILL BE”.

And this is condensed into the simpler form of the Name, when God goes on to say,

“Say this to the people of Israel, אֶהְֶיה (’ehyeh — I AM) has sent me to you’.”

This then is followed in verse 15 with the instruction, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

The exposition of the divine Name in Ex. 3:14 is itself preceded by the exchange between Moses and God in verses 11–12, in which, in reply to Moses protestation, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?”, God declares:

כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ (kî ’ehyeh ‘immāk)

— “Surely I AM/ I WILL BE with you!”

God’s “being” is an assertion, not of his existence, merely, but of his gracious, efficacious presence with Moses, supporting and enabling him in the task which God has called him to do.

3.     I AM in John’s Gospel

There are two uses of ‘I am’ Ἐγώ εἰμι in John’s Gospel, (a) predicative (e.g. 15.1: ‘I am the true vine…’; Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή…) and (b) absolute (e.g. John 8.58: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”; εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί).  In English, examples of the Predicative use would include ‘I am a Londoner’, or ‘I am Bob’. Such would not be claim to Deity.

However, there are special considerations in John’s Gospel. In Isaiah 52.6 (cf. 43.25; 51.12) YHWH states: ‘Therefore my people shall know my name. Therefore in that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here I am.’ (לָכֵ֛ן יֵדַ֥ע עַמִּ֖י שְׁמִ֑י לָכֵן֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא כִּֽי־אֲנִי־ה֥וּא הַֽמְדַבֵּ֖ר הִנֵּֽנִי׃) - ani hu – ‘I am he’.

When Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman, he says, Jn. 4.26: ‘Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”’ (λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι.) – egō eimi. So, even if some I AM sayings in John do not look back to Ex. 3.14, they obviously look back to the ani hu statements of YHWH in Isaiah.

John 6.35: ‘Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”’ (Εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς· ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε.).

This reflects Ex. 16.4: ‘Then YHWH said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.”’ ( וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה הִנְנִ֨י מַמְטִ֥יר לָכֶ֛ם לֶ֖חֶם מִן־הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וְיָצָ֨א הָעָ֤ם וְלָֽקְטוּ֙ דְּבַר־י֣וֹם בְּיוֹמ֔וֹ לְמַ֧עַן אֲנַסֶּ֛נּוּ הֲיֵלֵ֥ךְ בְּתוֹרָתִ֖י אִם־לֹֽא׃)

The absolute uses of egō eimi in 8.24, 28, 58, and 13.19 are not comparable to Predicative uses such as ‘I am a Londoner’. In 8.24 we read: ‘I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins’. We have italicized the ‘he’ because it is not in the Greek: ἶπον οὖν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν· ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν.

In Isa. 43.25 YHWH states: ‘I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.’ The Hebrew אָנֹכִ֥י ה֛וּא anoki hu is another case of ani hu referring to YHWH, and Jn. 8.24 reflects this, and also Isa. 43.10: ‘“You are my witnesses,” declares YHWH, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me”’ - ani hu again. That ani hu looks back to YHWH is demonstrated by Isa. 43.11: ‘I, I am [anoki] YHWH, and besides me there is no saviour.’

In 8.28, the ‘he’ is absent in the Greek: ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he…’ This reflects Ex. 14.18: ‘And the Egyptians shall know that I am YHWH’ אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֑ה ani YHWH. Again, the link with YHWH. The use of egō eimi in 13.19 is the same: ‘I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.’ Similarly, 18.5-8: ‘They answered him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” ... 6 When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he.’ The physical reaction of the guards is a response to His deity – His being egō eimi.

The Jews’ reaction to 8.58 (stoning) clarifies that they understood Jesus as claiming Deity – the Name YHWH: ‘Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”’ Here is the egō eimi is definitely absolute, and there is no ambiguity in its reference to Ex. 3.14. Moreover, the usage in 8.24, 28 also indicate a reference to Deity, and to the Name YHWH. Verse 58 is the culmination of these indications. Further, note that Jesus make a temporal reference – Jesus existed ‘before Abraham’ – i.e., before the great Patriarch. Not even Methuselah lived that long – only YHWH.

In John 6.19 (cf. Mk. 6.49-50/Matt. 14.26-27) Jesus walks on water, and says v20 ‘...I am; do not fear; Ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε’. In Job 9.8, God walks on the waves of the sea. Nowhere in the OT does any prophet perform this. Cf. Gen. 26.24 when YHWH speaks to Isaac: ‘And YHWH …said, “I am the God of Abraham your father. Fear not…’ which LXX renders: Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ πατρός σου· μὴ φοβοῦ·

Finally, some Dawah activists have pointed to the LXX of Ex. 3.14: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν – ‘I Am the One [or He] who is’, and renders the absolute I AM in the second clause by Ὁ ὢν [ho ōn], in an attempt to undermine the link between Jn. 8. 58 and Ex. 3.14. This is a spectacular own-goal. Firstly, linguistically, ‘since a first-person subject would not work for the necessary ἀπέσταλκέν (a third sg. form), Exod is forced to resort to the participial ὁ ὤν, “the one who is.”’ (Daniel M. Gurtner, Exodus: A commentary on the Greek text of Codex Vaticanus, p. 206).

Secondly, note how John uses ὁ ὤν in the Book of Revelation, in clear reference ot Deity: 1.4: ‘Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come…’ χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος…

Rev. 1.8: ‘“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”’ Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, λέγει κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

4.8b: ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’ Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

11.17: ‘…Lord God Almighty, who is and who was’; κύριε, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν…

History of Sunni Hadith

Download as PDF (best formatting)

1. Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī

a] This is one of the six major collections (Sihāh Sittah):

The Five Book canon, which is first noted in the sixth/twelfth century, incorporates the Jami’of al-Tirmidh_ (d. 279/892). Finally the Six Book canon, which hails from the same period, adds either the Sunan of Ibn Majah (d. 273/887), the Sunan of al-Daraqutni (d. 385/995) or the Muwatta of Malik b. Anas (d. 179/796). Later hadith compendia often included other collections as well. None of these books, however, has enjoyed the esteem of al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s works.

Note that it took about two hundred years for the Hadith Canon to be established. Bukhari died in 870, yet his Hadith collection purportedly presents an authoritative report of the life and sayings of Muhammad who is reported by Muslim sources to have perished in 632. There is thus a problem of temporal separation between the supposed narration or action and its written record.

b] Powers observes that there is no consensus among Muslim scholars that all Bukhari’s hadiths are sahih. Furthermore, there are several different versions of his corpus:

Although all of the Hadiths in al-Bukhāri are claimed to be ṣaḥīḥ¸not all scholars are agreed. Nor have these collections come down in a single unchallenged edition. AlBukhari’s text, for example, “exists in several ‘narrations’ (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushmayhani (d. 389) on the authority of Bukhari’s pupil al-Firabri is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema.”

Quiring-Zoche also observes that al-Yunini noted ‘discrepancies between the texts of al-Kusmihani and Ibn Hamiuwayhi…’ regarding versions of the Sahih. She states that al-Yunini did not establish his own recension, but rather ‘a text with variants and a critical apparatus.’ She also states that al-Yunini’s personal copy of the Sahih, which consisted of two volumes, was lost, one volume in the sixteenth century, the other sometime after 1909.

c] Reports of Bukhari’s life seem to be late, and arguably embellished. For example, Brown states: ‘It is reported that al-Bukhari devoted 16 years to sifting the hadiths he included in his Sahih from a collection of nearly 600,000 narrations.’ His source for this is the Egyptian Taqi al-Din al-Subki, 1284-1355 AD, whereas Bukhari died in 870!

According to Abdul-Jabbar, Bukhari stayed in Mecca after his haj aged 16, and then travelled to various parts of the Empire. Maujood has someone called Sahl ibn a-Sirree (this may be a variant of as-Suri) quoting Bukhari as stating: ‘I visited Ash-Sham (Syria and surrounding regions) and Egypt; the Arabian Peninsula twice; and I resided in Al-Hijaaz for six years, and I cannot count the number of times I entered Kufah and Baghdad with other Hadeeth scholars.’

However, Majood’s sources for this are Taareekh Baghdad, written by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, d. 1071, who may have finished as-Suri’s work. This becomes more complicated when we look at The Creed of The Imaam of Hadeeth Al-Bukhari & of The Great Scholars From Whom He Narrated, pp. 9-10, which states:

A1-Laalikaa’ee1 (d. 418H) said in his Sharh Usool I’tiqaad

Ahlus-Sunnah (2/172):

‘The Creed (I’tiqaad,) of Aboo ‘Abdullaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaaree and the Group from the Salaf about whom he narrates.’

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hafs al-Harwee said: Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Salamah narrated to us, saying: Abul-Husayn Muhammad ibn Imraan ibn Moosaa al-Jarjaanee narrated to us saying: I heard Aboo Muhammad ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahmaan al-Bukhaaree from ash-Shaash – saying I heard Aboo ‘Abdullaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaaree saying:

I met more than a thousand men amongst the people of knowledge from the people of al-Hijaaz, al-Makkah, al-Madeenah, al-Koofah, al-Basrah, Waasit, Baghdaad, Shaam and Egypt. I met them numerous times, generation after generation and then generation after generation. I met them while they were ample and widespread for over forty-six years; the people of ash-Shaam, Egypt and al-Jazeerah twice, (the people of) al-Basrah four times in a number of years. (Those of) al-Hijaaz (over a period) of six years and I cannot enumerate how many times I entered (upon the people of) al-Koofah and Baghdaad along with the muhaddithoon of Khuraasaan...

While not wanting to be skeptical for its own sake, one wonders how we can test this claim, and if it actually goes back to Bukhari himself.

Majood’s other source is Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, by Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qayyim `Abu `Abd Allah Shams ad-Din al-Dhahabi, d. 1348! Again, the late date is significant.

d] Another problem concerns extant copies of Bukhari’s corpus. There are indications about the age of Bukhari’s transmission: ‘When compared with the enduring transmission of the Sahih from al- Bukhari’s most famous student, al-Firabri, his other student Hammad b. Shakir’s (d. 290/902–3) recension of the text contained two hundred fewer narrations. Ibrahim b. Ma’qil al-Nasafi’s (d. 295/907–8) was three hundred less.’ When we examine the date of Firabri’s death - Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Firabri (d. 320/932) – we see how far from the original we are.

Melchert also notes ‘the meagre circulation of the Sahih before the mid-tenth century C.E…’ Linked to this is his comments on the reliability and transmission of the Sahih:

Quotations and internal evidence together suggest that al-Tarikh alkabir and al-Awsat are securely attributed to Bukhari but underwent amendment both by him and others, mostly over the middle third of the ninth century. The Sahih is a little less securely attributed. First, there is the evidence that it did not begin to circulate significantly until well into the tenth century. Tirmidhi’s evidently limited access to it has been mentioned already. No commentary appeared until the mid-tenth century, although commentaries on Muslim’s Sahih began to appear in the first generation after him. Five men are named as transmitting it from Bukhari, only two of whose recensions are preserved at all in the extant commentaries, mainly those of Ibrahim ibn Ma’qil al-Nasafi (d. 295/908?) and MuIammad ibn Yusuf ibn Matar al-Firabri or Farabri (d. 320/932). Firabri’s reported boast that ‘Ninety-thousand men heard Kitab al- Sahih of MuIammad ibn Isma’il, but I am the only one left to relate it’ is not credible… Secondly, there is evidence of textual instability into the tenth century.

The weight of Bukhari’s work becomes even more inconclusive when we consider the manuscript evidence:

As for manuscript evidence, the earliest extant fragment of the Sahih was found by Alphonse Mingana to present hadith in a different order from that of the familiar text, with occasional variations of spelling, addition or omission of pronouns, and the other sorts of variations that the commentaries preserve. Jonathan Brown is dismissive: ‘Mingana’s partial manuscript of the Sahih consisted of only three chapters. We have no evidence that the ordering of the remaining ninety-four chapters was irregular’. To the contrary, I would say, it seems highly unlikely that the three chapters preserved in Mingana’s Manchester manuscript were exactly the three characterized by such irregularities, the others being identical to the familiar text. Moreover, we actually do have a great deal of evidence, mainly in the commentaries, that such irregularities did characterize the whole of the Sahih. Mingana’s manuscript should be welcomed as confirmation of the commentary tradition.

The basis for contemporary copies of the Sahih only go back to the fourteenth century A.D.:

Only versions of Firabri’s recension, not even the recension of Nasafi as well, were available to al-Yunini (d. 701/1302), whose work formed the textual basis of the so-called Sultani edition of 1311-1313 (mid-1890s), the main basis in turn of subsequent editions and the closest we have to a standard text today.

The actual manuscript to which Mingana referred is ‘Mingana Arab. Isl. 225’, which according to Mingana ‘contains an important text of the second part of the famous collection of Islamic Traditions by Bukhari. The kitabs which it contains are only the Zakat, the Saum, and the Hajj.’ Mingana observes the palæographical evidence for its dating:

The MS. is unfortunately incomplete at the end, and so bears no date, but on palæographical grounds it cannot be later than A.D. 1000, and is probably earlier, and so may easily be ascribed to not more than about a hundred years after the author’s death, which took place in A.D. 870. This is borne out also by the fact that the title-page contains inscriptions, one of which is dated Ramadan A.H. 464 (A.D. 1072), and the other Dhu’l Hijjah 574 (A.D. 1178).

Mingana goes on to note: ‘The MS. probably contains the oldest text of Bukhari in existence.’ This means that the oldest extant manuscript of the collection usually seen as second only to the Qur’an exists only as a partial fragment. A further consideration should be noted:

A much more important feature is that every section begins with the sentence: “Bukhari has informed us, saying” …which would imply that it was not Bukhari himself who wrote the text of his famous book, but one of his disciples. One is tempted to go farther, and to state in this connection that it was not an immediate disciple of Bukhari who first committed it to writing, but a hearer of one of these immediate disciples. What renders this hypothesis almost certain is the fact that sometimes a chain of two authorities separates Bukhari, the author, from the man who first put the book down in writing. So the first bob of Kitab az-Zakdt begins as follows: “We have been informed by Abu Zaid Muhammad b. Ahmad, who said that Muhammad b. Yusuf told us, saying that Bukhari informed us saying: ‘We have been told by Abu ‘Asim Dahhak b. Mukhallad,’” etc.

After comparing the text with other editions, Mingana concludes: ‘…the text of Bukhari underwent many vicissitudes before it reached its present standardized form.’ This surely raises further questions about the credibility of Bukhari’s Sahih as we presently possess it. The Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts records Schoenberg 31539 Al-Jami Al-Sahih Part 36, 20 Folios, 26 Lines, and dated to 1138.

Interestingly, the Encyclopaedia of Hadith declares that among the sources it used for its edition of Sahih Bukhari was the following: ‘The Dar al-Shab (Cairo) edition, which was baed [sic] on the Sultaniyya edition, which was in turn drawn from the celebrated and authoritative copy of Imam al-Yunini.’ The rest of its sources are commentaries from the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries A.H., i.e. the twentieth and nineteenth centuries A.D. Significantly, Quiring-Zoche observes: ‘This Yuniniyya was solely used by al-Qastellani to a decisive extent. It is only through his commentary on al-Buhari that al-Yunini’s redaction of the Sahih has been known to us.’ Shihab al-Din Abu’l-Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr al-Qastallani al-Qutaybi al-Shafi’i lived 1448-1517, and his commentary is called Irshad al-Sari fi Sharh al-Bukhari.

In conclusion, it seems that extant mss. of Bukhari are based on al-Yunini (d. 701/1302, so (fourteenth century AD), possibly by way of al-Qastallani (fifteenth-sixteenth centuries AD), Asqalani’s Fatḥ al-Bārī fī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (fifteenth century AD), and Umdat al Qari by Badr al Ayni (also fifteenth century AD). The Maknaz edition uses a text from 873 A.H. – 1468 A.D.

1. Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih

a] It is often stated that this is the earliest hadith collation: ‘An example of an early collection of hadith is the sahifa of Hammam b. Munabbih (d. circa 130/747), a disciple of Abu Hurayra, which includes 138 hadiths…’ However, its authenticity is questioned:

…it is contended here that what goes by the title of Hammam’s sahifa is for the main part the handiwork of none other than ‘Azq. He used the strand to support a number of partly brand-new, partly other, older traditions of his own making or copied from others, which he had already circulated with the help of strands of an older vintage. ‘Azq.’s Ma’mar/Hammam/Abu Hurayra strand was, in turn, copied by other, younger collectors in order to serve them as a convenient prop for their own traditions, mainly shawahid…

In his evaluation of the transmission via Ma’mar/Hammam/Abu Hurayra, the modern editor of the ‘corpus’, Muhammad Hamidullah (d. 2002), failed to appreciate that there is an anomaly concerning the recorded death dates of the first three transmitters, something which made it well-nigh impossible to attribute any historicity to a strand of this sort. Consider the following data:

Abu Hurayra is reported to have died in 57/677 or 58/678 or 59/679. For Hammam b. Munabbih’s year of death two conflicting clusters of dates are given, no less than thirty years apart. On the one hand, it is recorded in Ibn Sa’d (V, p. 396) that it was in 101 or 102/719-20; however, on the other hand, in the quotations of the same Ibn Sa’d in Mz., Tahdhib, XXX, p. 300, and Ij., Tahdhib, XI, p. 67, the date given is 131/749, while Dhahabi in Siyar, V, p. 312, states that Hammam died in 132/750. The problem is then aggravated by the additional information in IS that Hammam is supposed to have died before his older brother Wahb (d. 110/728 or 114/732), so the apodictical solution of the editor of Mz.’s Tahdhib, namely that the Sachau edition of IS is mistaken, is, for lack of a better term, too hasty. In the final analysis it is impossible to say which year from any of the two clusters for Hammam’s death is the most feasible.

In short, no date seems to work, when the historicity — if any — of this strand is evaluated. Be that as it may, if the second cluster of dates (131 or 132) is postulated to be the correct one, Hammam must have listened to hadith recited by a man who died some three quarters of a century earlier. The narrative embellishment describing Hammam as being so old that his eyebrows rested upon his eyes is a widely used topical digression to underline Hammam’s status as a mu’ammar. However, Dhahabi’s rijal lexicon of centenarians, entitled Ahl al-mi’a fa-saida, does not list Hammam in any case.

And if the first date (101 or 102/719-20) is taken as point of departure, Ma’mar is supposed to have learned the traditions from his informant Hammam some nine years before he actually commenced his hadith gathering, which, as the appurtenant sources inform us, was in the year Hasan al-Basri died, namely 110/728. Hammam occurs twice in spidery bundles with Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna as key figure, where he sits between that man’s informant ‘Amr b. Dinar (d. 126/744) and Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan (d. 41/661). In these two, Hammam’s year of death is apparently assumed to have been the earlier of the two, 102/720. If Hammam’s late year of death is taken literally, creating every opportunity for Ma’mar to have heard him personally, and if it is at the same time maintained that he was a transmitter of Abu Hurayra, he must have reached an age which requires an act of faith to accept. A solution seems in any case to lie beyond the reach of the modern isnad analyst.

Summing up, one can say that the historicity of the transmission of the so-called Sahifat Hammam cannot be maintained with any reliable measure of certainty. References to young children learning hadith with ancient hadith masters are admittedly legion, but they are all situated in a later stage in the development of hadith instruction, a stage which originated several centuries later than the time we are here and now digging into, namely the second half of the first/seventh century and the first few decades of the second/eighth century. Besides, when one reads through all the traditions of the Sahifa, the overall impression one gains, is of a late collection, displaying a stylistic finish only found in relatively late traditions. Moreover, they present virtually all the Prophet’s direct speech with a few qudsi sayings directly attributed to God thrown in, only a few have Muhammad being asked questions to which he provided answers. The whole corpus is supported by a supposedly very early but probably historically untenable isnad strand.

b] Morris makes these observations about the Sahifah in terms of actual dating, manuscript evidence and variants:

It’s sometimes billed as the oldest extant hadith collection. That does not mean that our surviving manuscripts are the earliest to contain hadiths – the current scholarly edition by Hamidullah is based on manuscripts from the twelfth century and later –; it means that the text itself, preserved in later volumes, may represent the earliest collection.

Between variants of the Sahīfah, differences in wording are few and trifling. However, as Marston Speight has shown, there are many and significant differences between the hadiths in the Sahīfah and variants of the same hadiths transmitted elsewhere. This is what we’d expect. The ninth-century turn to writing and publication ‘fixed’ a body of oral tradition that was previously fluid and adaptive: quite different accounts of the same story could then be preserved in parallel.

The point is that the Sahīfah was rigorously transmitted once it had been written, but it was only written in the ninth century… It would appear that ‘the Sahīfah of Hammām’ is more properly the Sahīfah of ‘Abd al-Razzāq, and a thoroughly ninth-century work.

Musanaf of Abdul Razzaq

a] ‘Abd ar-Razzaq was born in 744 A.D. – so over a hundred years after Muhammad’s death according to Muslim sources - and died in 827 – nearly two hundred years after Muhammad is claimed to have died. Note this: ‘This book is written by Hafiz Al-San’ani, Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq. Its original menuscript [sic] was lost and mixed up with other books, and could not be differentiated for almost 1100 years until it was arranged and edited by the Indian Scholar Maulana Habib al-Rahman al-Azmi…’ Motzki also notes its manuscript history:

The Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam al- San’ani (d. 211/827) has been available since 1972 in an eleven-volume edition prepared by Habib al-Rahman al-A’zami and published by al-Majlis al-’Ilmi, Beirut…

1. The manuscript Murad Mulla (Istanbul) is the basic text. It consists of five sections and is -by al- A’zami’s estimation - complete, aside from small losses at the beginning of the first and fifth sections. This judgement can only apply to the part of the text covered by this manuscript, because the end of the work is missing. This manuscript dates from the year 747I1346-7. It represents the basis for volumes one through ten, page 145 of the edition.

2. For the rest, the manuscript Fayed Allah Effendi (Istanbul), from the year 606/1209-10, was used.

The dates here are thus fourteenth and thirteenth centuries. It follows that extant copies of this work are extremely late. The reconstructed nature of the latter also raises questions.

b] Abd al-Razzaq was from Yemen, a student of Mālik:

He brought into circulation large numbers of traditions, which he copied from earlier CLs after providing them with isnād strands of his own making... He became blind at the turn of the second/eighth century...

It is tempting indeed to speculate that ‘Azq., cooped up in Yemen as he was, had far less opportunity to meet hadīth masters from whom he could learn a thing or two, or that he did not bother to look for such masters. So he simply produced a huge portion of his Muṣannaf himself, all this support d by some of his favourite SSs, and all this on a far more extensive scale than the two other collectors mentioned above. All three mawālī have enriched Islam: the first two did it mainly through transmission of what was already there, and the third one by cleverly introducing many brand-new hadīths...

‘Azq. apparently also made use of the Muhammad b. ‘Amr b. ‘Alqama/Abū Salama / Abū Hurayra strand in order to circulate traditions which are probably of his own making.

Motzki also notes that people such as Hanbal and An-Nasai had problems with Abdul Razzaq because of issues of reliability:

Furthermore, he is supposed to have dictated texts from memory. Because of this, Ahmad ibn Hanbal deemed the traditions of people who studied with him in this period to be da’if (unreliable).e3 Later scholars such as Ibn al-Salah (d. 643/1245-6) joined him in this opinion and-following al-Nasa’i (d. 303/915-6) insisted that texts deriving from ‘Abd al-Razzaq be tested, whether to distinguish the later from the earlier, good transmission, or because they generally distrusted him and only wanted to accept the traditions attested elsewhere as well.

In the light of this, we can understand why this never became an authoritative collection, and why Bukhari felt the need to sift ahadith.

c] Note also the comment of Lucas, p. 290: ‘‘Abdal- Muṣannaf ... draws heavily upon the collections of Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153/770), Sufyān al-Tawrī (d. 161/778), and Ibn Jurayj (150/767)...’ Even his sources are late.

Muwatta Imam Malik

1. a] Guillaume states the following (bold emphasis ours):

The earliest date which Muhammadans give for the collection of hadith is contained in the following tradition, said to rest on the authority of Malik b. Anas (94-179) –

‘Umar b. Abdu-l-’Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr. B. Muhammad b. ‘Amr with the order: ‘See what hadith of the prophet of God are extant or ancient customs (sunna madiya) or hadith known to ‘Amra, and write them down; for I stand in dread of the disappearance of knowledge and of the death of them that possess it’ This Aba Bakr. B. Muhammad was one of the Ansar whom ‘Umar II appointed judge at Medina, and ‘Amra was his aunt. Of the statement Sir William Muir writes: ‘About a hundred years after Muhammad, the Caliph ‘Umar II issued circular orders for the formal collection of all extant tradition. The task thus begun continued to be vigorously prosecuted; but we possess no authentic remains of any compilation of an earlier date than the middle or end of the second century of the Hijra.’

It would seem that this writer accepts the statement at its face value, but the fact that no authentic remains of this alleged first-century compilation are extant, and that the indefatigable students and compilers of tradition in the third century make no mention of an effort to trace such early documents, suggest very strongly that the tradition is not based on fact. It is difficult, if not impossible, to suggest a cogent reason why such an early collection, if it existed, should never have been mentioned by later scholars whose life-work it was to recover the genuine hadith of the apostolic period. For this reason the hadith must be regarded as an invention designed to connect the pious caliph, whose zeal for the sunna was gratefully recognized by theologians, with the tradition literature of Islam. This seems the more likely, as another tradition connects Ibn Shihab Al Zuhri with ‘Umar II in this work. Moreover, Malik’s statement is only to be found in Al Shaibanl’s recension of the Muwatta. It is absent from the other versions.

Note what Guillaume states about the various recensions/versions of Al-Muwatta – there was, initially at least, no fixed, canonical edition of the text. Interestingly, Introduction to Translation of Malik’s Muwatta, translated by `A’isha `Abdarahman at-Tarjumana and Ya`qub Johnson, has this to say:

Malik (full name Malik bin Anas bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi) was born in 93 A.H. and died in 179 A.H. He lived most of his life in Madinah, the city in which the Prophet (pbuh) settled in. He was a preeminent scholar of Islam, and is the originator of the Maliki judicial school of thought. He is reputed to have had over one thousand students. During Malik’s lifetime, he steadily revised his Muwatta, so it reflects over forty years of his learning and knowledge. It contains a few thousand hadith.

So, according to this, Malik, the author of Al-Muwatta, was born nearly a century after Muhammad (711 AD), and Al-Muwatta was completed by the time he died – 179 AH (795 AD), so nearly two centuries after their Prophet (died 632 AD). Note that the Muslim authors of the translation above state that Malik ‘steadily revised his Muwatta’ over forty years; why, if the narrations were strong and valid, would he need to do so?

b] There are questions as to how historically reliable it is. Goldhizer has this to say on the subject:

The Muwatta’ cannot be regarded as the first great collection of traditions in Islam, nor does not appear to have been considered as such in Muslim literature. Despite the great prestige which it has enjoyed, from its appearance to this day, in the east and west of the Islamic world - the history of its origin has been surrounded with large number of pious legends - and despite the great reverence shown to the name of the author, the great imam dar al-hijra, it did not originally gain its authority as a canonical work of tradition… with the exception of the Maghribi schools, this work has no place amongst the ‘six books’ … and only the reverence of later generations, who were no longer in close touch with the origins and had the urge to widen the circle of canonic literature, occasionally included in that category.

The work of Malik is in fact not in the proper sense a collection of traditions, forming a counterpart to the sahihs of the next century, nor one which could, from the point of view of the literary historian, be mentioned as a member of the same literary group. It is a corpus juris, not a corpus traditionum… Its intention is not to sift and collect the ‘healthy’ elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice, by the ijma’ recognized in Medinian Islam... Inasmuch as the book has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies .in the sunna rather than the hadith. Occasionally Malik does not cite one single tradition in a paragraph but only cites fatwas by recognized authorities in actual or casuistically pointed cases in order to conclude with his own assenting opinion and by stating Medinian usage and consensus. A transmitter of the hadith school would have put forward not fatwas, but hadiths going back.to the Prophet...

The variants in copies of the Muwatta must be recognized:

An unfavourable impression of the reliability of Islamic tradition in the second century is gained if one considers that the version in which various authorities hand down the Muwatta’, all directly, or indirectly, in the name of Malik, differ from each other in their text and contents, as well as in plan and order, to such a degree that One might be tempted to think of them as mutually differing and by no means as identical writings.

Rauf also recognizes this:

The Muwatta9 was revised several times over forty years by its author, who flourished in Medina, having studied earlier with renowned scholars there, and in turn taught those revised works to his disciples. Malik’s revised work survived in some different versions through his disciples, notably Yahya b. Yahya al-Laythi of Cordoba (d. 232/848), and of Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shaybanl (d. 189/804), the well known Hanafi authority. Yahya’s version is the more popular.

We note the continual revision of the work and the existence of different versions.

c] We should also observe that there is some uncertainty about Malik’s life in general:

His year of birth is variously recorded as 90/709, 93/712, or 94/713. However, when certain reports on his age at a particular point in time are taken literally, it is likely that he was born at a date considerably later than the birth dates given here. Beside doubts about his supposed year of birth published elsewhere, there is a relevant anecdote describing how some one in 134/751 was asked about the natural successor of the mawlā Rabī’a b. Abī ‘Abd ar-Rahmān, always referred to as Rabī’a ar-Ra’y, i.e. the man well-known for his independent legal thinking, who held sway in the mosque of Medina. After mentioning Yahyā b. Sa’īd al- Ansārī (d. 143-6/760-3), the person questioned ventured: ‘And then there was that boy (fatā), Mālik b. Anas’. This permits the speculation that Mālik was in fact born, say, some twenty years before 134/751, a calculation which depicts him at the time of his demise as some sixty-five years old, an age arguably more plausible, at least for the second/eighth century, than the age of ca. eighty-five years computed from his alleged year of birth given above. Furthermore, there is a report attributed to the early rijāl expert ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī in which he clearly stated that Mālik never knew Ibn Ishāq personally or that he heard traditions with him. This is hard to reconcile with the age of Mālik, if we take his alleged early birth in the nineties as point of departure.

d] The reliability of his transmission is questioned:

Once Mālik’s reputation for ‘uluww ar-riwāya became established in this way, it seems never to have caused hadīth scholars to express words of doubt until the present day. And this belief and acceptance was concomitant with the circulation of Iraqi and Egyptian diving SSs, many of which formed themselves in to undatable spiders. All of these centred in Mālik’s alleged masters such as Nāfi, Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, or others. Mālik could furthermore be found to have resorted on various occasions to the formation of apocryphal family isnāds, a conspicuous feature within the corpus of isnād structures that he used to support his traditions with. In the following, a number of family isnāds will be scrutinized, sometimes headed by one of those ‘longeval’ and obscure authorities, whom Mālik seemed to ‘monopolize’. This seems Mālik’s answer to the methods developed by his Iraqi counter parts in Kūfa and Basra. In those cities particularly longliving, fictitious persons, or historical persons who were claimed to have died at incredibly advanced — and thus probably fictitious — ages, were inserted in isnād strands that were meant to bridge the whole first/seventh century.

This needs to be emphasized. Malik was not above ‘creative’ license in producing isnāds, notably the insertion of his own family members into the mix:

The devising of apocryphal family isnāds (i.e. on the authority of someone/his father/his grandfather and so forth)…. These family isnāds did not catch on immediately with all hadith collectors, but in the end even Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795), Medina’s most influential and prolific CL, produced family isnāds listing various of his own family members, to wit fictitious uncles. And also Bukhari and Muslim, initially somewhat hesitant to adopt them, ultimately made use of them to authenticate their traditions.

This is a very serious matter; if Malik, Bukhari and Muslim all invented people – especially family members, whether to explain where they got their narrations or to embellish their genealogies to show some connection to their Prophet, then how historically trustworthy is the entire Hadith corpus? The whole concept of isnād becomes irrelevant as an historical foundation for transmission, since essentially elements of it, at least, are apocryphal – even forged.

e] This is even more emphasized when we consider that Malik altered his own age to qualify as one of the hearers in the chain of transmission:

The CL himself projecting his own year of birth back into the past so as to make himself a believable transmitter of his spokesman. Most eminent examples of CLs who, by pulling out all the stops, resorted to stretching their own birth into the past so as to make their contacts with particular ancient hadīth masters historically acceptable were Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) and the mawlā Sufyān b. ‘Uyayna (d. 198/814), who blithely emphasized time and again that they were just about old enough to have received traditions respectively from Ibn ‘Umar’s mawlā Nāfī’ (d. 117/735) and Zuhrī (d. 124/742).

Ironically, one of the criteria in Bukhari’s evaluation of hadiths was the character of the transmitter: ‘The hadith critic will have some direct experience of the people he narrates from, experience in turn narrated to later scholars. For example, the scholar might have caught a certain narrator lying. Or … that, at a certain age, a narrator’s memory had started to fail him.’ According to this criterion, we should not trust Malik and his Muwatta. How genuine are his isnāds, and indeed, the matn of his hadiths, if he concocted narrators?

f] How old is the earliest extant manuscript of Malik’s Muwatta? There is a copy of the Muwatta in Dublin’s Chester Beatty Library, Mss. 3001. It is described as ‘The second ‘third’ of a celebrated treatise on Islamic jurisprudence’, and is dated to 277/890. According to Islamic Awareness, the earliest extant manuscript is a fragment entitled PERF No. 731 in the Austrian National Library, Vienna, ‘Second half of 2nd century of hijra. This papyrus fragment is dated to Mālik’s (d. 179 AH / 795 CE) own time.’ Their source for this is ‘N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur’anic Commentary and Tradition, 1967, Volume II, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 114.’ Elsewhere, they quote her (p. 127) as stating:

Thus the paleography, the scribal practices, the text, the order of the traditions and the isnad terminology in the papyrus show a remarkable degree of conformity with the scholarly practices of Mālik and his contemporaries. On the strength of this internal evidence the papyrus folio can be safely assigned to Mālik’s own day.... The codex represented by our folio therefore originated sometime during the quarter century or so that elapsed between the writing of the Shaibani and the Laithi recensions and hence must represent one of the many lost recensions of that interval. Inasmuch as the papyrus text shows only minor variations from the printed text of the Laithi vulgate it is even possible that it represents the vulgate text as it was before it received....

This omits her words: ‘It could have been produced by his secretary-copyists, dictation and reading masters, advanced pupils, or admiring fellow scholars. As already pointed out, the text is not in the Shaibani recension but is essentially that of the vulgate as transmitted by the Spanish judge and jurist Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (d. 234/848), who heard the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Mālik shortly before the latter’s death in the year 179/795.’ It should be noted that a 2008 thesis by Karim Samji observes concerning the fragment that:

Punctuation includes O with a diagonal dividing line (e.g., Recto, Line 9). The marginalia of Recto, Line 21, contains a circle with no intersection. The earliest case for this device in the shape of an inverted heart, with or without a vertical line intersecting the middle, in lieu of the circle with or without a dot, is dated to the first half of the third/ninth century.

Significantly, the footnote for this observation is ‘Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, vol. 1: Historical Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957), 61’, where the reference is to PERF 665 The Sirah of Ibn Hisham. Samji’s work dates PERF No. 731 (which he refers to as Ms Or. P173 to the ‘Third/ninth century’. He does this on the authority of ‘Petra Sijpesteijn (Personal e-mail correspondence (12 February 2008)’. Sijpesteijn is professor of Arabic and a noted papyrologist who has studied the papyri at the Austrian National Library first hand. By contrast, Abbott informs us that she had studied photostats of PERF No. 731. Therefore, the evidence indicates that this fragment actually should be dated to the ninth century – and so is not ‘early’.

1. Musnad of Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd b. al-Djarud Al-Tayalisi

The scholar Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Djarud Al-Tayalisi was born in 133/751 and died in 203 or 204/819-820. His musnad has been suggested as one of the earliest hadith collections. Juynboll writes about Al-Tayalisi:

He was renowned for his memory; he boasted that he could recite 30,000 traditions without pause. He was especially acclaimed for the many traditions he said that he had learned with Shu’ba b. al-Hadjdjadj (d. 160/776 [q.v]), the greatest Basran traditionist of his time... Al-TayalisI is particularly famous for his collection of traditions, called the Musnad. It is preserved in an ancient Haydarabad edition of 1321/1903 which contains 2,768 traditions, some two dozen of which strike one by their remarkable length...

When his Musnad is compared with the collections entitled Musannaf made by his younger colleagues ‘Abd al-Razzak al-San’ani (d. 211/827 [q.v.]) and Abu Bakr b. Abī Shayba (d. 235/849 [q.v.]), each of which does indeed contain several tens of thousands of reports, the surmise is tenable that al-Tayalisi’s Musnad, as we have it now, is a collection from which all the reports supported by less well-attested isnad strands have been removed according to the isnad criteria of post-classical times: it does not contain Companion reports (mawkufat), hardly any Successor reports of the type called mursal [q.v.] and no personal opinions of early fukahā that go by the term akwal, all three categories occurring in abundance in the Musannafs mentioned. Although this is not substantiated in the Haydarabad edition or anywhere else as far as can be ascertained, al-Tayalisi’s Musnad as we have it now may be an anonymously abridged version of an original corpus several times the size of the present Musnad, a corpus that is apparently no longer extant.

Boekhoff-van der Voort also suggests that ‘Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī adjusted his tradition over time.’ In the chapter examining ‘The Raid of the Hudhayl: Ibn Shihāb Al-Zuhrī’s Version of the Event’, and its different versions in the Traditions, the author suggests the following:

Finally, another possible explanation is that either Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī or Yūnus ibn Ḥabīb transmitted the story orally instead of through writing or dictation. Oral transmission – probably combined with written notes – could cause differences such as a different order in the elements, omission of elements, different formulation…

The revealing comments about oral tradition in this field raise further questions about the accuracy and reliability of transmission. Rauf also notes that the collection has been criticized for inaccuracy: ‘The Musnad of Sulayman b. Da’ud al-Tayalisi (d. 204/818), which contains 2,767 hadith, is believed to be the first musnad. Critics say that it includes some errors.’

Schoenberg (59499) lists a manuscript of ‘Abu Dau Tayaisi’ entitled Al-Musnad, dated to 1250 A.D., from Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, Bihar. The latter renders it as ‘Musnadu Abî Dâ’ûd At Tayâlisî’, and describes it as ‘An old and extremely rare copy of Musnad Tayalasi, containing a collection of Musnad Hadis’. They add: ‘The copy, though not dated, was evidently written in or before the 7th century A.H. No other MS. copy of the work seems to be extant.’ The seventh century A.H. is equivalent to the thirteenth century A.D. The basis for their judgment seems to isnad, rather than paleographical concerns. They further add that the Hyderabad edition is exclusively based on this manuscript.

If we consider the quality of his narrations, and the suggestion that these have been edited by someone(s), then we must question the quality of the work in general. The fact that it was never considered as being one of the canonical collections is suggestive of its standing.

1. Sunan of Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn al-Ash’ath al-Azdi as-Sijistani

a] Abu Dawud was born in 817 and died 889. His work, the Sunan, consisted of ‘4800 traditions from a mass of 500,000, and that it contains sound traditions, those which seem to be so, and those which are nearly so.’

b] What is interesting is its transmission history: ‘The Sunan was transmitted through several lines, some versions being said to contain material not found in others. Al-Lu’u’i’s version is the one which has gained most favour. A number of editions of the Sunan have been printed in the East…’ Hence, there seems to be no fixed ‘canonical’ text of the Sunan.

c] A prominent publisher of Hadith in Saudi Arabia and the West has stated that the following regarding the Sunan:

In verification of the Arabic text, we used the edition published along with the commentary ‘Awn al-Ma ‘bud as the main source, while comparing it to that of Al-Khattabi in Ma’alam As-Sunan, as well as a number of other valuable printed editions of Sunan Abü Dãwüd.

There are some discrepancies of variation in some of the manuscripts and reported versions, as well as published editions. Sometimes there is an additional word here or there, or one hadith or chapter is cited earlier or later in sequence.

In cases of additional words or phrases found in one or few of the manuscripts and editions, the addition has been marked by square brackets []. This method is visible in the English translation as well, and whenever it was deemed necessary to insert an explanatory term, then parenthesis ( ) were used for that purpose.

Note the variants in the manuscripts. ‘Awn al-Ma ‘bud was a commentary on the Sunan by Shams-ul-haq Azimabadi, who died in 1911 A.D. The authors state: ‘The most famously cited commentary today, is that of Al-’Allämah Abu Tayyib Muhammad Shams Al-Haqq Al-’Azimãbãdi, entitled; ‘Awn Al-Ma ‘bud. This work contains comments taken from his larger collection, entitled: Ghãyat Al-Maqsud, some of the larger collection is published.’ The reference to Al-Khattabi in Ma’alam As-Sunan is explained on an earlier page:

The most famous of commentaries on the Sunan of Abu Däwud is that of Al-Khattabi. He is Abu Sulaiman Hamd bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al-Khattäb Al-Khattäbi Al-Busti. He heard from the previously mentioned Abu Sa’eed Ibn Al-A’rãbi in Makkah, and Abu Bakr Ibn Dasah in Al-Basrah, as well as other scholars. He died in the year 388 after Hijrah.

His commentary is on an abridged selection of chapters and narrations of the Sunan, and it is said that his commentary is the first commentary on a Hadith book, hence its great rank and importance in the field of Hadith commentary. The name of his commentary is Ma’alam As-Sunan.

Note that Al-Khattabi died in 388 A.H. – i.e. the tenth century A.D.! Note also that his commentary is both selective and seems to be based on oral tradition, as indicated by a previous statement:

These narrations and statements of Al-Khattäbi are taken from his introduction to Ma’ãlam As-Sunan. The narrators in the chain for the last statement were all graded trustworthy by Al-Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad, and each of them are confirmed to have heard from the one he is reporting from. Abu ‘Umar Az-Zahid was called “Tha’lab’s boy,” and Tha’lab is Ahmad bin Yaya - Ash-Shaibäni of Al-Kufah - that Al-Khattäbi mentioned.

Robson makes this revealing observation:

The Sunan, like other books, was handed down to succeeding generations by chains of authority. In dealing with the transmission I have been mainly dependent on details given by Abu Bakr b. Khair (502-575) in his Fihrisa, but this is supplemented by further details to be found in a volume containing five works published in Haidarabad in 1328, in the British Museum Catalogue (No. MDLXV), and in the John Rylands Catalogue 8 (No. 130), with a reference to Ahlwardt’s Catalogue 9 (No. 1246) where an isnad is given for the first juz’ only.

Robson comments that ‘Nowadays it would seem that the version of Lu’lu’i alone is used.’ He goes on to state:

Abu ‘Ali Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Amr al-Lu’lu’i al-Basri is the one whose version has survived and is printed at the present day. He is said to have been the last through whom the Sunan was transmitted, having got it in Muharram, 275, the year in which Abi Dawud died. He has two transmitters, Abu ‘Abdallah al-Husain b. Bakr. b. Muhammad b. Wazzan al-Basri, about whom I have been unable to find any information, and Abui ‘Umar al-Qasim b. Ja’far b. ‘Abd al-Wahid al-Hashimi (322-413), who held the office of qadi in Basra and had a reputation as a reliable authority on Tradition.

d] In regard to manuscripts, Robson mentions ‘H. 1, p. 7; H. 2, p. 16; H. 3, pp. 6, 37; and the MSS. Museum and the John Rylands Library have identical chains to Abu Hafs ‘Umar b. Muhammad b. Ma’mar b. Tabarzadh (516-607). Abu Hafs got the Sunan from the shaikhs Ibrahim Mansir al-Karkhl (d. 537 or 538) and Abul Fath Muflih Abul Fath b. Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Daumi.’ This is what Mingana states about Rylands 130 manuscript: ‘The writer of the present work… who died in 275/888, had compiled his traditions in a way perhaps lacking in method’ and then refers to someone else ‘two centuries later… usually called, who died in 463/1070, digested and edited the work in an elaborate arrangement of parts or sections. This manuscript is his edition…’

Hence, this manuscript dates from the eleventh century A.D. A later mss. – thirteenth century -is MS. Marsh 292, dated 604 A.H./1207 A.D., and kept in the Bodleian Library in Oxford University.  Schoenberg (119193) lists a copy from 950, as part of the Chester Beatty library. Arberry lists it (3123) as: ‘A fragment of the second book of a celebrated collection of Traditions’, but describes it as ‘Undated, 4/10th century’ so perhaps this is more of an estimate.

The Muṣannaf of Ibn Abū Shaybah

1. Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah B. Muhammad B. Ibrahim (= Abu Shayba) B. ‘Uthman Al-’Absi Al-Kufi 159-235/775-849), was an Iraqi traditionist. Note that he was born about one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s purported death, dying over two hundred years after the event. His work can scarcely be called early. Notably, he opposed Abu Hanifa:

An interesting point to note is that in his life, Shaykh Ibn Abi Shayba showed enmity (opposition) to the Great Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) as he (Ibn Abi Shayba) named one of the longest Chapters of his book, Al-Musannaf the title “Book of the Refutation of Abu Hanifa” in which he proceeded to list about 125 Hadiths of the Prophet (PBUH) which Imam Abu Hanifa apparently contradicted.

The ‘main sources’ listed for this biography are ‘al-Dhahabi, Siyar 9:394-396 #1841 and Tadhkira al-Huffaz 2:423’. Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qayyim `Abu `Abd Allah Shams ad-Din al-Dhahabi died in 1348, and the latter is dated to thirteenth century. Scott informs us about the Musannaf:

Abū Bakr Ibn Abī Shayba was an exemplary member of the “Companions of ḥadīth”. His primary scholarly activity consisted of collecting tens of thousands of Companion and Successor opinions, complete with isnāds, along with a substantial corpus of prophetic ḥadīth. Most of his major teachers were prominent Iraqi ḥadīth scholars whom Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) classified as “Companions of ḥadīth” in his Kitāb al-maʿārif. Ibn Abī Shayba wrote a brief refutation of approximately 120 opinions attributed to the central “Companion of raʾy”, Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) that is included in his Muṣannafs. In 234/848-9, after the infamous ‘Abbāsid inquisition (miḥna) over the nature of the Qurʾān, Ibn Abī Shayba heeded the invitation of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 232-47/847-61) to promote anti-Mutazili ḥadīths in the Mosque of Ruṣāfa, a quarter of Baghdad on the eastern bank of the Tigris. Ibn Abī Shayba’s Muṣannaf was compiled and preserved by the Cordovan ḥadīth-champion Baqī b. Makhlad (d. 276/889), an iconoclastic scholar who refused to conform to the teachings of any single jurist and exercised ijtihād on the basis of his trove of transmitted materials.

Note the polemical nature of the work – against Hanifa and the Mutazilites, and its late compilation by someone in Spain, rather than Iraq. Therefore, how reliable is it? It was never considered as being one of the authoritative collections. Scott also notes that the Musannaf is rather limited: ‘My empirical analysis of the legal chapters of Ibn Abī Shayba’s Muṣannaf reveals that only one in eleven reports is a prophetic ḥadīth.’ Scott further suggested that ‘the Alexandrian trader, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Makkī (d. 599/1202-3), who appears in Ibn Ḥajār’s isnād of the Muṣannaf, acquired it on one of his trips to al-Andalus and brought it to Egypt…’ This puts its most ancient extant edition at the thirteenth century A.D.

The Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal

1. Hanbal was born in Baghdad in 164 A.H. (780 A.D.), and died in 241 (855). He is famous for opposing the idea that the Qur’an was created. Brown dates the musnad era to the late 8th and early 9th centuries. He writes:

The most famous musnad is that of Ibn Hanbal, which consists of about 27,700 hadiths (anywhere from one fourth to one third of which are repetitions of hadiths via different narrations) and was actually assembled into final form by the scholar’s son. Ibn Hanbal claimed he had sifted the contents of his Musnad from over 750,000 hadiths and intended it to be a reference for students of Islamic law. Although he acknowledged that the book contained unreliable hadiths, he supposedly claimed that all its hadiths were admissible in discussions about the Prophet’s Sunna – if it was not in his Musnad, he claimed, it could not be a proof in law.

In the light of his attitude to unsound narrations, we can understand why this musnad is not one of the authoritative collections. Schoenberg 5 (9495) lists a copy of the Musnad as dating to 1236. This is from the Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, Bihar. It is a partial copy.

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

1. a] The Sahih of Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 261/875) is usually considered the second most important hadith collection after Bukhari. We read of Muslim b. al-Hajjaj: ‘Al-Imâm, Al-Hâfiz, Al-Hujjah ‘Abul-Hussain Muslim bin Al-Hajjâj bin Ward bin Koshâh Al-Qushayrî An-Nîshâpûrî was born in 202 or 204 or 206 AH in Nîshâpûr and educated in the same town. He heard Ahâdlth the first time, at age eighteen, from Yahya bin Yahya Tamîmî.’ Interestingly, there are regional divergences about the relative position of Bukhari and Muslims: ‘Imâm Abu ‘Ali bin Husain Nîshâpûrî and some scholars of the Maghrib (the Muslim countries of North Africa) give precedence to Sahih Muslim but the majority of scholars insist that it is Sahih Bukhâri which should be given precedence.’

Others explained the difference in attitude to the two Sahih works as reflecting divergent standards of accuracy:

Al-Nawawi remarks that Muslim’s Sahih has an advantage over Al-Bukhari’s because he gives all the lines of transmission when he mentions a tradition, whereas Al-Bukhari repeats traditions in different places, sometimes giving one line of transmission and sometimes another. Al-Dhahabi quotes Ibn ‘Uqda to the effect that Al-Bukhari sometimes makes the mistake of mentioning a man on one occasion by his name and on another by his kunya and imagining that there are two men, whereas Muslim rarely makes an error.

It is an interesting admission that Bukhari is not inerrant, and one wonders if this was one reason for the emergence of Sahih Muslim - as a corrective?

b] Guillaume notes both the exalted status of this work and the reason for its position:

…Muslim and his work… has always been bracketed with the Sahih of Bukhari, and they are cited as The Two Sahihs (Sahihan). But inasmuch as the ground of the authority of the Sahihan was their acceptance by the general consent of the Islamic community, and they had not been subjected to any systematic critical examination, some dissentient voices have been raised against them from the earliest times down to the present day. Like the customs they sought to authorize by appeal to apostolic custom and precept, they owe their position to ijma’, not to their inherent virtue and faultlessness.

Hence, it is not so much the intrinsic worth of the Sahihan which commends them, but rather the general reverence they enjoy in Muslim society. Calder also questions the dating and thus reliability of such works, given redactional activity:

The acknowledgement of organic texts, pseudepigraphy, and long-term redactional activity as features of some third-century material must affect assessment even of material which has not (yet) been shown to be organic. A case of much relevance to the arguments put forward in this book is that of the great collections of hadith. Apparently the product of the devoted and orderly activity of a single person, works like the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim should probably be recognized as emerging into final form at least one generation later than the dates recorded for the deaths of the putative authors.

c] Motzki critiques such a view, yet his analysis still suggests an element of redaction and variant copies, by the very fact that he refers to a canonical ‘vulgate’ edition:

Based on his analysis of a partial fifth/eleventh-century manuscript of Sahih al-Bukhari, Alphonse Mingana concluded that the text was still in a relatively fluid form at that point in time. Yet there is little available evidence suggesting that, beyond the normal permutations of manuscript transmission for texts as large and detailed as the Sahihayn, either al-Bukhari’s or Muslim’s books were altered substantially after their deaths.

The Sahihayn are two massive works, and the vagaries of manuscript transmission introduced the possibility of frequent variation even for a text transmitted intact from its author. Several generations of editors, such as Abu Dharr al-Harawi (d. 430/1038), al-Saghani (d. 650/1252) and the Egyptian Hanbali al-Yunini (d. 658/1260), thus played important roles in collating different transmissions of Sahih al-Bukhari into vulgate editions. Such editorial review, however, was endemic to the pre-print world and does not reflect any instability specific to the Sahihayn.

Note the reference to ‘normal permutations of manuscript transmission’ and ‘different transmissions’ and ‘vulgate editions’. Even if we were to accept that the differences between the manuscripts were minimal, the boast of some agents of Muslim apologetics of the absolute reliability of the Sahih hadith are clearly questionable, to say the least.

d] In terms of transmission, Robson notes that one of the Sahih’s most famous commentators is ‘Muhyi al-Din Abu Zakariya’ Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi (631-676/1233-1277) was a very famous jurist and traditionist whose work is well known.’ However, Robson also notes that al-Nawawi’s commentary displays either a broken isnad or little regard for it:

He confines himself to his own line of transmission, which he declares to be the authoritative one in his neighbourhood, and he mentions the line through Al-Qalanisi, but does not pursue it beyond the beginning of the fifth century. He quotes Ibn al-Salah (577-643/ 1181-1245)2 as indicating that by his time and for a long period before it, the connected transmission of the Sahih is not important. It is enough for practical purposes to have a written copy which has been guaranteed by two authorities who have compared it with numerous others.

The other two sources of information include Abu Bakr b. Khair, Fihrisa:

Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Khair b. ‘Umar b. Khalifa (502-575/1109-1179) belonged to Seville. There is no record of his travelling abroad, but he met many authorities on Tradition in Spain and corresponded with others. He learned traditions either by word of mouth or by correspondence from over a hundred shaikhs, a list of whose names he compiled.

Note both the late dating and that he learned traditions by other than direct contact with the documents. The other figure was Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Shalahi, Kitab al- imta’, [al-imta’], wal-intifa’. Robson’s data leaves us with a great deal of uncertainty:

The identity of the author of Kitab al- imta’ wal-intifa ‘is unknown. The form Al-Shalahi is doubtful, and it is not clear whether the name which appears at the end of the MS. With the date 701/1302 is that of the author or of the copyist… The author derives most of his information regarding the transmission of Muslim’s Sahih from Abul Qasim al-’Azafi who got it from his father Abul ‘Abbas al-’Azafi (557-633/ 1162-1236). I have found no information about Abul Qasim. His father is recognized as a traditionist, being called a musnid by Al-Tinbukti. He heard traditions from a number of authorities among whom were Abu. Muhammad ‘Abdallah b. Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. ‘Ubaidallah al-Hajri al-Mari (505-591/1112-1195), and Abu Bakr b. Khair; but Ibn Khair’s name does not appear in any of the chains in the MS.

Note the lack of information on Abul Qasim, and the appropriation of hadith data. A further observation must be on the late dating – twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

e] The oldest source that the Encyclopaedia of Hadith uses for its edition of Sahih Muslim is ‘The Tahrir edition of 1384, which is baeds [sic] on the Sultaniyya edition of 1329.’ In the UK, MS. Marsh 648 stored at Bodleian Library, Oxford University, contains Sahih Muslim, and has a commentary by ‘Sibṭ ibn al-ʻAjamī, 1352-1438 AD’, which indicates that the manuscript is no earlier than the fifteenth century A.D. Another mss. containing the Sahih is Islamic Arabic 1070, stored at Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, and dated probably to the fifteenth century A.D. Mss. Or. 1714, containing the Sahih, is dated to 1309 A.D., and is stored at University Library, Cambridge University. Schoenberg lists a copy (36526) dated to 1050, which had belonged to Bertram, 4th Earl of Ashburnham. Another copy also belonging to the Earl (185703), entitled Musnad as-Sahih is given the same date.

Jami’ at-Tirmidhi

1. a] This work the jami’ (compilation) sometimes known as the Sunan of Tirmidhi:

After Sunan Abü Dawud, Imam AbU ‘Elsa At-Tirmidhi’s Jãmi’ (compilation) – better known as “Sunan At-Tirmidhi” is considered the most authentic among the Four Sunan. In fact, some scholars even considered Sunan At-Tirmidhi to be the best out of all of the Six Books, not based upon a criteria of authenticity, but rather because of how well organized it is, making it easy for the average person to find what he is looking for, and all of the additional areas of knowledge that the author has included, which are not found in the other titles among the Six.

The publishers of the work just referenced note variations in the text:

The original text of Sunan At-Tirmidhi has been widely published in the Islamic world, and a team of scholars has reviewed the famous publications and manuscripts in verification of the text for our publication. Finally, there were three main texts relied upon for verification, and these are the text published in India, with the commentary Tusifat Al-Ahwadhi by Shaikh ‘Abdur-Rahmãn Al-Mubarakpuri; the text published in Beirut, with the commentary ‘Aridat A1-Ahwadhi by Al-Oath Ibn Al-’Arabi; and the text published in Tunisia which is based upon the text verified by Shaikh Ahmad Shãkir and Muhammad Fuw’ãd ‘Abdul-Baqi.

There are slight discrepancies of variation in some of the manuscripts and published editions. Sometimes there is an additional word here or there, or one Hadith or chapter is cited earlier or later in sequence in one manuscript. In cases of additional words or phrases found in one or few of the manuscripts and editions, the addition has been marked by square brackets [ ]. This method is visible in the English translation as well, and whenever it was deemed necessary to insert an explanatory term, then parenthesis ( ) were used for that purpose.

b] Tirmidhi is alleged to have had a powerful memory, as the following story suggests:

An interesting story is told to illustrate his power of committing traditions to memory. On the way to Mecca he met a shaikh from whose traditions he had copied out two juz’. Thinking he had these notes with him, he began to question the shaikh about his traditions, but he was surprised to find that, instead of his notes, he had brought some blank sheets of paper. He continued his questions with these sheets in his hand, and after a time the shaikh noticed that they were blank and rebuked him, whereupon Tirmidhi assured him that he knew his traditions by heart. The shaikh was unconvinced of his genuineness even when he recited his traditions to him, so Tirmidhi asked him to recite some others. The shaikh recited 40 traditions and Tirmidhi repeated them without making a single mistake, thus showing his remarkable powers of committing traditions to memory.

Whilst we should not dismiss this story out offhand, we wonder if the technique of demythologization should not be applied to it. This is accentuated by a claim the same author (Dhahabi) makes about Tirmidhi going or even being born blind: ‘He is commonly referred to as al-darir (blind), his blindness usually being attributed to his weeping over Bukhari’s death. Dhahabi remarks that he remained blind for two years; but the suggestion has been made that he was born blind, a suggestion difficult to accept.’

c] Another interesting point is that: ‘The Jami’ has deservedly been considered important, although Muslims were slow to give it general recognition.’ Given its standing now, the lack of general reception requires some explanation. This is also linked to questions about its transmission which Robson highlights:

It is not clear whether all those who are mentioned transmitted the whole of the Jami’, as it is merely said that they transmitted from Tirmidhi without anything being said of how much they transmitted. While it is possible that most or all of them were transmitters of the Jami’, there are only two of those mentioned above of whose transmissions of this work I have found records. In addition, Abu Bakr b. Khair (502-575) gives in his Fihrisa one chain each from Abu Dharr Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Tirmidhi and Abu Muhammad al-Hasan b. Ibrahim al-Qattan, transmitters of whom I have found no mention elsewhere.

d] The Encyclopaedia of Hadith lists as its sources the following works for Tirmidhi:

The edition by Ahmad Shakir and others. (Cairo, 1356/1937)

• Aridat al-Ahwadhi, the commentary by Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi. (Cairo, 1350/1931)

• Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, the commentary by al-Mubarakfuri. (Beirut, 1410/1990)

• Manuscript No. 648 Hadith preserved at the Egyptian National Library, dated 726.

• Note again how recent are the dates for such works. The Egyptian manuscript, dated ‘726’, obviously refers to its A.H. dating, corresponding to c. 1325 A.D. There is thus a gap of 693 years (taking the death of Muhammad at 632) between the manuscript and the events it describes. Hence, the oldest manuscript on which the Encyclopaedia of Hadith edition on Tirmidhi is based goes back to the fourteenth century A.D. To give some idea of historical (UK) parallel, it is as if the first extant history of the Declaration of Arbroath on Scots sovereignty in 1320 was only issued in 2013! The Maknaz Edition uses a mss. dated to 626/1229 (copied by Mustafa b. al-Hajji Qutilmish).

Sunan An-Nasai

1. a] The author of this collection is ‘Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Shu’aib ‘Ali bin Sinan bin Bahr An-Nasai. The name “An-Nasai” is an ascription to Nasa’ of Khurasan.’ He was born c. 214/215 A.H., i.e. c. 829 A.D., and died 303/915. Some hold that he studied under Bukhari. Others dispute this: ‘There is some doubt as to whether al-Nasai studied with al-Bukhari: al-Nawawi affirms this while al-Dhahabi says that al-Nasai never transmitted from al- Bukhari…’ Wensinck informs us that other aspects of his life are uncertain:

Very little is known about him. He is said to have made extensive travels in order to hear traditions, to have settled in Egypt, afterwards in Damascus, and to have died in consequence of ill-treatment to which he was exposed at Damascus or, according to others, at Ramla, in consequence of his feelings in favour of ‘Ali and against the Umayyads. On account of this unnatural death he is called a martyr. His tomb is at Mecca.

b] There are some questions about authorship:

…Imam An-Nasai compiled his Sunan Al-Kubra first, then sometime later, smaller Sunan, which later was referred to as Al-Mujtaba and is also called Mujtana. Both the books have a same meaning: "the selected," and it is not clear who first referred to the smaller Sunan with either of these names. In fact, some of them also called it the Sahih.

Scholars differ over whether Imam An-Nasai himself compiled Sunan As-Sughra or Al-Mujtaba - or it was a compilation of his student Ibn As-Sunni. The fact that since the smaller Sunan or Al-Mujtaba is generally known to be reported from An-Nasai by Ibn As-Sunni, it has led some to believe that it is, in reality, the work of Ibn As-Sunni. Imam Ad-Dhahabi (Siyar A’lam An-Nubala) and whoever followed him held this view, saying that we only know of his Sunan through the narration of Ibn As-Sunni.

This raises further issues about historical reliability.

c] There are also problems in the history of transmission, in terms of records and identity:

Although Ibn Hajar says that all the men in his list transmitted the Sunan, he himself, as will be seen later, does not claim to have received transmission of the work through more than four of them. Indeed, records do not seem to have been preserved of the transmission from half of the men who have been mentioned. Another matter to be noted is that when records are kept of the transmission, care is not always taken to make it clear whether the work in question is Al-sunan al-kubra, or Al-sunan al-sugbra. This causes a certain amount of indefiniteness in the account of the transmission.

There are also issues of either historical credibility or copyist errors:

There are two instances where the transmission is quite impossible. Ibn Khair says that Abul Hasan Yunus (447-532) transmitted the Sunan from four men, one of whom was Abu ‘Abdallah Ziyad (347-430). The only suggestions which can be made are that either Ibn Bashkuwal has made an error in the dates he gives, or that an error has crept into Ibn Khair’s text. The other matter is much more serious, as it is repeated frequently. Ibn al-Sunni’s text is transmitted through Duni (d. 501) from Kassar who died in 385 according to Subki, or in 380 according to Ibn al-’Imad. He would need to have been very long-lived for this to be possible. Yet Ibn Hajar and H. 1-5 give this transmission without any hesitation. The explanation may be that Ibn Hajar, or a copyist, has inadvertently omitted a link and that the others have followed this uncritically.

There is a mss. of ‘Sunan an-Nasa’i dated 525 A.H. (1123 A.D.) and preserved in Maktaba al-Aqsa in Jerusalem’. Hence, this manuscript dates to the twelfth century.

Sunan Ibn Majah

1. a] This is the final part of the canonical six major collections. The author is described as follows:

Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Yazid bin ‘Abdullah Rab’i Al-Qazvini nicknamed Ibn Majah. He was a non-Arab… Various explanations have been given for his nickname. Allamah Zubaidi, writing in Tajul-’Urus, has given several explanations for the nickname, one explanation being that Majah was his mother’s name. Imam Nawawi gives weight to this explanation. Shah ‘Abdul-’Aziz Dehlavi in Bostanul-Muhadithin says: (The correct opinion is that Majah was his mother.) That is why the Arabic word for son (Ibn) is written with the Arabic letter alif to indicate that Ibn Majah qualifies Muhammad, not ‘Abdullah. Anyhow, some scholars believe that Majah was his father’s name. That is also the opinion of Hafiz Ibn Hajar.

As to his birth and death, we learn this:

He was born in 209 AH corresponding to 824 CE. Yaqut bin ‘Abdullah Al-Hamavi, quoting Ja’far bin Idris’ Tarikh Qazvin, wrote: Abu ‘Abdullah died in the year 273 AH and 1 heard him say “I was born in 209 AH.” …The Imam died on Monday, 22 Ramadan 273 AH corresponding to 887 CE, aged 64…. Some scholars said that Ibn Maijah died in the year 275 A H.

He was also a commentator and historian, but none of these works are extant: ‘While he is remembered for his compilation of traditions he had wider interests and is said to have written a commentary on the Qur’an and a history of Qazwin, but only his Smart seems to have survived.’

b] Significantly, Sunan Ibn Majah seemed to take a long time to be counted among the Six Collections: ‘Sunan Ibn Majah began to be included in the Six Books by the end of the fifth century AH.’ Robson also notes that the value of the Sunan was questioned:

Different views have been expressed about the value of the Sunan. Ibn Majah is said to have submitted his work to Abu Zur’a (d. 264) who, after looking into it, remarked that if this work fell into people’s hands all the jami’s, or most of them, would become worthless, adding that there were not as many as thirty traditions whose isnad contained a weakness. Dahabi displays modified rapture in his estimate of the value of the Sunan, saying it would have been a fine book had it not been spoiled to some extent by weak traditions, yet he quotes Abu Ya’la al-Halili (d. 446) as saying that Ibn Majah was a great authority, as everyone whose authority was quoted agreed. Ibn Hajar says his book is a good collection with many bābs and remarkable features, but contains some very weak traditions, and quotes al-Sari to the effect that when Ibn Majah gives a unique tradition it is generally weak, and that there are many munkar traditions.

Perhaps this was why canonical acceptance of the Sunan was delayed, as Goldhizer indicates:

…the general recognition of the ‘six books’ had not yet prevailed in the first half of the fourth century…. there was a tendency even at that time to extend the circle of canonical collections of traditions beyond the two Sahihs, but it did not yet include all the ‘six books’. Secondly, that at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century al-Tirmidh, and Ibn Maja were already included in this group. Ibn Hazm (d. 456) still had some doubts about al-Tirmidhi. Doubts were maintained longest about Ibn Maja because of the many weak (da’if) traditions which he incorporated into his corpus traditionum.

Indeed, doubts about Ibn Majah continued for some time, up about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries A.D.:

…there are signs that doubts about Ibn Maja remained alive for yet another century. The Spanish scholar Razin b. Mu’awiya from Saragossa who lived in Mecca (d. 535) wrote a compendium of the six sahih books but Ibn Maja was not used as a source for his work; the author used the Muwatta’, in addition to the five books. Also Muhammad ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Azdi, called Ibn al-Kharrat, from Seville (d. 581) allotted no place to Ibn Maja among the sources of his compilation al-Ahkam al-Kubra, which he based on the recognized canonical collections. Muhammad b. Ab, Muhammad Uthman al-Hazimi from Hamadan (d. 584) only knows al-a’imma al-khamsa. The attempt to gain a place amongst the canonical authorities for Ibn Maja had already been made at that time; it was instigated by Abu’-Fadl Muhammad b. Tahir al-Maqdisi (d. 507) but met with only partial success.

Robson, who was not normally too sceptical judging by his other writings about the Hadith, expressed problems with this Sunan:

But when one examines the chain it is impossible to avoid misgivings. Qattan, whose date of birth does not seem to be recorded, died seventy-two years after Ibn Majah’s death. He must either have died a very old man, or have received the Swum from Ibn Majah at a very early age. Abu Talha died sixty-four or sixty-five years after Qattan’s death, and so he might have been at least in his teens when he received the Swum. Muqawwimi, however, was only about nine or ten years old when Abu Talha died, and Abu Zur’a was only three when Muqawwimi died. This precocious child is first said to have received the Sunan from Muqawwimi by ijaza if not by hearing, a procedure which is quite normal, as ijaza was given to young children, but Ibn Hajar says it later became clear that he had heard the whole of it from Muqawwimi. How a child of three or less could do this it is difficult to understand. Muqawwimi is said by Ibn Hajar to have used ahbarana in telling how he received the Swum from Abu Talha, although he was no more than ten when Abu Talha died.

After some more disquieting examples, he concludes: ‘The general impression received from such considerations is that there are either some weak links in the transmission, or that people of later times have been careless in their recording and have omitted some links.’ Interestingly, brown suggests the Sunan became canonical for reasons of expediency, rather than accuracy of record:

Examining the canonical collections of Sunni ḥadîth, however, we find that authenticity was not a consistent priority. The canonization of Ibn Mâjah’s Sunan illustrates that the ḥadîth canon was formed in part for reasons other than textual authenticity as defined by Sunni ḥadîth criticism. Although advocates of Ibn Mâjah’s Sunan lauded its author for his selectivity and critical rigor, luminaries of the Sunni ḥadîth tradition across the centuries have lambasted the book for the unreliability of its contents. According to the testimony of influential participants in the Sunni study of ḥadîth, the book was admitted into the canon not because of its reliability but because it vastly expanded the number of useful ḥadîths in the canonical body.

Brown suggests that it was only in the thirteenth century A.D. that the Sunan gained increasing acceptance in the canon.

c] The manuscript tradition of the Sunan is illuminating as to its dating:

There is a very old and authorized manuscript of Sunan Ibn Majah at dates back to year 601 AH. The manuscripts had writings of a number of scholars including Ibn Qudamah and Imam Mizzi, in this manuscript, Ibn Majah’s work is called As-Sunan li Ibn Majah. This is the correct title of the work…

All this is in addition to the fact that the author did not title his work Sunan Ibn Majah. Therefore, books and opinions of their authors in giving titles to their books should be respected. It follows then that, Ibn Majah’s book should be called ‘As-Sunan by Ibn Majah’, especially when printing the work.

It is, however, strange that though this book has been published several times, the correct title did not appear in the cover of any of these editions. What is more astounding is the fact that one of the editors of the book, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa A’zami adopted the authorized manuscript in which this title appeared. Yet, he disregarded this title.

What is meant by ‘authorized manuscript’ is not explained. The date given – 601 A.H. – corresponds to 1204 A.D. (the year of the Latin conquest of Constantinople). Among the sources for the Encyclopedia of Hadith is ‘Manuscript Taymur Pasha No. 522 Hadith, preserved at the Egyptian National Library, copied in 561 AH.’ This corresponds to 1122 A.D. Another author claims that ‘the oldest known manuscript copy of Sunan ibn Majah. It is dated 485 AH and now located in the Suleymaniyye manuscript library in Istanbul, Turkey.’ This corresponds to 1092, so the oldest mss. for Ibn Majah dates from the eleventh century A.D.

SUMMARY

We shall begin with the Six Books:

Sahih Bukhari - Mingana Arab. Isl. 225 – c. 1000, so tenth-eleventh centuries.

Extant editions of Bukhari are based on al-Yunini (d. 701/1302, so (fourteenth century AD), possibly by way of al-Qastallani (fifteenth-sixteenth centuries AD).

Asqalani’s Fatḥ al-Bārī fī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (fifteenth century AD), and Umdat al Qari by Badr al Ayni (also fifteenth century AD).

The Maknaz edition uses a text from 873/1468 - also fifteenth century AD.

Sahih Muslim - Tahrir edition of 1384, based on the Sultaniyya edition of 1329.

MS. Marsh 648 stored at Bodleian Library, Oxford University, contains Sahih Muslim, and has a commentary by ‘Sibṭ ibn al-ʻAjamī, 1352-1438 AD’, which indicates that the manuscript is no earlier than the fifteenth century A.D.

Islamic Arabic 1070, stored at Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, and dated probably to the fifteenth century A.D.

Mss. Or. 1714, containing the Sahih, is dated to 1309 A.D., and is stored at University Library, Cambridge University.

Schoenberg lists a copy (36526) dated to 1050, which had belonged to Bertram, 4th Earl of Ashburnham.

Another copy also belonging to the Earl (185703), entitled Musnad as-Sahih is given the same date. So the oldest copy is eleventh century A.D.

Jami’ At-Tirmidhi - Manuscript No. 648 Hadith preserved at the Egyptian National Library, dated 726/1325 - fourteenth century A.D.

Maknaz Edition uses a mss. dated to 626/1229 (copied by Mustafa b. al-Hajji Qutilmish) - thirteenth century A.D.

Abu Dawud - Rylands 130 manuscript, dates from 1070 A.D. - the eleventh century.

MS. Marsh 292, dated 604 A.H./1207 A.D., and kept in the Bodleian Library in Oxford University - thirteenth century.

Schoenberg (119193) lists a copy from 950, as part of the Chester Beatty library. Arberry describes it as ‘Undated, 4/10th century’ so perhaps this is more of an estimate.

An-Nasai - mss. of ‘Sunan an-Nasa’i dated 525 A.H. (1123 A.D.) and preserved in Maktaba al-Aqsa in Jerusalem’ - twelfth century A.D.

Ibn Majah - ‘authorized’ mss. dated 601/1204 - thirteenth century A.D.

Manuscript Taymur Pasha No. 522 Hadith, preserved at the Egyptian National Library, copied in 561/1122 - twelfth century A.D.

Another mss. in the Suleymaniyye manuscript library in Istanbul, dated 485/1092, so the oldest mss. for Ibn Majah dates from the eleventh century A.D.

The other books:

Muwatta - Dublin’s Chester Beatty Library, Mss. 3001, dated to 277/890. PERF No. 731 in the Austrian National Library, Vienna, dated second half of 2nd century A.H. by Nabia Abbott, but more recently dated to first half of the third/ninth century by Professor Petra Sijpesteijn.

Taylisi - Al-Musnad, dated to 1250 A.D., from Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, Bihar.

Abi Shaybah - thirteenth century

Hanbal – 1236 - thirteenth century, from Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, Bihar, a partial copy.

Musanaf of Abdul Razzaq – The basic manuscript Murad Mulla (Istanbul) dates from the year 747I1346-7.

The manuscript Fayed Allah Effendi (Istanbul), from the year 606/1209-10. The dates here are fourteenth and thirteenth centuries.

Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih – twelfth century.

CONCLUSION

It is amazing that so many articles and academic books on the Hadith, whether by Muslims or not, for whatever reason fail to address the question of what manuscripts are extant. Usually, studies of Biblical or Classical material show great concern on equivalent matter, and we need only consider the title as well as the theme of the book by the renowned Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger called The Text of the New Testament. In many cases, even non-Muslim scholars seem to content to be guided by the Islamic concept of isnad, rather than the normal academic approach of examining the date of manuscripts and working back from that starting point. The issue becomes particularly important when we consider the question of Islamic Origins. Apart from non-canonical seerah material, the main Muslim source – and certainly the canonical one – is the Hadith. The canonical Sunni Six Collections only emerged two centuries after the events they relate, but the gap is even larger when we take into account manuscript age. The oldest manuscript for Bukhari is tenth-eleventh centuries; for Muslim, eleventh century; for Tirmidhi, thirteenth century; for Abu Dawud, possibly tenth, or eleventh century; for An-Nasai, twelfth century; for Ibn Majah, eleventh century. Surely this makes reconstruction of Islamic Origins even more questionable, but it certainly raises questions as to why the manuscript evidence should be so sparse when Sunni Islam was empowered?

Epigraphy and Islam

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

Epigraphy is the essentially the study of inscriptions and graffito. In some ways, it is parallel to paleography. It involves the study of such writing and attempts to date them. Sometimes this is relatively easy – an official inscription that is dated can usually be safely attributed to a certain time. However, writings that are not official, and un-dated – such as graffito (the singular of graffiti, employed normally as an archaeological term) – pose greater challenges – not only of dating, but of authenticity. This has not stopped dawah activists from utilizing epigraphy, including graffito, as evidence for the historical authenticity of Islam.

1. Epigraphy as a historical discipline

• Epigraphy is defined as follows (Sir John Edwin Sandys, Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions, Cambridge: at the University Press, 1919, p. 1 [Although the book addresses specifically Lain epigraphy, the same principles hold in general; we have omitted specific references to “Latin” in this quotation]):

The science concerned with the classification and interpretation of inscriptions is known by the name of Epigraphy, a term ultimately derived from ἐπιγραφή, the Greek word for an ‘inscription.’ …Strictly speaking, Epigraphy is a branch of Palaeography… Epigraphy may be defined as the science concerned with all the remains of the … language inscribed on durable materials, such as stone or metal, but inscriptions on coins which, under this definition, form a part of Epigraphy, are generally reserved for the domain of Numismatics… Palaeography is, in practice, confined to that which is written on less durable materials, such as papyrus, parchment or paper. Writings on tablets covered with wax may be treated as belonging to the domain of Epigraphy, but they are more closely connected with that of Palaeography. The province of Epigraphy is, in one respect, wider than that of Palaeography, for, while Palaeography confines itself to the study of the forms of writing found in ancient manuscripts. Epigraphy not only deals with the lettering, but is even apt to concern itself with the subject-matter of ancient inscriptions, thus unduly encroaching on the provinces of History, and of Public and Private Antiquities.

• This is not simply true of Latin/Roman epigraphy but is valid generally. The other issue is consider methodology in epigraphy. Peter J. Brand, “The Historical Record”, (Vanessa Davies and Dimitri Laboury [Eds.], The Oxford Handbook of Egyptian Epigraphy and Paleography, New York: Oxford University Press, 2020, p. 60), points to related concerns about method – the dangers of arbitrariness and misreading:

An important caveat for using epigraphic data to support historical interpretation is the danger of misconstruing the motives or purposes of the ancient Egyptians in cases of erasures, iconoclasm, reworking, or other instances in which they altered monumental reliefs and inscriptions... In the modern history of Egyptology, scholars have often assigned visceral, personally antagonistic motives to cases such as Thutmose III’s systematic effacement of Hatshepsut’s royal monuments, which was often seen as arising from his supposed deep hatred of her. A more cautious approach to the evidence admits that our epigraphic sources are limited in what they can tell us about historical events. So, while an epigraphic approach may involve reconstructing Egyptian history as the record of “who did what to whose monuments,” it rarely can tell us unequivocally why they did it.

When used in conjunction with other types of source material — textual, iconographic, and archaeological — epigraphic data can augment the historical record. There is also considerable overlap between these methodologies. So, erased or altered hieroglyphic texts can be approached epigraphically, philologically (to reveal what the text says and what has been changed or removed), and paleographically.

• In the same volume we find this by Claude Traunecker, “How to publish an Egyptian Temple?”, pp. 299-300, which attempts to suggest a methodology for correct reading, including collective reading:

Whatever the circumstances, I remain very attached to the method of copying by hand. For me, this phase of work, especially if we follow the procedure that I advocate, is crucial. It provides an invaluable base document and allows all field observations to be recorded live. Additionally, if we respect the three rules of the field epigrapher’s work, it is the product of a real group workshop.

1. All primary documents are prepared using fine lead pencil on graph paper. They must include reference to location, be signed by authors, and be dated. Do not forget indications of orientation and scale.

2. Work in pairs as much as possible, whether together or in turns. This method (“copying with four eyes”) generates a constant discussion of readings. All philological comments and observations, of structure, grammar, parts of translations, and other points, will be recorded on the copy sheet. One must not hesitate to attempt translation and philological commentary on the spot. At el-Qal’a, we always had a copy of the Wörterbuch with us to make headway in this difficult epigraphic situation. Today, information technology facilitates these consultations.

3. All copies and documents are collated systematically, if possible, by or with a colleague who did not participate in the initial copying. These collations are recorded on the copy sheet with a different colored pencil and also signed and dated... One of the methods of collation that Serge Sauneron taught me consists of systematically checking the text sign by sign, but backward, for example, from bottom to top for columns or, for lines, from end to beginning. This avoids the shortcuts and lack of attention of a reader drawn along by the content of the text and its particular orthographic conventions.

Constant conflicting views, especially in the case of difficult texts, is salutary for the work’s quality. Epigraphy should not be solitary work. It teaches epigraphic humility, even when we have a reading that seems satisfactory to us, to listen objectively to the suggestion of a colleague, whoever that may be. When one has identified a plausible solution, one does not tend to notice other possible paths.

For the process, I propose, at least in the case of epigraphy with modest means, the following three stages:

1. Set up a drawing at 1/20 scale of the wall on graph paper. Note stone joints, restored areas, and other features. Measurements are taken directly with a wooden yardstick of two meters and possibly a téléscomètre (rigid telescopic meter). This reference document, which does not replace the architectural survey possibly done by an architect or topographer, is easy to make and is immediately available. It will be very useful for establishing the overview drawings.

2. Establish a plan on graph paper of each epigraphic unit at 1/10 scale. Precisely record the dimensions of columns of text, frames, thrones, and other features. Note crowns and objects held.

3. Finally, proceed to manual copying of texts on the same lined sheet (cadrat of 1 cm). It will be used for collation and to note various remarks.

• Another important example shows us the methodology of coping with broken inscriptions and common names (Christer Bruun and Jonathan Edmondson [Eds.], The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 4-5):

When Pflaum and Marec discovered the Suetonius inscription at Hippo in 1950 during excavations of an exedra in the portico on the E. side of the forum, lying face down, it was badly damaged. Of the original moulded plaque, just sixteen fragments survived. After a long and thoughtful discussion, Pflaum and Marec restored the text conservatively as follows (AE 1953, 73; Fig. 1.1):

C(aio) Suetoni[o] / [. fil(io) . . . (tribu)] Tra[nquillo] / [f]lami[ni–c. 10 letters–] / [adlecto i]nt[er selectos a di]vo Tr[a]/[iano Parthico p]ont(ifici) Volca[nali] / [–c. 16 letters– a] studiis a byblio[thecis] / [ab e]pistulis / [Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Trai]ani Hadr[i]an[I Aug(usti)] / [Hipponenses Re]gii [d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)] p(ecunia) p(ublica)

To C. Suetonius Tranquillus [son of ?, of the voting-tribe ?], priest of [??], chosen as a jury-panel member (?) by the Deified Trajan, pontifex of the cult of Vulcan, a studiis (in charge of literary and cultural pursuits), in charge of the libraries, in charge of correspondence of the emperor Hadrian. The inhabitants of Hippo Regius (erected this monument) with public funds by decree of the town council.

Enough survived of the text to stimulate the curiosity of the discoverers: in particular, the name in the first line. Names are always useful in inscriptions for a variety of reasons. In this case, C. SVETONI and TRA must have seemed so fascinating that Marec and Pflaum may well for a minute have neglected the important task of physically recording the stone and its full text. Instead they probably hurried off to consult standard works of reference in order to find out whether they could draw any conclusions from that name. Could it really be… the Suetonius, who is known from his own transmitted works and from Pliny to have borne the cognomen Tranquillus?

Before they could entertain the hypothesis of identifying the honorand with the famous imperial biographer, some background research on Roman naming practices needed to be carried out. In today’s North America, there are many men called William Clinton, not just the former U.S. President, and few of the Clintons one might encounter will even be related to the Bill Clinton known the world over. How could they find out about the distinctiveness of the name Suetonius in the Roman world?

The various corpora of Latin inscriptions include extensive indices of all the individuals mentioned, with separate lists of family-names (gentilicia) and surnames (cognomina). Similar indices can be found in the annual volumes of L’Annee Epigraphique (AE) and the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), which register new discoveries and noteworthy discussions of previously found Latin or Greek inscriptions (Ch. 4). Today the various epigraphic databases (Ch. 5) allow for a rapid search of names, with the proviso that a name may appear in various grammatical cases and that such an automated search may not catch variant spellings.

A consultation of the indices of CIL VIII (covering North Africa) and Inscriptions latines d’Algerie I (1922) showed our scholars that the name Suetonius is indeed rather rare in the region; just three or four Suetonii are attested (ILAlg 3374–75, 3843, and possibly 3105).

• This shows that great reserve must be taken with inscriptions; if we find a name like ‘Umar or Muhammad, we must not rush to judgment as to the identity of the individuals mentioned therein.

1. Official Inscriptions

• Official inscriptions can confirm what we know of individuals from other media (Bruun & Edmondson The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, p. 3).

On the basis of a paper they had presented on 15 January the same year at a meeting of that learned society, they were on the verge of causing quite a commotion among Roman historians and classicists. Who has not heard of Suetonius, the imperial biographer? His scholarly and somewhat sensationalist lives of the twelve Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian have influenced later Roman writers, the Middle Ages, and common modern perceptions of these Roman principes. Like many of the Roman authors we know so well from the literature they wrote, Suetonius used to be completely unknown outside of his own work, except for seven references to him in correspondence of the younger Pliny (Ep. 1.18; 1.24.1; 3.8.1; 5.10.3; 9.34; 10.94–95) and a few further remarks in some other later sources (cf. PIR2 S 959). Imagine the excitement, therefore, when the two French scholars in 1950 came upon a long lost inscription during excavations at Roman Hippo Regius, a coastal town in eastern Algeria (now Annaba, formerly Bone), which seems to give details of the life of the author Suetonius!

• A more pertinent example is that of Pontius Pilate, mentioned in the New Testament, especially the Gospels; Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish writer; Josephus, the Palestinian Jewish historian who took Roman citizenship. Philo (c. 20 B.C.– c. 50 A.D.); Josephus, (37-100); Tacitus, (c. 56 – c. 117). The Roman pagan historian Tacitus makes some comment, but possibly more extensive comments have been lost.

• Coins issued by Pilate exist, dated from the sixteenth (c. 28-29) to the eighteenth year of Tiberius (i.e. 31-32 A.D.) [Madden, Frederic W., Coins of the Jews, (London: Trübner & Company, 1881), pp. 182-183].

• In 1961 the Pilate Stone was found at Caesarea Maritima, Roman administrative capital of Judaea. It is dated to 26-37 AD. It reads: To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum… Pontius Pilate … prefect of Judea … has dedicated [this].

• This confirms that Pilate was Prefect of Judaea during the reign of Tiberius.

3. Graffito

• If we move specifically to graffito, a valuable comment is found in this statement (J.A. Baird and Claire Taylor [Eds.], Ancient Graffiti in Context, New York & London: Routledge, 2001, p. 3):

… this volume shows that many graffiti not only communicate a message to a reader, but also can be viewed as being part of a dialogue with one another. Graffiti may also mark time and space, and are one of the few forms of writing from the ancient world which preserve the material context of their production. Contextualising graffiti in this way highlights that, as a form of evidence, they have much to contribute to existing scholarly debates, for example those concerning literacy, orality, the relationship between text and image, the display of emotions, performance and the material construction of memory.

• The same page makes further important observations:

The English word graffiti comes from the Italian verb to scratch, and in its simplest sense, graffiti are simply markings scratched onto a surface, whether of text or pictures. But graffiti themselves can be made by a number of means besides scratching: these include inscribing, using charcoal, ink, or paint (painted marks are usually termed dipinti and sometimes considered as a category of graffiti… Apart from shining a light on the tools used, the way in which a mark is produced — whether with chisel, charcoal, paintbrush, or other implement —  is not the singular means, nor necessarily the most useful criterion, with which to define this practice.

• Peter Keegan (Graffiti in Antiquity, New York & London: Routledge, 2014, p. 54) gives a Hellenistic-Egyptian example of religious graffito:

If we return briefly to Egypt, but move forward in time to the Hellenistic (or Ptolemaic) period (332–31 BCE), a variety of surfaces in and near the small rock temple of Seti I at El Kanais (east of Edfu in the Wadi Mia) displays a record of graffiti inscribed by Greek travellers, incised in relation to earlier Egyptian markings, later Roman messages, as well as post- classical and early modern writings. Like Wâdi el-Hôl, the El Kanais site was used as a way- station for military traffic and workers associated with mining operations. The facility of the site for such a purpose was the reason why Seti I (c.1294–1279 BCE) originally constructed the small temple: to mark the digging of a well to service one of the major routes between the Nile Valley and his gold- mining operations in the eastern desert. An inscription on the walls of the shrine records the sinking of the well shaft and the pharaonic foundation of the temple. Another inscription, recorded on a pillar in the temple a millennium after Seti I’s foundation, describes the place as the “Paneion”, reflecting the identification of iconography associated with the Egyptian god Amen-Re (namely, the attributes of the ithyphallic god of fertility, Min) which corresponded to the Greek god of wild places, Pan.

• He goes on to give examples from the temple (pp. 54-55):

In relation to this cultural appropriation, Greek textual graffiti are directed for the most part to Pan – bearing the epithets Euodoi (“of the good road”), Euargos (“of the good hunt”), Epekoos (“who listens in prayer”), or Soter (“Saviour”) – and comprise expressions of thanksgiving for safe return from distant places, acts of adoration in relation to the dangers of desert travel, and a miscellany of personal signatures. Two of the 92 extant graffiti warrant special attention:

G3.12 “Pan of the good road, Zenodotos son of Glaukos has given you this [ornament? Altar?], having come back from the land of the Sabaeans [modern Yemen].”

G3.13 “[I dedicate] this to Pan of the good hunt who listens to prayer, who has saved me from the land of the Troglodytes [an epithet for the African inhabitants of the Red Sea], having suffered greatly in redoubled hardships, and from the sacred land which produces myrrh and from among the Koloboi. You saved us when we went off course on the Red Sea, and you sent a breeze to our ships when they were rolling on the ocean, whistling in shrill breaths in the reeds, until you yourself brought us to the port of Ptolemais, steering us with your hands, most skilful from the hunt. Now, friend, save the city which Alexander first founded in Egypt, the most famous of cities. I proclaim your power, friend Pan, having come back safely from Ptolemais [?] …”

• This shows that we must not think of ancient graffiti the way we often consider modern graffiti – as defacement, street art or protest material. These examples give us indications of religious belief and practice.

1. Dating

• Sandys, Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions, p. 200, presents several means to attest a date to inscriptions: “The date of an inscription may be determined (1) by its form, in respect to (a) the shapes of the letters, or (b) the spelling of the words; and (2) by its subject matter.”

• Essentially this presents a paleographical approach to dating – examining the words and letters. It is worth quoting Metzger again (Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 1991, p. 3):

PALAEOGRAPHY… is the science that studies ancient writing, preserved on papyrus, parchment, or paper, occasionally on potsherds, wood, or waxed tablets. Epigraphy deals with ancient inscriptions on durable objects, such as stone, bone, or metal, while numismatics is confined to coins and medals. The distinctions are less superficial than it may seem, for the forms of letters were determined in part by the nature and the size of the material that received them.

Greek palaeography has three aims: first, developing the practical ability of reading and dating the manuscripts; second, tracing the history of Greek handwriting, including not only the form and style of letters, but also such matters as punctuation, abbreviations, and the like; and third, analyzing the layout of the written page and the make-up of ancient book forms (codicology).”

(p. 49, regarding mss. which are undated) Since most manuscripts, however, lack such chronological information, their approximate age must be determined on the basis of considerations of the style of the script. Now, the evolution of handwriting is a gradual process, and one form gives way to another almost imperceptibly. A considerable lapse of time is generally required to produce significant changes in the shapes of the letters and the general appearance of the script.

• To return to Sandys, p. 200, he notes how the Latin alphabet developed (i.e. changed) over time:

The date of an inscription belonging to the Roman Republic may be partly determined by the character of the letters.” He gives examples on how “Under the Republic, forms of A… which are never constant, cease altogether about 184-174 B.C., and the same is true of the sibilant letter 𐌔, and of those forms of O which are open at the top or the bottom… 𐌖 is hardly ever found before 55 B.C. Z, which had appeared after 273 B.C. on an ancient coin of Cosa, was finally borrowed solely for the spelling of Greek words containing that letter, and was placed at the end of the Latin alphabet.

• In terms of spelling, Sandys (p. 202) observes:

Turning to questions of spelling, we find that, in the final syllable of the inflexions of nouns and verbs such as tribunŏs, pocolom, donom, sacrom, dederont, coiraveront, o is superseded by u about 234 B.C. ... Similarly, in the final syllable of words like fruge, cepet, curavet, dedet, e is superseded by i. The final d of the ablative falls out of general use after 200 B.C., though it is retained in 186, in the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus.

• On p. 203, Sandys addresses ‘subject matter’:

The date may also be determined by the subject-matter, by the mention of consuls or other officials, whose date is exactly or approximately known. In imperial inscriptions the details of the titles borne by the emperor are generally conclusive. References to consulships, and to imperial titles, are often found in honorary inscriptions. Epitaphs are rarely dated by consulships, and it is very exceptional to find an epitaph in which the successive dates in a centurion’s career are recorded in terms of imperial titles. The lex parieti faciendo of Puteoli is dated ab colonia deducta anno xc, the year of the foundation of the colony being 194 B.C. An Umbrian monument of 32 A.D. in honour of Tiberius is dated 704 years from the foundation of Interamna; and the ‘restoration of liberty’ by Nerva on the death of Domitian in 96 A.D. was commemorated on the Capitol in an inscription dated in the year of Rome, 848. Such dates are generally confined to tituli sacri, and are very rare in Italy. But they are common in Asia, and are also found in Mauretania, where some public baths were dedicated in ‘the year of the province 157’, i.e. 196 A.D., and where a priest is described as having died at the age of 105 (‘more or less’) ‘in the year of the province 363’, or 402 A.D.

• From this, we can see the importance of official inscriptions, which - generally – can be trusted as to date.

• However, we must be aware of the possibility of forgery and propaganda (p. 204):

Modern criticism of Latin inscriptions began when the forgeries, of Pirro Ligorio (who died about 1586) were detected by Maffei and Olivieri. Inscriptions produced solely to glorify a particular family, or to support a particular opinion, are always liable to suspicion'. An inscription supporting the view that Basilice is on the site of the Samnian town Murgantia is discredited by the illegitimate formation of the adjective populus Murgantius, instead of Murgantinus or Murgantiensis, and (less strongly) by the unidiomatic use of the demonstrative in basilicam hanc.

• A recent example comes from the Crimea (Chersonesus Taurica), which was under Roman rule from the first century B.C to the latter fourth century A.D. (Georgy Kantor, “Local Courts of Chersonesus Taurica in the Roman Age”, Paraskevi Martzavou & Nikolaos Papazarkadas [Eds.], Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-classical Polis: Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013, p. 69):

In 2005 Igor Makarov published a fragmentary inscription from the Chersonesus Museum collection containing provisions for the reform of local court system in Chersonesus Taurica in the early Imperial period. The decree deals with the reform of the local juries for private law disputes (whose survival into the Roman period has not been previously attested), necessitated by the lack of eligible jurors. Highly importantly for legal history, the provision for reiectio iudicum appears to have been taken over from Roman practice into an otherwise Greek model on the initiative of the Chersonesites themselves, without any suggestion of an intervention from the Roman authorities.

• On its dating, Kantor comments (p. 74):

The appearance of the office of archons in the text of the decree suggests placing it in the period after the constitutional reforms in Chersonesus in the Augustan period, in line with all the other mentions of that office in Chersonesitan epigraphy.

This dating is supported by other indications. Makarov has convincingly demonstrated through parallels among Chersonesitan and Bosporan inscriptions that on palaeographic grounds the decree is most likely to belong to the second half of the first century AD. Consideration of the language of the inscription also points towards the early Imperial period… and the presence of the Doric forms precludes a date in the third century AD. The use of a triangular pediment to top a stele with the decree text is also typical of the northern Black Sea epigraphy from the second century BC to the early second century AD, though the absence of any surviving decoration elements makes more precise dating on artistic grounds impossible.

• Bruun and Edmondson, The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, pp. 14-15 addresses dating:

Epigraphic patterns and practices changed over time and it is important to establish the date of an inscription for it to be as useful as possible for enhancing our understanding of classical antiquity. Correspondingly, for the restoration of a damaged text and for its interpretation, it is helpful to know to which period it belongs. Hence, every textual edition should be accompanied by at least a tentative attempt at dating, even if no precise chronological indicators can be found.

In a few fortunate cases dating presents little problem, namely when a consular date is given or a reference to a known local era appears... Sometimes the mention of officials or magistrates either of the Roman state or of local municipalities, for whom the date of their holding of office is known, help date an inscription accurately. The occurrence of an emperor’s name and titulature is always useful, as the tribunician potestas and the imperial acclamations may allow us to date the text to a precise year, and at the very least the text’s chronology may be narrowed down to the reign of the emperor mentioned…

• However, this is not always possible: “In the vast majority of inscriptions such helpful elements are unfortunately lacking. Nevertheless, after much scholarly discussion, which is still ongoing, some generally acknowledged dating principles have been established. As a result, editors often have to be satisfied with very approximate suggestions for a text’s date, such as “second/third century CE” or a terminus post quem, indicating that it belongs to the period after a certain event or emperor’s reign.”

• They then suggest “Some of the most useful criteria are” (pp. 15-16):

• the formula D. M. or D. M. s., which is very common in funerary inscriptions, does not (with exceedingly rare exceptions) appear in Italy before the mid-first century CE and in the western provinces before late in that century.

• the appearance of known historical figures or events help to provide chronological orientation, as do the titles of Roman military units, which evolved over time and the history of which has been reconstructed from other sources.

• the appearance of imperial freedmen is helpful, as the beginning of the reign of the emperor who manumitted them is an obvious terminus post quem. However, it needs to be remembered that an Aug(usti) lib(ertus) may have lived on for up to fifty years after the death of the emperor in question.

• personal names can provide useful chronological hints... If a common Roman bears no cognomen, the text dates to before c. 50 CE, likely to the Republican or perhaps the Augustan period. Filiation started to be omitted with greater frequency as the Principate progressed, while in the Republic it was more common... The use of supernomina or signa (marked by the connectives qui et or sive) is a sign of a late date: second or, more likely, third/fourth century...

• the massive appearance of individuals bearing an imperial gentilicium such as Flavius, Ulpius, or Aelius is probably an indication that the text dates to a period after the reign of the emperor(s) in question. These individuals are likely to be descendants of manumitted imperial freedmen or newly enfranchised citizens who took the gentilicium of the reigning emperor or their descendants. In many parts of the Empire, the name Aurelius became particularly common after Caracalla’s grant of citizenship to all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire in 212 CE.

• in Rome, Italy, and the Hispanic provinces, the practice of using marble for inscribing a text is Augustan or later. In other regions the use of certain materials may also be a chronological indicator.

• the decorative elements of the monument on which the inscription was carved may help to date the text on archaeological or stylistic grounds: for instance, in the case of funerary monuments with portrait-busts, the hairstyles of those depicted can provide some chronological orientation.

• the circumstances of an inscription’s discovery may assist with its dating. The archaeological layer in which it was found or the construction to which it belonged may have been dated by the excavators. It is important to be aware of the danger of a vicious circle here. Archaeologists are sometimes keen on using epigraphic evidence for dating sites and archaeological strata, even just in a preliminary, tentative, and hypothetical way. When epigraphers subsequently base their dating on this foundation, little has in reality been achieved.

Lastly, letter-forms… are often used as a dating criterion. For identifying Republican inscriptions, the older forms of several letters are useful…

• This becomes important, since the Roman Empire – especially in terms of what was later called the “Byzantine” Empire – immediately preceded the rise of the Arab Empire, and many of the territories constituting the latter Empire previously belonged to the former (e.g. northern Hijaz, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.).

• At any rate, the general principles hold across cultures and languages.

• For example, as we have noted elsewhere, the absence of epigraphic evidence in Mecca, Medina and Khaybar – supposedly the sites of substantial Jewish presence according to the Hadith and Sira – contrasts with the clear evidence of a Jewish presence in places in the northern Hijaz (which were under successively Nabatæan and later Roman/Byzantine jurisdiction:

One tomb inscription at Hegra from 42/43 AD, in Nabatæan Aramaic reads: ‘This is the tomb which Shubaytu son of ‘Ali’u the Jew made...’ In al-’Ulā, we also find such Jewish tomb inscriptions in the same language, as with one from 307 AD. In nearby Tayma, there is a similar example from 203 AD which is important because it appears that it refers to a local headman, either of his ethnic group or of the town itself, and another example from Hegra in 356/7 also refers to someone who held an analogous position there. The significance of this is that these ‘are important texts for north Arabian Jewry, for they imply that some of them at least were members of the elite of the society.’ However, it should be noted that whilst the inscriptions cover ‘a large period of time, at the very least the first century BCE to the fourth century CE’, they are ‘relatively few in number’, and ‘not geographically very widespread, principally hailing only from al-Ula and Mada’in Salih.’ Hoyland comments that ‘the limited nature of this epigraphic crop’ is surprising, particularly given ‘the very frequent reference to Jews in the Qur’an.’ He then observes that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’

• In terms of dating graffito, the same basic principles of epigraphy/paleography remain valid (Karen B. Stern, Writing on the Wall: Graffiti and the Forgotten Jews of Antiquity, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2018, p. 27)

Methods of determining the antiquity of individual graffiti, in comparable ways, vary according to their precise archaeological contexts and contents. Few examples of graffiti associated with Jews include exact dates or regnal years, which might better assist their accurate dating. In certain cases, however, the stratigraphic record offers important clues for establishing chronologies of graffiti written by or around Jews. Graffiti from the Dura‑Europos synagogue, for example, were discovered in a sealed archaeological context that predated the destruction of the building sometime between 255 and 257 CE. In this case, we have a useful terminus ante quem for their ancient application.

Other graffiti deposits pose greater challenges for establishing patterns of relative dating. Graffiti in Beit Shearim, Palmyra, or along cliffs in deserts of Egypt, Sinai, and Arabia are located inside spaces that sustained ongoing reuse; this might prompt questions about their antiquity. While it remains impossible to establish secure dates for every graffito and dipinto discovered throughout these sites, considerations of regional customs, language, and iconographic typology help to better situate their chronology. Although methods of dating textual graffiti through paleography remain as tenuous as is dating pictorial art through patterns in iconography, deployments of Greek and Latin (and in some cases, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Nabataean) in graffiti may assist their dating to similar periods of Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine hegemony, which predate the early medieval period.

• J.A. Baird, “The Graffiti of Dura-Europos: A Contextual Approach”, Baird and Taylor, Ancient Graffiti in Context, p. 61, also addresses graffito dating:

One house, near the centre of the town, had so many graffiti scratched into its walls it was named ‘The House of the Archives’ by the excavators… Many of the graffiti record transactions and commodities, accounts and tabulations. Some also contain dates, the earliest of which is 218 CE; the others, including horoscopes, cluster around 235 to 240 CE. One graffito from this house has played a part in the reconstruction of the historical sequence at Dura, as it refers to the Persians descending on the site, in 239 CE, some time before the demise of the town at the hands of the Sasanians, probably in 256…

• Kristina Milnor (Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 15, 17) presents some of the issues in dating graffiti in ancient Pompeii:

It is challenging to date Pompeian wall writings, as most do not offer chronological information, and those which do overwhelmingly provide a day but not a year. Those which do record the Roman consuls — our best means for establishing a firm date — range remarkably widely, from the earliest of 78 BCE (CIL 4. 1842, from the basilica) to the latest of 60 CE (CIL 4. 4182, in the House of the Silver Wedding).

• Islamic/Arabic graffiti faces the same problems in dating (Jouni Harjumäki & Ilkka Lindstedt, “The Ancient North Arabian and Early Islamic Arabic Graffiti: A Comparison of Formal and Thematic Features”, Saana Svärd and Robert Rollinger [Eds.], Cross-Cultural Studies in Near Eastern History and Literature, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, p. 62): “The date of many Arabic graffiti is problematic. Only a few of them provide exact dates, so their dating must, to some extent, depend on paleography. However, there is no clear-cut or error-free way to do this, and some of the texts discussed below could be somewhat later than from the first two centuries of Islam.”

• Ilkka Lindstedt, Fellow, The Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, “Writing, Reading, and Hearing in Early Muslim-era Arabic Graffiti”, https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/writing-reading-and-hearing-in-early-muslim-era-arabic-graffiti/, January 2, 2017 writes:

Arabic inscriptions yield dated texts that are important, among other things, for the study of the developing Islamic identity. The majority of the surviving inscriptions are undated, but just to give one figure, there are according to my calculations almost 100 dated published inscriptions between the earliest Islamic-era one (23 AH) and the end of the Umayyad dynasty (132 AH). This is not a meager amount for a period for which otherwise dated (or datable) evidence is slight… Most of the extant Arabic graffiti are lapidary and engraved, although we have some painted graffiti as well.

• Some of the methodology of addressing Arabic graffiti can be found in Younis al-Shdaifat; Ahmad Al-Jallad; Zeyad al-Salameen; Rafe Harahsheh, “An early Christian Arabic graffito mentioning ‘Yazid the king’”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, Volume 28, Issue 2, 24 November 2017, p. 315:

The rock inscription discussed here was discovered during the first season of the El‐Khḍerī archaeological and epigraphic survey project in north‐eastern Jordan. The inscription comes from as‐Samrūnīyyāt (site number S5), located 12 km south‐west of Qaṣr Burquʿ, and was the only text found at the site. In terms of archaeological remains, the site contains a tailed tower tomb on its southern slope and a number of stone‐circle structures scattered on its northern side. These ancient structures have been reused in recent times as seasonal camps by nomadic pastoralists. The inscription consists of a four‐word early Arabic graffito, perhaps from the sixth or seventh century, accompanied by a cross. The text contains several unique palaeographic features and a reference to a certain yzydw ʾl‐mlk or ‘Yazīd the king’.

(Next paragraph from p. 316):

2.1 Letter shapes

The letter forms are completely Arabic as opposed to the Nabataeo‐Arabic script, suggesting a sixth‐century date at the earliest. The dāls, however, have a dot, a survival of an Aramaic practice of distinguishing the two phonemes but a completely unnecessary relic given that the r at this time has a distinct shape. This practice is still found in the Nabataeo‐Arabic script but has not yet been attested in the Arabic script proper until now. The dot is not used to distinguish ḏāl from dāl, as in the later Arabic script…

(p. 318):

2.4 Formularies and orthography

The formula dkr ʾl‐ʾlh is unique to sixth‐century Christian Arabic inscriptions, probably attested in the Zebed inscription and in a new mid‐sixth‐century Arabic inscription from Dūmah. The verb dkr would appear to be an Arabic calque of the Nabataean dkyr, common in Nabataean and Nabataeo‐Arabic graffiti. The divine name ʾl‐ʾlh is only attested in sixth‐ or perhaps late fifth‐century Christian Arabic inscriptions, and is therefore probably a calque of the Greek ho theós. We can compare the cross accompanying the benediction to the Dūmah pre‐Islamic Arabic inscription (Nehmé, forthcoming, b) and to the crosses associated with the Ḥimā Arabic and Nabataeo‐Arabic inscriptions (Robin, al‐Ghabbān, & al‐Saʿīd, 2014).

• It can be seen that the authors date the inscription on paleographical grounds – date of words, usage, itself.

• Ian Morris (http://www.iandavidmorris.com/not-set-in-stone/), “Not set in stone”, March 19, 2014, observes the treatment of “a cluster of graffiti from Mount Sal‘ in north-western Arabia. A bunch of passers-by apparently signed their names in pre-classical script; one wrote the sort of supplicatory message we often see in old Arabian graffiti.

• These would be no more than late-antique curiosities, were it not for four names that draw our attention: Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Alī bin Abū [sic] T[ā]lib, and Muhammad bin ‘Abd Allāh.”

• He then observes:

For one thing, the Muhammad bin is on the line above ‘Abd Allāh, indicating that erosion has damaged the autographs of two distinct people, just as it’s damaged several other lines. But there are two more fundamental reasons to be sceptical.

1) These are very common names, and anyone who’s studied the history of the Arabs knows that Arab names are often duplicated.

2) Moreover, these four ‘recognised’ names appear in no discernable order alongside the names of people who are completely unknown. Nothing marks them out as special; as the heads of a revolutionary or reformist movement.

They could be anybody of any tribe: pastoralists, traders, soldiers on campaign or a bunch of teenagers on an adventure. The evidence simply isn’t strong enough to sustain the ideal identification.

• We can see that dating inscriptions, especially graffito, can be difficult. The method is largely paleographic. The possibilities of misreading and even forgery needs to be noted. It follows that we cannot point to rock graffito as clear evidence for the historical authenticity of Islam.

Why Were No Prophets Sent To The Meccans?

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

Islam holds to the concept of the collegiality of the prophets – that they all came with essentially the same message. It also holds that every people have received a prophet. Muslims believe that there have been more than 124,000 prophets. In the Qur’an, twenty-five – possibly twenty-eight prophets are mentioned. Most of these are easily identifiable with Biblical figures, although Lut (Lot) is not a prophet in the Bible, nor is Ismail (Ishmael). Obviously, by the time of Yaqub (Jacob), it is clear that these prophets were sent to the Bani Israil (i.e., the Israelites/Jews). It is equally clxear that for the most part (save for the Exilic period) the Israelites were in Palestine, rather than the Hijaz.

However, Islam holds that Ishmael was sent to re-found and re-build Mecca with his father Ibrahim (Abraham), and that this was the origin of the Arabs. It follows therefore, that according to Islam, the original religion of the Meccans was Islam, at least in terms of the Abrahamic revelation. Yet, at the same time, Islam holds that the Meccans apostatized into polytheism and idolatry. Jews and Christians are familiar with this scenario, since the Tanach – the Old Testament – presents a recurring picture of such apostasy and prophets sent to bring the Israelites to repentance. Of course, ethical issues also emerge as concerns of the Biblical narrative, but these were often related to Baal-worship, since paganism in the Fertile Crescent - especially among the Canaanites – was associated with ethical violations, especially sexual ones.

It is at this point a problem arises – for Islam. As we have noted, Islam holds that Abraham and Ishmael re-built the Kaaba and effectively founded Mecca. Yet, equally, Islam holds that the Meccans apostatized, but no prophet was sent to them until Muhammad. This contradicts both the Biblical and Qur’anic concepts of the frequency of prophets being almost immediately sent to bring the people back to monotheism and the abandonment of idolatry. Given the special status of Mecca in Islam, this contradiction raises major problems for the integrity of its message.

1. Prophets in the Bible

The prophetic credentials of Moses were established by the Exodus and its associated miracles, after which he received the Decalogue, and wrote Scripture, as in Deuteronomy 31:9: ‘Then Moses wrote this law...’, and v24ff: ‘When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of YHWH, “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of YHWH your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.’ Moses then become the Prophetic model for Israel, as illustrated by Deuteronomy 18:15: ‘Yahweh your god will raise up for you from time to time a prophet like me from among you, from your own kin. Him you shall listen to.’ (Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1978, p. 12. Clements observes that the verse is in ‘the iterative imperfect tense’, which ‘expresses a distributive sense’). Hence, Moses was the prophetic pattern for Israel. The passage continues (vs. 21ff):

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that YHWH as not spoken?’ — when a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that YHWH has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously...

The meaning of ‘brothers’ in this chapter is illustrated by v2 in reference to the Levites: ‘They shall have no inheritance among their brothers’ – i.e., brother-Israelites, similar to the way US Presidents begin speeches with ‘My fellow Americans’.

Note that a true prophet had to speak in the name of YHWH; one can search from start to finish in the Qur’an for this name with no success. Immediately we can see that Qur’an’s re-working of the stories of Biblical prophets will not work because none of them in the Qur’an ever prophesy in the name of YHWH! Yet to speak in His name was vital: ‘Moreover, a prophetic message often begins with the formula “Thus says Yahweh” and concludes with “the oracle of Yahweh” or “says Yahweh” (e.g. Amos 1:3-5; Jer. 2:1-3; Is. 45: 11-13).’(Anderson, Bernhard W., The Living World of the Old Testament, Harlow: Longman, 1982, p. 227) A prophet – Hebrew nabi – is one who announces the divine will. (Ibid., p. 226). In Biblical terms, it means the will of YHWH, announced in His name. A ‘god’ that does not have this name is not the God of the prophets of Biblical Israel.

A true prophet had to be in theological conformity with Moses. This is indeed what we find in Israelite history, true prophets calling people to observe the revelation found in the Torah. Right at the start of the Books of Moses we find references to the Spirit of God involved in the work of Creation, and in Genesis 3 we see that YHWH can come down in human form to the earth, walking in Eden. Clearly, the god of the Qur’an does not conform to this, so the teaching of the Qur’an is not in theological conformity with Moses. Moses encountered Theophanies – manifestations of God on the earth, as in the Burning Bush, as at Mount Sinai. Notice what YHWH says in Numbers 12:6-7: ‘6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I YHWH make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of YHWH.”’

It is also clear that being charismatically endued by the Spirit (whom we have seen is not Gabriel) is required, as seen in the life of Moses, Numbers 11:25, 29:

Then YHWH came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it... Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all YHWH’s people were prophets, that YHWH would put his Spirit on them!”

Hence, a canonical standard of Inspiration is revealed. This is important for two reasons. As Numbers 11:25 shows, men who were not normally prophets could prophesy under inspiration of the Spirit for a limited time, as with King Saul in 1 Samuel 10: ‘10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11 And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”‘ Hosea 9:7 describes a prophet as a ‘man of the Spirit’.

If we return to Deuteronomy 18, we can see what pagan worship involved:

9 “When you come into the land that YHWH your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to YHWH. And because of these abominations YHWH your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before YHWH your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, YHWH your God has not allowed you to do this.

The only peoples to make human sacrifice a fixed part of their cults were those of the Levant – specifically the Canaanites, who included the Phoenicians and their colony, the Carthaginians:

Where human sacrifice is clearly attested (as in Israel and Moab), it is a last resort in times of personal or national crisis. More commonly, as in the translation above, ‘votive gifts’ in response to a divine favour are usually forms of animal sacrifice, or the dedication of stelae, statues, precious metals or, at Ugarit, ships’ anchors, appropriate to a maritime culture.

(Wyatt, Nicolas, “Religion in ancient Ugarit”, in Hinnells, John R. [Ed.], A Handbook of Ancient Religions, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 138).

The Old Testament accuses the Canaanites of committing human sacrifice – specifically of children - who obviously could not have consented (in any meaningful sense) to their fate, Deuteronomy 12:31: ‘...for every abominable thing that YHWH hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.’ Similarly, 18:10, in the context of referring to Canaanite religious practice, commands: ‘There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering…’ Sadly, Israel eventually succumbed to syncretism with the Canaanites, Psalm 106:347-38: ‘They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan’. In 2 Kings 16:3 we read about King Ahaz of Judah sacrificing his son ‘through the fire, as did King Manasseh in 21:6. In 2 Kings 17:17, we read that the northern Kingdom of Israel did likewise. This was despite the warning in Leviticus 18:28, that exile would the punishment for doing such things. Further, in Deuteronomy 17 (which is part of the same discourse as chapter 18), we see the ban on worshiping other gods:

2 “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that YHWH your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of YHWH your God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, 4 and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.

Needless to say, the First and Second Commandments of the Decalogue forbid both the worship of other gods and the depiction of any (including YHWH), as in Exodus 20:

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I YHWH your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

A false prophet who prophesied in the name of other gods was to be executed, Deuteronomy 18:20: “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” It follows those Biblical prophets call unfaithful Israel to return to the principles outlined in the Mosaic revelation, both in terms of worship and ethics. We see an example of this for the first time after Israel is ensconced in Canaan, Judges 2:11ff:

11 And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of YHWH and served the Baals. 12 And they abandoned YHWH, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them and bowed down to them. And they provoked YHWH to anger. 13 They abandoned YHWH and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. 14 So the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them...

16 Then YHWH raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of YHWH, and they did not do so. 18 Whenever YHWH raised up judges for them, YHWH was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For YHWH was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. 19 But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways.

Note the pattern of frequency here – the apostasy of the Israelites, and YHWH raising Judges who save them and restore them to YHWH. If we move to 1 Kings 11, we see what happens when King Solomon apostatized:

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which YHWH had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love… 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to YHWH his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of YHWH and did not wholly follow YHWH, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods…

29 And at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had dressed himself in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the open country. 30 Then Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 And he said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes 32 (but he shall have one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel), 33 because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and they have not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my rules, as David his father did.

YHWH punishes Solomon, and announces through a prophet, who denounces the worship of false gods. Again, in 1 Kings 16, we read of King Ahab of Israel: “31 And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. 32 He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. 33 And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.” The result is that YHWH sent the prophet Elijah (called Ilyas in the Qur’an, Surah As-Saaffat 37:123–126), who eventually confronts Jezebel’s prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18:21: “And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If YHWH is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word.” A miracle is performed, the people acknowledge YHWH, which leads Elijah to command in v40: “And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there.”

It would be tedious to give further examples, but we can see a pattern of prophets being sent regularly to Israel to call them back to the Mosaic covenant of fidelity to YHWH, rather than worshiping other gods and idols. There is never a long gap between apostasy and the commission of a prophet sent to bring about restoration to YHWH. There is one exception – the apostasy under the Seleucid King Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. After the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Jews were remarkably free from idolatry – until after the conquests of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great in the second century B.C., who had a policy of Hellenization – essentially, making all his diverse subjects into Greeks through the spread of the Greek language and culture. He largely left the Jews to their own religion, as did his successors who ruled Palestine, the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids of Coele-Syria (and other lands). This lasted until 175 B.C., when Antiochus IV Epiphanes ascended the Seleucid throne, and began a policy of enforced religious assimilation in 168 BC. Many Jews, especially among the priesthood, collaborated with this, identifying the Syrian god Ba’al Shamen – ‘lord of Heaven’ and the Greek god Zeus Olympios with YHWH.

No prophet was sent at this time, because canonical prophecy had ceased – until (from a Christian standpoint) the commission of John the Baptist. The criteria of Old Testament canonicity – specifically, the period of inspiration – when the prophetic door was shut:

In the Babylonian Talmud, completed by about A.D. 550, we read: “Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachai, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel,” so that inspiration was thought to have ceased long before the beginning of the Christian era. (Newman, Robert C., ‘The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon’, Westminster Theological Journal 38.4, Spr. 1976, p. 320)

With this agrees the statement of Josephus in Against Apion 8:40, who sees the period of inspiration as stretching “From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia...” Green comments:

According to Josephus, therefore, the period in which the books esteemed sacred by the Jews were written, extended from the time of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes I. of Persia; after which no additions of any sort were made to the canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus, the monarch here referred to, reigned forty years, from B.C. 465 to B.C. 425. In the seventh year of his reign Ezra came up to Jerusalem from the captivity (Ezra vii. 1, 8); and in the twentieth year of the same Nehemiah followed him (Neh. ii. 1, 5, 6).

(Green, William Henry, General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898, p. 38.)

Another indication of this is found in 1 Maccabees 4:42ff, especially v46, concerning the Temple altar desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, in regard to which Judas Maccabaeus chooses some priests to determine what action to take:

He selected priests who were blameless and devoted to the Law. They cleansed the sanctuary and took the polluted stones to a ritually unclean place. They discussed what to do about the altar for entirely burned offerings, since it had been polluted. They decided it was best to tear it down so that it wouldn’t be a lasting shameful reminder to them that the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar. They stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple mount until a prophet should arise who could say what to do with them.

This took place after the Battle of Emmaus in 166 B.C. The last verse shows that the prophetic office (or a charismatically endued figure) was in effective abeyance at this time. Yet, YHWH did not leave His people without guidance – rebuke for apostates, encouragement for the faithful – at the time of Antiochus’ actions; the latter chapters of the Book of Daniel prophesy about them. Centuries before, the people of Judah in Exile in Babylon had faced the prospect of cultural and religious assimilation, but YHWH had sent Daniel to prophesy to them to avert this. In his visions, Daniel sees far into the future when similar events would take place, and chapters seven to twelve address this. So, always, there is prophecy to address apostasy and restoration.

1. Prophets in Islam

Islam holds to the collegiality of the prophets - all prophets were Muslims with identical messages, i.e., Islam – Surah Baqarah 2:135-136:

135. And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters.

136 Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them...’

Surah Baqara 2:285

The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each

one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers We make no distinction between any of His messengers and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

Surah Nisaa 4:163

163. Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms; 164. And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses; 165. Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Muslims believe that there have been more than 124,000 prophets. Of the 124,000 prophets, 315 were messengers:

Surah An-aam 6:83

83. That was the reasoning about Us which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.

84. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) We guided: and before him We guided Noah and before him We guided Noah and among his progeny David Solomon Job Joseph Moses and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: 85. And Zakariya and John and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous:

86. And Ismail and Elisha and Jonah and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:

87. (To them) and to their fathers and progeny and brethren: We chose them.

And We guided them to a straight way.

Others are not mentioned:

Surah Mumin 40:78

We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose

story We have related to thee and some whose story We have not related to thee.

It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a Sign except by the leave of Allah:

but when the Command of Allah issued the matter was decided in truth and justice

and there perished there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.

The collegiality of the prophets and Muhammad’s own calling are confirmed for Muslims by the Night Journey and Ascension to Paradise, where Muhammad met the other prophets. According to the Shia Hadith, the essential message was the same – opposition to idolatry, enjoinment of monotheism, prayer, alms, ablutions, fasting, pilgrimage, jihad, laws:

Usul al-Kafi

H 1461, Ch. 9, h 1

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn abu Nasr and a number of people from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from Ali ibn Ibrahim from Muhammad al-Thaqafi from Muhammad ibn Marwan all of them from Aban ibn ‘Uthman from those whom he has mentioned from ‘abu ‘Abd Allah, who has said the following:

“Allah, the Most Blessed, the Most High, granted to Muhammad, the system of laws of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus peace be upon them: They consisted of belief in monotheism, purity of such belief, the negation of all associates of Allah and the culture that is free and clean of idolatry... He has made lawful in such system of laws all that is good and clean and has made unlawful all that is filthy… He then made it necessary for them, in such system of laws to perform prayers, pay the charity (Zakat) complete the fasting, the Hajj and the duty of asking others to perform their duties and stop committing sins…and the obligations and the duty of Jihad (defending the faith) in the way of Allah. He has made Wuzu as additional obligation …

Another hadith emphasizes the collegiality of the prophets in terms of kerygma, specifically the rejection of idolatry and polytheism:

Usul al-Kafi

H 1491, Ch. 14, h 1

Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from certain persons of his people from Adam ibn Ishaq from ‘abd al-Razzaq from ibn Mihran from al-Husayn ibn Maymun from Muhammad ibn Salim from abu Ja’far who has said the following:

“…Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, sent prophet Noah to his people who said to them, “Worship Allah, have fear of Him and obey me” (71:3). He then called them to Allah alone to worship Him only and not take any partners for Him. Thereafter He sent the prophets until (their coming ended with) Muhammad He invited people to worship Allah only and not to take partners for Him and He said, “He has plainly clarified the religion which is revealed to you and that which Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were commanded to follow…

He sent the prophets to their people with the testimony that no one deserves to be worshipped except Allah... When the believers of the people of each prophet followed them He gave them a system of laws and guidance. Al-Shari’a is a system, a path and tradition. Allah said to prophet Muhammad, “(Muhammad), We have sent revelations to you just as were sent to Noah and the Prophets who lived after him...” (4:163). Allah commanded every prophet to follow the path and the tradition.

Below is the list of (possible) prophets in the Qur’an, together with their possible Biblical or historical equivalents - twenty-five (possibly twenty-eight) prophets are mentioned therein:

• Adam

• Idris (Enoch)

• Nuh (Noah)

• Hud

• Salih

• Ibrahim (Abraham)

• Lut (Lot)

• Isma’il (Ishmael)

• Ishaq (Isaac)

• Ya’qub (Jacob)

• Yusuf (Joseph)

• Luqman?

• Shu’aib (Jethro?)

• Dawud (David)

• Sulaiman (Solomon)

• Ilyas (Elias)

Al-Yasa’ (Elisha)

Al-Khidr? (Jethro? St. George?)

• Musa (Moses)

• Uzair (Ezra)

• Ayyub (Job)

• Dhul-Kifl (Ezekiel)

• Yunus (Jonah)

• Dhul-Qarnein? (Alexander)

• Zakariya (Zachariah)

• Yahya (John the Baptist)

• Isa (Jesus)

Obviously, many of these would not be recognized by Jews or Christians – neither Lot nor Ishmael are presented as prophets in the Bible, and the idea that Alexander the Great – a bisexual pagan who believed he was divine could be a true prophet of God is frankly ridiculous. Surah Yunus 10:48 says that every people have received a messenger:

Surah Yunus 10:48

And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment) it will be judged between them fairly and they will not be wronged.

In the Maliki Fiqh, this explanation is given about Messengers and Prophets:

7238 AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)

1.04 MESSENGERS AND MUHAMMAD

He sent Messengers to mankind to establish a plea against them. He completed their mission, admonition and prophethood with His prophet Muhammad - may Allah be pleased with him and please him - whom he made the last of the Messengers, giving glad tidings, warning and calling people to Allah, with His permission. The Prophet was an illuminating lamp and Allah revealed to him His book, which is full of wisdom. He explained through it His true religion and guided by it along the right path.

There are certain common characteristics of Messengers:

Narrated by AbuAyyub

Mishkat Al-Masabih 0382

Allah’s Messenger said: There are four characteristics (which may be called) the Sunnahs (the practices) of the messengers of Allah: Modesty, but some say, circumcision, the use of perfume, miswak and marriage. Transmitted by Tirmidhi.

The Shia Hadith explains the distinction between prophets and messengers:

Usul al-Kafi H 421, Ch. 3, h1

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn abu Nasr from Tha’laba ibn Maymun from Zurara who has said the following

“I asked abu ‘Abd Allah about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, ‘He was a messenger, a prophet’. What is a messenger and what is a prophet?’” The (Imam) said, “A prophet is one who sees things (matters of Divine guidance) in his dream and hears the voice but does not see the angel. The messenger is one who hears the voice, in his dreams sees things (of matters of Divine guidance) and sees the angel.” I then said, “What is the position of the Imam?” The (Imam) said, “He hears the voice but does not see and observe the angel” Then he recited the following verse of the Holy Quran. ‘Satan would try to tamper with the desires of every Prophet or Messenger or Muhaddath whom We sent...’” (22:52) (the Imam has included the word Muhaddath in above verse and it is his commentary and not part of the verse.)

Al-Ghazali states: “The recipient knows the medium, i.e. the angel by whom he received the information. This is “Wahi,” the inspiration of prophets, the inspiration of the Quran. The recipient receives information from an unknown source and in an unknown way. This is the inspiration of saints and mystics. It is called “Ilham.” The difference between “Wahi” and “Ilham” is that in the former an angel is the medium of communication, and in the latter he is not. It comes direct to the mind of the prophet.” (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 7. p. 354). The greatest prophets are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad:

Usul al-Kafi H 419, Ch. 2, h3

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Khath’ami from Hisham from abu Ya’qub who has said the following

“I heard abu ‘Abd Allah saying, ‘The leaders and masters of the prophets and the messengers are five who are called ‘Ulul ‘Azm (people with determination) among the messengers who have the central role. They are Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.”

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

Mishkat Al-Masabih 5762

When some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast. On the Day of Resurrection I shall be the bearer of the banner of praise under which will be Adam and the others, and this is no boast.

To understand the prophetic pattern and message (kerygma) in Islam, we begin with Nuh (Noah):

The story of Noah appears also in the Quran, and plays a much more prominent role there than it does in Genesis (Q 7:59–64, 10:71–73, 11:25–49, 21:76–77, 23:23–30, 26:105–122, 29:14–15, 37:75–82, 54:9–17, 71:1–28). Noah is mentioned by name 43 times in the Quran as opposed to the brief reference to him in Genesis. In the Quran and in Muslim exegesis Noah is seen as the first of a series of prophets including Hud, Salih, Lot, and Shuayb who epitomize the regular prophetic pattern that includes a prophet being sent, rejected, and the destruction of those who rejected him.

(Noegel, Scott B., Wheeler, Brannon M., Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judaism, Lanham & London: Scarecrow Press, 2002, p. 239)

Note what is stated about “the regular prophetic pattern that includes a prophet being sent, rejected, and the destruction of those who rejected him.” That a prophetic pattern exists is also indicated by Surah Ash-Shura 42:13. “He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him).” This also indicates that the polemic against idolatry is fundamental to the message of the Islamic prophets. So, what occasioned Nuh’s prophetic career, and what was his message? In the Bible, Noah is introduced in the context of increasing and general moral corruption, Genesis 6:

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…

5 YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And YHWH regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So YHWH said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of YHWH…

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”

The cause of divine wrath in this case is the intermarriage between God’s people and those outside the fold, and general ethical corruption, notably widespread violence. No mention is made of idolatry or polytheism. The text does not refer to Noah’s verbal preaching, but rather to God’s command that Noah build an ark. In 2 Peter 2:5 it is stated: “if he [God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly”, which in Greek is: καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ ὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξεν κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ἐπάξας. The Greek word κήρυκα is only used here in the New Testament, and it derives from κῆρυξ, which is used in 1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:11, where it is translated as either “preacher” or “herald”. In Hebrews 11:7, it is indicated that the action of Noah in building the ark was the message of condemnation for the wider society: “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” Again, there is no mention of idolatry or polytheism.

In the Qur’an, a different picture emerges. In Surah 7 Al-A’raf Nuh preaches a message of repentance and monotheism to the people:

59. We sent Noah (of old) unto his people, and he said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him.

Lo! I fear for you the retribution of an Awful Day.

60. The chieftains of his people said: Lo! we see thee surely in plain error.

61. He said: O my people! There Is no error me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds.

62. I convey unto you the messages of my Lord and give good counsel unto you, and know from Allah that which ye know not.

63. Marvel ye that there should come unto you a Reminder from your Lord by means of a man among you, that he may warn you, and that ye may keep from evil, and that haply ye may find mercy.

64. But they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the ship, and We drowned those who denied Our token

Lo! they were blind folk.

In Surah Yunus 10, the emphasis is on Nuh reminding the people of Allah’s Signs – which presumably focused on monotheism:

71. Recite unto them the story of Noah, when he told his people: O my people! If my sojourn (here) and my reminding you by Allah’s revelations are an offence unto you, in Allah have I put my trust, so decide upon your course of action... 72. …I am commanded to be of those who surrender (unto Him). 73. But they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the ship, and made them viceroys (in the earth), while We drowned those who denied Our revelations. See then the nature of the consequence for those who had been warned.

When we turn to Surah 26 Ash-Shu’araa, we witness the hostility of the people to the message of Nuh, especially in v116:

105. Noah’s folk denied the messengers (of Allah),

106. When their brother Noah said unto them: Will ye not ward off (evil)?

107. Lo! I am a faithful messenger unto you,

108. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

109. And I ask of you no wage therefor; my wage is the concern only of the Lord of the Worlds.

110. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

111. They said: Shall we put faith in thee, when the lowest (of the people) follow thee?

112. He said: And what knowledge have I of what they may have been doing (in the past)?

113. Lo! their reckoning is my Lord’s concern, if ye but knew;

114. And I am not (here) to repulse believers.

115. I am only a plain warner.

116. They said: If thou cease not, O Noah, thou wilt surely be among those stoned (to death).

117. He said: My Lord! Lo! my own folk deny me.

118. Therefor judge Thou between us, a (conclusive) judgment, and save me and those believers who are with me.

119. And We saved him and those with him in the laden ship.

120. Then afterward We drowned the others.

It should be noted that according to Surah 29 Al-Ankabut, the ministry of Nuh to his people was extravagantly long: “14. And verify We sent Noah (as Our messenger) unto his folk, and he continued with them for a thousand years save fifty years; and the flood engulfed them, for they were wrongdoers. 15. And We rescued him and those with him in the ship, and made of it a portent for the peoples.” This implies that Allah is presented as someone who does not like to leave people without a prophet for long. Finally, as to the Qur’an, we note the emphasis on the threat of divine judgment:

Surah Nuh 71

1. Lo! We sent Noah unto his people (saying): Warn thy people ere the painful doom come unto them. 2. He said: O my people! Lo! I am a plain warner unto you 3. (Bidding you): Serve Allah and keep your duty unto Him and obey me, 4 That He may forgive you somewhat of your sins and respite you to an appointed term. Lo! the term of Allah, when it cometh, cannot be delayed, if ye but knew.

Ibn Kathir comments on religious conditions at the time of Nuh (Ibn Kathir, Stories of The Prophets, Translated by Muhammad Mustapha Geme’ah, Al-Azhar, www.islambasics.com, n.d., p. 24):

For many generations Noah’s people had been worshipping statues that they called gods. They believed that these gods would bring them good, protect them from evil and provide all their needs. They gave their idols names such as Waddan, Suwa’an, Yaghutha, Ya’auga, and Nasran (these idols represented, respectively, manly power; mutability, beauty; brute strength, swiftness, sharp sight, insight) according to the power they thought these gods possessed.

Allah the Almighty revealed:

“They (idolaters) have said: “You shall not leave your gods nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa, nor Yaghuth, nor Yauq nor Nasr (names of the idols).” (CH 71:23 Quran). Originally these were the names of good people who had lived among them. After their deaths, statues of them were erected to keep their memories alive. After some time, however, people began to worship these statues. Later generations did not even know why they had been erected; they only knew their parents had prayed to them. That is how idol worshipping developed. Since they had no understanding of Allah the Almighty Who would punish them for their evil deeds, they became cruel and immoral.

This becomes relevant to the issue of Mecca, in the light of this hadith from Bukhari:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas

Sahih al-Bukhari 4920 Book 65, Hadith 440 [USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 442]

All the idols which were worshiped by the people of Noah were worshiped by the Arabs later on. As for the idol Wadd, it was worshiped by the tribe of Kalb at Daumat-al-Jandal; Suwa` was the idol of (the tribe of) Hudhail; Yaghouth was worshiped by (the tribe of) Murad and then by Bani Ghutaif at Al-Jurf near Saba; Ya`uq was the idol of Hamdan, and Nasr was the idol of Himyar, the branch of Dhi-al-Kala`. The names (of the idols) formerly belonged to some pious men of the people of Noah, and when they died Satan inspired their people to (prepare and place idols at the places where they used to sit, and to call those idols by their names. The people did so, but the idols were not worshiped till those people (who initiated them) had died and the origin of the idols had become obscure, whereupon people began worshiping them.

The tribe of Hudhail is described as “a tribe of Northern Arab descent in the vicinity of Mecca and al-Taaif... Hudhayl was closely related to Kinana and consequently to Kuraysh… Hudhayl has occupied much of the territory immediately west and east of Mecca and on up into the mountains towards al-Ta’if; there is no tradition of its having migrated here from elsewhere… According to Ibn al-Kalbī, the people of Hudhayl were the first among the descendants of Isma‘il to become idolaters.” (G. Rentz, “Hudhayl”, B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht [Eds.], Encyclopedia of Islam, Volume III, Leiden: Brill, 1986, p. 540). The other tribes stretch from the north to the east and the south of the Peninsula, indicating that the whole country was overtaken by this apostasy.

If we turn to Abraham, the Bible records that Abram (his original name) was called by YHWH to leave his land (Mesopotamia, originally Ur and then Haran) to go to another land, which we soon learn is Canaan, Genesis 12:

Now YHWH said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

4 So Abram went, as YHWH had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan, 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then YHWH appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

Nothing is said about Abram’s prior religious beliefs. We are simply told (v7) that YHWH “appeared” to Abram, and in Acts 7:2, we learn that YHWH had appeared to him in Ur: “And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran…’” However, in Joshua 24, it is implied that the ancestors of the Israelites – indicating Abraham – worshiped the gods of Mesopotamia:

14 “Now therefore fear YHWH and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve YHWH. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve YHWH, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH.”

Nothing further is indicated about this. We may infer that Abram was converted by the appearance of YHWH. It is different when we turn to the Qur’an and Hadith about Ibrahim (Abraham): Surah An-Anam 6:74: “(Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in error manifest.” The text continues:

75. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he mighty be of those possessing certainty:

76. When the night grew dark upon him he beheld a star. He said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not things that set

77. And when he saw the moon uprising, he exclaimed: This my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray.

78. And when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater! And when it, set be exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye associate (with Him).

79. Lo! I have turned my face toward him Who created the heavens and the earth, as one by nature upright, and I am not of the idolaters.

80. His people argued with him. He said: Dispute ye with me concerning Allah when He hath guided me? I fear not at all that which ye set beside Him unless my Lord willeth. My Lord includeth all things in His knowledge: Will ye not then remember?

81. How should I fear that which ye set up beside Him, when ye fear not to set up beside Allah that for which He hath revealed unto you no warrant? `Which of the two factions hath more right to safety?, (Answer me that) if ye have knowledge.

82. Those who believe and obscure not their belief by wrong doing, theirs is safety; and they are rightly guided.

83. That is Our argument. We gave it unto Abraham against his folk. We raise unto degrees of wisdom whom We will.

Lo! thy Lord is Wise, Aware.

Further indications of Ibrahim’s conversion to idol-less monotheism is found in Surah Maryam 19, which also displays the opposition he faced:

41. And make mention (O Muhammad) in the Scripture of Abraham. Lo! he was a saint, a Prophet.

42. When he said unto his father: O my father! Why worshippest thou that which beareth not nor seeth, nor can in aught avail thee?

43. O my father! Lo! there hath come unto me of knowledge that which came not unto thee. So follow me, and I will lead thee on a right path.

44. O my father! Serve not the devil. Lo! the devil is a rebel unto the Beneficent.

45. O my father! Lo! I fear lest a punishment from the Beneficent overtake thee so that thou become a comrade of the devil.

46. He said: Rejectest thou my gods, O Abraham? If thou cease not, I shall surely stone thee. Depart from me a long while!

47. He said: Peace be unto thee! I shall ask forgiveness of my Lord for thee. Lo! He was ever gracious unto me.

48. I shall withdraw from you and that unto which ye pray beside Allah, and I shall pray unto my Lord. It may be that, in prayer unto my Lord, I shall not be unblest.

49. So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah. We gave him Isaac and Jacob. Each of them We made a Prophet.

However, Ibrahim did not leave it at that. He also presaged Muhammad in physically destroying idols, Surah Al-Anbiyaa 21:

51. And We verily gave Abraham of old his proper course, and We were Aware of him,

52. When he said unto his father and his folk: What are these images unto which ye pay devotion?

53. They said: We found our fathers worshippers of them.

54. He said: Verily ye and your fathers were in plain error.

55. They said: Bringest thou unto us the truth, or art thou some jester?

56. He said: Nay, but your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who created them; and I am of those who

testify unto that.

57. And, by Allah, I shall circumvent your idols after ye have gone away and turned your backs.

58. Then he reduced them to fragments, all save the chief of them, that haply they might have recourse to it.

59. They said: Who hath done this to our gods? Surely it must be some evil doer.

60. They said: We heard a youth make mention of them, who is called Abraham.

61. They said: Then bring him (hither) before the people’s eyes that they may testify.

62. They said: Is it thou who hast done this to our gods, O Abraham?

63. He said: But this, their chief hath done it. So question them, if they can speak.

64. Then gathered they apart and said: Lo! ye yourselves are the wrong doers.

65. And they were utterly confounded, and they said: Well thou knowest that these speak not.

66. He said: Worship ye then instead of Allah that which cannot profit you at all, nor harm you?

67. Fie on you and all that ye worship instead of Allah! Have ye then no sense?

68. They cried: Burn him and stand by your gods, if ye will be doing.

69. We said: O fire, be coolness and peace for Abraham.

70. And they wished to set a snare for him, but We made them the greater losers.

The basic story of Abraham’s idol-smashing is found elsewhere than the Qur’an – in the Jewish apocryphal legends. Specifically, it is found in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah, with the tale merely re-worked for the Qur’an:

13. AND HARAN DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER TERAH (xi, 28).

R. Hiyya said: Terah was a manufacturer of idols. He once went away somewhere and left Abraham to sell them in his place. A man came and wished to buy one. ‘How old are you?’ Abraham asked him. ‘Fifty years,’ was the reply. ‘Woe to such a man!’ he exclaimed, ‘you are fifty years old and would worship a day-old object?’ At this, he became ashamed and departed. On another occasion, a woman came with a plateful of flour and requested him, ‘Take this and offer it to them.’ So he took a stick, broke them, and put the stick in the hand of the largest. When his father returned he demanded, ‘What have you done to them?’ ‘I cannot conceal it from you,’ he rejoined. “a woman came with a plateful of fine meal and requested me to offer it to them. One claimed, “I must eat first.” Thereupon the largest arose, took the stick, and broke them.’ ‘Why do you make sport of me,’ he cried out; ‘have they any knowledge?’ ‘Should not your ears listen to what your mouth is saying?’ he retorted.

(Freedman, H., & Simon, Maurice [trans./Eds.], Midrash Rabbah, [London: Soncino Press, 1939, 1961], pp. 310-311)

Interestingly, the Rabbinic editors of the book here quoted state: ‘The considerable indebtedness of Mahommed to the Midrash for the legendary and other material which he incorporated in the Koran has already been proved over a century ago by Abraham Geiger in his work, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (Ibid., p. xx). The Midrash was created about the third century A.D., completed about the sixth century (Ibid., pp. xxviii- xxix). So, it is clearly older than the Qur’an, though much younger than the Old Testament. It follows that the story of Abraham smashing the idols of his city is pure legend, not divine revelation. However, the point is, the prophetic pattern demonstrates devastating, even violent action against idolatry.

Most of the prophets listed in the Qur’an can be found in the Bible, and so it can be established that their primary, if not unique place of ministry was Palestine. In Surah 17 Al-Israa, otherwise known as Bani Israel, we are told that Jerusalem/Palestine is the “Blessed Land”: “1. Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Nearer, the Seer”. The Farthest Mosque is Al-Aqsa – which Muslims usually explain as not meaning the Haram al-Sharif established by Ab-al Malik and his successors, but rather Jerusalem as a holy site. The very next verse speaks about the Bani Israil, so it is clear that the sphere of revelation for the prophets who came to Israel was indeed Palestine. This becomes even more clear in v104: “And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.” Again, in Surah Al-Jathiya 45 we read: “16. And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above (all) peoples”. So, the prophets who repeatedly came to the Israelites arrived on the basis of the people’s apostasy from the principles of Islam that they (supposedly) received from Ibrahim, ʾIsḥāq, Yaʿqūb and Musa – specifically, the prohibitions on idolatry and polytheism. This was further necessitated by the sacred character of their land according to Surah 17:1.

Before we go on to address Mecca, we should also consider the Arab prophets of the Qur’an apart from Muhammad himself. Wheeler makes this observation:

In his discussion of the prophet Salih and the people of Thamud, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/923) mentions a dispute concerning references in the Bible to the Arab prophets mentioned in the Qur’an: As for the People of the Torah, they allege that there is no mention of ‘Ad, Thamud, Hūd and Sālih in the Torah. Their word among the Arabs in pre-Islamic and Islamic times is like the repute of Abraham and his people. The idea that the Jews, or ‘People of the Torah’, refused to acknowledge the Bible as a confirmation of the Qur’an, and, by extension, the authority of the Prophet Muhammad, is not uncommon in Muslim exegesis. There are a number of well known cases in which exegesis of certain verses, such as Q. 3:93 and Q. 2:222, focuses on a challenge made by the Jews to the Prophet. In his history, Ibn al-Athir repeats the remark made by al-Tabari, adding a comparison of the denial of the Arab prophets with the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Christ. These passages indicate that denying the mention of Hūd and Sālih in the Bible is part of the larger motif of the Jews rejecting the claim that the prophethood of Muhammad was foretold in the Bible as a continuation and fulfillment of ancient Israelite prophecy.

(Wheeler, Brannon, “Arab Prophets of the Qur’an and Bible”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2006, p. 24)

We saw earlier that Shu’ayb has been very tentatively and perhaps questionably associated with Jethro, but no Biblical equivalents exist for Hūd and Sālih. Wheeler continues (p. 25):

In his collection of prophetic hadith reports, Muhammad ibn Hibban (d. 354/965) cites, from a number of authorities, a long conversation between the Prophet Muhammad and Abu Dharr. During the conversation Abu Dharr asked Muhammad about prophets:

[Abu Dharr said] I said, ‘Apostle of God, how many prophets (anbiyā’) are there?’ He said, ‘One hundred and twenty thousand.’ I said, ‘Apostle of God, how many of them are messengers (rusul) He said, ‘Three hundred and thirteen altogether.’ I said, ‘Apostle of God, who was the first of them?’ He said, ‘Adam.’ I said, ‘Apostle of God, was he a prophet sent as a messenger?’ He said, ‘Yes. God created him with His hand, breathed into him from His spirit, and spoke with him face to face.’ Then he [Prophet Muhammad] said, ‘Abu Dharr, four [prophets] are Syrian: Adam, Seth, Enoth - he is Idris, the first to write with a pen - and Noah. Four are Arab: Hūd, Shu’ayb, Sālih and your Prophet, Muhammad.’

Later, Wheeler comments about Shu’ayb:

Outside of the Bible and Qur’an, there is little direct evidence to which Muslim exegetes and historians can point for the historicity of the prophet Shu’ayb and the people to whom he was sent. According to a report, given on the authority of Wahb ibn Munabbih, Shu’ayb died in Mecca along with a group of his followers, all 70 of whom were buried to the west of the Ka’ba. In his exegesis of Q. 2:125, al Suyuti reports that Shu’ayb, along with Hūd, Sālih, Ishmael, and Noah are buried in the sanctuary at Mecca. Taqi al-Din al-Fasi (d. 832/1429) records a number of traditions preserving reports that large numbers of prophets were buried near the Ka’ba in Mecca. There is also a tomb around which is built a mosque in the Wadi Shu’ayb in Jordan just outside of the city of al-Salt which is said to be the tomb of the prophet Shu’ayb.

Noegel and Wheeler observe that there are different traditions about Shu’ayb among Muslim commentators:

Prophet mentioned 11 times in the Quran, and associated with Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. Shuayb was sent to the people of Midian (Q 7:85–93, 11:84–95) and to the People of the Tanglewood (Q 15:78–79, 26:176–191). Muslim exegetes disagree about whether these are the same people, and Suyuti reports that some exegetes claim that Shuayb was also sent to the People of the Well. Ibn Kathir maintains that the people of Midian and the People of the Tanglewood are identical. Kisa’i explains that these were originally two different peoples, but that the People of the Tanglewood moved to Midian and intermarried with the people of Midian. Kisa’i also claims that Shuayb was the son of the leader of the people of Midian, a man named Zion, son of Anaq, who married an Amalekite woman.

The narratives of Shuayb are grouped together with four other prophets: Noah, Hud, Salih, and Lot. Shuayb’s prophethood comes at the end of this list just before the prophethood of Job, Dhu al-Kifl, and Jonah, but it is to Moses that Shuayb passes on the mantle of prophethood, symbolized by his rod that had been passed down to Shuayb from Adam through all the previous prophets. Muslim exegesis of Q 28:21–28 consistently identifies Shuayb with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, though Ibn Kathir claims there would be a space of about 400 years between Shuayb and Moses assuming that Shuayb lived close to the time of Lot (Q 11:89).

(Noegel & Wheeler, Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judaism, pp. 303-304)

If we first examine what Surah Al-A’raf 7 states about Shu’ayb, we find that apart from ethical concerns, they are presented as apostates from the worship of Allah:

85. And unto Midian (We sent) their brother, Shueyb. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him. Lo! a clear proof hath come unto you from your Lord; so give full measure and full weight and wrong not mankind in their goods, and work not confusion in the earth after the fair ordering thereof. That will be better for you, if ye are believers.

86. Lurk not on every road to threaten (wayfarers), and to turn away from Allah’s path him who believeth in Him, and to seek to make it crooked. And remember, when ye were but few, how He did multiply you. And see the nature of the consequence for the corrupters!

87. And if there is a party of you which believeth in that wherewith I have been sent, and there is a party which believeth not, then have patience until Allah judge between us. He is the best of all who deal in judgment.

88. The chieftains of his people, who were scornful, said: Surely we will drive thee out, O Shueyb, and those who believe with thee, from our township, unless ye return to our religion. He said: Even though we hate it?

89. We should have invented a lie against Allah if we returned to your religion after Allah hath rescued us from it. It is not for us to return to it unless Allah should (so) will. Our Lord comprehendeth all things in knowledge. In Allah do we put our trust. Our Lord! Decide with truth between us and our folk, for Thou art the best of those who make decision.

90. But the chieftains of his people, who were disbelieving, said: If ye follow Shueyb, then truly we shall be the losers.

91. So the earthquake seized them, and morning found them prostrate in their dwelling place.

92. Those who denied Shueyb became as though they had not dwelt there. Those who denied Shueyb, they were the losers.

93. So he turned from them and said: O my people! I delivered my Lord’s messages unto you and gave you good advice; then how can I sorrow for a people that rejected (truth)?

It is not difficult to see the arrangement of this story as supposedly presaging Muhmmad’s mission to Mecca, and his rejection by the Meccan pagans, together with their persecution of his followers to the point of expulsion, according to the traditional Islamic account. However, if Shu’ayb is indeed to be identified with Jethro, there may be some derivation from a traditional story associated with the latter, not from the Bible, but rather later Jewish traditions. In the Bible, Jethro is described as “the priest of Midian”, Exodus 3:1. The term “Midian” may be territorial rather than ethnic, and there may have been several distinct ethnic groups in that region. We know nothing about religious conditions therein. At any rate, Jethro was probably not a worshiper of the God of Israel at that point, given his reaction to Moses after the latter informs him of the acts of deliverance for Israel by YHWH in Exodus 18:

10 Jethro said, “Blessed be YHWH, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that YHWH is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.” 12 And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God.

There are several potential interpretations, but perhaps this suggests that Jethro was originally either a polytheist or a monolater, who worshipped El, the generic name for the chief God in the Levant and possibly the northern Hijaz - the Midianite lands crossed both regions. Rather like Melchizedek, after the demonstration of the power of YHWH, he identifies this deity with YHWH. Significantly, perhaps, he offers sacrifice to Elohim. At any rate, there is no record of his returning to evangelize his people as to the true faith – in the Bible. As for Jewish traditions, in the Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1:32 on Exodus 2:16, we find this:

Jethro was a priest of idolatry, but he saw that there was no truth [ממש] in it so he despised it and decided to repent even before Moses came. He called the men of the city and said to them: “Until now I have been ministering for you, but now I am old. Choose for yourselves another priest [כומר].” He stood and brought out all the implements of idolatry and gave them all to them. They stood and excommunicated him [נדוהו] so that no one would be in his company nor do work for him nor shepherd his flock.

(Lawrence, Beatrice J. W., Jethro and the Jews: Jewish biblical interpretation and the question of identity, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017, p. 106)

Admittedly, the dating of this midrash is late, but it may reflect earlier traditions. Notably, Targum of Pseudo Jonathan, probably dated to the second century A.D., does indeed state of Jethro “that he formally converted. In its version of Exod 18:6, the Targum tells us that Jethro sends word to Moses concerning his arrival, saying, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you to convert (לאתגיירא).” The Targumist has turned the statement in the Bible, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons” into a statement of intention to convert combined with an appeal to be received.” (Ibid., pp. 140-141).

The other Qur’anic passages essentially repeat what Surah 7 states. Ibn Kathir comments:

The people of Madyan were Arabs who lived in the country of Ma’an, part of which today is greater Syria. They were a greedy people who did not believe that Allah existed and who led wicked lives. They gave short measure, praised their goods beyond their worth, and hid their defects. They lied to their customers, thereby cheating them.

Allah sent His Prophet Shu’aib (pbuh) armed with many miracles. Shu’aib preached to them, begging them to be mindful of Allah’s favours and warning them of the consequences of their evil ways, but they only mocked him. Shu’aib remained calm as he reminded them of his kinship to them and that what he was doing was not for his personal gain.

They seized the belongings of Shu’aib and his followers, then drove them out of the city. The Messenger turned to his Lord for help, and his plea was answered. Allah sent down on them scorching heat and they suffered terribly. On seeing a cloud gathering in the sky, they thought it would bring cool, refreshing rain, and rushed outside in the hope of enjoying the rainfall. Instead the cloud burst, hurling thunderbolts and fire. They heard a thunderous sound from above which caused the earth under their feet to tremble. The evil doers perished in this state of horror.

(Ibn Kathir, Stories of The Prophets, pp. 71-72)

The prophet Hūd is depicted as having a similar ministry to that of Shu’ayb:

The account of the Arab prophet Hud, sent to people of Ad, is found in Q 7:65–72, 11:50–60, 26:123–140, 41:15–16, and 46:21–25. His genealogy is given variously as Hud b. Shelah b. Arpachshad b. Shem b. Noah or Hud b. Abdallah b. Rabbah b. Ad b. Uz b. Aram b. Shem b. Noah. The first genealogy seems to identify Hud with the biblical Eber (Gen 10:24), and the second makes the people of Ad descendants of Uz [Ar. ‘Aws] b. Aram. Other traditions identify the Aram given here with the “Iram” of Q 89:7, which is said to be the name of the city in which the people of Ad lived, a city made of gold and silver that would move about the earth. The Quran places the people of Ad among the “winding sand-tracts” [Ar. al-Ahqaf], which usually is understood to be at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula between Oman and the Hadramawt (Q 46:21). Ibn Kathir reports that Hud was the first to speak Arabic, and that the people of Ad were the “Original” Arabs, as opposed to the “Arabicized” Arabs who descended from Ishmael.

(Noegel & Wheeler, Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judaism, pp. 140-141)

Surah 7 presents the picture of Hūd in this way:

65. And unto (the tribe of) Aad (We sent) their brother, Hud. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)?

66. The chieftains of his people, who were disbelieving, said: Lo! we surely see thee in foolishness, and lo! we deem thee of the liars.

67. He said: O my people; There is no foolishness in me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds.

68. I convey unto you the messages of my Lord and am for you a true adviser.

69. Marvel ye that there should come unto you a Reminder from your Lord by means of a man among you, that he may warn you? Remember how He made you viceroys after Noah’s folk, and gave you growth of stature. Remember (all) the bounties of your Lord, that haply ye may be successful.

70. They said: Hast come unto us that we should serve Allah alone, and forsake what our fathers worshipped? Then bring upon us that wherewith thou threatenest us if thou art of the truth.

71. He said: Terror and wrath from your Lord have already fallen on you. Would ye wrangle with me over names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which no warrant from Allah hath been revealed? Then await (the consequence), Lo! I (also) am of those awaiting (it).

72. And We saved him and those with him by a mercy from Us, and We cut the root of those who denied Our revelations and were not believers.

It is questionable if the Ad are to be located in the south of Arabia, in desert sands. In Surah Ash-Shu’araa 26, we read:

128. Build ye on every high place a monument for vain delight?

129. And seek ye out strongholds, that haply ye may last for ever?

130. And if ye seize by force, seize ye as tyrants?

131. Rather keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

132. Keep your duty toward Him who hath aided you with (the good things) that ye know,

133. Hath aided you with cattle and sons.

134. And gardens and water springs.

The reference to “gardens and springs” suggests the northern Hijaz rather than Oman. Similarly, the account in Surah Al-Ahqaf 46 indicates a more fertile area: “24. Then when they beheld it a dense cloud coming toward their valleys, they said; Here is a cloud bringing us rain. Nay, but it is that which ye did seek to hasten, a wind wherein is painful torment, 25. Destroying all things by commandment of its Lord. And morning found them so that naught could be seen save their dwellings. Thus do We reward the guilty folk.” Despite this, and his own descriptions, Ibn Kathir places them near Oman (op. cit., p. 33):

The people of ‘Ad lived many years in the windswept hills of an area between Yemen and Oman. They were physically well built and renowned for their craftsmanship especially in the construction of tall buildings with lofty towers. They were outstanding among all the nations in power and wealth, which, unfortunately, made them arrogant and boastful. Their political power was held in the hand of unjust rulers, against whom no one dared to raise a voice. They were not ignorant of the existence of Allah, nor did they refuse to worship Him. What they did refuse was to worship Allah alone. They worshipped other gods, also, including idols. This is one sin Allah does not forgive.

The polytheism of the Ad is made clearer in Surah Hūd 11: “53. They said: O Hud! Thou hast brought us no clear proof and we are not going to forsake our gods on thy (mere) saying, and we are not believers in thee. 54. We say naught save that one of our gods hath possessed thee in an evil way. He said: I call Allah to witness, and do ye (too) bear witness, that I am innocent of (all) that ye ascribe as partners (to Allah)”.

The Prophet Sālih and his story also suggest a place in northern Hijaz:

The story of the Arab prophet Salih, sent to the people of Thamud, is found in Q 7:73–79, 11:61–68, 15:80–84, 17:59, 26:141–159, 27:45–53, 41:17–18, 54:23–32, and 91:11–15. Salih’s genealogy is sometimes given as Salih b. Ubayd b. Asif b. Masikh b. Ubayd b. Khadir b. Thamud b. Gether b. Aram b. Shem b. Noah with Thamud descending from Gether rather than Uz [Ar. Aws], as with the Ad. Tha’labi gives the genealogy as Salih b. Ubayd b. Asif b. Mashij b. Ubayd b. Hadhir b. Thamud b. Ad b. Uz b. Aram b. Shem b. Noah, making the Thamud to be descendants of Ad.

(Noegel & Wheeler, Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judaism, pp. 288-289)

Indeed, this is further suggested by the other name for Hegra, tha ancient southern capital of the Nabataean kingdom - Mada’in Salih:

The city of Mada’in Salih, also called Magha’ir Salih and referred to as “al-Hijr” (Q 15:80), is located in the northern Hijaz at the site of some Nabataean ruins. Late antique Greek sources refer to the people of Thamud, though they place them considerably later in history than Muslim exegesis. The Assyrian king Sargon II also has left an inscription, which dates to 710 BCE and mentions Sargon’s victory over an Arab tribe called Thamud. Muslim sources report that the prophet Muhammad passed by the former site of the people of Thamud and declared the area and its water off limits.

(Ibid., p. 289)

Surah 7 links them with the Ad and replicates the Islamic prophetic pattern:

73. And to (the tribe of) Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him. A wonder from your Lord hath come unto you. Lo! this is the camel of Allah, a token unto you; so let her feed in Allah’s earth, and touch her not with hurt lest painful torment seize you.

74. And remember how He made you viceroys after Aad and gave you station in the earth. Ye choose castles in the plains and hew the mountains into dwellings. So remember (all) the bounties of Allah and do not evil, making mischief in the earth.

75. The chieftains of his people, who were scornful, said unto those whom they despised, unto such of them as believed: Know ye that Salih is one sent from his Lord? They said: Lo! In that wherewith he hath been sent we are believers.

76. Those who were scornful said: Lo! in that which ye believe we are disbelievers.

77. So they hamstrung the she-camel, and they flouted the commandment of their Lord, and they said: O Salih! Bring upon us that thou threatenest if thou art indeed of those sent (from Allah).

78. So the earthquake seized them, and morning found them prostrate in their dwelling place.

79. And Salih turned on them and said: O my people! I delivered my Lord’s message unto you and gave you good advice, but ye love not good advisers.

80. And Lo! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

81. Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye, are wanton folk.

82. And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.

83. And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind.

84. And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence for evil doers!

Parts of this are reminiscent of the story of Lot and Sodom, but the central point is that of worshipping gods other than Allah, the rejection of the prophet, and the divine punishment that ensues. The vital point is that here we are presented with Arab prophets, who come to Arab peoples to deliver them from polytheism and idolatry. There are even traditions of these prophets being buried in Mecca. Yet none of them ministered in Mecca itself, and no one followed them to preach to the Meccans. Obviously, since these peoples were destroyed, no subsequent prophet could come to them. We will now see how all of this is problematic for Islam.

1. Mecca as the original sanctuary

The Hadith indicates that the first mosque – in the sense of a place of worship - was Mecca:

Narrated Abu Dhar

Sahih al-Bukhari 3366

I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?” He said, “Al- Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca).” I said, “Which was built next?” He replied “The mosque of Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).” I said, “What was the period of construction between the two?” He said, “Forty years.” He added, “Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time).

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3366

In-book reference: Book 60, Hadith 40

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 585

Does this refer to the era of Creation, or to events during the life of Muhammad and the First Caliphs? The text is unclear on this, but perhaps the former is to be preferred. In this light, we should note how Ibn Kathir (op. cit., pp. 17-18) presents differing (non-canonical) traditions about the role of Adam and Eve in the founding of Mecca:

There are many traditions concerning the place of Adam’s descent upon earth. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated that Ibn Abbas said: “Adam descended on land ‘Dihna’ between Mecca and Taif.” Al-Hassan said that Adam descended in India and Eve in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), Iblis Bodistiman (Iraq), and the serpent in Ashahan (Iran). This last was also reported by Ibn Hatim.

Ass’ady related that Adam descended with the Black Stone (a large black stone set into the wall of the Ka’ba in Mecca. It is said to have come from Paradise) in India…

Ibn Umar said that Adam descended on As-Safa and Eve on Al Marwa (names of two mountains in the vicinity of the sacred house in Mecca. Part of the rites of pilgrimage (hajj) includes pacing between these two hills in commemoration of Hajar’s search for water). This was also reported by Ibn Hatim.

Similar ideas are presented by Tabari, who begins by indicating that after Adam performed his initial disobedience, he was “sent down” from Paradise to India:

Then, before sunset of the day-Friday-on which God had created Adam, He cast him down from heaven together with his spouse. According to the early scholars of our Prophet’s nation, He brought him down in India.

This has been stated by some scholars, such as, for instance According to al-Hasan b. Yahya-’Abd al-Razzaq-Ma’mar-Qatadah: God cast Adam down to earth. The place where he fell down was the land of India.

According to ‘Amr b. ‘Aft"! -’Imran b. ‘Uyaynah -’Ata’ b. al-Sa’ib-Sa’id b. Jubayr-Ibn ‘Abbas: When God first cast Adam down, it was in Dahna(’) of the land of India.

I was told on the authority of ‘Ammar (b. al-Hasan)-’Abdallah b. Abi Ja’far-his father-al-Raba’ b. Anas-Abu al-’Aliyah: Adam was cast down in India.

According to Ibn Sinan-al-Hajjaj-Hammad b. Salamah-’Ali b. Zayd-Yusuf b. Mihran-Ibn ‘Abbas-’Ali b. Abi Talib: The land with the sweetest smell on earth is the land of India. When Adam was cast down there, some of the smell of Paradise clung to India’s trees.

(Tabari, pp. 290-291)

In contrast, Eve was cast down to Arabia -in Jeddah, described as “the land of Mecca”:

According to al-Harith (b. Muhammad-Ibn Sa’d-Hisham b. Muhammad-his father-Abu Salih-Ibn ‘Abbas: Adam was cast own in India, and Eve in Juddah. He went in search of her, and eventually they were united. Eve drew near (z-1-f) him, hence al-Muzdalifah. They recognized (‘-r-f) each other, hence ‘Arafat. And they were united (j-m-‘) in Jam‘, hence Jam‘. He continued. Adam was cast down upon a mountain in India called Nūdh…

According to Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Ibn Ishaq: The people of the Torah on their part said: Adam was cast down in India upon a mountain called Wasm on a river (valley) called Buhayl between two places in the land of India, al-Dahnaj and al-Mandal. They continued. Eve was cast down in Juddah of the land of Mecca. Others said: Rather, Adam was cast down in Sarandib (Ceylon) upon a mountain called Nūdh, Eve in Juddah of the land of Mecca…

According to al-Hasan b. Yahya-’Abd al-Razzaq-Hisham b. Hassan-Sawwar, the son-in-law (khatan) of ‘Atai795 -’Ata’ b. Abi Rabah: When God cast Adam down from Paradise, Adam’s feet were upon earth, while his head was in heaven and he heard the speech and prayers of the inhabitants of heaven… Adam missed what he used to hear, from the angels and felt lonely so much so that he eventually complained about it to God in his various prayers. He was therefore sent to Mecca. (On the way, every) place where he set foot became a village, and (the interval between) his steps became a desert, until he reached Mecca. God sent down a jewel (yaqūt [“ruby”]) of Paradise where the House is located today. (Adam) continued to circumambulate it, until God sent down the Flood. That jewel was lifted up, until God sent His friend Abraham to (re)build the House (in its later form). This is (meant by) God’s word: “And We established for Abraham the place of the House as residence.”

(Ibid., pp. 291, 292, 293)

Footnote 787, p. 291, states: “Like al-Muzdalifah and ‘Arafat, Jam‘ refers to some locality near Mecca connected with the pilgrimage. It is also sometimes considered as just another name for al-Muzdalifah.” The place al-Muzdalifah is situated near Mecca, and a stay there is part of the Haj ritual. The importance of all this is that Adam and Eve are reunited in the vicinity of Mecca. This suggests the immediate divine purpose of sanctifying the precinct of Mecca even before its construction. Another tradition takes this further:

According to al-Harith-Ibn Sa’d-Hisham b. Muhammad - his father-Abu Salih Ibn ‘Abbas: When Adam’s size was lowered to sixty cubits, he started to say: My lord! I was Your protege (jār) in Your house… Then God revealed to Adam: I have a sacred territory around My Throne. Go and build a house for Me there! Then crowd around it, as you have seen My angels crowd around My Throne. There I shall respond to you and all your children who are obedient to Me. Adam said: My Lord! How could I do that? I do not have the strength to do it and do not know how. So God chose an angel to assist him, and he went with him toward Mecca. Whenever Adam passed by a meadow or place that he liked, he would say to the angel: Let us stop here! and the angel would say to him: Please do! This went on until they reached Mecca. Every place where he stopped became cultivated land. and every place he bypassed became a desolate desert. He built the House with (materials from) five mountains: Mount Sinai, the Mount of Olives, (Mount) Lebanon, and al-Judi,’ and he constructed its foundations with (materials from Mount) Hira’ (near Mecca). When he finished with its construction, the angel went out with him to `Arafat. He showed him all the rites (connected with the pilgrimage) that people perform today. Then he went with him to Mecca, and (Adam) circumambulated the House for a week…

According to Abu Ma’mar Salih b. Harb, the mawlā of the Hashimites - Thumamah b. `Abidah (‘Ubaydah) al-Sulami - Abu al-Zabir -Nafi’ (the mawla of Ibn ‘Umar)-Ibn ‘Umar:

While Adam was in India, God revealed to him that he should perform the pilgrimage to this House. So Adam left India to go on the pilgrimage. Wherever he put down his foot on a place, that place became a village. Every interval between his steps became a desert. Eventually he reached the House. He circumambulated it and performed all the rites (of the pilgrimage). Then he wanted to return to India and went off. When he reached the two mountain passes of ‘Arafat, the angels met him and said: You have performed the pilgrimage faultlessly. This surprised him. When the angels noticed his surprise, they said: Adam! We have performed the pilgrimage to this House two thousand years before you were created. He continued. And Adam felt properly chastised.

(Ibid., pp. 294-295)

The Qur’an indicates the antiquity and ancient sanctity of Mecca prior to the prophetic career of Muhammad:

Surah Al-Imran 3:96. “Lo! the first House appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance to the worlds…”

Surah Al-An’am 6: 92 “And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers.”

Leaving aside the question of the identity of “Bakkah” and “Makkah”, this indicates that from the moment of its emergence, Mecca was designated a holy city by Allah. However, the Qur’an indicates that it was Ibrahim and Ismail who founded Mecca and built the Kaabah, and it was during Muhammad’s time that it was made or re-made a sanctuary:

Surah al-Baqarah 2

125. And when We made the House (at Mecca) a resort for mankind and a sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).

126. And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day…

127. And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed): Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Nearer, the Knower.

Surah Al-i-Imran 3

96. Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Mecca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

97. Wherein are plain memorials (of Allah’s guidance); the place where Abraham stood up to pray; and whosoever entereth it is safe…

Surah 14 Ibrahim

35. And when Abraham said: My Lord! Make safe this territory, and preserve me and my sons from serving idols.

The Hadith presents a similar picture of Ibrahim and Ismail constructing the Kaaba, after Ismail and Hajar (Hagar)were expelled by Ibrahim, to the extent that the Zamzam well is depicted as the result of Hajar seeking water, and then Mecca is built:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka`ba under a tree on the spot of Zamzam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water. So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not neglect us,” and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka`ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers: ‘O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Ka`ba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had). When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, ‘O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?” And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zamzam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zamzam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” The Prophet (ﷺ) further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’ The House (i.e. Ka`ba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, ‘This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’ They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).” The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, ‘Do you allow us to stay with you?” She replied, ‘Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.” The Prophet (ﷺ) further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them…

Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished, and called on them afterwards. He saw Ishmael under a tree near Zamzam, sharpening his arrows. When he saw Abraham, he rose up to welcome him (and they greeted each other as a father does with his son or a son does with his father). Abraham said, ‘O Ishmael! Allah has given me an order.’ Ishmael said, ‘Do what your Lord has ordered you to do.’ Abraham asked, ‘Will you help me?’ Ishmael said, ‘I will help you.’ Abraham said, ‘Allah has ordered me to build a house here,’ pointing to a hillock higher than the land surrounding it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “Then they raised the foundations of the House (i.e. the Ka`ba). Ishmael brought the stones and Abraham was building, and when the walls became high, Ishmael brought this stone and put it for Abraham who stood over it and carried on building, while Ishmael was handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, ‘O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.’ The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “Then both of them went on building and going round the Ka`ba saying: O our Lord ! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.” (2.127)

Reference

:  Sahih al-Bukhari 3364

In-book reference

: Book 60, Hadith 38

USC-MSA web (English) reference

: Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 583

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

When Abraham had differences with his wife), (because of her jealousy of Hajar, Ishmael’s mother), he took Ishmael and his mother and went away. They had a water-skin with them containing some water, Ishmael’s mother used to drink water from the water-skin so that her milk would increase for her child. When Abraham reached Mecca, he made her sit under a tree and afterwards returned home. Ishmael’s mother followed him, and when they reached Kada’, she called him from behind, ‘O Abraham! To whom are you leaving us?’ He replied, ‘(I am leaving you) to Allah’s (Care).’ She said, ‘I am satisfied to be with Allah.’ She returned to her place and started drinking water from the water-skin, and her milk increased for her child. When the water had all been used up, she said to herself, ‘I’d better go and look so that I may see somebody.’ She ascended the Safa mountain and looked, hoping to see somebody, but in vain. When she came down to the valley, she ran till she reached the Marwa mountain. She ran to and fro (between the two mountains) many times. They she said to herself, ‘I’d better go and see the state of the child,’ she went and found it in a state of one on the point of dying. She could not endure to watch it dying and said (to herself), ‘If I go and look, I may find somebody.’ She went and ascended the Safa mountain and looked for a long while but could not find anybody. Thus she completed seven rounds (of running) between Safa and Marwa. Again she said (to herself), ‘I’d better go back and see the state of the child.’ But suddenly she heard a voice, and she said to that strange voice, ‘Help us if you can offer any help.’ Lo! It was Gabriel (who had made the voice). Gabriel hit the earth with his heel like this (Ibn `Abbas hit the earth with his heel to Illustrate it), and so the water gushed out. Ishmael’s mother was astonished and started digging. (Abu Al-Qasim) (i.e. the Prophet) said, “If she had left the water, (flow naturally without her intervention), it would have been flowing on the surface of the earth.”) Ishmael’s mother started drinking from the water and her milk increased for her child. Afterwards some people of the tribe of Jurhum, while passing through the bottom of the valley, saw some birds, and that astonished them, and they said, ‘Birds can only be found at a place where there is water.’ They sent a messenger who searched the place and found the water, and returned to inform them about it. Then they all went to her and said, ‘O Ishmael’s mother! Will you allow us to be with you (or dwell with you)?’ (And thus they stayed there.) Later on her boy reached the age of puberty and married a lady from them…

Abu Al-Qa-sim (i.e. Prophet) said, “Because of Abraham’s invocation there are blessings (in Mecca).” Once more Abraham thought of visiting his family he had left (at Mecca), so he told his wife (Sarah) of his decision. He went and found Ishmael behind the Zamzam well, mending his arrows. He said, “O Ishmael, Your Lord has ordered me to build a house for Him.” Ishmael said, “Obey (the order of) your Lord.” Abraham said, “Allah has also ordered me that you should help me therein.” Ishmael said, “Then I will do.” So, both of them rose and Abraham started building (the Ka`ba) while Ishmael went on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, “O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.” (2.127). When the building became high and the old man (i.e. Abraham) could no longer lift the stones (to such a high position), he stood over the stone of Al- Maqam and Ishmael carried on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, ‘O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily You are All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (2.127)

Reference

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3365

In-book reference

: Book 60, Hadith 39

USC-MSA web (English) reference

: Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 584

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zaid:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The Prophet (ﷺ) Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary, and asked for Allah’s blessing in it. I made Medina a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary and I asked for Allah’s Blessing in its measures the Mudd and the Sa as Abraham did for Mecca.

Reference

: Sahih al-Bukhari 2129

In-book reference

: Book 34, Hadith 81

USC-MSA web (English) reference

: Vol. 3, Book 34, Hadith 339

Narrated `Aisha:

(The wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said (to her). “Don’t you see that when your folk built the Ka`ba, they did not build it on all the foundations built by Abraham?” I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Why don’t we rebuild it on the foundations of Abraham?” He said. “But for the fact that your folk have recently given up infidelity (I would have done so). Narrated Ibn `Umar: Aisha must have heard this from Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) for I see that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) used not to touch the two corners facing Al-Hijr only because the House had not been built on the foundations of Abraham.’’

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3368

In-book reference: Book 60, Hadith 42

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 587

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

When the Prophet (ﷺ) saw pictures in the Ka`ba, he did not enter it till he ordered them to be erased. When he saw (the pictures of Abraham and Ishmael carrying the arrows of divination, he said, “May Allah curse them (i.e. the Quraish)! By Allah, neither Abraham nor Ishmael practiced divination by arrows.”

Reference

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3352

In-book reference

: Book 60, Hadith 27

USC-MSA web (English) reference

: Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 571

Whether Mecca in some form goes back all the way to Adam (possibly even earlier) or to Ibrahim, we see that according to Islam, its existence was prior to the emergence of Muhammad’s ministry. We also see that when it was founded, it began its existence as a holy city dedicated to the worship of Allah alone. The fact that the Hadith records that Muhammad saw pictures of Ibrahim and Ismail in the Kaaba after the conquest (though one wonders why, if hailed from Mecca, he never saw them before!) showed that we are presented with a picture of a territory like Jerusalem with its Temple a depicted in the Old Testament. It had a holy site (the Kaaba) which functioned like the Temple in Jerusalem. Even in Israel’s apostasy, there was never a total forsaking of the worship of YHWH, but rather that His insistence upon unique worship was disregarded in favor of syncretism and idolatry. Is this the picture we find with respect to Mecca?

It has already been noted that the Hadith presents the entire Peninsula as apostatizing into the worship of the idols of the time of Nuh – including the tribe of Hudhayl, who were situated near Mecca. This becomes especially urgent when we consider how the Qur’an depicts Arab prophets Shu’ayb, Hūd and Sālih speaking to their peoples, and the traditions that these prophets were buried in Mecca. Was this apostasy true of Mecca itself? The hadith suggests a positive answer:

Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:

The Prophet (ﷺ) appointed `Abdullah bin Jubair as the commander of the infantry men (archers) who were fifty on the day (of the battle) of Uhud…

Umar could not control himself and said (to Abu Sufyan), “You told a lie, by Allah! O enemy of Allah! All those you have mentioned are alive, and the thing which will make you unhappy is still there.” Abu Sufyan said, “Our victory today is a counterbalance to yours in the battle of Badr…” After that he started reciting cheerfully, “O Hubal, be high! On that the Prophet (ﷺ) said (to his companions), “Why don’t you answer him back?” They said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) What shall we say?” He said, “Say, Allah is Higher and more Sublime.” (Then) Abu Sufyan said, “We have the (idol) Al `Uzza, and you have no `Uzza.”…

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3039

In-book reference: Book 56, Hadith 245

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 276

This hadith indicates that the Meccans worshiped the idols Hubal and Al `Uzza. However, it did not stop there – other ahadith indicate that they worshiped a veritable pantheon:

Narrated `Abdullah:

When the Prophet (ﷺ) entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka`ba. The Prophet (ﷺ) started striking them with a stick he had in his hand and was saying, “Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear.”

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4287

In-book reference: Book 64, Hadith 320

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 583

It was narrated that ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه) said:

There were idols on top of the Ka`bah, and I wanted to lift up the Prophet (ﷺ) so he could reach them, but I could not do it. So he lifted me up, and I started smashing them, and if I had wanted to, I could have touched the sky.

Grade: Its isnad is Da’if because Abu Maryam is unknown and Nu’aim bin Hakeem is da’eef (Darussalam)

Reference: Musnad Ahmad 1302

In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 705

There are a number of parallel ahadith, but the examples are sufficient to demonstrate that according to Islam, the holy city of Mecca, whether it is pre-Adamic, Adamic or Abrahamic, had apostatized into syncretistic polytheism and idolatry. This suggests a parallel with the Old Testament, where Israel and Judah experienced similar apostasy, to the extent that the pure worship of the holy city – Jerusalem – was defiled. Indeed, the Qur’an, which suggests that Jerusalem/Palestine was a holy place, echoes this and lists a number of prophets sent to the Bani Israel to restore them to the pure faith of Ibrahim and Musa. How far back did the apostasy of Mecca go? The Seerah presents an answer:

Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Tamimi told me that Abu Salih al-Samman told him that he heard Abu Hurayra say: I heard the apostle of God saying to Aktham b. al-Jaun al-Khuza‘i, ‘O Aktham I saw ‘Amr b. LuHayy b. Qam’a b. Khindif dragging his intestines in hell… He was the first to change the religion of Ishmael, to set up idols…”

They say that the beginning of stone worship among the sons of Ishmael was when Mecca became too small for them and they wanted more room in the country. Everyone who left the town took with him a stone from the sacred area to do honour to it. Wherever they settled they set it up and walked round It as they went round the Ka’ba. This led them to worship what stones they pleased and those which made an impression on them. Thus as generations passed they forgot their primitive faith and adopted another religion for that of Abraham and Ishmael. They worshipped idols and adopted the same errors as the peoples before them. Yet they retained and held fast practices going back to the time of Abraham, such as honouring the temple and going round it, the great and little pilgrimage, and the standing on ’Arafa and Muzdalifa, sacrificing the victims and the pilgrim cry at the great and little pilgrimage, while introducing elements which had no place in the religion of Abraham… They used to acknowledge his unity in their cry and then include their idols with God...

The people of Noah had images to which they were devoted. God told His apostle about them when He said: ‘And they said, “Forsake not your gods; forsake not Wudd and Suwa’ and Yaghuth and Ya’uq and Nasr.” And they had led many astray.’ Among those who had chosen those idols… when they forsook the religion of Ishmael - both Ishmaelites and others -was Hudhayl b. Mudrika b. Ilyas b. Mudar. They adopted Suwa and they had him in Ruhat; and Kalb b. Wabra of Quda’a who adopted Wudd in Dumatu’l-Jandal.

Ka’b b. Malik al-Ansari said:

We forsook al-Lat and al-’Uzza and Wudd.

We stripped off their necklaces and earrings.

An’um of Tayyi’ and the people of Jurash of Madhhij adopted Yaghuth in Jurash.

Khaywan, a clan of Hamdan, adopted Ya’uq in the land of Hamdan in the Yaman

Dhu’I-Kala’ of Himyar adoptcd Nasr in the Himyar country.

Khaulan had an idol called ‘Ammanas in the Khaulan country…

Quraysh had an idol by a well in the middle of the Ka’ba called Hubal. And they adopted Isaf (or Asaf) and Na’ila by the place of Zamzam, sacrificing beside them.

(Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasūl Allah, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967, 1998, pp. 35-37)

Much of what is presented mirrors the traditions we encountered in the Hadith about Nuh, etc. It can be seen that the apostasy resembled what happened among the people of Israel and Judah in the Old Testament – syncretism and idolatry. Further, it appears that this apostasy went far back in Mecca’s history. On that basis, we should expect to see the prophetic pattern that we see in the Qur’an – and to some extent in the Old Testament – the near immediate divine dispatch of a prophet to call the people of God to repent of their idolatry/polytheism and return to the one true God. After all, that is what we see in the Qur’an – repeated prophets sent to the Bani Israel. This is enhanced by the fact that the progeny of Ishmael holds a special place in in the purposes of Allah, and that Mecca stands as being at least a scared precinct as Jerusalem. There should have been a pattern of prophets repeatedly sent to Mecca.

Yet, this is what we do not find. Muhammad was the first prophet to the Arabs – at least to those of Mecca or southern Hijaz, to whom God had never before sent anyone:

Surah Al-Qasas 28:46 – And thou wast not beside the Mount when We did call; but (the knowledge of it is) a mercy from thy Lord that thou mayest warn a folk unto whom no warner came before thee, that haply they may give heed.

Surah As-Sajda 32:3 - Or say they: He hath invented it? Nay, but it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayst warn a folk to whom no warner came before thee, that haply they may walk aright..

Surah Saba 34 44 - And We have given them no Scriptures which they study, nor sent We unto them, before thee, any warner.

This requires some explanation. If Mecca was so holy for so long; if the progeny of Ishmael were so special to Allah; if the prophetic pattern suggests imminent dispatch to a community who apostatize – then why were the Meccans sent no prophetic “warner” before Muhammad? Was Allah not outraged by the defilement of his holy precinct – especially the Kaaba – with idols? After all, further north, he was so concerned that he sent three Arab prophets to the ‘Ad, the Thamud and the people of Madyan (Midian). Yet there does not seem to be an explanation for this contradiction in the Qur’anic picture of the prophetic pattern and the long-standing sanctity of Mecca – whether in the Qur’an itself, the Hadith or anywhere else. Indeed, Allah seems to have been more concerned at what was happening among the progeny of Isaac than the progeny of Ishmael – and more concerned about the environs of Jerusalem than those of Mecca, since he continually sent prophets to the Bani Israil in Palestine.

CONCLUSION

The Biblical picture of prophets in relation to the apostasy of syncretism and idolatry is clear – YHWH wastes no time in sending a prophet to recall the people to His unique worship. Even during the four hundred years silence of the Intertestamental period the one time that the people compromised in this way – during the Seleucid era, specifically under Antiochus Epiphanes – YHWH had already spoken to that generation centuries previously in the apocalyptic chapters of the Book of Daniel to warn them against this specific challenge. In many ways, the prophetic pattern is reproduced in the Qur’an – with respect to the Bani Israil. The Qur’an and Hadith recognize the special holiness of Jerusalem, the Farthest Mosque. Yet, for Mecca and its people – supposedly even more special than Jerusalem – this pattern is abandoned; long centuries pass before a supposed prophetic warner is sent to them. This is a major contradiction in the Islamic schema and requires some explanation – which is lacking. Perhaps the real reason is the redacted character of the Qur’an, which has freely borrowed from, and then edited biblical and Jewish or Christian apocryphal material and tacked-on as a de facto appendix (in this respect) the role of the people and place to whom and which Muhammad was supposedly sent. This is expanded in the Hadith and Seerah and other traditional material. Yet for the image to be internally consistent, we should see the same pattern of prophets repeatedly sent to the Meccans as we see with respect to the Bani Israel. Perhaps the answer is that, in reality, there were no Meccans – and no Mecca – to whom prophets could be sent.

The Origins of the Name ‘Isa:

JESUS AS GOD AND MAN AT THE TIME OF THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUR’AN,

AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POSSIBLE NESTORIAN-INFLUENCED ORIGINS OF THE QUR’AN

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

The name of Jesus in the Qur’an - عِيسَى ʿīsā – has often been a source of controversy. The Islamic polemicist Ahmed Deedat infamously claimed it was the Arabic version of Esau:

The Holy Qur’ân refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his “Christian” name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical “Yeheshua”, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the “J” nor the second “s” in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply “E S A U” a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”… The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son “Eesa”  because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

(Deedat, Ahmed, Desert Storm - has it ended?, previously entitled Christ in Islam, ‎ Durban: Islamic Propagation Centre International, 5th print October 1991, p. 6).

This was a howler by Deedat, since no Israelite/Jew in the Bible – or subsequently -ever game this name to his/her son. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes the hostility to him in Rabbinic literature:

Even while in his mother’s womb Esau manifested his evil disposition, maltreating and injuring his twin brother (Gen. R. lxiii.). During the early years of their boyhood he and Jacob looked so much alike that they could not be distinguished. It was not till they were thirteen years of age that their radically different temperaments began to appear (Tan., Toledot, 2). Jacob was a student in the bet ha-midrash of Eber (Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. xxv. 27), while Esau was a ne’er-do-well (ib.; “a true progeny of the serpent,” Zohar), who insulted women and committed murder, and whose shameful conduct brought on the death of his grandfather, Abraham (Pesiḳ. R. 12).

(Frants Buhl, Emil G. Hirsch, Solomon Schechter: “Esau”, in Isidore Singer. Ph.D. [Ed.], The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York and London: Funk and Wagnall Company, 1916, p. 206)

The Biblical name of Jesus in the Greek New Testament is Ἰησοῦς Iēsous. In the second century BC, the Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, and they rendered the name Joshua by Ἰησοῦς. The Hebrew name for Joshua is יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ Yehoshua, which means “YHWH is salvation”. Therefore, the name of Jesus has nothing to do with Esau! Rather, it reflects the name of the successor of Moses – the man, who after Moses’ death, led the Israelites into Canaan. How then did the Qur’anic name ‘Isa emerge? The answer to this is found in the regional and Christological rivalries and controversies of the Early Church.

1. THE MIAPHSYITE/NESTORIAN DIVIDE

A major division occurred in the Church between Nestorius (c. 386– 450), Patriarch of Constantinople, and his antagonist, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444). This affected the Arabian Peninsula, for by Muhammad’s time, those who held to Cyril’s theology (usually called Monophysites or nowadays, Miaphysites), were the majority in Egypt and the Copts of Ethiopia, as well as the Syriac churches (nicknamed “Jacobite” after Jacob Bar Addai) of north Hijaz (Mingana, Alphonse, ‘Syriac influence on the style of the Kur’an’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, 1927, volume 11, p. 83: “...the majority of the Christians round about Hijaz and South Syria belonged to the Jacobite community and not to that of the Nestorians”), whereas the followers of Nestorius were dominant in the Gulf area (such as what is now Iraq, Kuwait, the Saudi eastern Province, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, – Trimingham, J. Spencer, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, London & New York, Longman, 1979, pp. 279-282).

Several aspects of the debate could be characterized as semantics - Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (428-31), held to Christ being one Person (prosopon) in two natures (φύσις phusis), whereas his rival, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412-44), held that Christ was one nature (φύσις phusis) after the union. The division in the Syriac language churches reflect this – the Assyrian Church of the East honors Nestorius, but the so-called Monophysites (usually termed “Miaphysites”), specifically the Syriac Orthodox Church (in communion with the Coptic Churches of Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia and the Armenian Apostolic Church) hold to Cyril’s position. Kelly comments:

A deep Christological cleavage lay behind these criticisms, but it was reinforced by a difference of terminology. In Antiochene circles the key-word φύσις or ‘nature’, connoted the humanity or the divinity conceived of as a concrete assemblage of characteristics or attributes. Cyril himself accepted this sense of the word, especially when adapting himself to the language of his opponents. In his normal usage, however, he preferred to give phusis the meaning which it had borne at Alexandria at least as early as bishop Alexander’s day, viz. concrete individual, or independent existent. In this sense phusis approximated to, without being actually synonymous with, hupostasis. For what the Antiochenes called the natures he preferred such circumlocutions as ‘natural property’ (ἡ ‘ἰδιοτης ἡ κατά φύσιν), ‘manner of being’ (ὁ ποῦ πῶς ἐιναι λόγος), or ‘natural quality’ (ἡ ποιότης φύσική).

(J.N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1958, Fourth Edition 1968, p. 318)

A modern example would be the word “jelly”, by which Americans describe what Britons call “jam”. Nestorius’ position is outlined in his work the Bazaar of Heracleides. He held that Jesus was both God and Man: “the incarnation of God took place justly: true God by nature and true man by nature.” (Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, Book I, Part I, 88, [Translated from the Syriac and edited with an Introduction Notes & Appendices by Driver, G. R., & Hodgson, Leonard, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925, p. 25]. Nestorius insisted upon the true two natures of Jesus: “For the union of the natures resulted not in [one] nature or in a confusion or in a change or in a change of ousia, either of divinity into humanity or of humanity into divinity, or in a mixture of natures or in the composition of one nature, being mixed and suffering together with one another in the natural activities of natures which are naturally constituted.” (Ibid., p. 92).

Cyril also believed that Jesus was both God and Man: “For they accuse, as something bastard and uncomely, yea rather as going beyond all fit language… dividing into two several sons, the One Lord Jesus Christ, and take away from God the Word the sufferings of the Flesh, though not even we have said that He suffered in His own Nature, as God, but we attribute rather to Him along with the Flesh the Sufferings also that befel the Flesh, that He too may be confessed to be Saviour…” (Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1881, trans. Pusey, E. B. P.., Tome I, p. 6). In Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius, he refers to the Council of Nicæa and then states:

…though the natures joined together to form a real unity are different, it is one, Christ and Son coming from them-not implying that the difference between the natures was abolished through their union but that instead Godhead and manhood have given us the one Lord, Christ and Son by their mysterious and inexpressible unification.

4- This is what it means to say that he was also born of woman in the flesh though owning his existence before the ages and begotten of the Father: not that his divine nature originated in the holy Virgin or necessarily required for its own sake a second birth subsequent to that from the Father (to say that one existing before every epoch, co-eternal with the Father needed a second start to his existence is idle and stupid)-no, it means that he had fleshly birth because he issued from woman for us and for our salvation having united humanity substantially to himself.

(Lionel R. Wickham [Ed./trans.], Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, New York: Oxford University Press 1983, p. 7).

1. LATER DEVELOPMENTS

If we move to the fifth century, the most famous Nestorian was Narsai (died c. 502), who re-established the School of Nisibis after 489. In his Homily XVII (A) An Exposition of the Mysteries, he refers to:

…the Word, who was revealed in a body which is (taken) from us. The Creator, adorable in His honour, took a body which is from us, that by it He might renew the image of Adam which was worn out and effaced. A reasonable temple the Holy Spirit built in the bosom of Mary, (and) through (Its) good-pleasure the whole Trinity concurred. The natures are distinct in their hypostases (qěnôme), without confusion: with one will, with one person (parsôpâ) of the one sonship. He is then one in His Godhead and in His manhood; for the manhood and the Godhead are one person (parsôpâ). ‘Two natures/ it is said,’ and ‘two hypostases (qěnôme) is our Lord in one person (parsôpâ) of the Godhead and the manhood.’ Thus does all the Church of the orthodox confess; thus also have the approved doctors of the Church taught, Diodorus, and Theodorus, and Mar Nestorius. he was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling-clothes, as Man; and the watchers extolled Him with their praises, as God.

(Narsai, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, Translated into English with an Introduction by Dom R. H. Connolly; with an Appendix by Edmund Bishop, Cambridge: University Press, 1909, pp. 13-14).

From Narsai we move on to Babai the Great (c. 551 - 628), whose timeline crosses that of Muhammad. Babai “was born in Beth Ainata in Beth Zabdai on the west bank of the Tigris, near modern day Cizre.” (Johnson, Dale Albert, Forty Days on the Holy Mountain: The Mountain, the Monks, the Mission, USA: New Sinai Press, 2016, p. 243). He became a leading Nestorian monk and theologian. Among other works, Babai wrote “the Teshbokhta or (Hymn of Praise) explaining the theology of the Church of the East”:

One is Christ the Son of God,

Worshiped by all in two natures;

In His Godhead begotten of the Father,

Without beginning before all time;

In His humanity born of Mary,

In the fullness of time, in a body united;

Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,

Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;

The natures are preserved in their Qnumas (substance),

In one person of one Sonship.

And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,

Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one

person.

So the Holy Church has taught.

(Ibid., pp. 249-250.)

Another Nestorian figure is Isaac of Nineveh (c. 613 – c. 700), a native of the Arabian Peninsula, whose timeline crosses that of Muhammad. In his treatise “Six Treatises on the Behaviour of Excellence”, he refers to:

…Jesus Christ, the mediator of God and mankind, who was one in his two natures. Though the legions of the angels are not able to look upon the glory surrounding His majestic throne, yet for thy sake He has appeared before the world the most contemptible and humble of man; without form or comeliness; and while His invisible nature was not within the reach of the apprehension of created beings, He accomplished His providential dealings by [covering Himself) with a veil [made of the stuff] of our limbs, in order to save the life of all.

(Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh: Translated From Bedjan’s Syriac Text With An Introduction And Registers [A. J. Wensinck], Amsterdam: Uitgave der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1923, p. 28)

Before we move to the Monophysites (or Miaphysites), we should look at the works of Athanasius, who as a presbyter attended the Council of Nicæa, and later became bishop of Alexandria. In his “Letter To Maximus, Philosopher” he states: “Wherefore, by the good pleasure of the Father, being very God, and by nature the Word and Wisdom of the Father, He became corporeally Man, for the sake of our salvation…” (Pusey, E. B. [Ed.], Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1881, p. 75). That is a clear statement that the Egyptian church held to the Biblical idea of Jesus being both God and Man.

This also becomes relevant when we consider alleged Islamic history. According to Muslim claims, Muhammad at one point sent some of his followers to Christian kingdom of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) for their own safety. To this day, the Ethiopian church is part of the Coptic communion. The Ethiopian Coptic Orthodox Church traces its foundation as the official religion to the mission of Frumentius (Selassie, Sergew Habele, The Establishment of the Ethiopian Church, http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/ethiopian/prechristian.html). Frumentius was a native of Tyre who had been shipwrecked off the Red Sea coast and was taken in servitude to the royal court of the Ethiopian kingdom of Aksum (Appleyard, David, ‘Ethiopian Christianity’, in Parry, Ken (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2010, p. 118.). Through his involvement, the Negus (king), Ezana, was converted (MacCulloch, Diarmaid, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, London: Allen Lanes, 2009, p. 240). Eventually, Frumentius was allowed to return to his homeland, but he also visited Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, asking him to send a bishop to Aksum (Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book I, Chapter XIX). Athanasius decided that Frumentius himself was the best person for the role. This is confirmed by a letter from the Arian Emperor Constantius to the king of Aksum, noting that ‘Frumentius was advanced to his present rank by Athanasius’ (Athanasius, ‘Letter of Constantius to the Ethiopians against Frumentius’, Chapter 31, NPNF 204).

The important point is that the Ethiopian Church received its first bishop from the same Athanasius whose treatise affirmed the traditional idea of Jesus being both God and Man. From the appointment of Frumentius, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church remained in communion with Alexandria, and the Coptic Church there continued to appoint the presiding bishop until 1951, when the Ethiopian church became self-governing (MacCulloch, A History of Christianity, p. 242). There is also the Ethiopian tradition of the arrival of the ‘Nine Saints’ (Syriac Monophysties) at Axum in 502, who had a strong influence on the spread of Christianity, specifically Monophysitism, in the country (Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 305-306). We have already noted Mingana’s comment that the churches in the Hijaz were Syriac Monophysite, so even if the Muslim tradition of the hijra to Abyssinia is true in parts, this only emphasizes that the Christology which they encountered would come from Monophysites.

If we turn to Syria, the obvious person whose works are pertinent is Severus of Antioch, who was Patriarch there, and thus head of the Monophysite Syriac Church 512 – 538. In his letter ‘LXV. ---- From the Letter of the same Holy Severus to Eupraxius the Chamberlain and about the questions which he addressed to him’, he refers to how the Devil encountered Jesus: “He fought with the second Adam who is Christ, and found him to be God and man at the same time…” (Brooks, E. W. [ed. & trans.], Severus of Antioch: A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts, Paris: Graffin, 1915, 44)

This testimony is clear – Jesus is God and Man. Given that the churches in the Hijaz were Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite), and that Severus died the same century Muhammad is said to have been born, this is significant. We should also consider the petition of the Monophysites to Emperor Justinian in 532 (from Zacharias Rhetor, Ecclesiastical History IX.15):

One of the persons of this holy Trinity, that is, God the Word, we say by the will of the Father in the last days for the salvation of men took flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the holy Virgin the Theotokos Mary in a body endowed with a rational and intellectual soul, passible after our nature, and became man, and was not changed from that which He was. And so we confess that, while in the Godhead He was of the nature of the Father, He was also of our nature in the manhood. Accordingly He Who is the perfect Word, the invariable Son of God, became perfect man

(Frend, p. 363)

Remember, this was issued only a few decades before Muhammad was born, so this represents the standard faith of Copts and Jacobites who were the majority in areas Muhammad and his followers are said to have visited or even, in which they lived. Brock notes the differences within Syriac Christianity and from Chalcedonianism:

It is well known that one of the complicating factors in the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries lay in the varying understandings that different parties had of the central technical terms ουσία, φύσις, ύπόστασις and πρόσωπον. This situation became all the more complex when the controversy was being conducted in Syriac rather than Greek, for two different reasons: (i) The standard equivalent terms in Syriac had a rather different semantic range from that of their Greek counterparts; thus, for example, the connotations of Syriac kyana and qnoma are by no means precisely the same as those of φύσις and ΰπόστασις which they regularly represent (see further below); (ii) Over the course of the late fifth to the seventh century Syriac translation technique underwent many refinements, above all in West Syrian circles. Theologians of the Church of the East, however, living outside the Roman Empire, were not always aware of these developments which took place in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, and chiefly in Syrian Orthodox circles.

(Brock, Sebastian, Studies in Syriac Christianity, Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1992, p. 130)

He later notes the differences between East and West Syriacs:

Underlying the varying opposing formulations are several different understandings of the connotations of the term ‘nature’: to the Church of the East kyana ‘nature’ is associated much more closely with ituta (‘essence’, ουσία) than with prosopon, while in Syrian Orthodox tradition ουσία and φύσις are sharply distinguished, and φύσις is associated rather with πρόσωπον. This difference of usage is reflected very clearly in sixth century translation practice in connection with the term ομοούσιος…

(Ibid., p. 131)

As for ‘Byzantine-rite’ Christians, the most obvious step to take is to examine the creedal statement that the Monophysites rejected – the Chalcedonian Definition, the creed of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which will tell us what the non-Monophysites at Constantinople and the adherents thereof believed. The Council affirmed Creed of Nicæa, and also that of Constantinople, stating:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood ; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, in separably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ…

(Bindley, T. Herbert, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith: The Creed of Nicaea, Three Epistles of Cyril, the Tome of Leo, the Chalcedonian Definition, (London: Methuen & Co., 1899, p. 297).

In the light of all this, how do we understand the failure of the Qur’an to address the fact that Christians have always held to the doctrine of Christ being both God and Man? The Qur’an only ever attacks the idea that Jesus is God, not that He is both God and Man:

Surah 4.171

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Surah Al-Maidah 5.75. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

5.116. And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden.

Given that all professing Christians held to the doctrine that Jesus was both God and Man, how could whoever put together the Qur’an have failed to notice this? If the Qur’an is divinely-inspired, how could Allah be unaware of what Christians actually believed about Jesus?

3. SYRIAC BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND THE NAME ‘ĪSĀ

The Western (Jacobite/Syriac Orthodox) and Eastern (Nestorian/Assyrian Church of the East) effectively split in 431 over the rival Miaphysite and Nestorian Christological stances. The version used was the Peshitta: “… toward the close of the fourth or at the beginning of the fifth century a version of twenty-two books of the New Testament was available in a translation which came to be called at a later date the Peshitta Syriac version.” (Metzger, Bruce, The Early Versions of the New Testament, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1977, p. 3). Metzger observes (p.48): “The Peshitta version antedates the division of Syrian Christianity into two rival communities, and hence it was accepted by the Nestorians as well as by the Jacobites.” (Ibid., p. 48). Subsequently, the two diverged:

One of the most influential leaders of the Monophysite branch of the Church at the beginning of the sixth century was Philoxenus (Mar Aksenaya’) of Mabbûg in eastern Syria, who, with his contemporary, Severus of Antioch, founded Jacobite Monophysitism… The work of translating the New Testament was performed in 507-8... Inasmuch as Philoxenus did not know Greek, he commissioned Polycarp, chorepiscopus in the diocese of Mabbûg, to revise the Peshitta version in accordance with Greek manuscripts. Polycarp sometimes replaced Syriac words with synonyms, sometimes used different prepositions, and generally gave preference to the independent possessive pronoun over against the suffixes. It appears that Polycarp sought to make a more theologically accurate rendering of the Greek than the current Peshitta rendering. In addition to the books included in the earlier translation, the Philoxenian included (seemingly for the first time in Syriac) 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Since the Philoxenian version was made and sponsored by Jacobite ecclesiastics, it was used only by the Monophysite branch of Syriac-speaking Christendom.

(Ibid., pp. 65-66)

A later version, the Harclean version, was produced by Thomas of Harkel around 616, “The chief characteristic of the Harclean version is its slavish adaptation to the Greek, to the extent that even clarity is sacrificed.” (Ibid., p. 69). Brock, contributing to Metzger’s book, makes this observation:

Basically there are two ways open to the translator: the names may be transliterated, or they may be given their appropriate Semitic form (where applicable). In general it will be found that S, C, and P will provide the correct Semitic form for names of Semitic origin, whereas H and CPA are inconsistent (the latter providing many hybrids, as Iuhannis, quoted above). Obviously, wherever a genuine Semitic form is found, one is left with no indication of the precise form of the translator’s underlying Greek…

Elsewhere well-known names of Semitic origin, such as Elizabeth, Jesus, John, Mary, Simon, etc., are normally rendered in their correct Semitic form, and only H and CPA provide exceptions, although in neither version is usage very consistent…

Burkitt pointed out that S in particular was apt to render Ἰησοῦς by maran, ‘our Lord’, while the converse, išo‘ representing Kυρίος where this refers to Jesus in the Greek, is common in S, C, and P. Throughout the Syriac versions there is a strong tendency to add the pronominal suffix ‘my/our’ to ‘Lord’. A not dissimilar situation is found in CPA, where Ἰησοῦς is almost always rendered by mare Isus, ‘the Lord Jesus’.

(Ibid., pp. 85, 86, 87; Curetonian [Old Syriac]; CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic [Palestinian Syriac]; H = Harclean; P = Peshitta; S = Sinaitic [Old Syriac])

Significantly, Ephraim the Syrian, d. 373, a prominent controversialist and theologian, admired by both sides of the Syriac divide, has a contribution to make here:

The ordinary Syriac for ‘Jesus’ is (pronounced ‘Isho‘ by Nestorians but Yeshu‘ by Jacobites), which is simply the Syriac form of the Old Testament name Joshua. This form was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichees. It was therefore a surprise to find that Ephraim in arguing against Marcionites, and certainly in part quoting from their books or sayings, uses the form , a direct transcription of the Greek Ἰησοῦ (or Ἰησοῦσ). As it is always written , never , I suppose the pronunciation intended is IESU rather than ISU....

(C.W. Mitchell, completed by A.A. Bevan and F.C. Burkitt. S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, Volume II, London: Williams & Norgate, 1921 p. cxviii)

We return to Mingana’s comment about the churches in the Hijaz being Jacobite, rather than Nestorian. Yet, in the same paper (p. 83), he makes these observations:

Another very remarkable fact emerging from all the above words is their pronunciation. I am at present engaged in the study of the early history of Christianity in Arabia as a sequel to my Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia, and Early Spread of Christianity in India, published in 1925 and 1926 respectively. From that study it will be seen that the majority of the Christians round about Hijaz and South Syria belonged to the Jacobite community and not to that of the Nestorians. This was the state of affairs even in the middle of the ninth Christian century in which a well-informed Muslim apologist, ‘Ali b. Rabban at-Tabari, was able to write: “What (Christians) are found among the Arabs except a sprinkling of Jacobites and Melchites.”

Now the pronunciation used in the Arabic proper names mentioned above is that of the Nestorians and not that of the Jacobites. The latter say ishmō’īl, isrōīl and Ishōk etc., and not Ishmā’īl, Isrā’il, and Ishāk, as they appear in the Kur’an.

On pp. 84-85, he makes these observations:

So far as the word ‘Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur’an) is concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad, and it does not seem probable that it was coined by him. A monastery in South Syria, near the territory of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, bore in A.D. 571 the name ‘Isaniyah, that is to say, “of the followers of Jesus,” i.e. of the Christians. See fol. 84b of the Brit. Mus. Syr. MS. Add., 14, 602, which is of the end of the sixth, or at the latest of the beginning of the seventh century. The Mandean pronunciation ‘Iso is of no avail as the guttural ‘é has in Mandaic the simple pronunciation of a hamzah. The Mandean pronunciation is rather reminiscent of ‘Iso, as the name of Jesus was written in the Marcionite Gospel used by the Syrians.

Despite Mingana’s reservations, the Nestorian origin of ‘Īsā seems likely. Robinson makes the connection:

It is unlikely that the canonical Christian scriptures or other Christian writings were translated into Arabic before the rise of Islam. Thus we should probably think in terms of an indirect knowledge of Christian sources based on hearsay or ad hoc translation rather than on literary borrowing. But what were these sources? In broad terms Syriac Christian literature seems a strong candidate for several reasons. First, Syriac accounts for a large proportion of the borrowed words in the Qur’an and for the Qur’anic spelling of many Biblical names. The peculiar spelling of ‘Īsā still remains something of an enigma but the most plausible explanation is that it is derived from Isho, the Syriac name for Jesus.

(Robinson, Neal, Christ in Islam and Christianity, Albany: State University of New York Press,1991, p. 17)

According to the Hadith, Muhammad’s earliest encounter with Christians came as a boy when visiting Syria with his uncle on a trading expedition:

Narrated by AbuMusa

Mishkat Al-Masabih 5918

AbuTalib went to ash-Sham (Syria) accompanied by the Prophet (may Allah bless him) along with some shaykhs of Quraysh. When they came near where the monk was they alighted and loosened their baggage, and the monk came out to them although when they had passed that way previously he had not done so.

While they were loosening their baggage the monk began to go about among them till he came and, taking Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) by the hand, said, “This is the chief of the universe; this is the messenger of the Lord of the universe whom Allah is commissioning as a mercy to the universe.”

Some shaykhs of Quraysh asked him how he knew, and he replied, “When you came over the hill not a tree or a stone failed to bow in prostration, and they prostrate themselves only before a prophet. I recognize him by the seal of prophecy, like an apple, below the end of his shoulder-blade.”

He then went and prepared food for them, and when he brought it to them the Prophet (peace be upon him) was looking after the camels, so he told them to send for him. He came with a cloud above him shading him and when he approached the people he found they had gone before him into the shade of a tree.

Then when he sat down the shade of the tree inclined over him, and the monk said, “Look how the shade of the tree has inclined over him. I adjure you by Allah to tell me which of you is his guardian.” On being told that it was AbuTalib he kept adjuring him to send him back until he did so.

AbuBakr sent Bilal along with him and the monk gave him provisions of a bread and olive-oil.

Tirmidhi transmitted it.

This is how the Seerah of Ibn Hisham presents the encounter:

Verily he travelled to Syria and alighted at a halting place; a monk came to him and said: Verily there is a pious person among you.  He said: Verily among us are persons who receive guests, get prisoners liberated and do noble deeds, or he said something like this. The he (monk) said: Verily there is a pious person among you.  Then he asked: Where is the father of this youth? Thereupon he said: Here I am, his guardian, or he said: this is his guardian.  He (monk) said: Protect this youth and do not take him to Syria, Verily the Jews are jealous and I fear them regarding (his life). He said: It is not thou that speakest but Allah speaketh.  The he returned with him and said: O Allah! I entrust Muhammad to Thee.  Subsequently he died.

Ibn Sa’d said: Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar informed us: Muhammad Ibn Salih, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far and Ibrahim Ibn Isma’il Ibn Abi Habibah related to me on the authority of Dawud Ibn al-Husayn; they said: When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, attained (the age of) twelve years, Abu Talib took him to Syria along with a caravan which travelled for purposes of trade.  They stayed with the monk Bahira, who said what he liked to Abu Talib about the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and asked him to guard him.

Muslim tradition identifies this town as Bosra, a stronghold of both Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Generally, Bahira has been represented in history as a Nestorian. Why would Nestorian terms be more prominent in the Qur’an than Jacobite terminology, given the Jacobite predominance in the Hijaz? The Nestorians were prominent among the Lakhmid Arab kingdom. The Lakhmids performed for the Persians a role similar to that which the Ghassanids played for the Byzantines: “The Lakhmids were the counterparts of the Ghassanids in pre-Islamic times in almost every aspect of their life and history. They were foederati of Sasanid Persia in much the same way that the Ghassanids were those of Byzantium... Both had a strong Arab identity...” (Shahid, Irfan, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, Volume 2 Part 1, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2009, p. 392).

The influence of the Lakhmids, like that of the Ghassanids, continued after the collapse of the Byzantines and Persians: “... both exercised some influence on the two Arab Islamic dynasties that came to power after the brief patriarchal period of the four orthodox caliphs, namely the Umayyads and the ‘Abbāsids.” (Ibid.) Even during the Islamic period, the former Lakhmid capital, Hīra, remained ‘for a long time a flourishing cultural center’. (Ibid., p. 393) Indeed, ‘Three of the early ‘Abbāsid caliphs were associated with Hīra...’ ((Ibid.)

The Lakhmids long had a strong sense of Arab identity, and one of their early kings dreamed of uniting the Arabs under his rule:

...Imru’ al-Qays (d. 328) is described in Muslim sources as governor for the Persians ‘over the frontier lands of the Arabs of Rabi‘a, Mudar, and the rest of the tribes in the deserts of Iraq, Hijaz and Mesopotamia’ (Tabari 1.833–34). His tomb lies in Byzantine territory, by the fort of Nemara in the basalt desert southeast of Damascus, possibly because ‘he became a Christian’ (Tabari 1.834) and went over to the Byzantines or maybe because he died while on a raiding expedition in enemy country. On it is inscribed the following epitaph...:

This is the monument of Imru’ al-Qays son of ‘Amr, king of all the Arabs, who... ruled both sections of al-Azd and Nizar and their kings, and chastised Madhhij, so that he successfully smote, in the irrigated land of Najran, the realm of [the Himyarite king] Shammar. And he ruled Ma‘add... And no king had matched his achievements up to the time when he died, in prosperity, in the year 223, the seventh day of Kislul [AD 328].

This is an extremely important document for charting the emergence of a sense of identity among Arabs, not only for its use of the expression ‘king of all the Arabs’, but also for its deployment of the Arabic language, albeit written in Nabataean script.

(Hoyland, Robert G., Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam, London & New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 79)

It is noteworthy that it was in neighboring Kufa, originally a garrison encamp ment of the Muslim conquerors, that the famous Kufic script was developed from that existing in Ḥīra. Within the Lakhmid-Sasanian borderlands, Arab identity remained strong:

... in spite of a degree of cultural assimilation that made it difficult to distinguish sedentary Arabs from Aramaeans ... total assimilation was prevented by the preservation of an Arabic identity language, and tribal social organization — the main aspects of Arab distinctiveness– among sedentary Arabs in late Sasanian Iraq.

(Morony, Michael G., Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, Piscataway: Gorgias Press LLC, 2005, p. 222.)

However, eventually the relationship between the Lakhmids and the Persians collapsed. This seems to have come about when the Lakhmid king, Numān III (580–602), followed the example of most of his subjects and became a Nestorian Christian:

The Lakhmids held out as pagans until 593, when the king Nu’man made his conversion as a result of being relieved by three Nestorian churchmen of a demon. And “when God wished in his bounty and generosity to save the pagans of ‘Ayn al-Namir and turn them from error, the son of the chief’s sister fell ill and drew near to death,” thus giving the Nestorian monk Mar ‘Abda the chance to assert the supremacy of, and win round the chief’s followers to, the true faith.

(Hoyland, Robert G., Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Princeton: Darwin Press, 1997, p. 189, quoting Chron. Siirt LX, PO 13, 468-69 [Nu’man]; XCVII, 586-89 [Mar ‘Abda].

CONCLUSION

The Qur’an fails to present an accurate depiction of Christian Christology, whether Byzantine, Miaphyiste or Nestorian. All believed that Jesus was both God and Man, yet the picture presented in the Qur’an is that the Christians all believed that Jesus was God, but not Man – the references to supposed Christian Christology therein make no sense unless all Christians were characterized by an extreme form of Eutychianism, which was not the case. Given the Christian presence on both sides of the Arabian Peninsula, it is difficult to suppose that such a presentation is not deliberate – a smear, rather than a misunderstanding. At any rate, God does not make mistakes – yet the Qur’an gets Christian Christology wrong.

The other point is the implications of the Qur’anic name for Jesus - ‘Īsā, deriving from the Eastern Syriac (Nestorian) ‘Isho‘ rather than the Western Syriac (Jacobite) Yeshu‘ as we would expect, given the Jacobite prevalence in Hijaz, where supposedly the Qur’an came into being, whereas the Nestorians were found in the eastern coast of the Peninsula. Together with the Nestorian origin of other names ion the Qur’an, and the legend of the Nestorian monk Bahira, does this raise questions about the true geographical (and theological) origins of the Qur’an?

The Johannine Comma etc

Download as PDF (best formatting)

1. Johannine Comma

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [1 John 5:7]

Erasmus noted the ‘striking absence of references to this in Greek sources’: ‘…Erasmus remarks that none of the orthodox Greek commentators use this text to defend the orthodox dogma of the trinity against the Arians, nor felt the need to adjust their text.’ Similarly, Metzger states: ‘The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.’ This demonstrates that the gloss had no influence on any creedal statement in any way relating to the Trinity by any ancient council. Metzger observes: ‘The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.’ It is interesting how late these manuscripts are – they range from the tenth to the eighteenth centuries, and both the eleventh and twelfth century manuscripts contain the gloss as a marginal comment by a much later hand. The same goes for the early translations:

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

Metzger explains how the gloss arose:

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

What modern textual critics have done is simply to honestly examine the historical evidence for the gloss and to conclude that such evidence precludes it being original.

2. The story of the adulteress

John 7.59ff relates a story of Jessu dealing with the issue fo the woman taken in adultery. Adulteresses were ‘sinners’, a specific, technical term for practitioners of high-handed sins like prostitutes and tax collectors, as Plummer suggests: ‘A person of notoriously bad character, and probably a prostitute: comp. Mt xxi. 32.’ As for ‘sinful’ women, consider this narrative from Luke 7 about Jesus and a ‘sinner’:

36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him…. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner… brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”

…44 Then turning toward the woman he [Jesus]said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? …47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven ...” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Carroll helps us understand what happened in this incident:

If Luke’s audience is unfamiliar with the Pharisaic emphasis on ritual purity, the host’s objection to touch by a sinful woman implies such a concern (v. 39)... Moreover, readers acquainted with the stereotypical depiction in Greco-Roman culture of women slaves and prostitutes as available for music (“flute girls”), conversation, and sexual activity at banquets would likely sympathize with the scandalized dinner host.

Jesus forgave the sinner. There are obvious parallels with the Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53-8:11. Metzger notes its absence in early manuscripts:

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66 75 אֱ B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al… In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc,s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

However, it has been suggested ‘that Jerome included PA in his translation of the Vulgate (Gospels completed by 384 CE) at John 7.53–8.11, and this is supported by the fact that he mentions many Greek and Latin manuscripts that have PA in GJohn at Pelag. 2.17. In his Epistle 68 (26) (385–387 CE), Ambrose refers to ‘the acquittal of the woman who in the Gospel according to John was brought to Christ, accused of adultery.’ Therefore, PA was definitely in GJohn by the 380’s CE.’

The Pericope Adulterae certainly did not form part of the Gospel of John, but may have begun life as a marginal comment in an early scroll, especially since Papias may allude to it: ‘The story of Jesus and the adulteress initially confronted early Christians in some context other than GJohn. Papias likely knows of PA ca. 125 CE, and, depending on how one translates the Greek, either he or Eusebius attributes it to ‘the Gospel according to the Hebrews’…’ However, it is significant that it may have appeared in a non-canonical text dated only to the second century, rather than the first century canonical Gospels. In fact, Papias may not even have been referring to the Pericope Adulterae: ‘Scholars debate whether the story Papias knows is that which appears in John 7.53–8.11 in later manuscripts, but this is ultimately unanswerable with the available evidence.’ At any rate, it is clearly not original to the Gospels, so textual critics acted responsibly by recognising its secondary nature.

3. Believers being able to handle snakes and drink deadly poison

In this section, the longer ending of Mark 16 is addressed here. The evidence for the early absence of the additional endings following that verse is strong, as Metzger observes:

The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (אֱ and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).

Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

In the light of this, we can see how textual critics, motivated by integrity and concern for historical accuracy, rejected the longer endings. Stein comments on this issue:

When Erasmus produced the first published Greek NT, the half-dozen Greek manuscripts available to him all contained these verses, and consequently, the users of his text all assumed that the text ended with 16:9–20.3 With the continual discovery of Greek manuscripts, some predating the ones used by Erasmus by almost a thousand years, questions began to arise as to the accuracy of the “received text.” It soon became clear that there were a number of variant endings of Mark found in the manuscript tradition. In recent times, it has become clear that the longer ending of Mark is not Markan, and that the earliest recoverable ending of Mark ends at 16:8.

Bruce suggests a theory for the origin of the text:

What of the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mk. 16:9-10)? These verses - the longer Marcan appendix - were not part of Mark’s work…They seem to present, in the main, a summary of resurrection appearances recorded in the other Gospels. Some readers may like to have in verse 18 canonical authority for snake-handling; the clause ‘they will pick up serpents’, however, is probably based on Paul’s encounter with the viper on Malta (Acts 28:3-6). The following words about drinking poison without harmful consequences are reminiscent of a story which Philip’s daughters are said to have told of Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (one of the nominees for the succession to Judas Iscariot, according to Acts 1:23). The right of these twelve verses to receive canonical recognition is doubtful.

One should also observe that the doctrinal content of the longer ending does not contradict the teaching of the gospel nor of the New Testament in general, nor does it add to it. In the three other gospels we encounter resurrection appearances (Matthew 28:9ff; Luke 24:13ff; John 20:14ff); the commissioning to missionary activity (Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; John 20:22-23); and supernatural anointing (Luke 24:49; John 20:24ff; possibly Matthew 28:18-20. We can confidently state, therefore, that issues of doctrine did not cause the creation of the longer ending. Doubtless, the abruptness of the ending at 16:8 led to speculation and borrowing from other New Testament texts to produce the longer endings.

As for some groups, mainly in rural America, that have used the longer endings as the basis for ‘snake-handling’, not only are they ignoring textual criticism, but quite apart from that, it does not follow that because either Jesus, the Apostles or the wider group of disciples performed miracles that just any Christian may do so, and on a regular basis, whenever they choose. The two miracles reported, i.e. involving serpents and poison, are not meant to be prescriptive for all Christians at all times. They are just individual miracles, which God may or may not choose to perform at other times. A miracle is a sovereign, extraordinary act of God, not at human discretion.

Who is the Paraclete?

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

It is often claimed by dawahgandists that the Paraclete in John 14-16 is Muhammad. Various assertions have been made along these lines:

In earlier times, some Muslim scholars who could not read the Gospels in their original Greek language and, thus, only had access to its Syriac and Arabic versions, thought the Syriac word “Paraqlita” or the Arabic “Faraqlit” meant Muhammad or Ahmad. They thought the Christians had not translated it in order to hide its real meaning and to give another interpretation for it (mostly as the Holy Spirit).

Other suggestions included a correlation between “Ahamd” and “Menahem”:

After a while, Muslim scholars more seriously examined the idea of a literal connection between the two words. It seems that the Palestinian-Syriac versions of the Gospel strengthened this idea, because in these  versions the true meaning of the word “Paraclete” (comforter) is  mentioned with a pronunciation of its Syriac and Hebrew equal  Monahhema or Munahhemana (menahhemana). Because the latter word seems very similar to the Arabic word “Muhammad,” some Muslim  scholars supposed that it is indeed the Prophet’s name. Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), the great Muslim historian, in his famous book The Life of Muhammad, gives a somewhat inaccurate paraphrase of John 15:18-27:

It is extracted from what John [Yuhannis] the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus Son of Mary: “When the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth [ruh al-qist] which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning …” The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the Paraclete [al-baraqlitis]. (Ibn Hisham 1955, 103-4)

More recently, a different idea took hold:

Islamic sources before the nineteenth century, contain only an incorrect supposition about a similarity of meanings between the word  “Paraclete” and the words “Ahmad” and “Muhammad,” but no further analysis. However, since the nineteenth century, a new idea appeared in Islamic writings. Scholars began to argue that the word “παράκλητος” (Parakletos) was a distorted form of the original word “περικλυτος” (Periklutos, Periclyte or Periclete in some western

scholars’ writings), whose meaning was equal to the meanings of “Ahmad” and “Muhammad.”1 This new idea became very popular in the Islamic world.

It is improbable that the Muslim scholars who claimed, for the first time, that a distortion had occurred in the Gospel and who suggested the supposedly correct Greek word “περικλυτος” (Periklutos), had enough knowledge of Greek to even know the meaning of the original word.

It need hardly be said that the word περικλυτος (Periklutos) never occurs in either the Greek New Testament or the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint). Furthermore, in John 14:16, He is presented as ἄλλον παράκλητον – “Another Advocate”, the first one obviously being Jesus. There are no New Testament manuscripts or quotations from Patristic authors where περικλυτος is substituted for παράκλητος, as the authors of the above article acknowledge (with regard to NT manuscripts):

Another reason confirming that the word “περικλυτος” (Periklutos) was never mentioned in the ancient  Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John is the total absence of this word in our existing ancient documents. There are around five-thousand ancient Greek manuscripts, which contain all or parts of the New Testament (Metzger 1968, 36), and there exist a plethora of known Christian documents which have mentioned or referred to the prophecy. All of these documents have recorded the word solely as “παράκλητος” (Parakletos) or its transliteration or translation.

1. The meaning of παράκλητος

This is what the renowned Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott says on the word:

παράκλητος ον, called to one’s aid, in a court of justice, Lat. advocatus: as Subst. a legal assistant, advocate, Dem. 341. 10, etc.; cf. Herm. Pol. Ant. §142. 14 —an intercessor, Philo 2. 520, etc.

II. in N. T. and Eccl., ὁ Παράκλητος, of the Holy Spirit, the Intercessor, or the Comforter.

If we start with ‘Herm. Pol. Ant. §142. 14’, this is the context:

The proceedings before the court itself were simple… As regarded the principals themselves, they were represented by their legal assistants, or counsel…

Παράκλητον, Demosth. F. L. init.; Æschin. F. L. extr., παρακαλῶ δὲ Ἐυβουλον συνῇγορον, coll. adv. Ctesiph. c. 67; Demosth.1.1 p. 434. 15; Andoc de Myster. extr.: Δευρο Ἀνευτε Κεφαλε, ἐτὶ δὲ καὶ οἳ φυλεταὶ οἳ ἡργημέγοὶ μοὶ συνδὶκεῖν.

Compare at large, Salinas. Misc. Deff. p. 854, sqq.; Herald. 1. c. vi. c. 10, 12. p. 452, sqq.: 467, sqq.; Heffter, p. 105. In course of time this became a trade; see Plat, de Legg. xi. extr.

We now examine Demosthenes (384 –322 BC), a politician and orator in ancient Athens, in Oration 19 On the False Embassy (Περὶ τῆς παραπρεσβείας), he states this:

Ὅση μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, σπουδὴ περὶ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ παραγγελία γέγονε, σχεδὸν οἶμαι πάντας ὑμᾶς ᾐσθῆσθαι, ἑορακότας ἄρτι τοὺς ὅτ᾽ ἐκληροῦσθ᾽ ἐνοχλοῦντας καὶ προσιόντας ὑμῖν. δεήσομαι δὲ πάντων ὑμῶν, ἃ καὶ τοῖς μὴ δεηθεῖσι δίκαιόν ἐστιν ὑπάρχειν, μηδεμίαν μήτε χάριν μήτ᾽ ἄνδρα ποιεῖσθαι περὶ πλείονος ἢ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸν ὅρκον ὃν εἰσελήλυθεν ὑμῶν ἕκαστος ὀμωμοκώς, ἐνθυμουμένους ὅτι ταῦτα μέν ἐσθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ὅλης τῆς πόλεως, αἱ δὲ τῶν παρακλήτων αὗται δεήσεις καὶ σπουδαὶ τῶν ἰδίων πλεονεξιῶν εἵνεκα γίγνονται, ἃς ἵνα κωλύηθ᾽ οἱ νόμοι συνήγαγον ὑμᾶς, οὐχ ἵνα κυρίας τοῖς ἀδικοῦσι ποιῆτε.

This is translated as follows:

Citizens or Athens, I do not doubt that you are all pretty well aware that this trial has been the centre of keen partisanship and active canvassing, for you saw the people who were accosting and annoying you just now at the casting of lots. But I have to make a request which ought to be granted without asking, that you will all give less weight to private entreaty or personal influence than to the spirit of justice and to the oath which you severally swore when you entered that box. You will reflect that justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of advocates serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil-doers.

The reference to “of advocates” translates τῶν παρακλήτων – tōn paraklētōn. An advocate in this sense is someone who speaks on behalf of something or someone. Diogenes Laertius, who lived in the third century AD, in his work Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, referring to Bion of Borysthenes (c. 325 – c. 250 BC), observes this comment:

πρὸς τὸν ἀδολέσχην λιπαροῦντα αὐτῷ συλλαβέσθαι, τὸ ἱκανόν σοι ποιήσω, φησίν, ἐὰν παρακλήτους πέμψῃς καὶ αὐτὸς μὴ ἔλθῃς.

To an importunate talker who wanted his help he said, “I will satisfy your demand, if you will only get others to plead your cause and stay away yourself.”

The words “others to plead your cause” translates παρακλήτους (paraklētous). Philo, the Alexandrian Jew whose lifetime (c. 20 BC – c.  50 AD) crosses that of the earthly life of Jesus, uses the term:

When Philo is telling the story of Joseph and his brethren, he says that, when Joseph forgave them for the wrong that they had done him, he said, “I offer you an amnesty for all that you did to me; you need no other paraklētos” (Life of Joseph 40). Philo tells how the Jews of Alexandria were being oppressed by a certain governor and determined to take their case to the emperor. “We must find,” they said, “a more powerful paraklētos, advocate, by whom the Emperor Gaius will be brought to a favourable disposition towards us” (In Flaccum, 968 B).

It is clear that Παράκλητος was never a proper name, but was used descriptively, and possibly in a titular sense, and was used of lawyers – those who speak on behalf of others.

1. Παράκλητος in the Johannine corpus

Raymond Brown writes: ‘The word παράκλητος is peculiar in the New Testament to the Johannine literature. In I John ii. 1 Jesus is a παράκλητος (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. In five passages in the Fourth Gospel the title παράκλητος is given to someone who is not Jesus, nor is he an intercessor, nor is he in heaven.’ The last-mentioned needs to be qualified, but we will come to that. Again, we see the descriptive use of the word – as Brown observes, it is not a title. In 1 John 2.1, it is used as follows:

Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε· καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, Ἰησοῦν χριστὸν δίκαιον

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Jesus here is presented as the Advocate for Christians when they sin – someone who represents them to the Father, “defending” them in the sense of an attorney, more by action than word. Brown continues:

As a passive form from παρα/καλεῖν in its elementary sense (‘to call alongside’), meaning ‘one called alongside to help’, thus an advocate or a defence attorney. Often this interpretation is combined with a picture drawn from other New Testament works where the Holy Spirit comes to the defence of the disciples when they are put on trial (Matt. x. 20; Acts vi. 10), and the Paraclete becomes the defence attorney of the disciples. That the Paraclete has a forensic function is clear from John xv. 26 (bears witness) and xvi. 8-11 (proves the world wrong); yet there is not the slightest suggestion in any of the five Johannine passages that he will protect the disciples when they are in difficulties. If one insists on an analogy from modern court procedure, the Paraclete’s role as seen in xvi. 8-11 would be closer to that of a prosecuting attorney proving the world guilty, than to that of a defence attorney for the disciples. However, we must recognize that neither role fits exactly into the judicial procedure familiar in Israel where the judge himself did much of the interrogation; at most there was a witness for the defence rather than an advocate (for which there is no word in Hebrew). If we are to attribute a forensic function to the Paraclete, it must be that of witness (xv. 26): by the evidence he gives on Jesus’ behalf, he proves the world wrong.

Note that the forensic aspect of the Paraclete’s action is related to the defence of Jesus and not to the defence of the disciples. It has been noted many times that the Fourth Gospel is written in a legal atmosphere where Jesus is put on trial.

This helps make sense of John 14:16-17:

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, ἵνα μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ, 17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γεινώσκει· ὑμεῖς γεινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

Immediately we see that the Advocate is another Advocate. He is identified as the Spirit of truth. The Apostles know Him. Note that the text does not say that they know about Him, but rather know Him. Many people know about the President of the USA or the Monarch of the UK, but how many could say that they actually know such individuals? Secondly, the Advocate dwells with them. Finally, the promise is given that He will dwell in them. This cannot be Muhammad - the Apostles did not know him, he was not yet alive, so could not dwell with them, and no man can be in another man as suggested here – a spirit may do so. Moreover, the Advocate is explicitly identified as the Holy Spirit in 14:26:

26 ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

In the light of this, one wonders how anyone could seriously suggest that the Paraclete is anyone other than the Holy Spirit? We again quote Brown:

But the Paraclete of the Gospel is not in heaven before the Father; rather he has come to dwell within the disciples, and there is no suggestion that he makes intercession for them or for Jesus. Nor is he a spokesman for the disciples (an idea again influenced by Matt. x. 20). As we see in xv. 26-7, he speaks and bears evidence through them; and the disciples are the spokesmen of the Paraclete whom the world cannot see (xiv. 17; cf. I John iv. 6). The only aspect of ‘spokesman’ that seems applicable to the Paraclete is that he is spokesman for the absent Jesus: ‘He will speak only what he hears... because he will take what is mine to announce to you’ (xvi. 13-14).

So, in this sense, the Holy Spirit is the Advocate for the Ascended Jesus, speaking for Jesus through the Apostles. Carson focuses on the work of the Paraclete in 16: 7-11, and we must remember that John 14-16 is a single discourse:

7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Carson notes the various interpretations, the first of which is this:

The Paraclete will prove the world wrong about sin; that is, he will convict the world of wrong ideas about sin, in that they do not believe; of wrong ideas about righteousness, in that Jesus is glorified and has gone to the Father; and about judgment, in that the prince of this world is judged… The world misconstrues righteousness, because it does not recognize that Jesus and his cross-work have been vindicated by his glorification; and it misconstrues the nature of the judgment which took place at the cross, because, contrary to the world's opinion, the prince of this world was then condemned, not Jesus. In a sense, then, the Paraclete is re-enacting the trial of Jesus.

The second view enjoys some academic support, but seems too restrictive:

Most important, it says that “to prove (the world) wrong about” does not mean “to convict (the world) of wrong ideas about.” Rather, the proof that the world is wrong is proof provided for the disciples. This passage, it is argued, says nothing about what the Paraclete does to or for the world. On the contrary, it testifies to the work of the Paraclete in keeping and strengthening the disciples, a work achieved by proving to them that the world is wrong. The second distinctive note of this interpretation is that the proof is an entirely inward work within the disciples and has nothing to do with apostolic signs and wonders or the like.

Indeed, Carson criticizes this interpretation:

In the farewell discourse itself, the disciples, empowered by the Spirit, are to bear witness to Jesus; and clearly, such witness must be borne before the world. Moreover, Jesus himself exercised a ministry to the world. For a start, all of his disciples were chosen out from the world in which they once had a part. Would it not be surprising if the Paraclete, this ἄλλος Paraclete, himself enjoyed no ministry to the world? One must surely conclude that this second interpretation is implausible within the framework of johannine theology and must be accepted only if there is none better.

There are several other possibilities, but Carson concludes with this paraphrase:

When the Paraclete comes, he will convict the world of its sin (that is, so convince it of its sin as to drive home self-conscious conviction of sin), its righteousness (that is, what the world takes to be righteousness but which is woefully inadequate or tainted), and its judgment (that is, all of its false assessment of spiritual reality, culminating especially in its false assessment of Jesus):

its sin, because the (the people of the world) do not believe in me and are by this unbelief self-excluded (apart from the work of the Paraclete) from the one source that would reveal their need to them;

its righteousness, because I am going to the Father and will no longer be present in the same way to convict them of their sin. The Paraclete will therefore take over this ministry from me. Moreover, you believers will no longer see me either; but the Paraclete will enable you to discharge faithfully your responsibilities as witnesses.

its judgment, because, with the condemnation of the prince of this world, the age of salvation and of condemnation has already dawned, and it has become terribly urgent that the people of the world change their false and sinful assessment of spiritual reality before it is too late.

Apparently, some Muslims misconstrued what Carson stated at the beginning of his paper: ‘JOHN 16:7-11 constitutes one of the most baffling passages in the fourth gospel. Augustine acknowledged their difficulty; and almost every commentator who has addressed the problem since Augustine has prefaced his interpretation with apposite notice that these verses are not easy to sort out.’ Augustine was not questioning whether the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit, but simply what was the correct exegesis of the verses in question.

It is the practice of the academic discipline known as Biblical Theology to examine each book of the Bible on its own account, but we should remember that the Gospel of John was written after Luke-Acts. In John’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the One who Baptizes in the Holy Spirit, as accounted by John the Baptist in the first chapter:

32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

In Acts 1, Jesus says the following to the Apostles:

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

John is obviously referring to the same event we witness in Acts. In Acts 2, the Spirit fills the Apostles – He is now in them, and this was caused by the Risen, Ascended Jesus:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance… 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Prior to this, in the Gospel of John, 20:22, the Risen Jesus proleptically grants them an experience of the Spirit prior to Pentecost:

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

There can be no doubt that the Paraclete is identified with the Holy Spirit, and the reception of the Spirit by the Apostles was something which occurred in their lifetimes.

1. Παράκλητος in the Early Church

It is essential to remember that the Early Church was not fixated on the title Παράκλητος but rather on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, so the concept should be approached on that basis. However, let us begin with the rather misnamed 2 Clement, which Ehrman dates to the second century, perhaps the 140s. The epistle uses the word, not of the Spirit, but in a technical sense, as an “advocate”:

ή τίς ημών παράκλητος εσται, εάν μή εύρεθώμεν έργα έχοντες δσια καϊ δίκαια;

Or who will serve as our advocate, if we are not found doing what is holy and upright?

This shows, however, the sense of the word in the Sub-Apostolic period. It clearly does not refer to a prophet of any hue. In Sunni Islam, the immediate disciples of Muhammad are called the Sahabah (‘Companions’). Their immediate followers are termed the Tabi’un (‘Followers’ or ‘Successors’), and their immediate disciples are called the Tab’Tabi’un. The Apostles of Jesus, such as John the Evangelist, were equivalent to the Sahabah. Sunnis define the Tabi’un as those who saw the Sahabah, were ‘rightly-guided’ (i.e., orthodox in Sunni terms), and died in that state. The Tab’Tabi’un were those who saw the Tabi’un, etc. The Tab’Tabi’un include some of the founders of the madhabs, schools of Islamic jurisprudence, such as Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Imam Malik and Ahmed ibn Hanbal.

The Apostle John was equivalent to one of the Sahabah, his disciple of Polycarp was equivalent to one of the Tabi’un, and his disciple was Irenaeus, who was thus equivalent to the Tab’ Tabi’un in Sunni Islam. Irenaeus, writing c. 170 in Against Heresies, 3:11:9, identifies the Paraclete with the Spirit:

Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit.

He also says this at 3:17:2:

This Spirit did David ask for the human race, saying, “And stablish me with Thine all-governing Spirit;” who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord’s ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations. Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God.

So, a disciple of the disciple of the Apostle John, writing in the second century, clearly identifies the Paraclete/Comforter with the Holy Spirit, obviously recalling the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John 14-16.

Tertullian (c. 155-230), was a Latin North African Christian. He strongly defended the Trinity, and in doing so, identified the Spirit with the Paraclete:

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.” This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray.

…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.

He continues in this vein, showing what is meant by the Paraclete:

Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

Tertullian makes it clear that the Paraclete is not a human being:

God forbid, (is my reply). For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God…

It follows from this that the Paraclete cannot refer to any would-be prophet, since the Paraclete is not human. In Chapter XXV, he focusses on the identity and work of the Paraclete:

What follows Philip’s question, and the Lord’s whole treatment of it, to the end of John’s Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called “another Comforter,” indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, “He shall receive of mine,” says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

Novatian (c. 200 – c. 258), a Latin writer who may, perhaps irregularly, have become bishop of Rome in 251, and then led a schismatic, but not heretical group thereafter, also identifies the Paraclete as the Spirit in his work The Trinity:

If Christ is only man, how does He say that the Paraclete will receive of what is His and will declare these things? For the Paraclete does not receive anything from man, but rather gives knowledge to man. Nor does the Paraclete learn future things from man; He instructs him about things to come. Therefore, either the Paraclete did not receive from Christ, as Man, what He should make known, simply because man will never be able to give anything to the Paraclete, from whom he himself must receive (and in that case, Christ not only errs but also deceives in the present passage when He says that the Paraclete will receive from Him, as Man, the things which He will make known), or He does not deceive us - just as He does not deceive - and the Paraclete receives from Christ the things which He will make known. (3) If He received from Christ the things which He will make known, then surely Christ is greater than the Paraclete, since the Paraclete would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. Now, the fact that the Paraclete is less than Christ proves that Christ is also God, from whom He received what He makes known. This, then, is a great testimony to Christ’s divinity, inasmuch as the Paraclete, having been found to be less than Christ, takes from Him what He gives to others. If Christ were only man, Christ would receive from the Paraclete what He should say; the Paraclete would not receive from Christ what He should make known.

He expressly identifies the Paraclete with the Spirit:

Next, well-ordered reason and the authority of our faith bid us (in the words and the writings of our Lord set down in orderly fashion) to believe, after these things, also in the Holy Spirit, who was in times past promised to the Church and duly bestowed at the appointed, favorable moment. (2) He was indeed promised by the prophet Joel but bestowed through Christ. “In the last days,” says the prophet, “1 will pour out from My spirit upon My servants and handmaids.”! And the Lord said: “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (3) Now the Lord sometimes calls the Holy Spirit the Paraclete and at other times proclaims Him to be the Spirit of truth.

Our final quotation from Novatian is this:

Therefore, it is one and the same Spirit who is in the prophets and in the apostles… He was not, however, manifested before the Lord’s Resurrection but conferred by Christ’s Resurrection. (7) In fact, Christ said: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate that He may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth;” and “When the Advocate has come whom I will send you from My Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from My Father”; and “If I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you”; and “when the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you to all truth.” (8) Since the Lord was about to go to heaven, He had to give the Paraclete to His disciples, that He might not leave them as orphans, as it were, and abandon them without a defender or some sort of guardian. That would not have been proper at all.

So, both in terms of nomenclature and operation, Novatian identifies the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete. In Egypt, Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253), the great theologian and Biblical scholar, also identified the Spirit as the Paraclete in his work On First Principles (Chapter VII:1 On the Holy Spirit):

It is time, therefore, for us to discuss to the best of our ability a few points about the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the gospel according to John called the Paraclete (Jn 14:16, etc.). Now just as it is the same God himself and the same Christ himself, so also it is the same Holy Spirit himself who was in the prophets and the apostles, that is, both in those who believed in God before the coming of Christ and in those who have taken refuge in God through Christ. We have heard of heretics who have dared to say that there are two Gods or two Christs, but we have never heard it maintained by anyone that there are two Holy Spirits.

The identification with the Johannine Paraclete is explicit – the reference is to the Holy Spirit. Origen repeats this identification in VII:3

These divisions and distinctions are unperceived by those who, hearing him called in the gospels the Paraclete (Jn 14:16, etc.), but not considering from what work or activity he takes this name, have likened him to some common spirits or other and by so doing have tried to disturb the churches of Christ even to the point of arousing no small dissensions among the brethren. But the gospel shows him to be of such power and majesty that it says the apostles could not yet receive those truths which the Savior wished to teach them until the time “when the Holy Spirit should come” (Jn 16:12-14), who would pour himself into their souls and to enlighten them, concerning the nature and faith of the Trinity.

This explicit identification continues in VII:4

We must know, therefore, that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths greater than can be uttered by the voice... But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so called from his work of “consolation” (paraclesis being termed in Latin consolatio); for anyone who has been deemed worthy to partake of the Holy Spirit, when he has learned his unspeakable mysteries, undoubtedly obtains consolation and gladness of heart…

We have made mention, then, of the Paraclete and to the best of our ability have explained how we ought to think about him. But in the epistle of John our Savior is also called a “paraclete,” when it says, “If any man sin, we have a paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”' Let us then consider whether perhaps this title “paraclete” means one thing when applied to the Savior and another when applied to the Holy Spirit. Now in regard to the Savior “paraclete” seems to mean intercessor; for in Greek it bears both meanings, comforter and intercessor, but according to the phrase that follows, in which it says that “he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn 2:1,2), it seems that in the case of the Savior the word “paraclete” must be understood rather in the sense of intercessor, for he is said to intercede with the Father “for our sins.” When used of the Holy Spirit, however, the word “paraclete” ought to be understood as “comforter,” because he provides comfort for the souls to whom he opens and reveals a consciousness of spiritual knowledge.

In actual fact, although Origen is technically correct about the linguistic possibilities of παράκλητος, the employment of the word in both Gospel and Epistle surely bears the sense of Advocate in both, as we have suggested. In his Homilies on Luke, in Homily 25 on Luke 3:15, doubtless controverting Marcionism, he dismisses the idea that anyone but the Spirit could be the Comforter:

5. For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of “sitting at the Savior’s right and left” applies to Paul and Marcion: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left. Others read the passage, “I shall send you an advocate, the Spirit of Truth,” and are unwilling to understand a third person besides the Father and the Son, a divine and exalted nature. They take it to mean the apostle Paul. Do not all of these seem to you to have loved more than is fitting and, while they admired the virtue of each, to have lost moderation in love?

Again, in his Homilies on Numbers, on Homily 12 Numbers 21:16-23, Origen repeats the identification of the Spirit and the Paraclete:

For the Son is different from the Father, and he that is the Father is not also the Son, as he says himself in the Gospels: “There is another who speaks testimony about me, the Father.” And again I think a third well can be seen in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. For he too is different from the Father and from the Son, as it is said of him no less in the Gospels: “The Father shall send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth.” So there is this distinction of three persons in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is recalled in the plural number of the wells. Yet of these wells there is one spring. For the substance and nature of the Trinity is one.

If we move on the fourth century Palestinian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/265–339), in his work Ecclesiastical Theology, attacking the Modalistic views of Marcellus of Ancyra, he states this (3:4):

So through these statements and [others] like these, this most wise fellow tries to argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, the three names being laid upon a single hypostasis. (6) For in these matters neither has he understood how the Son is said to proceed from the Father and likewise the Holy Spirit, nor has he been able to grasp in what sense the Savior said concerning the Holy Spirit, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you,” nor in what sense, having breathed upon his disciples, he said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”…

The Savior himself shows this clearly when he says, “He will take what is mine and declare it to you.” For this would be unmistakable proof that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. For that which takes from another is thought to be other than the one who gives.

Clearly, Eusebius is utilizing the Johannine references to the Paraclete, and he continues to do so:

(1) And that the Holy Spirit is other than the Son, our Savior and Lord himself taught clearly and distinctly in the plainest of words, when he said to his disciples, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive.” You see that he says that the Spirit is “another Counselor” and other than himself. And if, having breathed upon the disciples, he said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” one must not be ignorant that the breath was in some way purifying of the soul of the apostles, rendering them fit for the (2) reception of the Holy Spirit.

To this he adds, “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” You hear that he has used a plural verb about himself and the Father, having said, “We will come to him and make our home with him,” and in speaking of the Holy Spirit as of another, he said, “He (6) will teach you all things.” Of this nature was also the statement, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth.” Therefore, the Counselor was another beside him [Christ], concerning whom he taught these sorts of things. Therefore, quite rightly again he added, saying, “These things I have spoken to you while I was still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that (7) I have said to you.” For I have up to this time said these things to you, he says, but the Spirit of truth, whom my Father will also send, he will teach you everything (8) that you have not learned now because you were not capable of it; but when he has come, I mean the Counselor, he will complete the teaching, along with calling to your remembrance even the things now said by me. And again, he adds, “But when the Counselor, whom I shall send to you from the Father, comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will give witness concerning me.” Through all of these remarks, he clearly shows that the one who is sent by him and who is going to give witness concerning him (9) is another besides himself. He confirms [this] fact still further by also saying in these words, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” In saying that he went away, he also revealed in these remarks his passion (10) and the ascension to the Father that occurred after this…

For this reason, by the judgment of the Father, when the Father desires, then the Son and Savior through himself sends to his disciples the Spirit of truth, the Counselor, to counsel them and to comfort them in what they suffered at the hands (12) of those who were persecuting them while they were preaching the gospel. And [he sent the Holy Spirit] not only to counsel them, but also to teach them the entire truth of the new covenant, which they did not grasp from the Savior’s instruction when he conversed about these matters with them, because they were still enslaved by their Jewish (13) education.

There can be no doubt from all this that Eusebius identified the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete. Eusebius was present at the Council of Nicaea, as was Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–298 –373), who became bishop of the famous city. In his Letters to Serapion regarding the Holy Spirit, he clearly equates the Spirit with the Paraclete, as in Letter 1:33:

For the Spirit is inseparable from the Son, as the Son is inseparable from the Father. The Truth himself bears witness when he says, ‘I will send you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, whom the world cannot receive’, that is, those who deny that he is from the Father in the Son.

The Greek for the most relevant part “I will send you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth” is πέμψω ὑμῖν τὸν παράκλητον τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. This clearly identifies the Spirit as the Paraclete. Earlier, he also referred to the Spirit as the Paraclete, 1:4:

Tell us, then, is there any passage in the divine Scripture where the Holy Spirit is found simply referred to as ‘spirit’ without the addition of ‘of God’, or ‘of the Father’, or ‘my’, or ‘of Christ’ himself, and ‘of the Son’, or ‘from me’ (that is, from God), or with the article so that he is called not simply ‘spirit’ but ‘the Spirit’, or the very term ‘Holy Spirit’ or ‘Paraclete’ or ‘of Truth’ (that is, of the Son who says, ‘I am the Truth’), that, just because you heard the word ‘spirit’, you take it to be the Holy Spirit?

Again, in 1:6, we read this:

In giving him to his disciples he said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’; and he taught them: ‘The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.’ And a little later, concerning the same: ‘When the Paraclete is come, whom I shall send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.’

In 1:11, Athanasius attacks the views of the Valentinian Gnostics about the Spirit, stating the following:

11. What is this mighty folly of theirs? Once again, where in the Scriptures have they found the Spirit referred to as an angel? I am obliged to repeat what I have said before. He is called Paraclete, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of sanctification, Spirit of God, and Spirit of Christ; but never angel 2or archangel, or ministering spirit, as are the angels.

In 1:20, quoting John 16:7, he again makes explicit identification of the Spirit with the Paraclete: “The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.’ The Son sends the Spirit; ‘If I go away,’ he says, ‘I will send the Paraclete.’” In 1:25, referring to John 14:16-17, Athanasius writes: “The Lord called the Spirit ‘Spirit of truth’ and ‘Paraclete’; whence he shows that the Triad is in him complete.” Since Athanasius is here referring to the Trinity, it is obvious that no human being could be the Paraclete. In Letter III:1, he again makes this identification:

Our Lord himself said that the Paraclete ‘shall not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak... for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you’; and, ‘having breathed on them’, he gave the Spirit to the disciples out of himself,’ and in this way the Father poured him out ‘upon all flesh’, as it is written… For the Son himself says: ‘When the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.’

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444), bishop of the city 412-444, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John. This is what he says about the Paraclete:

…and the Saviour Himself saith of the Paraclete, that is, the Spirit, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now: but, when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you in all truth; for He shall not speak of Himself, hut whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak: and He will declare you, things to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall tell it unto you; for being the Spirit of Truth, He will enlighten them in whom He is, and will lead them unto the apprehension of the truth. And this we say, not as severing into diversity and making wholly separate, either the Father from the Son, or the Son from the Father, nor yet the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, but since One Godhead truly IS, and is thus preached as viewed in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, the Acts belonging to Each, and which seem to be attributed to Them severally, are defined to be the Will and Operation of the Whole Godhead.

It is clear from this that Cyril equates the Paraclete with the Spirit, and the Spirit is identified as a member of the Trinity, rather than a mere human being, such as a prophet. In Book VIII of his commentary, he repeats this identification:

Where did the Lord go down? Or in what manner doth the Holy Trinity urge Itself on to the descent? And how, tell me, did the Saviour Himself also promise to send to us the Paraclete from heaven? For where or, whence is That Which filleth all things sent? For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, as it is written.

In Book IX, dealing with the Paraclete passage in John 14, he again makes this identification:

Another Paraclete, however, is the name He gives to the Spirit that proceeds from the essence of God the Father and from that of Himself, For the kind of the essence is the same in the case of Both, not excluding the Spirit, but allowing the manner of His distinctness to be understood as lying solely in His being and subsisting in a separate personality. For the Spirit is not a Son, but we will accept in faith verily and properly to be and to subsist as That Which He is; for He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. But [the Son] knowing that He Himself also both is in truth a Paraclete and is so named in the Sacred Writings, He calls the Spirit another Paraclete; not on the ground that the Spirit can skill to effect in the Saints something else perchance more than what He also can. Whose Spirit He both is and is called. And that the Son also Himself both was named and is a Paraclete, John will bear record, in his own compositions, when he says: These things say I unto you, that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins. So Jesus calls the Spirit another Paraclete, willing Him to be conceived of as possessing the attributes of a proper personality; albeit having so close a likeness to Himself, and able so to work in exact correspondence what things soever He Himself might haply work, as that He might seem to be the Son Himself and no whit different: for He is His Spirit. And indeed Jesus called Him the Spirit of Truth, saying also in the discourse before us that He is Himself the Truth.

There are several other examples we could give from Cyril, but surely the preceding quotes are sufficient. We turn next to John Chrysostom (c. 347 –407), Archbishop of Constantinople. In Homily 75 (John 14.15-30) he is also explicit identifying the Paraclete with the Spirit:

Therefore, what did He say? ‘I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate’; that is, ‘Another like Me.’ Let those afflicted with the disease of Sabellius blush for shame, and likewise those who do not have the proper opinion of the Holy Spirit. And they should be discomfited, for the marvel of His statement is this: that with one blow it has felled heresies that teach doctrines diametrically opposite. For by saying ‘another’ He showed His distinction of Person; and by saying ‘Advocate,’ He showed the sameness of Their essence.

It is clear that Chrysostom saw the Spirit/Paraclete as divine, rather than just a creature, like a prophet. In Homily 77 (John 15.11-16.4), he says this:

Accordingly, see what sort of consolation He went on to mention, lest they be disturbed by these reflections. ‘When the Advocate has come, whom I will send you, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me. And you also bear witness, because from the beginning you are with me.’ He will be trustworthy, for He is the Spirit of Truth. That is why Christ called Him, not ‘the Holy Spirit,’ but ‘the Spirit of Truth.’

Moreover, the words, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ mean that He has precise knowledge of all things, as He Himself also said of Himself: ‘I know where I came from and where I go,’ and there also He was speaking on the subject of truth. ‘Whom I will send.’ See, it is no longer the Father only, but also the Son who sends.

No prophet is omniscient, not even true prophets, yet Chrysostom presents the Spirit/Paraclete as such, meaning that He must be divine. Finally, in Homily 78 (John 16.5-15), we read:

‘For if I do not go,’ He declared, ‘the Advocate will not come.’ What have they to say here, who do not properly esteem the Spirit? Is it ‘expedient’ for the Lord to go away and for a servant to come instead? Do you perceive how great the dignity of the Spirit is?

Chrysostom dismisses the idea that a mere servant could replace the Lord Jesus, which immediately precludes any human being of any description fitting the role of the Paraclete. He gives more examples, but these will suffice. The Cappadocian Fathers - Basil of Caesarea (330-378), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) and Gregory Nazianzus (c. 329 –390) were among the greatest theologians of the Early Church, and they are particularly relevant to the issue of the Holy Spirit, as they combatted the Pneumatomachians (“Spirit-fighters”), who denied the Spirit’s deity. If we begin with Basil, one of his greatest works was On the Holy Spirit (chapter 9:23):

23. The Spirit does not take up His abode in someone’s life through a physical approach; how could a corporeal being approach the Bodiless one? Instead, the Spirit comes to us when we withdraw ourselves from evil passions, which have crept into the soul through its friendship with the flesh, alienating us from a close relationship with God. Only when a man has been cleansed from the shame of his evil, and has returned to his natural beauty, and the original form of the Royal Image has been restored in him, is it possible for him to approach the Paraclete.

Again, we see the identification of the Spirit with the Paraclete, and it should be noted that Basil refers to the Spirit/Paraclete coming to “us” – and we need to recall that he is writing in the fourth century. In Chapter 18:44 he writes the following:

44. When the Lord taught us the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He did not make arithmetic a part of this gift! He did not say, “In the first, the second, and the third,” or “In one, two, and three.” He blessed us with the knowledge given us by faith, by means of holy Names. We are saved through faith; numbers have been invented as symbols of quantity. These men bring ruin on themselves through every possible source; they have even turned man’s ability to count against the faith! Numbers cannot change the nature of anything, yet these men honor arithmetic more than the divine nature, lest they give the Paraclete more honor than He is due! But the Unapproachable One is beyond numbers, wisest sirs; imitate the reverence shown by the Hebrews of old to the unutterable name of God.

It is obvious that Basil sees the Spirit/Paraclete as a member of the Trinity, and thus divine, as opposed to some human being. Later, in the same chapter, Basil further emphasizes the deity of the Spirit, which precludes His being a purported prophet:

46. This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be of God, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because He proceeds from the mouth of the Father, and is not begotten like the Son. Of course, the “mouth” of the Father is not a physical member, nor is the Spirit a dissipated exhalation, but “mouth” is used to the extent that it is appropriate to God, and the Spirit is the essence of life and divine sanctification. Their intimacy is made clear, while the ineffability of God’s existence is safeguarded. He is also called the Spirit of Christ, since He is naturally related to Him. That is why Scripture says, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.” Only the Spirit can adequately glorify the Lord: “He will glorify me,” not as a creature, but as the Spirit of truth, since He Himself is truth shining brightly. He is the Spirit of wisdom, revealing Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, in His own greatness. As the Paraclete He reflects the goodness of the Paraclete (the Father) who sent Him, and His own dignity reveals the majesty of Him from Whom He proceeded.

In 19:48, quoting John. 14:26, Basil says this:

He shares the name Paraclete with the Only-Begotten, who said, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete.” The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them. Where else would they come from? Again He is called the ruling Spirit, the Spirit of truth, and the Spirit of wisdom.

Gregory of Nazianzus, in Oration 41 On Pentecost, makes the identification clear in dealing with the Feast of Pentecost, when the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit:

XII. And therefore He came after Christ, that a Comforter should not be lacking unto us; but Another Comforter, that you might acknowledge His co-equality. For this word Another marks an Alter Ego, a name of equal Lordship, not of inequality.  For Another is not said, I know, of different kinds, but of things consubstantial.

In Oration 5:3 On the Holy Spirit, he states:

But we have so much confidence in the Deity of the Spirit Whom we adore, that we will begin our teaching concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us too bold.  The Father was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world.  The Son was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world.  The Other Comforter was the True Light which lighteneth every man coming into the world.

In Oration 5:XXVI, Gregory is even more explicit about the identity of the Comforter:

And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send, — His own dignity.  Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit.

As for Gregory of Nyssa, in his Letter 35 To Peter his own brother on the Divine Ousia and Hypostasis, addressing John 15:26, he identifies the nature of the Paraclete therein with the Spirit:

4e. The Son who makes known the Spirit who issues from the Father (Jn 15.26) through himself and with himself, and who alone shines forth as the only begotten from the unbegotten light, has no communion with the Father or the Holy Spirit in the distinguishing marks of individuality. He alone is known by the signs just stated.

We have seen that there is a wide temporal and geographical diversity in our treatment of the subject. From what is now modern-day France to Turkey and North Africa at various times, leading Christian figures all identified the Paraclete as the Spirit. At this point we return to where it all began – Palestine, in the figure of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313 – 386). In the Jerusalem Creed (c. 350) associated with him, we read that the Holy Spirit is explicitly termed the Paraclete:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα…

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν…

Καὶ εἰς ἓν ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸν παράκλητον,

τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty...

And in one Lord Jesus Christ…

And in one Holy Ghost, the Advocate,

who spake in the Prophets…

Note that here we are presented with ἓν ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸν παράκλητον - one Holy Ghost, the Advocate. The equation could scarcely be more pronounced – the Spirit is the Paraclete/Advocate. In Catechesis XVI On the Holy Spirit (1), Cyril identifies the Paraclete with the Spirit:

Not all the classes of angels, not all their hosts together have equality with the Holy Spirit. The all-perfect power of the Paraclete overshadows them all. While they are sent to minister, He searches even the deep things of God, according to the Apostle: “For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, the things of God no man knows but the Spirit of God.”

Earlier in the Catechesis, Cyril refers to the Spirit as the Advocate:

(3) There is One Holy Spirit, the Advocate. As there is One God, the Father, and there is no second Father, and as there is one Only-begotten Son and Word of God, and He has no brother, so there is one only Holy Spirit, and there is no second Spirit equal in honor to Him. The Holy Spirit is a mighty Power, a being divine and unsearchable. He is living and rational, the Sanctifier of all things made by God through Christ. He enlightens the souls of the just; He inspired the prophets; he inspired the Apostles in the New Testament.

In referring to the reception of the Spirit at Pentecost, Cyril presents this as the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus to send the Advocate:

We do not divide the Holy Trinity, like some, nor do we confuse the Persons, like Sabellius. In true piety we know one Father, who sent His Son to be our Savior; we know one Son, who promised to send the Advocate from the Father; we know the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the prophets, and on Pentecost descended upon the Apostles in the form of fiery tongues here in Jerusalem, in the Upper Church of the Apostles.

Indeed, elsewhere in the same Catechesis, Cyril identifies the Advocate with the Spirit:

This is the good Sanctifier of the Church, her Helper and Teacher, the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, of whom our Savior said: “He will teach you all things,” and He did not say merely “He will teach,” but also: “and he will bring to your mind whatever I have said to you”; for the teaching of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit are the same, not different.

He gives further examples in the same Catechesis:

For there is one Salvation, one Power, one Faith. There is One God, the Father; One Lord, His Only-begotten Son; One Holy Spirit, the Advocate.

But her Helper stood by, the Advocate, the Spirit who sanctifies every rational nature.

In Catechesis XVII On the Holy Spirit (2), he repeats this equation:

…in fact from our present lectures and our former discourses you may have conceived a firmer faith “in One God, the Father Almighty, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.” The word itself and the title of “Spirit” are applied to Them in common in the Holy Scriptures, for it is said of the Father: “God is spirit,” as it is written in the Gospel according to John; and of the Son: “A spirit before our face, Christ the Lord,” as Jeremia the Prophet says; and of the Holy Spirit: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit,” as it has been said; yet the order of the Creed, if devoutly understood, excludes the error of Sabellius.

Cyril refers to the Spirit as the Advocate elsewhere in this Catechesis:

For it is One and the Same Spirit, who, "dividing" his gifts "to everyone according as he will," yet remains Himself undivided. For the Advocate is not different from the Holy Spirit, but one and the same, though called by different names; living, subsisting, speaking and working; and the Sanctifier of all rational beings made by God through Christ, angels as well as men…

…in the traditional confession of the faith, which commands us to "believe in one Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who spoke by the prophets"; thus you know that though His titles are many, the Holy Spirit is One. We shall now mention a few of these many titles.

(4) He is called Spirit according to the text just read: “To one through the Spirit is given the utterance of wisdom”; He is called the Spirit of truth, in our Savior’s words: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come”; He is also called Advocate by the Lord: “For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you”; that He is one and the same, though with different titles, is clear from what follows. That the Holy Spirit and the Advocate are the same is manifest from the words: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit”; the identity of the Advocate and the Spirit of truth, from the words: “and I will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of truth”; and again: “But when the Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth.”

In the last section Cyril is quoting John 14:26; 16, 17 and 15:26. The identification of the Spirit and the Advocate is rock-solid. We will end with this long quote from the same Catechesis which also refers to John 14, 15, and 16:

…again He says: “And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you shall know him, because he will dwell with you, and be in you.” Further: “These things I have spoken to you, while yet dwelling with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.” Also: “But when the Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me.” Again the Savior says: “For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go I will send him to you. And when he has come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment”: and subsequently: “Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot hear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive of what is mine, and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are mine. That is 'why I have said that he will receive of what is mine, and will declare it to you.” I have read the very words of the Only-begotten, and so you need not pay attention to the words of men.

At this point we return to Gaul (France) and examine the work of Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367). In his work On the Trinity, he explicitly refers to the Spirit as the Paraclete, referencing John 15:26, 16:12-15:

(20) Nor will I now infringe upon anyone’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son. The Lord has left nothing uncertain, since He spoke as follows in the same discourse: ‘Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will direct you into all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will have heard he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive of what is mine and will declare it to you.’

He goes on to repeat the identification:

There is also a reference to the Spirit Paraclete in the Spirit of God, not only by the testimony of the Prophets, but also by that of the Apostles, when it is said: ‘But this is what was spoken through the prophet: And it shall come to pass in the last days, says the Lord, that I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh. And their sons and daughters shall prophesy.’ And we are taught that these words were completely fulfilled in the Apostles, when all of them spoke in the languages of the Gentiles after the Holy Spirit had been sent.

It is particularly in Book II that the identification is clear, in referring to John 16:

(33) But, let us now hear from the Lord’s own words the service that He renders to us. He says: ‘Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.’ ‘It is expedient for you that I depart. If I do go I shall send the Advocate to you.’ And again: ‘And I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of truth.’ ‘He will direct you in all the truth. He will not speak on his own authority, but what ever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive of what is mine.’ These words, which we have borrowed from any places, were spoken to prepare the road for our understanding, and in them are included the will of the donor, as well as the character of and the requisites for the gift, in order that the’ gift of the Holy Spirit, which is, as it were, the pledge of His assistance, might throw light upon the difficult article of our faith, the Incarnation of God, since our human weakness cannot comprehend the Father and the Son.

No other possible explanation can be given than that Hilary identifies the Spirit with the Advocate. The same equation is found in Book VIII, referring to John 15:26:

Furthermore, let them listen to the Son as He testifies about the unity of the Father with Him: ‘When that Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness concerning me.’ The Advocate will come and the Son will send Him from the Father, and He is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father.

If we cross the Alps, we encounter the work of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339 –397), specifically his work De Spiritu Sancto - On the Holy Spirit. Therein, he refers to John 15:26 and states:

For the Lord in the Gospel said: ‘When the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.’ So the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and bears witness of the Son.

In Chapter IV, he refers to John 14:16, 17, explicitly equating the Spirit with the Paraclete:

(58) Him then whom the Apostle called the Spirit of life, the Lord in the Gospel called the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, as you have it: ‘And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him.’ You have, then, also the Paraclete Spirit, the same called both the Spirit of Truth and the invisible Spirit. How, then, do certain men think the Son visible in His divinity, when the world cannot see even the Spirit?

So, Ambrose clearly identified the Paraclete as God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. In Chapter 11, referring to John 15:26, he repeats this identification, distinguishing the Spirit from the angelic order, emphasizing His deity:

(116) The Spirit indeed also is said to have been sent, but the Seraph to one, the Spirit to all. The Seraph is sent to minister; the Spirit works a mystery. The Seraph performs what is ordered; the Spirit divides as he wishes. The Seraph passes from place to place, for he does not fill all things, but is himself also filled by the Spirit. The Seraph descends with a passing according to his nature, but we cannot indeed think of this with respect to the Holy Spirit, of whom the Son of God said : 'When the Paraclete shall come, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father.

In Chapter XIV, Ambrose references John 14:26:

(134) But since the name of the Father and of the Son is one, accept that the same name is that of the Holy Spirit also, for the Holy Spirit also came in the name of the Son, as it is written: ‘But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.’ For He who came in the name of the Son, surely also came in the name of the Father, for the name of the Father and of the Son is one.

In the same chapter, he again refers to John 14:16, 17, and 14:6:

(137) And so one Paraclete is the Son, another Paraclete the Holy Spirit, for John also called the Son a Paraclete, as you have it: ‘If any man sin, we have an Advocate [Paraclete] with the Father, Jesus Christ.’ And so just as there is unity of name, so also there is unity of power; for where the Paraclete Spirit is, there also is the Son…

(139) Moreover, just as we show that the Son is named the Paraclete, so, too, we show that the Spirit is called the Truth. Christ is the Truth; the Spirit is the Truth; for you have it in John’s epistle: ‘That the Spirit is Truth.’ Not only is the Spirit called the Spirit of Truth, but also Truth, just as the Son is proclaimed Truth, who says: ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life.’

There are more examples from Ambrose’s work, but the preceding quotes are sufficient evidence to demonstrate his position. From Italy we now cross the Mediterranean to North Africa, to conclude our study with Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430). His most relevant work on this subject is obviously De Trinitate – On the Trinity. In Book I he refers to both John 14 and 16, and identifies the Spirit as the Advocate, and as a member of the Trinity, and thus cannot be a prophet:

…the Son alone suffices because He cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit. For what is the meaning of these words: ‘If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom this world cannot receive’ that is, he lovers of this world? For ‘the sensual man does not perceive those things that are of the Spirit of God.’ But still it may seem as if the Son alone were not sufficient on account of the words that were said: ‘I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate.’ Furthermore, in another place, the latter is spoken of in such a way as if He alone were wholly sufficient: ‘When the Spirit of truth shall have come, he will teach you all the truth.’

… no one, except the Holy Spirit, teaches even the Son about those things which are of God, as a superior teaches an inferior, since the Son attributes such great power to Him as to say: ‘Because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I speak the truth; it is expedient for you that I depart. For if I will not go the Advocate will not come to you.’

Later, he quotes from John 14:16-23:

But Scripture opposes this carnal concept, for shortly before these words it had said: 'And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate that he may be with you forever.’ Consequently, He will not depart when the Father and the Son come, but will be with them in the same mansion forever, because He neither comes without them nor they without Him. But in order to intimate the Trinity, the names of the persons are also given, and while certain things are predicated of each one separately, this is not to be understood as excluding the others, on account of the unity of this same Trinity, and the one substance and Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the following quote, Augustine emphasizes the deity of the Spirit, His being a member of the Trinity, and refers to Him as the Advocate on the basis of John 16:7 and 14:25-26.

(25) But what has been prepared by His Father has also been prepared by the Son Himself, because He Himself and the Father are one. From the many modes of expression in the divine books we have already shown that what is said about each one in this Trinity is likewise said about all of them, on account of the inseparable activity of the one and the same substance. As He also says about the Holy Spirit: ‘When I shall go, I shall send him to you.’ He did not say ‘we shall send’ but spoke thus as if the Son only were going to send Him and not the Father, while He declared in another place: ‘These things I have spoken to you while yet dwelling with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will declare all things to you.’

It is clear from these quotations that Augustine certainly identified the Johannine Paraclete with the Holy Spirit, and that he held to the deity of the Spirit, thereby excluding any human figure from being the Paraclete. We referred earlier to how some have misinterpreted Carson’s article quoted above, where he refers to Augustine having some doubts about the interpretation of John 16:1-7. Carson is referring not to the identity of the Παράκλητος, but rather His function in relation to conviction of sin in the passage. The passage in Augustine is in his Tractates on John 94:6, which reads:

6. But that which follows, “And when He is come, He will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, indeed, because they believe not on me; but of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye shall see me no more; and of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged” (vers. 8–11); as if it were sin simply not to believe on Christ; and as if it were very righteousness not to see Christ; and as if that were the very judgment, that the prince of this world, that is, the devil, is judged: all this is very obscure, and cannot be included in the present discourse, lest brevity only increase the obscurity; but must rather be deferred till another occasion for such explanation as the Lord may enable us to give.

So, nothing about the identity of the Advocate. This is obvious from Tractate LII: Chapter XII. 27–36, where Augustine states:

4. But when He says, “I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete,” He intimates that He Himself is also a paraclete. For paraclete is in Latin called advocatus (advocate); and it is said of Christ, “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” But He said that the world could not receive the Holy Spirit, in much the same sense as it is also said, “The minding of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can be;” …save in an invisible way, the Holy Spirit cannot be seen.

5. “But ye,” He adds, “shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and be in you.” He will be in them, that He may dwell with them; He will not dwell with them to the end that He may be in them: for the being anywhere is prior to the dwelling there. But to prevent us from imagining that His words, “He shall dwell with you,” were spoken in the same sense as that in which a guest usually dwells with a man in a visible way, He explained what “He shall dwell with you” meant, when He added the words, “He shall be in you.” He is seen, therefore, in an invisible way: nor can we have any knowledge of Him unless He be in us.

In Tractate XCIV on John Chapter XVI. 4–7, Augustine again identifies the Paraclete with the Spirit:

2. The Comforter then, or Advocate (for both form the interpretation of the Greek word, paraclete), had become necessary on Christ’s departure: and therefore He had not spoken of Him at the beginning, when He was with them, because His own presence was their comfort; but on the eve of His own departure it behoved  Him to speak of His coming, by whom it would be brought about that with love shed abroad in their hearts they would preach the word of God with all boldness; and with Him inwardly bearing witness with them of Christ, they also should bear witness, and feel it to be no cause of stumbling when their Jewish enemies put them out of the synagogues, and slew them, with the thought that they were doing God service; because the charity beareth all things,1 which was to be shed abroad in their hearts by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We could continue to quote Early Church Father after Early Church Father, but that would be tedious in the light of the clear evidence already presented that the Early Church definitely identified the Paraclete as God the Holy Spirit, and not some human being. This is important, since some Muslims appear to have misunderstood what is perhaps a poorly wording passage in the paper by Montazery and Karimpur:

In earlier times, some Muslim scholars who could not read the  Gospels in their original Greek language and, thus, only had access to its Syriac and Arabic versions, thought the Syriac word “Paraqlita” or the Arabic “Faraqlit” meant Muhammad or Ahmad. They thought the Christians had not translated it in order to hide its real meaning and to give another interpretation for it (mostly as the Holy Spirit). The oldest Christian document which introduces Paraclete as the Holy Spirit is a letter attributed to Emperor Leo III (d. 741 CE), who sent it to the Muslim caliph ‘Umar II (d. 720 CE) in the eighth century CE. Some of the material is probably from the late eighth or early ninth centuries (Hoyland 1997, 499).

Probably, the authors meany that this is the ‘oldest Christian document which introduces Paraclete as the Holy Spirit’ in an official communication to a Muslim ruler, which it may well be, but it is definitely not the oldest Christian document which identifies the Paraclete as the Spirit. They go on to quote the article by Arthur Jeffery, where he states this:

THERE is a persistent tradition in the Eastern Christian Churches, often referred to by Oriental Christians even at the present day, to the effect that early in the VIIIth century there was an exchange of letters on the question of the respective merits of Christianity and Islam, between the Umayyad Caliph ‘Umar II (717-720) and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian (717-741), in which the Emperor gloriously refuted the claims of Islam. If this is so, it will represent one of the earliest documents in the Muslim-Christian Controversy known to us. Carl Güterbock rightly states that the beginnings of literary discussions concerning Islam among the Greeks can be traced back to the middle of the VIIIth century, when Leo III was succeeded by his son Constantine V (741-775), but he begins his account of the Byzantine polemists with John of Damascus (†754) and his pupil Theodore Abū Qurra (c. 825). A polemical epistle of Leo III to ‘Umar must have been written before 720, and would thus be earlier than any known Byzantine tractate on this controversy.

Obviously, Jeffery stated that this was ‘one of the earliest documents in the Muslim-Christian Controversy known to us’, not that it was the earliest Christian reference to te Paraclete being the Holy Spirit.

1. Παράκλητος used of supposed prophets?

Apparently, some Muslims have claimed that alleged prophets in the second century identified themselves as the Paraclete, and Christians did not rebut their claims by arguing that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit. This obviously refers to the Montanists, who began in Phrygia, hence the derogatory name given to them by their critics “Cataphrygians”, who emphasized the continuation of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12/14, whereas in North Africa they were more of a holiness movement. They began c. 172, but the origins are unclear. Ataie refers to this: “…according to Christian history, several charismatic Christian “prophets” and preachers, such as Montanus of Phrygia (d. circa late 2nd c. CE) and his female colleagues Prisca and Priscilla, claimed to be the Paraclete, or rather inspired by the Paraclete.” He does not elaborate or provide any evidence.

It is obvious that the Montanists were widely condemned (the term “catholic” here should not be anachronistically understood as meaning Roman Catholic, but rather has the sense of ‘mainstream orthodoxy’):

Anti-Montanist writings were passed from one province to another (including to Rome, to Syria and possibly to Gaul). Clergy supported one another in their attempts to trounce the Prophets and their followers. Montanus had arranged gatherings in Pepuza but the catholics were convening elsewhere to assess the threat. Prophylactic letters were circulated, like that from Serapion, warning any who might not know otherwise that here was a phenomenon which had already been widely condemned.

So, their claims were indeed rebutted. Part of the problem is that their leading figure, Montanus, may have given prophecies in the first-person singular without prefacing them with “Thus says the Lord (or the Spirit)”. It is equally possible that critics misunderstood them:

Hippolytus and Eusebius' Asian sources agreed that Montanus was revered (Refut. omn. haer. viii.19; x.25; HE v.16,8; cf. Epiphanius Pan. xlviii.3 and Tertullian Dejej. i). And in Epiphanius (Pan. xlviii. 11,5-6) we find the first association of Montanus and the Paraclete... Hippolytus is our earliest source to link the women and the Paraclete (Refut. omn. haer. viii.19). The accusation, however, was not that Montanus (already dead) had identified himself as the promised Paraclete. That accusation, like the others, came later - in Origen (Deprinc. ii. 7,30); in Eusebius (HE v. 14); in the Dialexis, in the mouths of the Montanist and the Orthodox; as well as in Didymus (De Trin. iii.41, 1 and 3); in Basil of Caesarea (Ep. clxxxviii.i) and in Germanus of Constantinople (Ad Antimum v). In early sources Montanus seems to be just the mouthpiece of the Spirit.

So, it may be that the critics either misunderstood what had happened in Montanist prophecies, or simply engaged in exaggerated polemical denunciation of them. Trevett continues:

Certain of Montanus’ claims were cited to show his blatant self-aggrandisement and heresy. However, these belong to late sources and reflect contemporary theological discussion on the nature of the Trinity rather than claims original to the Prophecy... For example, in the Dialexis we read ‘I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Paraclete’ (cf. Didymus De Trin. iii.41,1) or ‘I am the Father and the Son and the Spirit’ (or Holy Spirit elsewhere in this source).

The late date of the quotes should be noted, but at any rate, it is clear that Montanus did indeed equate the Paraclete with the Spirit, and that he prophesied in the name of the members of the Trinity – perhaps failing to add “Thus says the Lord” before his ecstatic pronouncement, which led to misunderstanding that he claimed to be the Paraclete.

What is certain is that the New Prophecy movement was condemned, and any claim to actually be the Paraclete was refuted. We should focus on second century figures, like Irenaeus, who was explicit in his denunciation of them, and so we repeat in an extended form our earlier quote from him in Against Heresies, 3:11:9:

Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church…

The second century Muratorian Fragment from Rome, presenting a canon of Scripture, denounces the Cataphrygians:

The last lines of the MF’s catalogue of heretics (ll. 84–85) reject the Montanists under the label of “Cataphrygians.” Ambrosiaster himself refers to the Montanists as “Cataphrygians” in Comm. in Rom 2:16. Line 84 does not refer to Basilides, the Alexandrian gnostic teacher, but to Basil of Caesarea (“Asia”  – Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia) who condemned Montanus for baptizing converts with

an unorthodox Trinitarian formula (Ep. 188).

In light of these observations, the passage might be reconstructed as follows:

We do not receive anything in its entirety of the Arian Fotinus, who lived under Valentinian, or of the one (i.e., Donatus) under Miltiades, who (i.e., the Donatians) also wrote (pl.) a book of psalms for Parmenianus, [and] together with Basil, the Asian, [we do not receive anything in its entirety] of the founder of the Cataphrygians.

It follows that the group were condemned by mainstream Christians in the very century that the former emerged. Somewhat later, Cyril of Jerusalem, in Catechesis XVI On the Holy Spirit (1), rails against heretics who apparently claim that they were the Paraclete or Holy Spirit:

(6) For the heretics, impious always, have sharpened their tongues against the Holy Spirit, and have recklessly uttered abominations, as Irenaeus has recounted in his books against the heretics.  Some have even said that they themselves were the Holy Spirit; the first of these was Simon the magician, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; for when he was cast out he did not hesitate to teach such heresy. The so-called Gnostics, impious men, uttered other falsehoods against the Holy Spirit, and the wicked Valentinians still others. The accursed Mani had the audacity to say that he was the Advocate sent by Christ. Others again have asserted that there is one Spirit in the Prophets, and another in the New Testament; so diverse is their error, or rather their blasphemy. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon.

It is clear from this that the Early Church did indeed condemn anyone who claimed to be the Paraclete. Cyril goes on to condemn the Montanists and Manichaeans:

(8) Abominate the Cataphrygians also and Montanus, their ringleader in evil. and his two prophetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla. This man, who was out of his mind and truly mad (for otherwise he would not have said such things), dared to say that he himself was the Holy Spirit… Montanus, I repeat, went so far as to call himself the Holy Spirit, though he was a monster of impiety and cruelty, and subject to inexorable condemnation.

(9) Not otherwise was the nefarious Mani, a veritable garbage bin of all heresy; reaching the lowest depths of perdition, he collected the worst features of all the heresies, and developed and preached a more novel error. He did not hesitate to assert that he was the Advocate whom Christ had promised to send. Now the Savior, in promising Him, said to the Apostles: “But wait here in the city” of Jerusalem “until you are clothed with power from on high.” What follows? Did the Apostles, dead two hundred years, wait for Mani, “until they should be clothed with power”? Will anyone dare to assert that they were not filled with the Holy Spirit from Pentecost on? For it is written: “Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” This happened many years before Mani, once the Holy Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost.

Again, it is clear that Cyril saw the infilling of the Apostles by the Spirit as the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus to send the Advocate, centuries before the coming of Mani. It follows that the Early Church would have equally rejected claims that any purported prophet even more centuries later could be the Paraclete.

CONCLUSION

It is incredible that anyone would be so crass as to claim that the Paraclete is not to be equated with the Holy Spirit. It is also unimaginable how anyone could claim that the Paraclete was not supernaturally experienced by the Apostles in their lifetimes. The mind boggles that anyone could claim that the Early Church did not equate the Paraclete with the Spirit, given the mass of evidence to the contrary. As for not denouncing those who were understood – rightly or wrongly - as claiming that the Paraclete was some would-be prophet, again, the evidence of Church History speaks for itself. Most definitely, Christians have always considered that the Paraclete is, as Jesus identified, the Holy Spirit, and vice versa.

Surah 19 Maryam in the Birmingham Manuscript

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a précis of the larger paper examining the Birmingham Qur’an fragments, with this piece focusing on Surah 19 Maryam in the manuscript. In it, we suggest that the segment in the Birmingham fragment is attacking Zoroastrianism, not Christianity.

SURAH MARYAM IN THE BIRMINGHAM FRGAMENTS

The contents of Surah 19 Maryam verses 91-98 are these:

91. That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,

92. When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son.

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.

94. Verily He knoweth them and numbereth them with (right) numbering.

95. And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone.

96. Lo! those who believe and do good works, the Beneficent will appoint for them love.

97. And We make (this Scripture) easy in thy tongue, (O Muhammad) only that thou mayst bear good tidings therewith unto those who ward off (evil), and warn therewith the froward folk.

98. And how many a generation before them have We destroyed! Canst thou (Muhammad) see a single man of them, or hear from them the slightest sound?

Initially this could be taken as a criticism of the Christian doctrine of the divine filiation of Jesus. However, it must be remembered that the text is fragmentary. If we take the standard text, v35 might support this analysis: ‘It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’ Most definitely, Surah Maryam starts as a redaction of Christian apocrypha. However, in between the references to Jesus and the ayat present in the Birmingham fragment, we are treated to the story of Abraham, which in the Qur’anic redaction, presents him as rejecting his father’s gods, verses 41-49, which derive from Jewish apocryphal legends, Midrash Genesis Rabbah, third century AD, completed about the sixth century, and The Apocalypse of Abraham, It is dated c. 70 AD to the early second century, and so precedes the Qur’an.

The question is the identity of the pagan mushrikun – those who ‘associate’ other gods with Allah. Crone: states:

The first part of this article examines the Qurʾānic evidence; the second part deals with the well-known hypothesis that the pagan Allāh was a “high God” and tries to relate the Qurʾānic evidence to the late antique context. The Islamic tradition is excluded from both parts on the principle that we have to start by understanding the Qurʾān on the basis of information supplied by the book itself, as opposed to that of later readers, and to understand this information in the light of developments known to have preceded its formation rather than those engendered by the book itself.

We should note the identity of the group who Syriac Christians lambasted as ‘pagans’ – Zoroastrians:

… East Syrian texts commonly refer to Zoroastrians as ‘pagans’ and Zoroastrianism as ‘paganism,’ making use of the word ḥanpā and its derivatives: see, e.g., History of Karka d-Beth Slokh, p. 514, ln. 21 (ḥanpē, ‘pagans,’ as Zoroastrians) (ed. Bedjan, AMS, vol. 2); Babai the Great, History of George the Priest, p. 435, ln. 15 (ḥanpāyā, ‘pagan,’ used adjectivally to refer to George’s pre-Christian, Persian/Zoroastrian name); p. 436, ln. 3 (ḥanputā, ‘paganism,’ used to identify George’s sister’s name while she was still ‘in paganism,’ i.e., before she was a Christian — cp. with p. 564, ln. 6); p. 523, lnn. 7, 17 (a Zoroastrian as a ḥanpā, ‘pagan’); Martyrdom of Gregory Pirangushnasp (ed. Bedjan, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha), p. 347, ln. 8 (ḥanpē, ‘pagans,’ as Zoroastrians), p. 349, ln. 2 (ḥanputā, ‘paganism,’ as Zoroastrianism), etc.

We need to remember that apart from the Persian Empire itself, Zoroastrians were to be found in Eastern Arabia, including Arab converts. The name ‘Zoroaster’ is the Greek form of Zarathushtra:

The Greek form Zoroastres was first used by Xanthos of Lydia in the mid-fifth century CE, and was the base for subsequent European versions of the name until Nietzsche popularized the Iranian form Zarathushtra. Some adherents choose to refer to their religion by the ancient Iranian terms Mazdayasna (‘worship of Ahura Mazda’), daena Mazdayasni (‘the religion of Mazda worship’) or daena vanguhi. This latter term, usually translated as ‘the good religion’, occurs in the Gathas, the oldest texts of the religion (Gathas 5.53.4).

So, what did Zarathustra teach about Ahura Mazda? He did not seem to teach monotheism, but he did display Ahura Mazda as the greatest deity: ‘Zoroaster… in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.’ Elsewhere Boyce presents the essence of divine ontology in Zoroastrianism: ‘For Zarathushtra God was Ahura Mazda, who, he taught, had created the world and all that is good in it through his Holy Spirit, Spenta Mainyu, who is both his active agent and yet one with him, indivisible and yet distinct.’

Note that Surah 20:8 states: ‘Allah! There is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names.’ The issue of Allah’s names occurs elsewhere in the Qur’an. They are equated with his attributes. This is only partly true in the Bible, but there is a clear parallel in Zoroastrianism. We may learn something about the attributes of Ahura Mazda from this section in the Hymn to Ahura Mazda, the Ohrmazd Yasht:

5. Then Zarathushtra said: ‘Reveal unto me that name of thine, O Ahura Mazda! that is the greatest, the best, the fairest, the most effective, the most fiend-smiting, the best-healing, that destroyeth best the malice of Daêvas and Men;

6. That I may afflict all Daêvas and Men; that I may afflict all Yâtus and Pairikas; that neither Daêvas nor Men may be able to afflict me; neither Yâtus nor Pairikas.’

7. Ahura Mazda replied unto him: ‘My name is the One of whom questions are asked, O holy Zarathushtra!

‘My second name is the Herd-giver

‘My third name is the Strong One

‘My fourth name is Perfect Holiness.

‘My fifth name is All good things created by Mazda, the offspring of the holy principle.

‘My sixth name is Understanding;

‘My seventh name is the One with understanding.

‘My eighth name is Knowledge;

‘My ninth name is the One with Knowledge.

8. ‘My tenth name is Weal;

‘My eleventh name is He who produces weal.

‘My twelfth name is AHURA (the Lord).

‘My thirteenth name is the most Beneficent.

‘My fourteenth name is He in whom there is no harm.

‘My fifteenth name is the unconquerable One.

‘My sixteenth name is He who makes the true account.

‘My seventeenth name is the All-seeing One.

‘My eighteenth name is the healing One.

‘My nineteenth name is the Creator.

‘My twentieth name is MAZDA (the All-knowing One).

This presents a deity who is the omniscient and powerful Creator. The twelfth name is parallel to the way the Qur’an often presents Allah by the title ‘Lord’, which is clearly honorific rather than a translation of YHWH. His thirteenth name is interesting in that ar-Rahman in the Qur’an is often translated ‘beneficent’. Crone refers to this name several times in her paper on the Qur’anic pagans:

God reassured the Messenger that no such gods existed: “Ask the messengers whom We sent before you: have We set up gods to be worshipped apart from al-Raḥmān?” (43:45).

But the Messenger takes the language of procreation literally. “They say, al-Raḥmān has begotten offspring (ittakhadha waladan)” (21:26; cf. 43:81; 19:88, 91f.).

Most references to this belief take the form of denials that the lesser deities have the power to do what is expected of them. “Should I adopt gods apart from Him?”, a believer from a vanished city asks, adding that “if al-Raḥmān wants to inflict some harm on me, their intercession (shafāʿa) will not be any use, nor will they be able to save me” (36:23).

The alleged offspring of al-Raḥmān are just servants raised to high honour who act by His command and offer no intercession, except for those who have found favour (with Him) (21:26–28).

“If al-Raḥmān had wanted, we would not have worshipped them” (43:20).

She addresses this in more detail in section 10 Allāh and al-Raḥmān:

Though the Messenger and his opponents worshipped the same God under the name of Allāh, the modern literature often says that the Messenger also knew Him by a name with which the pagans were not familiar, namely al-Raḥmān, implying that his concept of God was shaped by additional monotheist ideas which the pagans did not share. But both sides call Him al-Raḥmān in the Qurʾān.

Crone goes on to observe about the interchangeability of the terms both to the monotheists and the pagans:

That God and al-Raḥmān were interchangeable to both sides is also suggested by the fact that nothing is said about the latter which is not said about the former as well, whether by the Messenger or by the pagans. This does not completely solve the problem, for elsewhere the Messenger is instructed to say, “Call upon Allāh or call upon al-Raḥmān: by whatever name you (sg.) call, His are the beautiful names” (17:110).

Once we understand that Arabian Zoroastrians would have rendered the Avestan ‘Beneficent’ (Spenta) by the Arabic al-Raḥmān, it becomes clear why both sides could use the name. This helps us understand the verses in the Birmingham fragment in Surah 19:

91. That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,

92. When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son.

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.

Rather than seeing all such references as being to Christian Christology, we should consider what Zen-Avesta scripture of the Zoroastrians states:

15 (49). O Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! What shall be the place of that man who has carried a corpse alone [3]?

Ahura Mazda answered: ‘It shall be the place on this earth wherein is least water and fewest plants, whereof the ground is the cleanest and the driest and the least passed through by flocks and herds, by Fire, the son of Ahura Mazda, by the consecrated bundles of baresma, and by the faithful.’

The reference to ‘Fire’ is Atar, the son of Ahura Mazda. Dhalla comments about this entity: ‘The Iranian word for fire as well as for the Yazata presiding over fire is Atar… Atar, or Fire, is most frequently called the son of Ahura Mazda in the Younger Avestan texts. The devout hunger in heart to reach Mazda through him as a mediary.’ Hence, in many cases in the Qur’an, and probably this was the original meaning, the denunciations of the idea of the (singular) ‘son of Allah’ refer to Zoroastrian Atar rather the Jesus of Christianity.

In Zoroastrianism, Heaven and Earth were deities, as well as being cosmic spheres: ‘…the sun-yazata, Asman, spirit of the sky... The earth yazata herself, Zam…’ In regard to the physical sky and earth, Ahura Mazda was held to be their creator: ‘One Gathic passage (2.44.3–7) delineates Ahura Mazda’s generation of the universe… first asha;then the course of the sun and stars, and the cycle of the moon; the earth below and the sky above…’ Related to this, is the concept of the Seven spheres:

The Zoroastrians originally distinguished four spheres: (1) stars, (2) moon, (3) sun, (4) paradise, to which the “station of the clouds” is sometimes added as a fifth and lowest… The later scheme of six spheres (or seven, with the “clouds”). is due partly to juggling with numbers (six Amasa Spantas, seven with Ohrmazd, etc…)

In the light of this, we can see that Surah 19:93: ‘There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave’ is a polemic against the Zoroastrian idea that Heaven and Earth were deities.

CONCLUSION

All of this suggests that what is being attacked at the end of Surah 19 is not Christianity, but rather Zoroastrianism. This would make sense in the historical context of the Persian-Roman (Byzantine) war and the Persian conquest of Jerusalem and Palestine. Surah Ar-Rum 30 displays the pro-Byzantine view of the Qur’an, and that the polemic against paganism should be understood as an anti-Persian/anti-Zoroastrian diatribe.

The Birmingham Manuscript

Download as PDF (best formatting)

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the BBC website announced that ‘What may be the world’s oldest fragments of the Koran have been found by the University of Birmingham.’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021) Reynolds comments:  ‘At the heart of the article is the news… that two leaves of a Qur’an manuscript studied by Alba Fedeli and held at Birmingham’s university library had been carbon dated to somewhere between AD 568–645 (carbon dating allows only for a range of years, and not a precise date). Several academics and Muslim leaders are quoted in the article, and they agree that this finding reveals something of immense importance about the origins of Islam.’ He goes on to comment: ‘However, the BBC article – like a subsequent New York Times article (also July 22) – misses the most significant point about the dating of this Qur’an manuscript (which contains only a small section of the text: parts of chapters 18, 19, and 20).’ Reynolds then states: ‘Yet the very early dating of the Birmingham manuscript (568–645) – almost certainly before the reign of Uthman – casts doubt on the traditional story. The Birmingham manuscript does not appear to be a scrap, or a variant version kept by some companion, which somehow escaped the Caliph’s burning decree. It appears to be the standard Qur’an which Muslims attribute to Uthman. In other words, the dates of the Birmingham manuscript are not simply early. They’re too early. Instead of rejoicing, the news about this manuscript should lead to head-scratching.’

His comments were a welcome message of caution to the extravagant claims made at the time of the publication of the message. In this paper we examine the fragments and what they say to us about the nature of the Qur’an.

1. Date:

Kaplony and Marx state:

The University of Birmingham Library had been asked by our project in 2013 to give permission for carbon dating of an ancient fragment of the Qurʾān (M 1572). The university took samples of that fragment to send them to the laboratory of Oxford University. The obtained measurement dated the carbon of M 1572a (a fragment containing 2 fol.) to be from the interval between 568 and 645CE. In what appeared to be a kind of competition, Birmingham turned out to hold the most ancient Qurʾānic manuscript although precise rankings are impossible to give.

On p. 216the book gives this table:

TABLE 6.2 Fourteen carbon-dated manuscripts, listed according to the calculated time span in increasing chronological order

No.

Collection

Manuscript

Radioactive carbon age in BP (= years before 1950)

Time span to which the carbon was dated in CE

Script

(Déroche

1983)

1.

Birmingham*

(Oxford laboratory

1572a

[1456, 21], fol. 1 or

fol. 7

568–645

ḥiǧāzī I

On p. 174 it comments: ‘… results do not give the time when the manuscript was written, but only the time of death of the vegetable or animal organism serving as the writing support. In addition, results are severely skewed in case of opistography or of long storage of a writing support before actual use.’

The Russian scholar Efim Rezvan delivered a paper at the University of Birmingham in 2015:

…The oldest manuscripts of the Qur’ān are present in several historical contexts. In my short lecture I would like to speak about only four of them, which seem to me the most important from both a scholarly point of view and then a broad public one. In both cases sharp discussions sometimes arise, comparable to ones like what we have seen recently in the press with the Birmingham Qur’ān pages.

The first and probably most important historical context I would like to call “The Prophet and His Qur’ān”. This was the time of the creation of the earliest Qur’ānic copies. The Birmingham manuscript appears to be the part of the standard Qur’ān, the result of a comparatively long corresponding tradition of development. It is dated in between 568—645 AD. We can add here the radiocarbon dating of the famous San’ā’ palimpsest: 75.1 percent chance of dating before 646 AD (laboratory in Arizona); 543—643 AD and even 433—599 AD (of two other fragments of the same MS from a laboratory in Lyon). Analysis of three samples of the manuscript parchment of the Qur’ān fragment from the University of Tübingen Library concluded that it was more than 95 percent likely to have originated in the period 649—675 AD. The very early dating of all these fragments — before the reign of ‘Uthmān — casts doubt on both the Islamic tradition as well as the scholarly theory of the history of the Qur’ānic text’s fixation. The Birmingham fragments show several textual variants as well as verse numbering differences. Recently Dr Brubaker found in ten early Qur’āns over 800 “corrections”, proving that these variations and corrections continued to be made and used for another 200 years…

More over, at the beginning MS Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572 was composed of nine folios coming from two different manuscripts (two folios + seven folios). Not long ago after publication of Dr Alba Fedeli article in “Manuscripta Orientalia”2, two groups have been separated: 1572a (two folios which became famous because of the dating and the BBC) and 1572b (seven folios with completely different layout: quality of parchment, margins, rulings, decoration, number of lines, using of red dots, etc). It is important that seven folios of 1572b together with Russian National Library Marcel 17 (ff. 1—17) and Museum of Islamic Art in Doha MIA 67 (four folios) composed previously one and the same manuscript (identical layout and sequence of the text).

The fact that the folios were kept for centuries “dans un coffre de fer, qu’il cacha dans un souterrain” can partly explain the early radiocarbon dating. The radiocarbon analysis of the parchment gives the date of death of the animal. Thus, today we should explain the gap of at least 50—70 years between stocking of the blank parchment and its use for the copying of the texts of the Qur’ān. I have only one basic explanation. Parchment was an expensive material (the skin of the entire animal was used to produce the big folio). Monastic and state scriptoria, located on the territory of Greater Syria (al-Shām), Antiochia, al-Hīra and Alexandria areas, could store this valuable material (including the donations of the pious laity). These stocks became part of the loot captured by the Arabs in the first years of the conquest. Captured leaves were used for writing the Qur’ān. To test this hypothesis, it is necessary to reread the existing historical sources dedicated to the first years of the Arab conquests.

The text of the manuscript seems to be ‘Uthmanic:

À ce sujet, on pourra ajouter les remarques suivantes. Régis Blachère (Le Coran III, Paris, 1951, p. 966) mentionne une leçon incorrecte de la vulgate ʿuṯmānienne au verset 162 de la sourate 4, al-Nisāʾ (al-muqīmīn au lieu d’al-muqīmūn, qui s’accorde avec al-muʾtūn et al-muʾminūn dans ce verset), et il note (no 160) que «cette leçon incorrecte de la vulgate est corrigée par I. Mas’ûd, Ubayy, Anas, Sa’īd i. Jubayr », avec une référence à Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān: the Old Codices, p. 38 128. Or, cette même leçon incorrecte se retrouve dans l’édition Déroche (La transmission, p. 68-69). Ce qui confirme une de ses conclusions, que «le Parisino-petropolitanus, ainsi que les autres manuscrits anciens, montre – pour ce que nous possédons – un texte qui, si nous nous en tenons au rasm nu, correspond pour l’essentiel à la vulgate ʿuṯmānienne » (p. 165). Or, à regarder de près le folio 2, recto (Mingana 1572a), de la Cadbury Research Gallery de l’université de Birmingham, on s’aperçoit qu’il s’agit de la fin de la sourate Maryam (S. 19, versets 91-98), suivie, après un trait et demi séparant deux sourates, du début de la sourate Ṭāhā (S. 20, versets 1-13a). Or, là aussi, le rasm nu, ainsi que le texte des deux sourates, correspond parfaitement au texte de la vulgate ʿuṯmānienne.

That is, Mingana 1572a ‘corresponds perfectly to the text of the ‘Uthmanic vulgate’. Blatti goes on to point out differences with the Ṣan’ā codex – unquestionably the oldest manuscript, which therefore means that this fragment is subsequent to the oldest manuscript:

À certains endroits de son livre sur La transmission, le professeur Déroche se réfère à un palimpseste de Sanaa, dont les reproductions qui étaient à sa disposition à cette époque ne lui ont pas permis de pousser très loin son analyse. Il revient à ce sujet dans sa Leçon (p. 54) et nous offre à la Figure 7 la reproduction de la couche inférieure d’un feuillet du palimpseste (DAM 01-27.1) de Sanaa. Ceci nous permet de constater que la séquence des deux bouts de sourates qui se suivent, la fin de la sourate 9 (al-Tawba) et le début de la 19 (Maryam), n’est pas conforme à la vulgate ʿuṯmānienne. Il y a là déjà une différence majeure avec le folio de Birmingham qui contient lui aussi une séquence de deux sourates (19 et 20), qui, elle, est bien conforme à la vulgate ʿuṯmānienne.

There is a diversity of opinion among scholars about the dating.

Mustafa Shah, from the Islamic studies department at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, says the “graphical evidence”, such as how the verses are separated and the grammatical marks, show this is from a later date.

In this early form of Arabic, writing styles developed and grammatical rules changed, and Dr Shah says the Birmingham manuscript is simply inconsistent with such an early date.

Prof Deroche also says he has “reservations” about radiocarbon dating and there have been cases where manuscripts with known dates have been tested and the results have been incorrect.

Keith Small warned against the extravagant claims made for the fragments at the time:

Concerning zeroing in on the later part of the date range for the manuscript’s composition - this unfortunately ignores that the 95.4% reliability figure applies to the entire date range; all the way back to 568, two years before Muhammad’s birth. Even if there is a statistical advantage for the latter half of the date range, it would only be a very slight one and not something decisive upon which one could make definitive or confident assertions. Referring to this part of the date range as the probable time of composition, without referring to the equal or extremely close probability of the earlier part of the range is irresponsible. The most one can assert is the possibility, not the probability, of the manuscript being composed during any particular part of this date range. To do otherwise is to cherry-pick evidence to support your favoured view, as Joseph Lumbard aptly puts it in the BBC article.

The level of quality of production is very good for what is preserved for these early kinds of Qur’an manuscripts. This however, is not an automatic argument for it being such a notable Qur’an. Any Qur’an on parchment would have been a costly commission ordered by a wealthy patron or organization, and all of the surviving Hijazi script Qur’an manuscripts, like this one, are on parchment. Some of them have an equally high level of quality in their execution. This one does not stand out as such an exceptional example to merit being a Caliph’s special commission. It is possible, but not probable.

Also, with so many Qur’ans in the Muslim world attributed to having been owned or written by important early figures (like the Caliphs Uthman or ‘Ali, or early Shi’ite Imams), it seems that one of such significance would have been preserved with more care. The Islamic traditions, however, say that Uthman had all Qur’ans prior to his version (c. 650 CE) ordered destroyed after he finished his task of producing a standard edition of the Qur’an. Tradition also states that a version passed from the Caliph Umar to his daughter Hafsa, which many have thought was originally from Abu Bakr, did escape Uthman’s order only to be destroyed by the later Caliph Muʻawiya (reigned 661-680).

After this observation about carbon dating, he goers on to make this comment:

The level of quality argument can also act as a two-edged sword. It takes time for scribal conventions to develop to a degree that there are formal script styles and established ways of laying out pages so that a scribal culture can be traced in its development from simple to more complex. This Qur’an has clear signs it was copied from a written exemplar- an already established type of Qur’an with an established script style, pattern of verses, system of spelling, and a system of laying out a page for transcription. These scribal conventions take time to develop- even decades. The traditions about Abu Bakr’s collection of the Qur’an, of the Caliph Umar’s efforts to collect it, and of the Caliph Uthman’s efforts to standardize it, do not present a setting with an established Arabic scribal culture for the early 600s. Also, there are numerous inconsistencies between the Qur’an collection stories concerning these three caliphs that have led many scholars to question their veracity. Also, the Caliphs were not the only available wealthy patrons who could have been commissioning Qur’ans. Many of Muhammad’s companions were enriched during the conquests of Islam’s first century.

Also, very few of the available early Hijazi manuscripts have been carbon dated, so there is still the real possibility that earlier manuscripts are out there. There is already one Qur’an manuscript that has returned earlier dates than the Birmingham one, one of the pages of the Sanaa palimpsest, one of its pages coming back with a date span completely before 600 CE. This brings us to the point François Déroche made in the BBC article that there might be a problem with the carbon dating that is as yet unidentified. He pointed out that there are Qur’ans with known dates of composition that have returned mismatched radiocarbon dates. No one knows yet why this is so, but it keeps in the picture a point for legitimate questioning concerning the extremely early dates.

We should also note this article by Fedeli:

The results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit placed the death of the animal used for manufacturing this writing surface somewhere in a span of time between 568 and 645 CE with a 95.4% probability… Birmingham is a particular case of a rediscovery presented as a discovery, because the radiocarbon analysis gave a “new dating.” The new dating is in disagreement with that mentioned in the 1948-63 catalogue (i.e. from the 8th to 9th century according to mainstream studies at the beginning of the last century), whereas experts were aware of the fact that it was part of the corpus of early manuscripts from the 7th century (e.g. Gerd R. Puin in 2009)… Scholars’ cautiousness in presenting their hypotheses about the possible dating of the Birmingham manuscript mainly based on paleographical features contrasts with the reliability that scientific analyses offer. Thus, paleography gives a hypothesis, while radiocarbon analyses produce results that the common public seem to accept with greater confidence… Two numbers, i.e. 568-645, don’t tell us a lot. Only the analysis of all of the manuscripts of the corpus – of which the ‘Birmingham Qur’ān’ forms a tiny piece – and of their connections will tell us part of the story. The use of phylogenetic software in understanding the connections between manuscripts, i.e. phylomemetics, makes the research even more fascinating.

Fedeli states that ‘paleography gives a hypothesis’ – it is not exact, and carbon-dating informs us only about the date of the death of the animal. Other scholars also questioned the very early date:

Scholars continue to express diverse opinions on the allegedly oldest Quran that was recently found in Birmingham University’s library. A scholar from Yalova University said the Quran must belong to the Umayyad era, claiming it cannot be the oldest version

Assistant Professor Süleyman Berk and collector Mehmet Çebi challenge Birmingham University’s suggestion that it has found the world’s oldest Quran. Birmingham University announced that it had the oldest Quranic manuscript. The pages, written in Hejazi Arabic script, were found by a doctoral student in the Middle Eastern books and transcripts archive in the university library. When they were carbon tested, the pages were found to be 1,370 years old.

However, according to Berk, a faculty member of Yalova University’s Islamic Studies Faculty Turkish Islamic Art History Department, the script used on the pages of the Quran belong to the Umayyad era (661 to 750), meaning that it cannot be the oldest copy of the Quran. Berk insisted that the pages could not belong to the era of third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, or earlier. “I read the news over and over again, and I was shocked. According to the carbon testing, the pages are 1,370 years old, but the scripture tells a different story,” he claimed, adding: “This finding did not cause any excitement in me. It is clear that the Quran pages they have belong to the Umayyad era, which is around the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth century. We have seen many copies of the Quran written with that script in that era. The Turkish Islamic Arts Museum even has the largest collection of such transcripts.”

Berk said that there are no scripts definitely used during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the four caliphates. He said: “As you know, there are some scripts that are said to have been used during the era of Uthman ibn Affan. However, academic investigation indicates that three of those were made by copying scripts written during his time, not during that era.”

Berk said that they have been investigating this issue for about a year because of an exhibition organized for the 1,400th year of the Quran. He said: “We have published our research, ‘The Quran in its 1,400th Year.’ In this work, there are also articles written by French academic François Deroche about this issue. According to our research, it is clear that the Quranic pages at Birmingham University and the ones that we have belong to the same era.”

Interestingly, Corpus Coranicum gives only the date according to carbon-dating: fol. 1 und 7 (=1572a): 568-645, σ2 (95,4%) [¹⁴C-Datierung durch Cadbury Research Library]. It has subsequently emerged, as Déroche observed, that the fragments belonged to a manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris: ‘It seems likely the fragments in Birmingham, at least 1,370 years old, were once held in Egypt’s oldest mosque, the Mosque of Amr ibn al-As in Fustat. This is because academics are increasingly confident the Birmingham manuscript has an exact match in the National Library of France, the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. The library points to the expertise of Francois Deroche, historian of the Koran and academic at the College de France, and he confirms the pages in Paris are part of the same Koran as Birmingham’s. Alba Fedeli, the researcher who first identified the manuscript in Birmingham, is also sure it is the same as the fragments in Paris.’ The University of Birmingham states: ‘It has been suggested on palaeographic grounds that the fragment matches sixteen pages held by the Bibliothèque nationale de France and catalogued as BnF Arabe 328c, and that they form part of the same original manuscript codex. The folios held in Paris are believed to have a provenance from the Mosque of Amr ibn al-As at Fustat, south of Misr (Cairo), which was built in 642; the first mosque built in Egypt and Africa.’ The BnF website provides this information:

Département des Manuscrits > Arabe > Corans: Arabe 324-589 et dispersés (F. Déroche)

Arabe 328

    Index

    Réservation

    GallicaArabe 328 (cote) • Coran. • القرآن.

division: Arabe 328 c: ff° 71 à 86

Coran

Graphie ḥiğāzī I, l’écriture présente quelques ressemblances avec 328 b (cf. alif, mīm et nūn);

- le ğim et le ʿayn en position finale ont une queue beaucoup plus longue et incurvée que ce que l’on rencontre dans Ar. 328 b ou même a;

- la queue du qāf final s’achève parallèlement à la ligne sans descendre autant que dans les autres spécimens de cette graphie, et s’étend plus vers la gauche de la tête de la lettre;

- le hāʾ est assez nettement à cheval sur la ligne d’écriture.

Diacritiques: quelques traits obliques d’origine; vocalisation absente. Des groupes de cinq ou six traits obliques séparent les versets (1.1.3) ; les groupes de cinq ou dix versets ne sont pas indiqués.

Un bandeau sépare les sourates l’une de l’autre:

Parchemin. 16 feuillets. Page: [333 mm. × 245]. 24 à 25 lignes. Encre brune. Réglure à l’encre visible au r° et au v° des feuillets; on distingue les horizontales et la verticale de la marge extérieure. Surface d’écriture: 300/312 mm. × 215.

Bibliographie

F. Déroche, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. 2ème partie. Manuscrits musulmans. Tome 1, 1: Les Manuscrits du Coran: aux origines de la calligraphie coranique. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, 1983, n° 4.

Bibliographie

Bausi, Alessandro, Sokolinski, Eugenia... [et al]. Comparative oriental manuscript studies: an introduction, Comparative oriental manuscript studies, 2015.

Présentation du contenu

F° 71 à 77: X, 35-XI, 110; f° 78 à 86: XX, 99-XXIII, 27.

Copie anonyme et non datée

F° 73 v°: trois filets ondulés de couleur rouge-orange sur lesquels ont été portés des points noirs courent parallèlement sur toute la largeur; dans les deux intervales qui les séparent, des points de la même couleur ont été disposés. Dans la marge extérieure, les trois filets se rejoignent pour dessiner une palmette stylisée très grossière, en partie rognée.

F° 79 r°: un filet rouge-orange sur lequel ont été portés des points noirs et d’où partent des vrilles de même couleur part de la marge extérieure et se dédouble vers le milieu du feuillet jusqu’à la marge intérieure. Là, il forme un motif grossier analogue du f° 73 v°; dans la marge extérieure, on trouve une forme de palmette lancéolée.

F° 82 v°: deux filets rouge-orange courent sur toute la largeur de feuillet et s’achèvent dans la marge extérieure par un motif grossier analogue à celui du f° 73 v°.

F° 86 r°: un filet rouge-orange d’où partent des vrilles occupe toute la largeur du feuillet; dans la marge extérieure, il s’achève en un motif grossier analogue à celui du f° 73 v°.

A rappocher du manuscrit conservé à Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, MS Islamic Arabic 1572 (cf. A. Fedeli)

Bibliographie

A. Fedeli, ‘The provenance of the manuscript Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572: dispersed folios from a few Qur’anic quires’. Manuscript Orientalia, 17, 1 (2011), pp. 45-56.

E. Rezvan, “The Mingana folios in their historical context (notes in the margins of newspaper publications)”. Manuscripta Orientalia, 21, 2 (2015), pp. 32-38.

2.  Contents:

Déroche has observed the presence of variants in Arabe 328 c:

These variants are typologically close to some of those, which are said by the tradition to be characteristic of the maṣāḥif al-amṣār, for instance law instead of wa-law or alladhīna instead of wa-alladhīna.108 The typology of a quarter of the canonical variants is similar, for instance the Syrian reading qālū instead of wa-qālū (2: 116) or the Medinan and Syrian alladhīna instead of wa-alladhīna (9:107). As the lists of variants also include cases in which qāla is a reading against qul (17: 93; 21: 4; 23: 112 and 114),1 one wonders whether these lists reflect a later stage of transmission, when the orthographic difference between qāla and qul was completely established. And it is only the growing use of diacritics which could make the difference in Q 27: 67 between a hamza and a nūn. The still defective state of the script, with few diacritics and no vowels and orthoepic marks, and the old orthography are quite certainly at the root of variant readings.

The fact that Déroche includes Arabe 328 c among his list of Umayyad manuscripts surely excludes the idea that the Birmingham fragments are early. The University page ‘The Birmingham Qur’an Manuscript’ (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/facilities/cadbury/TheBirminghamQuranManuscript.aspx) states:

What parts of the Qur’an does the manuscript contain?

Parts of Surahs 18 - 20. 

4.

Surah 20 Ta-Ha verses 13-40 

3.
Surah 19 Maryam
‘Mary’ verses 91-98
Surah 20 Ta-Ha verses 1-13

2.

Surah 18 Al-Kahf
‘The Cave’ verses 23-31

1.

Surah 18 Al-Kahf
‘The Cave’ verses 17-23

N.B. The page also states:

Who was the scribe?

It is not possible to say who was the scribe.

When was it made?

It is not possible to say with certainty when the manuscript was made. Combining the palaeographic analysis with the radiocarbon dating result we would describe this manuscript for the purposes of the catalogue as mid 7th century.

Where was it made?

It is not possible to say with certainly where this manuscript was made. From the handwriting we can deduce that it may have been created in the Hejaz area to the west of Arabian Peninsula, which includes the Islamic sacred cities of Mecca and Medina…

Have you dated the inks?

No. Radiocarbon analysis will not provide a date range for the time the ink was created or applied. This is not a process that has been carried out on any other early Qur’ans to date.

What is the brown ink?

The brown ink could be made from a carbon-based pigment. We have not analysed the pigments.

What is the red ink?

The red ink could be made from kermes lake pigment. We have not analysed the pigments.

If we begin with Surah Al-Kahf 18:17-31:

17. And thou mightest have seen the sun when it rose move away from their cave to the right, and when it set go past them on the left, and they were in the cleft thereof. That was (one) of the portents of Allah. He whom Allah guideth, he indeed is led aright, and he whom He sendeth astray, for him thou wilt not find a guiding friend.

18. And thou wouldst have deemed them waking thou they were asleep, and we caused them to turn over to the right and the left, and their dog stretching out his paws on the threshold. If thou hadst observed them closely thou hadst assuredly turned away from them in flight, and hadst been filled with awe of them.

19. And in like manner We awakened them that they might question one another. A speaker from among them said: How long have ye tarried? They said: We have tarried a day or some part of a day, (Others) said: Your Lord best knoweth what ye have tarried. Now send one of you with this your silver coin unto the city, and let him see what food is purest there and bring you a supply thereof. Let him be courteous and let no man know of you.

20. For they, if they should come to know of you, will stone you or turn you back to their religion; then ye will never prosper.

21. And in like manner We disclosed them (to the people of the city) that they might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that, as for the Hour, there is no doubt concerning it. When (the people of the city) disputed of their case among themselves, they said: Build over them a building; their Lord knoweth best concerning them. Those who won their point said: We verity shall build a place of worship over them.

22. (Some) will say: They were three, their dog the fourth, and (some) say: Five, their dog the sixth, guessing at random; and (some) say: Seven, and their dog the eighth. Say (O Muhammad): My Lord is best aware of their number.

None knoweth them save a few. So contend not concerning them except with an outward contending, and ask not any of them to pronounce concerning them.

23. And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow,

24. Except if Allah will. And remember thy Lord when thou forgettest, and say: It may be that my Lord guideth me unto a nearer way of truth than this.

25. And (it is said) they tarried in their Cave three hundred years and add nine.

26. Say: Allah is best aware how long they tarried. His is the Invisible of the heavens and the earth. How clear of sight is He and keen of hearing! They have no protecting friend beside Him, and He maketh none to share in His government.

27. And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.

28. Restrain thyself along with those who cry unto their Lord at morn and evening, seeking His countenance; and let not thine eyes overlook them, desiring the pomp of the life of the world; and obey not him whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance, who followeth his own lust and whose case hath been abandoned.

29. Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting place!

30. Lo! as for those who believe and do good works, Lo! We suffer not the reward of one whose work is goodly to be lost.

31. As for such, theirs will be Gardens of Eden, wherein rivers flow beneath them; therein they will be given armlets of gold and will wear green robes of finest silk and gold embroidery, reclining upon thrones therein. Blest the reward, and fair the resting place!

The origins of this story are found in the Christian legend of the Sleepers of Ephesus and Companions of the Cave. Witakowski gives the background of this story:

The Legend tells about seven (in Syriac most often eight) young Christian men who during the period of the persecution of the Christians by the Roman emperor Decius (249–251) refused to offer sacrifice to pagan gods, and taking advantage of the emperor’s temporary absence from Ephesus, escaped to the mountains outside the city, where they hid in a cave and fell asleep. Having returned, the emperor gave orders to wall up the cave so that the young men would die buried alive. However, 195 years later, in the 38th year of the reign of the Christian emperor Theodosius II (401–450), i.e., 445/6, they woke up, and since the wall had been removed they left the cave, convinced that they had slept just one night. When one of them, whom they had sent to the city, tried to pay for food with the coins from the epoch of Decius, the shopkeeper thought that they had found a hoard of old money. The bp. of the city, however, having investigated the matter, understood that a great miracle had happened. The young men then fell asleep again, this time for good. There is also the mention of the heresy, that became known in the same period, of Theodore bp. of Aegae, who denied the bodily resurrection of the dead. The Sleepers of Ephesus’s awakening ‘proved’ that Theodore was wrong, thus giving a clue to the function of the Legend.

In Ephesus soon the cult of the Sleepers of Ephesus developed, and a church devoted to them, as a pilgrim’s narrative attests (Theodosius the Archdeacon, ‘De situ terrae sanctae’, between 518 and 530), was built there (it was discovered by the German archeological expedition in the 1930s)…

The Legend was originally, as it seems, composed in Greek.

Verses 21-26 imply that those reading/hearing the recitation of the Qur’an were aware that that a shrine was built to commemorate the Sleepers, and the subsequent verses display knowledge of the variant numbers, identities and duration of the ‘sleep’ of those in the story. The Qur’an does not answer these issues, beyond pointing to the omniscience of Allah. The verses also indicate that the hearers were aware of the story – which would indeed be the case, for those hearing either Syriac Jacobites or Nestorians.

Witakowski observes: ‘In Syriac the Legend of the Sleepers of Ephesus is perhaps first attested by the ms. Saint-Petersburg no. 4 of the 5th cent., if M. van Esbroeck’s dating is accepted, and then by Yaʿqub of Serugh, who devoted to it a memrā, written at the beginning of the 6th cent. (ed. Guidi, ‘Testi orientali’, two versions, 358–63, 363–9).’ Pieter Willem van der Horst has written an excellent study of the Seven Sleepers, where he noted even possible ancient pagan antecedents, but observes that ‘The first author to tell us the story of the Seven Sleepers is the Syrian bishop Jacob of Sarug (ca. 450-521), although he bases himself upon an older source. Also, the other early witness, Gregory of Tours (ca. 538-594), states that his knowledge of the story comes from a Syriac source.’ He sees the story as being ‘based upon a Greek original from the latter half of the fifth century which, unfortunately, is now lost.’ van der Horst then presents the essential story:

Much abbreviated, Jacob’s version may be summarized as follows:

The Emperor Decius comes to Ephesus and orders everyone to sacrifice to the pagan gods. Some boys of the leading families refuse and go into hiding, but they are denounced. Decius orders that they be flogged and kept until he returns. The boys escape and hide in a cave near Ephesus. They take some of their parents’ money with them. In the cave they pray to God; God raises their spirits into heaven and sends a watcher to guard their bodies. On his return, Decius orders the cave’s entrance to be blocked. When, after the pagan era, God wants to awaken them, a man in need of building materials reuses the stones at the cave’s entrance, and the boys are awakened by the daylight. Then they decide to send one of their number, Iamlikha (=Iamblichus), to the city, in order to see if Decius has already returned; they give him some small change to buy bread. Iamlikha is utterly surprised to see crosses above the city gates and wonders whether this is really Ephesus. He tries to buy bread but among the bread-sellers his archaic coins raise the suspicion that he has found a treasure. He denies it but is taken to the bishop, who questions him. He says that he is the son of one of the leading citizens, but he fails to recognize anyone in the crowd who might rescue him. When he asks where Decius is, people think he has gone mad since that would make Decius 372 years old. Then the boy tells the bishop how he and his companions escaped to the mountain to hide in a cave. The people go up to the mountain, and the bishop enters the cave, where he greets the boys. He sends a message to the Emperor Theodosius, who immediately comes to Ephesus. Theodosius offers to build a shrine on the spot, but the boys decline and say all this has happened to prove the truth of the resurrection. They lie down, the Emperor covers them with his mantle, and again they sleep peacefully; i.e., they die.

Here is a selection from the text of Jacob’s homily:

O Son of God, whose door is open to whoever calls on him,

Open your door to me, so that I may sing of the beauty of the children of light…

The emperor Decius set out from his place to another one.

To visit the towns and cities in his realm;

He entered Ephesus and threw it into great commotion,

Making a festival to Zeus, Apollo, and to Artemis too.

He wrote a missive to the lords of his realm

That everyone should come and place incense before the gods…

Now there were some dear boys, sons of leading men,

Who despised the order and did not subject themselves to it, like their companions.

They went in and hid themselves in the sheepfold of Jesus,

So that the unclean smell of impure incense should not ascend for them.

Their companions saw, and d enounced them in the emperor's presence: “There are some boys here who have rebelled against your order.”

The emperor listened and was clothed in anger against the innocent…

The emperor saw how admirable were their persons,

And he spoke to them with blandishments, saying,

“Tell me, boys, why have you transgressed my orders?”

Come along and sacrifice, and I will make you leaders.”

The son of a cavalry officer opened his mouth, along with his seven companions,

“We will not worship deaf images, the work of [human] hands:

We have the Lord of heaven, and he will assist us.

It is him that we worship, and to him do we offer the purity of our hearts.

You have as king, Zeus and Apollo, along with Artemis.

We have as king, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In view of the subsequent development of this story in the Qur’an, it is noteworthy that the Christians in the narrative reject idolatry and polytheism, and any compromise therewith, and also identify the God they worship as ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ rather than ‘Jesus, Mary and God’. At this point we should compare the homily with Surah al-Kahf 18.14: ‘And We made firm their hearts when they stood forth and said: Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. We cry unto no god beside Him, for then should we utter an enormity.’ The homily continues:

The emperor gave orders and they beat them with rods,

He gave orders again: “Leave them until I come;”

For he was in a hurry to visit the towns and the cities…

There was a rock cave on the top of the mountain

And the dear boys deliberated among themselves,

“Let us leave and escape from this town of Ephesus

Before the accursed emperor comes to judge us.”

There was a rock cave on the top of the mountain

And the dear boys decided to hide there.

The story goes on to relate how they took some ‘pagan coinage’ with them, but nothing else, then pray to the Lord saying:

“We beg you, good shepherd who has chosen his sheep,

Preserve your flock from that wolf who is thirsting for our blood.”

The Lord saw the faith of the dear lambs

And came to give a good reward as their recompense.

He took their spirits and raised them up above, to heaven

And left a watcher to be guarding their limbs.

Upon the Emperor’s return, he hears of their place of concealment, and orders that they be sealed up there. The Qur’an render the story as follows:

10. When the young men fled for refuge to the Cave and said: Our Lord! Give us mercy from Thy presence and shape for us right conduct in our plight

11. Then We sealed up their hearing in the Cave for a number of years.

12. And afterward We raised them up that We might know which of the two parties would best calculate the time that they had tarried.

Whereas in the homily, the Emperor seals them in the Cave, in the Qur’an it is Allah. Perhaps this means nothing more than that God providentially arranged for the Emperor to fulfil His plan. Intriguingly, the Qur’an goes on to mention the presence of a dog, which is absent in the homily:

18. And thou wouldst have deemed them waking though they were asleep, and We caused them to turn over to the right and the left, and their dog stretching out his paws on the threshold. If thou hadst observed them closely thou hadst assuredly turned away from them in flight, and hadst been filled with awe of them…

22. (Some) will say: They were three, their dog the fourth, and (some) say: Five, their dog the sixth, guessing at random; and (some) say: Seven, and their dog the eighth. Say (O Muhammad): My Lord is best aware of their number. None knoweth them save a few. So contend not concerning them except with an outward contending, and ask not any of them to pronounce concerning them.

Reynolds offers some important observations on this issue:

18:18 The presence of a dog in the Qurʾānic account of the Companions of the Cave poses a problem to Muslim interpreters. Why would a dog, a ritually unclean animal (Muslims are to wash seven times after contact with a dog’s saliva), be found together with the pious companions of the cave? Why would a dog be inside their “house” when a well-known hadith relates that angels do not enter houses with dogs in them? Ibn Kathīr (Tafsīr, 3:72) resolves this problem by insisting that the dog actually remained outside of the cave, to protect them.

However, the dog poses no problem when the account of the Companions of the Cave is read in the light of the Qurʾān’s Biblical subtext. In Jacob of Serugh’s mēmrā on the Sleepers the boys describe themselves—using a Gospel metaphor — as sheep, Christ as their shepherd, and Decius as a wolf. Christ responds by sending a “watcher” to guard them. This watcher is presumably meant to be an angel (indeed the term “watcher” ʿirā is used for certain angels in Syriac Christian texts), but the Qurʾān takes the metaphor used in Jacob’s text literally and imagines it to be a dog (one might say a sheepdog):

We beg you good shepherd who has chosen his sheep, / preserve your flock from that wolf who is thirsting for our blood. / He took their spirits and raise them up above, to heaven / and left a watcher to be guarding their limbs. (Jacob of Serugh, Mēmrā on the Sleepers of Ephesus, 23, ll. 55–60)

Indeed we know a dog already featured in Christian accounts of the legend from the report of a Byzantine traveler (also) named Theodosius who describes Ephesus as the city of “the seven sleeping brothers, and the dog Viricanus their feet” (The Pilgrimage of Theodosius, 16).

Theodosius (c. 530) was Byzantine traveler about whom we know little. This is his account of the Sleepers:

76 In the province of Asia there is the city of Ephesus, where are the seven Sleeping Brothers, and the dog Viricanus at their feet. Their names were Achillides, Diomedes, Eugenius, Stephen, Probatius, Sabbatius and Quiriacus; their mother is called in Greek, Caratina, in Latin, Felicitas.

Bernard goes on to comment: ‘The author here mixes up the story of the martyrdom of Felicitas and her seven sons at Rome under Antoninus Pius with the famous legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. The names of the sleepers given in the text are, as Gildemeister points out, not the names usual in the west but identical with a list current in Syriac. The dog is an embellishment to the story not found elsewhere in Christian versions of the legend, but he appears in the Mohammedan account (Sale’s Koran, chap, xviii.).’ This suggests further Syriac Christian influence upon the Qur’an.

After their sealing in the mountain, the homily notes that there was a hope of resurrection attached to their de facto tomb:

There were there two sophists, sons of the leading men,

And they reckoned that the Lord would resurrect them,

So they made tablets of lead and placed them beside them;

On them they wrote down the names of the children of light,

and for what reason the Boys, having entered the cave, hid themselves there

And why the young men had gone to hide in the cave,

And at what time they had fled from the presence of the emperor Decius.

The text goes on to mention the end of pagan rule, and the desire of the Lord to ‘arouse these children of light’, and the instrument thereof was a wealthy man who, wishing to build a sheepfold, tore down the ‘cut stones’. The result was:

The light entered and awoke the children of light.

They shook off sleep and sat up on the ground - a wonder to tell.

The dear boys deliberated among themselves,

“Who will go down and see if the Emperor has come,

And [so] we will learn and see what he has ordered concerning us.

Let him go down and show us whether he has required us or not.”

There was there one of them whose name was Iamlikha;

He said, “I will go down and find out…

They answered him and said, “Take some small change and bring back some bread:

Ever since evening we have been short of bread, and we have not had a meal.

The Qur’an’s equivalent is:

19. And in like manner We awakened them that they might question one another. A speaker from among them said: How long have ye tarried? They said: We have tarried a day or some part of a day, (Others) said: Your Lord best knoweth what ye have tarried. Now send one of you with this your silver coin unto the city, and let him see what food is purest there and bring you a supply thereof. Let him be courteous and let no man know of you.

20. For they, if they should come to know of you, will stone you or turn you back to their religion; then ye will never prosper.

The homily does not explicitly state that the youths thought they had been there only a day but giving the reference to their lack of bread since the evening, it could be a valid inference. In the homily, Iamlikha goes down to Ephesus and sees a cross above the gate, which disconcerts him, and obviously uses coinage from the age of Decius, which baffles the merchants and people of Ephesus. Eventually, leading figures and others – including a bishop - go up to the cave, and see the boys:

They saw the boys sitting on the ground,

And they greeted them, saying: “Peace be with you.”

And straightway wrote a missive to the emperor Theodosius:

“Come, my lord, and see a living treasure that has been revealed to us.”

The emperor made haste and came down and saw them;

He greeted them, saying, “Peace be with you.”

He took the lead tablet and began to read

[The reason] the youths had gone into the cave to hide.

Theodosius urged them to come down with him

In the midst of Ephesus, and he build a shrine over their bodies.

They say in reply, “Here we shall be, for here we love;

The shepherd who chose us is the one who bade us to be here.

For your sake has Christ our Lord awoken us

So that you might see and hold firm that the resurrection truly exists.”

He took a mantle [with which] he was covered, and covered them up;

And he left them, and they slept the sleep of repose.

Blessed is the shepherd who chose the lambs from his sheep

And caused them to inherit the bridal chamber, the garden, and the kingdom on high.

The Qur’anic narrative reads:

21. And in like manner We disclosed them (to the people of the city) that they might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that, as for the Hour, there is no doubt concerning it. When (the people of the city) disputed of their case among themselves, they said: Build over them a building; their Lord knoweth best concerning them. Those who won their point said: We verity shall build a place of worship over them.

Despite the redaction, the central story is preserved. The Qur’an ends the story with a mysterious comment on the length of the stay of the youths: ‘25. And (it is said) they tarried in their Cave three hundred years and add nine. 26. Say: Allah is best aware how long they tarried…’ As we have seen, the actual time was one hundred and ninety-five years. The nearest reference in the homily is that one sophist speaks to the risen Iamlikha and says of Decius: ‘By the reckoning and accounting among the Greeks The emperor [would be] 372 years [old]!” The boy said, “It was from him that I and my companions ran away…’

Grysa comments on the literary debt of Islam to the Syriac tradition on this story:

The Legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, in the Syriac tradition known as Aḥē Dmīḥē or Ṭalyē d-Efesōs, in Arabic as Ahl al-Kahf or Aṣḥāb al-Kahf, is one of many examples of borrowings from the Christian tradition made by the Muslim one and above all by the Koran. In the region where Islam evolved in the beginning, there was a population professing Judaism and Christianity. Judaism was professed by ca. 1 per cent of the population of the Arabian Peninsula. Christianity, for its part, was professed by ca. 10 per cent.

Thus Mohammed had an easy access to the monotheistic religious ideas that existed on the Arabian Peninsula.

He observes the different numbers in variant narratives, reflecting the Jacobite/Nestorian split: ‘There is no consensus in the texts concerning the number of the Brothers or their names: once they were three, sometimes five, seven or even eight. They probably relate to some different traditions: Jews and western Assyrians (“Jacobites”) from Nağrān believed that they were three. Yet eastern Assyrians (“Nestorians”) argued that there were five.’ In terms of venue, Ephesus is definitely the place in view, from around the fifth to sixth century:

The so-called Cemetery of the Seven Sleepers… is an extensive burial area outside the city of Ephesos. According to the legend, seven young men were walled up in a cave for their Christian belief during the persecution of Decius (249–251). But instead of dying, God merely let them fall asleep. About 200 years later, around the year 446, he re-awoke them in order to confirm to Emperor Theodosius II (408–450) the resurrection of the body. Above the cave in which they were buried shortly thereafter, the emperor, in reverence, arranged for a church to be erected…

While the pilgrim Egeria, who visited pilgrimage sites at Ephesos around 400, did not yet mention the Seven Sleepers, in about 530 Theodosios Archidiakonos included their church in his list of pilgrimage sites at Ephesos. This is, next to the legend, the oldest source for a pilgrimage monument of the Seven Sleepers and originally both the legend and their monument were directly connected to Ephesos.

Griffith has noted echoes of Syriac Christian writers in the Qur’an:

It is something of a truism among scholars of Syriac to say that the more deeply one is familiar with the works of the major writers of the classical period, especially the composers of liturgically significant, homiletic texts such as those written by Ephraem the Syrian (c. 306–73), Narsai of Edessa and Nisibis (c. 399–502), or Jacob of Serugh (c. 451–521), the more one hears echoes of many of their standard themes and characteristic turns of phrase at various points in the discourse of the Arabic Qur’an.

Obviously, this is notably true with respect to Jacob of Serugh and the story of the Seven Sleepers. How would this be possible, unless whoever produced the Qur’an were familiar with the basic messages of these Syriac Christian writers? Griffith makes this very point:

...the fact remains that it is in this largely Meccan sura that the Qur’an evokes the memory of the Christian legend of the “Sleepers” with the clear expectation that it is already known to Muhammad and presumably also to other members of the Qur’an’s audience, a number of whom may well have been Arabic-speaking Christians. How else would one explain the currency of such a detailed reminiscence of a Christian legend, together with so many other elements of Christian scripture, doctrine and ecclesiastical lore that are to be found broadcast throughout the Qur’an?33 Not only are they present in the Qur’an, but often the text evokes them in such a way that there is evidently a presumption that the audience too is thoroughly familiar with them.

This is a vital observation. In this case, we are not speaking about a well-known Biblical narrative, but rather a post-Biblical story in Asia Minor. Again, Griffith observes that the Qur’anic text indicates knowledge about the division of opinion as to the number of the Sleepers, which we have seen reflected the Jacobite/Nestorian split, and of the memorial shrine far to the north of the Arabs: ‘In the first place, God himself takes responsibility for the fact that the legend was well known among members of the Qur’an’s audience, including the information that somewhere there was a shrine or martyrion in their memory and that opinion was divided about how many companions there were.’

Griffith also notes that in regard to the original Christian narrative, ‘the earliest extant texts are in Syriac and date from the sixth century.’ He later states: ‘The earliest Syriac texts which feature the story of the “Youths (tlāyê) of Ephesus,” as the “Companions of the Cave” or “Seven Sleepers” are always called in Syriac, are two recensions of a liturgical homily (mêmrâ) attributed to Jacob of Serugh (c. 451–521),39 who spent most of his life as a monk composing homilies on biblical and other liturgical themes.’ It follows, therefore, that this story came to Arabia via Syriac Christian writings, which are the sources of the redacted Qur’anic material. Griffith comments on the Syriac doctrinal divide in this respect:

Jacob of Serugh’s mêmrê circulated widely among those who would later be called “Jacobites,” the “Syrian Orthodox Church,” whose faith would be championed among the Arab Ghassanids and eventually the Christians of Najran. Toward the end of his life, Jacob himself wrote a letter of consolation at a time of persecution addressed to his brother Christians and confessors among the Himyarites of southern Arabia. The other confessional community among the Syriac-speakers, the so-called Nestorians, the “Church of the East,” whose faith had spread among the Arab Lakhmids and along the coast of southern Arabia, cherished the mêmrê of Narsai of Edessa and Nisibis (399–503), a rival of Jacob of Serugh at the time of the break-up of the School of Edessa in the course of the controversies precipitated by the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451).

We can see from this the direct contact between a major Syriac Christian writer responsible for this narrative - Jacob of Serugh – and Arabia. This further elaborated:

In connection with the inquiry into the Syriac background of the evocation of the legend of the “Companions of the Cave” in the Arabic Qur’an, the recognition of the fact that it circulated only among the “Jacobites” prompts one to draw the conclusion that in the Qur’an’s milieu, the narrative circulated first among Arabic-speaking, “Jacobite” Christians in the Ghassanid confederation in the Syro-Jordanian steppe land as well as in the environs of Najran in southern Arabia. From these centers it would have circulated among Arabic-speaking Christians throughout Arabia. Furthermore, given the likely, oral form of the legend’s circulation in this milieu it is reasonable to suppose that the liturgy and its wider ecclesial ambience was the primary setting in which the legend circulated among Arabic-speaking, “Jacobite” Christians. This being the case, it is also reasonable to suppose that the recollection of the details of the legend in the liturgically inspired mêmrâ of Jacob of Serugh is, textually speaking, the most likely, still extant, single narrative ancestor in Syriac in the background of the Arabic Qur’an’s evocation of the legend.

The significance of this for our study is that it shows how Syriac Christian narratives, Biblical and otherwise, would be spread among Arabs through public, liturgical proclamation. Considering how what we may define as the Qur’anic redaction of the story, Griffith suggests straight translation in one aspect: ‘Reading from the perspective of the Syriac texts, two terms are of immediate interest in this verse. The first of them is the term “companions” to refer to the youths whose story is in the offing. It is a term which frequently appears in the Christian texts in its Syriac equivalent (habrê) to refer to the youths hidden in the cave, and for which the Qur’an’s Arabic term (ashāb) may be considered an apt translation.’ This is important, because much of the critique of Luxenberg’s position is his emphasis on the Qur’an as a translation from Syriac in many ways.

Griffith also notes the controversy over the meaning of al-raqīm, which ‘springs both from the rarity of the word in Arabic lexicography, its grammatical form in this verse, and from the perceived awkwardness of its possible meaning in the present context’ He refers to Luxenberg’s treatment of the issue: ‘…Christoph Luxenberg has argued that on the basis of their failure to recognize a common, underlying, Syro-Aramaic orthography, the transmitters of the Arabic Qur’an’s text changed a misunderstood, original al-ruqād (“sleep,” “slumber”) into the puzzling al-raqīm, which has yielded the well known array of suggestions regarding its possible significance in the works of the later Muslim commentators. Luxenberg then takes the restored text to be saying, “Die Leute der Höhle und des Schlafes.”’

A further connection with Jacob of Serugh is the reference in Surah 18.9 to ‘the Inscription’. Griffith observes:

Reading the verse in question from the perspective of the several, pre-Islamic Syriac accounts of the “Youths of Ephesus,” with the traditional association in Arabic of the root consonants r-q-m with “writing,” and the understanding that al-raqīm could just possibly mean “inscription” or “tablet,” one recalls the importance in the narrative of the “lead tablet(s)” which record the names of the youths and give an account of their entombment in the cave. There are two important moments in the narrative in which the “tablet(s)” are mentioned: the moment of the entombment and the moment when the Christian emperor arrives at the cave/tomb to verify the miracle of the resurrection of the youths.

This reflects Jacob of Serugh’s narrative:

According to Jacob of Serugh’s mêmrâ, at the moment of the entombment

Two sophists, sons of princes, were present there,

and they thought that the Lord was going to resurrect them.

They made tablets of lead and they set them beside them;

they wrote on them the names of the sons of light,

and the reason why the youths went into the cave to hide,

and at what era they had fled from Decius the king.73

(Guidi, Testi Orientali Inediti,

1, 20, ## 68–73)

When Emperor Theodosius II (408–50) arrived at the cave to verify the miracle of the resurrection of the youths, according to Jacob of Serugh

He took up the tablet of lead and he began to read

why the children had entered into the cave to hide.

(Guidi, Testi Orientali Inediti,

1, 22, ## 176–7)

With this background in mind, Allāh’s question to Muhammad, “Do you reckon that the companions of the cave and of the inscription are wondrously among our signs?” (18:9) makes complete narrative sense. In the Syriac texts, the “Companions” really are portrayed as “Companions of the Cave” and of the “inscription,” they belong in both of them.

Finally, Griffith shows how this story would have reached Arab ears and arrived in its current form in the Qur’an:

What is more, it seems that this reading of the verse yields more consistent intelligibility, on the hypothesis that the Syriac narrative of the legend is in the background, than does either of the suggested textual emendations or any understanding of the meaning of the term al-raqīm other than one which bespeaks “writing.” There remains only the perceived awkwardness of the grammatical form of the word in Arabic. In this connection one wonders why an awareness of the Syro-Aramaic background of the Arabic diction in such a context should not suggest that the form could be understood to be a “Syriacism.” That is to say, the likely scenario would be that the form of the Syriac passive participle (f‘îl), used as a substantive adjective (fa‘îl), has been imported into Arabic diction to produce the anomalous al-raqīm, presumably originally by an Arabic-speaking Christian with a Syriac-speaking background, who was concerned with translating the legend of the “Youths of Ephesus” into Arabic. The Qur’an simply “quoted” this usage, presumably current among Arabic-speaking Christians, along with its evocation of the rest of the legend. In this interpretation, one might plausibly claim that a philological possibility gains probability from a consideration of the historical and cultural background of the narrative.

Hence, this story shows the influence of the Syriac language; Syriac theology and writing; Syriac Christian proclamation among Arabs which has influenced the Qur’an. Griffith’s conclusion is thus very apt:

It would seem that much Christian lore in Syriac lies behind the Qur’an’s evocation of the Christian scriptures, the beliefs and practices of the churches, and their homiletic traditions, as they must have circulated among many Arabic-speaking Christians in the Qur’an’s original audience in the time of Muhammad.

If we move to Surah 19 Maryam verses 91-98, the contents are these:

91. That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,

92. When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son.

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.

94. Verily He knoweth them and numbereth them with (right) numbering.

95. And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone.

96. Lo! those who believe and do good works, the Beneficent will appoint for them love.

97. And We make (this Scripture) easy in thy tongue, (O Muhammad) only that thou mayst bear good tidings therewith unto those who ward off (evil), and warn therewith the froward folk.

98. And how many a generation before them have We destroyed! Canst thou (Muhammad) see a single man of them, or hear from them the slightest sound?

Initially this could be taken as a criticism of the Christian doctrine of the divine filiation of Jesus. However, it must be remembered that the text is fragmentary. If we take the standard text, v35 might support this analysis: ‘It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’

Most definitely, Surah Maryam starts as a redaction of Christian apocrypha. The oldest manuscript of The Protoevangelium of James islate 3rd/early 4th century, found in the Bodmer papyri. Syriac version - c. 5th century. Its earliest mention is in the early third century by Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew. The academic consensus is that it was written c. 150, probably in Syria. This possibly explains the mistake of referring to the area around Bethlehem as ‘desert’. The main theme is the history of Mary, such that the book acts as a kind of ‘prequel’ to the canonical Gospels. A major concern is the virginity of Mary, and there are clear indications of the doctrine of her ‘perpetual virginity’. As part of this, it depicts a young Mary and an older Joseph, sometimes considerably more advanced in years. This is what Surah Maryam 19 states.

16. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.”

19. He said: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.”

20. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?”

21. He said: “So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.”

22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

Compare this with the Protoevangelium of James Ch. 11:

And she took the pitcher, and went out to fill it with water. And, behold, a voice saying: Hail, thou who hast received grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women! And she looked round, on the right hand and on the left, to see whence this voice came. And she went away, trembling, to her house, and put down the pitcher; and taking the purple, she sat down on her seat, and drew it out. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found grace before the Lord of all, and thou shalt conceive, according to His word.

And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? and shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold, the servant of the Lord before His face: let it be unto me according to thy word.

The Protoevangelium of James is not only the apocryphal influence - Surah Maryam 19:

23. And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm-tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died ere this and had become a thing of naught, forgotten! 24. Then (one) cried unto her from below her, saying: Grieve not! Thy Lord hath placed a rivulet beneath thee, 25. And shake the trunk of the palm-tree toward thee, thou wilt cause ripe dates to fall upon thee. 26. So eat and drink and be consoled. And if thou meetest any mortal, say: Lo! I have vowed a fast unto the Beneficent, and may not speak this day to any mortal.

Compare that with the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, late fifth to early seventh centuries, which calls itself ‘the book of the Birth of the Blessed Mary and the Infancy of the Saviour. Written in Hebrew by the Blessed Evangelist Matthew, and translated into Latin by the Blessed Presbyter Jerome.’ Chapter 20 reads:

‘...she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her: ...thou seest how high the palm tree is... I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus... said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately… the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit... Then Jesus said to it: ...open from thy roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow... And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling...

Some have contested the date of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, but Shoemaker has shown that the tradition of Mary and the date palm precedes the work, irrespective of its date:

Recent efforts by the present writer have shown that the story of Mary and the date palm circulated in the Christian Near East perhaps as early as the third century, and beyond any doubt by the early fifth century. The earliest extant version of this legend is found among the ancient traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, a collection of narratives that describe the events of Mary’s departure from this life. As I have demonstrated in my recent book on these traditions, the narrative that best preserves the story of Mary and the date palm was first composed by the early fifth century at the latest, although the peculiar theology reflected in this narrative very strongly suggests its formation sometime in the third century, if not even earlier. Several Syriac fragments copied in the later fifth century form the earliest witness to this narrative, and by the end of the sixth century, this version was widely dispersed throughout the cultures and languages of the Byzantine Near East. In contrast to the Gospel of Ps.-Matthew then, the ancient Dormition traditions present clear evidence that the story of Mary and the date palm circulated widely in the pre-Islamic Near East, providing favorable circumstances for its usage in the Qur’ānic account of Jesus’ Nativity.

An example of this is the Liber Requiei Mariae - the Book of Mary’s Repose. Shoemaker comments:

The entire work survives only in a translation into Classical Ethiopic (Geʿez), which seems to have been made sometime during late antiquity, probably not long after the conversion of Ethiopia, but there are also substantial early fragments in Syriac as well as in Old Georgian. No doubt this narrative’s preservation in these less- known languages in part explains why it has been so long overlooked.

The Greek original of the Book of Mary’s Repose dates most likely to the third century, although it is possible that it may be even earlier.

In this work, Jesus performs the miracle thus: ‘And the child turned and said to the date-palm, “Incline your head with your fruit, and satisfy my mother and father.” And it inclined immediately.’ Jesus is presented as a child who is still breastfed, yet He speaks: ‘“Give your breast to your child.” At once you gave it to him, as you went forth to the Mount of Olives, fleeing from Herod.’ The text indicates that He was around five months old. This is the probable origin of the following ayat:

29. Then she pointed to him. They said How can we tale to one who is in the cradle, a young boy?

30. He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,

31. And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and alms giving so long as I remain alive,

32. And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.

33. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

However, in between the references to Jesus and the ayat present in the Birmingham fragment, we are treated to the story of Abraham, which in the Qur’anic redaction, presents him as rejecting his father’s gods:

41. And make mention (O Muhammad) in the Scripture of Abraham. Lo! he was a saint, a Prophet.

42. When he said unto his father: O my father! Why worshippest thou that which beareth not nor seeth, nor can in aught avail thee?

43. O my father! Lo! there hath come unto me of knowledge that which came not unto thee. So follow me, and I will lead thee on a right path.

44. O my father! Serve not the devil. Lo! the devil is a rebel unto the Beneficent.

45. O my father! Lo! I fear lest a punishment from the Beneficent overtake thee so that thou become a comrade of the devil.

46. He said: Rejectest thou my gods, O Abraham? If thou cease not, I shall surely stone thee. Depart from me a long while!

47. He said: Peace be unto thee! I shall ask forgiveness of my Lord for thee. Lo! He was ever gracious unto me.

48. I shall withdraw from you and that unto which ye pray beside Allah, and I shall pray unto my Lord. It may be that, in prayer unto my Lord, I shall not be unblest.

49. So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah. We gave him Isaac and Jacob. Each of them We made a Prophet.

The basic story of Abraham’s rejection of idolatry and polytheism is indeed found elsewhere than the Qur’an – in the Jewish apocryphal legends. Specifically, it is found in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah, with the tale merely re-worked for the Qur’an:

13. AND HARAN DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER TERAH (xi, 28).

R. Hiyya said: Terah was a manufacturer of idols. He once went away somewhere and left Abraham to sell them in his place. A man came and wished to buy one. ‘How old are you?’ Abraham asked him. ‘Fifty years,’ was the reply. ‘Woe to such a man!’ he exclaimed, ‘you are fifty years old and would worship a day-old object?’ At this, he became ashamed and departed. On another occasion, a woman came with a plateful of flour and requested him, ‘Take this and offer it to them.’ So he took a stick, broke them, and put the stick in the hand of the largest. When his father returned he demanded, ‘What have you done to them?’ ‘I cannot conceal it from you,’ he rejoined. “a woman came with a plateful of fine meal and requested me to offer it to them. One claimed, “I must eat first.” Thereupon the largest arose, took the stick, and broke them.’ ‘Why do you make sport of me,’ he cried out; ‘have they any knowledge?’ ‘Should not your ears listen to what your mouth is saying?’ he retorted.

Interestingly, the Rabbinic editors of the book here quoted state: ‘The considerable indebtedness of Mahommed to the Midrash for the legendary and other material which he incorporated in the Koran has already been proved over a century ago by Abraham Geiger in his work, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?' The Midrash was created about the third century AD, completed about the sixth century. So, it is clearly older than the Qur’an, though much younger than the Old Testament. Similarly, The Apocalypse of Abraham VI, VII presents him as speaking to Terah:

I answered and said: “O father Terah, whichever of these thou praisest as a god, thou art foolish in thy mind…

[But]1 hear [this], Terah my father; for I will make known to the3 the God who hath made everything, not these we consider as gods. Who then is He? or what is He? Who hath crimsoned the heavens, and made the sun golden, And the moon lustrous, and with it the stars; And hath made the earth dry in the midst of many waters… “Yet may God reveal Himself to us through Himself!”

It is dated c. 70 AD to the early second century, and so precedes the Qur’an. The question is: why Surah 19: 46 is where it is, as the Christians were not guilty of polytheism, at least, in the eyes of the Qur’an, of the sense at this juncture? Indeed, v81 would seem to point to the pagans instead: ‘And they have chosen (other) gods beside Allah that they may be a power for them.’ We shall return to this when we examine the next Surah.

Surah 20 Ta-Ha verses 13-40:

13. And I have chosen thee, so hearken unto that which is inspired.

14. Lo! I, even I, am Allah. There is no God save Me. serve Me and establish worship for My remembrance.

15. Lo! the Hour is surely coming. But I will to keep it hidden, that every soul may be rewarded for that which it striveth (to achieve).

16. Therefor, let not him turn thee aside from (the thought of) it who believeth not therein but followeth his own desire, lest thou perish.

17. And what is that in thy right hand, O Moses?

18. He said: This is my staff whereon I lean, and wherewith I beat down branches for my sheep, and wherein I find other  uses.

19. He said: Cast it down, O Moses!

20. So he cast it down, and Lo! it was a serpent, gliding.

21. He said: Grasp it and fear not. We shall return it to its former state.

22. And thrust thy hand within thine armpit, it will come forth white without hurt. (That will be) another token.

23. That We may show thee (some) of Our greater portents,

24. Go thou unto Pharaoh! Lo! he hath transgressed (the bounds).

25. (Moses) said: My Lord! Relieve my mind

26. And ease my task for me;

27. And loose a knot from my tongue,

28. That they may understand my saying.

29. Appoint for me a henchman from my folk,

30. Aaron, my brother.

31. Confirm my strength with him.

32. And let him share my task,

33. That we may glorify Thee much.

34. And much remember Thee.

35. Lo! Thou art ever Seeing us.

36. He said: Thou art granted thy request, O Moses.

37. And indeed, another time, already We have shown thee favour,

38. When We inspired in thy mother that which is inspired,

39. Saying: Throw him into the ark, and throw it into the river, then the river shall throw it on to the bank, and there an enemy to Me and an enemy to him shall take him. And I endued thee with love from Me that thou mightest be trained according to My will,

40. When thy sister went and said: Shall I show you one who will nurse him? and We restored thee to thy mother that her eyes might be refreshed and might not sorrow. And thou didst kill a man and We delivered thee from great distress,

In these verses, Moses, the monotheist, is engaged in battle with Pharaoh, the idolatrous polytheist. In the parts not found in the fragment, we encounter this polemic against polytheism:

5. The Beneficent One, Who is established on the Throne

6. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, and whatsoever is between them,

and whatsoever is beneath the sod.

7. And if thou speakest aloud, then Lo! He knoweth the secret (thought) and (that which is yet) more hidden.

8. Allah! There is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names.

This definitely seems to be a polemic against polytheism rather than Christianity. The question is the identity of the pagan mushrikun – those who ‘associate’ other gods with Allah. Another, related question is the nature of their religion. Hawting comments on how Islamic Tradition depicts the religious situation of Arabia at the time of Jahiliya – the time of ‘ignorance’:

Islam’s own tradition portrays the religion as originating in a rather remote part of Arabia, practically beyond the borders of the monotheistic world as it existed at the beginning of the seventh century AD. Initially, according to the tradition, it arose as the result of a revelation made by God to the Prophet Muhammad and its first target was the religion and society within which Muhammad lived. That society’s religion is described as polytheistic and idolatrous in a very literal and crude way. Only after the Arabs had been persuaded or forced to abandon their polytheism and idolatry was Islam able to spread beyond Arabia into lands the majority of the people of which were at least nominally monotheists.

However, Hawting rejects the picture presented by the Tradition: ‘This book questions how far Islam arose in arguments with real polytheists and idolaters, and suggests that it was concerned rather with other monotheists whose monotheism it saw as inadequate and attacked polemically as the equivalent of idolatry.’ Certainly, we have seen that polemical hyperbole against even fellow-Christians whose Christological views were distinct was often a feature of Syriac literature. Hawting also makes the vital observation that we mainly know about the character of pre-Islamic Arabia from the Tradition:

It should be remembered that Muslim tradition is virtually our only source of information about the jāhiliyya: it is rather as if we were dependent on early Christian literature for our knowledge of Judaism in the first century AD. In spite of that, modern scholars have generally accepted that, as the tradition maintains, the jāhiliyya was the background to Islam and that the more we know about it the better position we will be in to understand the emergence of the new religion.

Surely, we must read the Qur’an in its own terms: ‘…the identification of the mushrikūn as pre-Islamic idolatrous Arabs is dependent upon Muslim tradition and is not made by the Koran itself; the nature of the koranic polemic against the mushrikūn does not fit well with the image of pre-Islamic Arab idolatry and polytheism provided by Muslim tradition…’ Hawting’s assertions are echoed by Crone:

The first part of this article examines the Qurʾānic evidence; the second part deals with the well-known hypothesis that the pagan Allāh was a “high God” and tries to relate the Qurʾānic evidence to the late antique context. The Islamic tradition is excluded from both parts on the principle that we have to start by understanding the Qurʾān on the basis of information supplied by the book itself, as opposed to that of later readers, and to understand this information in the light of developments known to have preceded its formation rather than those engendered by the book itself.

Crone goes on to present a template of identification, which we will employ. However, before so doing, we should note the identity of the group who Syriac Christians lambasted as ‘pagans’ – Zoroastrians:

… East Syrian texts commonly refer to Zoroastrians as ‘pagans’ and Zoroastrianism as ‘paganism,’ making use of the word ḥanpā and its derivatives: see, e.g., History of Karka d-Beth Slokh, p. 514, ln. 21 (ḥanpē, ‘pagans,’ as Zoroastrians) (ed. Bedjan, AMS, vol. 2); Babai the Great, History of George the Priest, p. 435, ln. 15 (ḥanpāyā, ‘pagan,’ used adjectivally to refer to George’s pre-Christian, Persian/Zoroastrian name); p. 436, ln. 3 (ḥanputā, ‘paganism,’ used to identify George’s sister’s name while she was still ‘in paganism,’ i.e., before she was a Christian — cp. with p. 564, ln. 6); p. 523, lnn. 7, 17 (a Zoroastrian as a ḥanpā, ‘pagan’); Martyrdom of Gregory Pirangushnasp (ed. Bedjan, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha), p. 347, ln. 8 (ḥanpē, ‘pagans,’ as Zoroastrians), p. 349, ln. 2 (ḥanputā, ‘paganism,’ as Zoroastrianism), etc.

We need to remember that apart from the Persian Empire itself, Zoroastrians were to be found in Eastern Arabia, including Arab converts. The name ‘Zoroaster’ is the Greek form of Zarathushtra:

The Greek form Zoroastres was first used by Xanthos of Lydia in the mid-fifth century CE, and was the base for subsequent European versions of the name until Nietzsche popularized the Iranian form Zarathushtra. Some adherents choose to refer to their religion by the ancient Iranian terms Mazdayasna (‘worship of Ahura Mazda’), daena Mazdayasni (‘the religion of Mazda worship’) or daena vanguhi. This latter term, usually translated as ‘the good religion’, occurs in the Gathas, the oldest texts of the religion (Gathas 5.53.4).

So, what did Zarathustra teach about Ahura Mazda? He did not seem to teach monotheism, but he did display Ahura Mazda as the greatest deity: ‘Zoroaster… in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.’ Elsewhere Boyce presents the essence of divine ontology in Zoroastrianism: ‘For Zarathushtra God was Ahura Mazda, who, he taught, had created the world and all that is good in it through his Holy Spirit, Spenta Mainyu, who is both his active agent and yet one with him, indivisible and yet distinct.’

Note that Surah 20:8 states: ‘Allah! There is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names.’ The issue of Allah’s names occurs elsewhere in the Qur’an. They are equated with his attributes. This is only partly true in the Bible, but there is a clear parallel in Zoroastrianism. We may learn something about the attributes of Ahura Mazda from this section in the Hymn to Ahura Mazda, the Ohrmazd Yasht:

5. Then Zarathushtra said: ‘Reveal unto me that name of thine, O Ahura Mazda! that is the greatest, the best, the fairest, the most effective, the most fiend-smiting, the best-healing, that destroyeth best the malice of Daêvas and Men;

6. That I may afflict all Daêvas and Men; that I may afflict all Yâtus and Pairikas; that neither Daêvas nor Men may be able to afflict me; neither Yâtus nor Pairikas.’

7. Ahura Mazda replied unto him: ‘My name is the One of whom questions are asked, O holy Zarathushtra!

‘My second name is the Herd-giver

‘My third name is the Strong One

‘My fourth name is Perfect Holiness.

‘My fifth name is All good things created by Mazda, the offspring of the holy principle.

‘My sixth name is Understanding;

‘My seventh name is the One with understanding.

‘My eighth name is Knowledge;

‘My ninth name is the One with Knowledge.

8. ‘My tenth name is Weal;

‘My eleventh name is He who produces weal.

‘My twelfth name is AHURA (the Lord).

‘My thirteenth name is the most Beneficent.

‘My fourteenth name is He in whom there is no harm.

‘My fifteenth name is the unconquerable One.

‘My sixteenth name is He who makes the true account.

‘My seventeenth name is the All-seeing One.

‘My eighteenth name is the healing One.

‘My nineteenth name is the Creator.

‘My twentieth name is MAZDA (the All-knowing One).

This presents a deity who is the omniscient and powerful Creator. The twelfth name is parallel to the way the Qur’an often presents Allah by the title ‘Lord’, which is clearly honorific rather than a translation of YHWH. His thirteenth name is interesting in that ar-Rahman in the Qur’an is often translated ‘beneficent’. Crone refers to this name several times in her paper on the Qur’anic pagans:

God reassured the Messenger that no such gods existed: “Ask the messengers whom We sent before you: have We set up gods to be worshipped apart from al-Raḥmān?” (43:45).

But the Messenger takes the language of procreation literally. “They say, al-Raḥmān has begotten offspring (ittakhadha waladan)” (21:26; cf. 43:81; 19:88, 91f.).

Most references to this belief take the form of denials that the lesser deities have the power to do what is expected of them. “Should I adopt gods apart from Him?”, a believer from a vanished city asks, adding that “if al-Raḥmān wants to inflict some harm on me, their intercession (shafāʿa) will not be any use, nor will they be able to save me” (36:23).

The alleged offspring of al-Raḥmān are just servants raised to high honour who act by His command and offer no intercession, except for those who have found favour (with Him) (21:26–28).

“If al-Raḥmān had wanted, we would not have worshipped them” (43:20).

She addresses this in more detail in section 10 Allāh and al-Raḥmān:

Though the Messenger and his opponents worshipped the same God under the name of Allāh, the modern literature often says that the Messenger also knew Him by a name with which the pagans were not familiar, namely al-Raḥmān, implying that his concept of God was shaped by additional monotheist ideas which the pagans did not share. But both sides call Him al-Raḥmān in the Qurʾān.

Crone goes on to observe about the interchangeability of the terms both to the monotheists and the pagans:

That God and al-Raḥmān were interchangeable to both sides is also suggested by the fact that nothing is said about the latter which is not said about the former as well, whether by the Messenger or by the pagans. This does not completely solve the problem, for elsewhere the Messenger is instructed to say, “Call upon Allāh or call upon al-Raḥmān: by whatever name you (sg.) call, His are the beautiful names” (17:110).

Once we understand that Arabian Zoroastrians would have rendered the Avestan ‘Beneficent’ (Spenta) by the Arabic al-Raḥmān, it becomes clear why both sides could use the name. As for ‘the beautiful names’, it should be noted that Zoroastrianism attributed sacred names to Ahura Mazda:

(12) (The Creator Hormazd says): I am the Protector, I am the Creator and the Nourished, I am the Discerner (or prognosticator) and the Most Beneficent Spirit. I am the Healer, the Best Healer, I am Athravan (i.e. Mobed-Dastur), the Best Athravan; I am Ahura (i.e. Giver of Life): I am Mazda (i.e. Omniscient); I am the Righteous, the Most Righteous; I am the Glory by name, I am the Most Glorious: I am the All Seeing omniscient.

(13) I am the Watcher1 and the All-Pervading by name: I am the Bestower; I am the Protector; I am the Nourisher and the Discerner (i.e. Omniscient); I am the Most-Discerning; I am the Increaser, I am the Hymn of Prosperity and the Ruler at Will by name: I am the Most Ruling at Will; I am the most renowned Ruler by name.

(14) I am the Non-deceiver, I am Far from the Deceiver: I am the Equable Protector. I am the Destroyer of Malice: I am the Smiter at one stroke: I am One who smites everybody every wrong door: I am the Modeller of all. I am All-Light (or Comfort): I am Full-Light (or Comfort-happiness): I am One Possessing Light by name.

(15) I am Brilliant in Work by name, I am Useful-in-Work: I am the Beneficent: I am the Valiant81, I am the Most Profitable by name: I am Righteousness, I am the Exalter; I am the Sovereign by name, I am the Greatest Sovereign; I am1 Possessed of Good Wisdom; I am Possessed of Best Wisdom by name: I am Having-a-piercing-Look. Such (are) these Names (of mine).

At this point we should recall some of the verses in the Birmingham fragment in Surah 19:

91. That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,

92. When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son.

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.

The Qur’an in several places denounces the idea that Allah has a son, e.g., Surah Yunus 10.68: ‘They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a son. Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?’ Rather than seeing all such references as being to Christian Christology, we should consider what Zen-Avesta scripture of the Zoroastrians states:

15 (49). O Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! What shall be the place of that man who has carried a corpse alone [3]?

Ahura Mazda answered: ‘It shall be the place on this earth wherein is least water and fewest plants, whereof the ground is the cleanest and the driest and the least passed through by flocks and herds, by Fire, the son of Ahura Mazda, by the consecrated bundles of baresma, and by the faithful.’

The reference to ‘Fire’ is Atar, the son of Ahura Mazda. Dhalla comments about this entity: ‘The Iranian word for fire as well as for the Yazata presiding over fire is Atar… Atar, or Fire, is most frequently called the son of Ahura Mazda in the Younger Avestan texts. The devout hunger in heart to reach Mazda through him as a mediary.’ Hence, in many cases in the Qur’an, and probably this was the original meaning, the denunciations of the idea of the (singular) ‘son of Allah’ refer to Zoroastrian Atar rather the Jesus of Christianity.

In Zoroastrianism, Heaven and Earth were deities, as well as being cosmic spheres: ‘…the sun-yazata, Asman, spirit of the sky... The earth yazata herself, Zam…’ In regard to the physical sky and earth, Ahura Mazda was held to be their creator: ‘One Gathic passage (2.44.3–7) delineates Ahura Mazda’s generation of the universe… first asha; then the course of the sun and stars, and the cycle of the moon; the earth below and the sky above…’ Related to this, is the concept of the Seven spheres:

The Zoroastrians originally distinguished four spheres: (1) stars, (2) moon, (3) sun, (4) paradise, to which the “station of the clouds” is sometimes added as a fifth and lowest… The later scheme of six spheres (or seven, with the “clouds”). is due partly to juggling with numbers (six Amasa Spantas, seven with Ohrmazd, etc…)

This helps to explain the Qur’anic idea of the ‘seven heavens’, e.g.:

Surah Al-Talaq 65

12. Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surrounds all things in knowledge.

All of this suggests that what is being attacked at the end of Surah 19 and in Surah 20 is not Christianity, but rather Zoroastrianism. This would make sense in the historical context of the Persian-Roman (Byzantine) war and the Persian conquest of Jerusalem and Palestine. Surah Ar-Rum 30 displays the pro-Byzantine view of the Qur’an, and that the polemic against paganism should be understood as an anti-Persian/anti-Zoroastrian diatribe.

CONCLUSION

It can be seen that there was a great deal of ‘hype’ at the time of the publication about the findings concerning the Birmingham fragments. More sober reflection reveals how speculative and extravagant were the claims made at the time as to the antiquity and significance of the fragments. What is perhaps more embarrassing for Muslims is the obvious dependence of the fragments on earlier, but post-Apostolic/post-Biblical apocryphal material, albeit redacted. The story of Seven Sleepers is a Christian legend – there is nothing historical about it, yet the Qur’an treats it as though the event was indeed an historical fact. Surah 19 is largely based on Syriac Christian and Rabbinic apocrypha, such as the Protoevangelium of James and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Far from proving the historicity of the Qur’an, all the fragments do is to point to the derivative nature of the Qur’an from material that was never considered canonical, not least by virtue of its late date.

Elagabalus And The Black Stone

INTRODUCTION

Every year, Muslims visit Mecca on the Haj pilgrimage, and as part of the ritual, attempt to kiss the Black Stone. Although it seems to be absent from the Qur’an, it is present in the Hadith, and its importance in Islamic ritual cannot be overestimated. Muslims contend that its presence in Mecca is very ancient, ante-dating Muhammad. In this paper that this is not the case – not just because of the absence of any ancient source suggesting this, but primarily because there is clear evidence of it having existed in Syria long before Muhammad’s supposed birth, and indeed, having been present in Rome at one point.

ELAGABALUS

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (originally named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus, nicknamed Elagabalus after his death), ruled 218-222. Elagabalus came from Emesa (modern Homs/Hims) in Syria. The people of Emesa were descended from Arab immigrants – the Emesenes, who settled there in the first century BC. Perhaps they took their name from their god: “Emesa is a compound of Ham-Es: the natives are said by Festus Avienus to have been devoted to the Sun...”(1) Emperor Elagabalus’ cult was that of Elagabal, i.e., Syriac Ilāh hag-Gabal, “God of the Mountain”. The title of the Nabatæan chief deity was Dhu-Shara – “the Lord of Shara” – a “natural sanctuary with woodland and springs”.(2) There is also the Shara mountain range nearby. Some associate “Shara” with “Seir”.

Perhaps this mountain range performed the role of a sacred precinct. Hence, the god would be “the Lord of the Mountain”. Significantly, there are no mountains in the vicinity of Homs/Emesa.(3) This indicates that the deity had this title before the migration of its people to the area. A relief dated to the first century A.D. found 80 km south-east of the city depicts two deities – one of them is termed “LH’ GBL’ – i.e., ‘God of the Mountain’”, and is “depicted as a conical stone or a mountain with an eagle perched on top.”.(4) This may indicate that the Stone represented the mountain shrine, and by extension, the god himself.

Several Emesene coins depict Elagabal as a stone or mountain topped by an eagle; others show “a big, conical stone and eagle in a temple.” Icks comments: “Clearly, what we are seeing here is a ‘betyl’, an abstract object of worship. The word is probably derived from the Semitic ‘bethel’ (‘BT’L’), which means ‘house of god’. Betyls are quite common in Semitic religions. Often, they come in the form of large stones. This was also the case with the betyl of Elagabal…”(5) According to The Suda, a tenth century text, which probably reflects earlier tradition, Dushara was worshiped in Petra under the symbol of the Black Stone.(6) In The Suda, the exact description shows that worship – specifically in the form of sacrifice – was paid to the object: “The image is a black stone, square, unshaped, four feet high, two wide. It is placed on a gold-plated base. To this they sacrifice and pour out the blood of sacrificial victims. This is for them the libation.”(7) Coins representing Dushara from Adraa (modern Der’ā in southern Syria) from the same century “depict an oval stone sitting on a podium or mwtb”...”(8) Peterson observes: “Indeed the betyls found throughout the region are of similar size and shape to that described in the above passage from the Suda.”(9) So were there many Black Stones – in Syria, not Mecca?

At some point, Elagabal had also become associated with the Sun, and Emperor Elagabalus himself definitely worshiped him as such, and this influenced the understanding of the Black Stone: “…Elagabal, at least by the third century CE, was a sun god. Herodian records that some small projecting pieces and markings on the stone were believed to be a rough picture of the sun. The stone itself was said to have fallen from heaven. Perhaps it was believed to come from the sun.”.(10) If we examine the Roman History by Herodian (c. 170 – c. 240), we learn the following about the Emesa cult, in relation to Elagabalus and his brother:

4. They were priests of the sun god, whom their countrymen worship under the Phoenician name Elagabalus. A huge temple was erected to this god, lavishly decorated with gold, silver, and costly gems. Not only is this god worshiped by the natives, but all the neighboring rulers and kings send generous and expensive gifts to him each year. 5.No statue made by man in the likeness of the god stands in this temple, as in Greek and Roman temples. The temple does, however, contain a huge black stone with a pointed end and round base in the shape of a cone. The Phoenicians solemnly maintain that this stone came down from Zeus; pointing out certain small figures in relief, they assert that it is an unwrought image of the sun, for naturally this is what they wish to see.

6.Bassianus was the chief priest of this god. (Since he was the elder of the boys, the priesthood had been entrusted to him.) He went about in barbarian dress, wearing long-sleeved purple tunics embroidered with gold which hung to his feet; robes similarly decorated with gold and purple covered his legs from hip to toe, and he wore a crown of varicolored precious gems.(11)

Herodian’s comment about “Zeus” should be understood as Elagabal. Compare this Hadith about the origins of the Black Stone:

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas
Mishkat Al-Masabih 2577
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “The black stone descended from Paradise whiter than milk, but the sins of the descendants of Adam made it black.”
Ahmad and Tirmidhi transmitted it, the latter saying that his is a hasan sahih tradition.

This indicates that the Islamic story of the Black Stone derives from a prior, pagan Arab idea. Neither the Seerah nor the Hadith present any history of the Black Stone prior to the life of Muhammad. Significantly, the Black Stone is not mentioned in the Qur’an. Therefore, what is presented in the Seerah and Hadith are essentially legendary traditions only written down 150-200 years after the events they allegedly recount. It follows that neither are of any use in establishing an authentic history of the Black Stone. There appears to be no archaeological evidence from Mecca or the Hijaz regarding the Black Stone. Neither are there any historical documents before the Seerah and Hadith about the origins of the Black Stone. Significantly, there are no external accounts about the Black Stone in the Hijaz.

PETRA, THE NABATÆANS AND ELAGABALUS

There is a link between the Emperor Elagabalus and Petra, the former capital of the Nabatæan Arabs. Coins issued after the annexation of the Nabatæan Empire in the second century A.D. by Elagabalus (and Philip the Arab) are dedicated to Dushara. Petra was awarded the honorific title of a Roman colonia by Emperor Elagabalus. Given that he reigned 218-222 AD, over a century after the Nabatæan kingdom’s formal incorporation into the Roman Empire, and indeed after the Nabatæan capital was transferred to Bostra, it is significant that a city which had supposedly passed its “glory days” should be awarded this title.

However, when we consider that his religious beliefs in many ways coincided with those of the Nabatæans, it is quite understandable if Petra was somehow a cult city of “the God of the Mountain”. It would seem that religious considerations were at the forefront of the Emperor’s decision in this action.

THE BLACK STONE AND ROME

However, this raises a further point. After the annexation, the Roman Empire stretched down into the northern Hijaz. Granted, Yathrib (Medina) and the later Mecca were outside this territory, but if Mecca existed, and had the standing as the major Arab cultic center suggested in Islam, and by its modern apologists, it is striking that there is no record of so devout a believer as Elagabalus attempting contact with, never mind visiting it on pilgrimage.

According to Herodian, Elagabalus had special processions which involved placing the Black Stone in a chariot:

6. In the suburbs of Rome the emperor built a very large and magnificent temple to which every year in midsummer he brought his god. He staged lavish shows and built race tracks and theaters, believing that chariot races, shows, and countless recitals would please the people, who held night-long feasts and celebrations. He placed the sun god in a chariot adorned with gold and jewels and brought him out from the city to the suburbs…
9.After thus bringing the god out and placing him in the temple, Elagabalus performed the rites and sacrifices described above... He also distributed all kinds of tame animals except swine, which, in accordance with Phoenician custom, he shunned.(12)

Note the observation that Elagabalus abstained from swine’s flesh, which Herodian claims was “Phoenician” custom – most probably a reference to the practice of the people of Emesa and its environs. After his assassination, it seems that the Black Stone was sent back to Emesa: “In March 222 CE, less than four years after he had gained the throne, the emperor was killed by rebellious praetorians, soldiers of the imperial guard. His body was dragged through the streets and dumped in the Tiber, his memory cursed by the senate, the black stone sent back to its temple in Emesa.”(13)

This is indicated in Dio: “As for Elagabalus himself, he was banished from Rome altogether.”(14) This refers to the god, i.e., the Black Stone, not the body of the Emperor, which was thrown into the Tiber.

CONCLUSION

The Emperor’s god was Elagabal, Syriac Ilāh hag-Gabal, “God of the Mountain”. Note the lack of a personal name; rather, he was Ilāh – “[the] god”. Cf. Allah. This was the chief deity of the people of Emesa, an Arab people in Syria. Ilāh had a major shrine there which was a focus of local/regional pilgrimage. He patronized Petra, but made no attempt to honor Mecca, if it existed. Ilāh was represented by the Black Stone in Emesa (which was then taken to Rome, but restored after the Emperor’s death). It was held to have descended to earth from Ilāh - cf. the hadith on this.

This raises important questions about the present Black Stone in Mecca. One never gets the impression from Islamic sources that there were multiple Black Stones – the reference is always to The Black Stone. Further, the impression is that it was always in Mecca. Either (i) there were indeed multiple Black Stones at various locations (at the very least, two – one in Emesa), in which case Islamic sources are unhistorical. Or (ii) the Black Stone was originally in Syria, before being moved down to Mecca, in which case Islamic sources are unhistorical. Another possibility is that Islam simply borrowed from the Emesene cult and produced its own Black Stone. In any case, the Roman historical sources listed here, which all ante-date Islam, undermine the case for the historicity of Islamic sources.

Footnotes:

1. Bryant, Jacob, A New System; or An Analysis of Antient Mythology, wherein an attempt is made to divest tradition of fable; and to reduce the truth to its original purity, Vol. I, (London: J. Walker: WJ. and J. Richardson: R. Faulder and Son: R. Lea: J. Nunn: Cuthell and Martin: H.D. Symonds: Vernor Hood, and Sharpe; E. Jeffery; Lackington, Allen, and Co.; J. Booker: Black. Parry and Kingsbury; J. Asperne: J. Murray; and J. Harris, 1807), p. 79.

2. Taylor, Jane, Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans, (London & New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), p. 2.

3. Icks, Martijn, The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome’s Decadent Boy Emperor, (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011), p. 48.

4. Ibid., p. 48.

5. Ibid.

6. Healey, John F., The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus, (Leiden, Boston & Kōln: Brill, 2001), pp. 96, 99.

7. Ibid., p. 96.

8. Ibid., p. 99.

9. Peterson, Stephanie Bowers, The Cult of Dushara and the Roman Annexation of Nabataea, (Hamilton: McMaster University, Open Access Dissertations and Theses, Paper 5352, 2006), p. 55.

10. Icks, The Crimes of Elagabalus, p. 49.

11. Echols, Edward C. (trans.), Herodian of Antioch’s History of the Roman Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III, (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961, pp. 139-140), emphasis mine.

12. Ibid., pp. 147-148.

13. Icks, The Crimes of Elagabalus, pp. 1-2.

14. Cary, Earnest, Dio’s Roman History, Vol. IX, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955),

    p. 479.

The Dome Of The Rock

INTRODUCTION

The Dome of the Rock is the earliest extant building in Islam. That in itself makes it an important and interesting issue. In this paper we will examine the history and nature of the Dome in order to understand not only the significance of the building itself, but also the implications for Islamic Origins. What emerges is that it was built as a response to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Further, it acts as a relay-station of sanctity. It is also an indication of the Arabization of Jerusalem.

1. Church of the Holy Sepulchre

In A.D. 70, the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground, destroying its Temple in the process. In A.D. 131, Emperor Hadrian decided to construct a Roman city on the site of Jerusalem, named Aelia Capitolina, with a main temple on the site of the Temple Mount dedicated to Jupiter Capilitolinus, and established as a Roman colonia peopled by veteran legionaries, i.e. Roman citizens. The Roman historian Cassius Dio describes the decision: ‘In Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina; and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter.’ Jews were banned from the city save for one day annually, 9 Ab. Aelia followed the classical design of Roman cities with a circus or amphitheatre, baths and theatre. Its inhabitants ‘were mainly Greco-Syrians....’

Undoubtedly, native residents comprised the majority of Aelia Capitolina’s inhabitants. Since Jews were prohibited from settling in the city, Aelia was left to the Hellenized population of Palestine, who found there a suitable place in which to settle and earn a livelihood. It can be assumed that the social and ethnic composition of the population of Aelia Capitolina was similar to that of other cities in Palestine: gentiles of Greek or Syrian extraction. If there were veterans among the city’s inhabitants, they were undoubtedly integrated into the existing population.

The religious sympathies of most inhabitants are clear: ‘Aelia’s residents were overwhelmingly pagan. Zeus-Jupiter Capitolinus and Aphrodite-Venus were the leading deities.’ Aelia Capitolina would be a Roman, pagan city, culturally and religiously, with a totally different demographic character from its previous incarnation.

So it remained until the reign of Constantine the Great (306 to 337 A.D.), the first acknowledged Christian Emperor. In c. 325 he decided to build a great basilica in Jerusalem over the site of Jesus’ Resurrection:

...Constantine went a step farther than any of his predecessors in that he permitted the destruction of a temple of the Imperial State religion for the purpose of substituting the central shrine of Christendom — the Monument of the Resurrection. It is the first instance of the kind on record.

The exact dates of the destruction of the temple and the building of the Christian church are unknown.

Construction seems to have been completed shortly after 333. It was dedicated in 336. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (which Orthodox Christians call the Church of the Resurrection, the Anastasis) was built over a temple to Venus/Aphrodite constructed by Hadrian, and during its excavation the True Cross had supposedly been discovered by Constantine’s mother, Helena. Eusebius describes the Church as follows:

16. Such was his work here. Again, in the province of Palestine, in that city which was once the seat of Hebrew sovereignty, on the very site of the Lord’s sepulchre, he has raised a church of noble dimensions, and adorned a temple sacred to the salutary Cross with rich and lavish magnificence, honouring that everlasting monument, and the trophies of the Saviour’s victory over the power of death, with a splendour which no language can describe.

Elsewhere, Eusebius refers to the fact that Constantine wanted to make Aelia - and specifically the sites of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection – a worthy place of pilgrimage:

After these things, the pious emperor addressed himself to another work truly worthy of record, in the province of Palestine. What then was this work? He judged it incumbent on him to render the blessed locality of our Saviour’s resurrection an object of attraction and veneration to all. He issued immediate injunctions, therefore, for the erection in that spot of a house of prayer: and this he did, not on the mere natural impulse of his own mind, but being moved in spirit by the Saviour himself.

The fact that the building was to be ‘an object of attraction and veneration to all’ indicates the ambitious plans that the Emperor had for the basilica. Constantine wished it to be the most magnificent building in the world: ‘...that not only the church itself as a whole may surpass all others whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the building may be of such a kind that the fairest structures in any city of the empire may be excelled by this.’ The basilica is thus a statement – specifically of Orthodox Christian faith, centred on the Resurrection of Christ. It was also a polemical action against paganism – note how Eusebius describes the pagan temple that previously existed upon its site:

Then, as though their purpose had been effectually accomplished, they prepare on this foundation a truly dreadful sepulchre of souls, by building a gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the impure spirit whom they call Venus, and offering detestable oblations therein on profane and accursed altars. For they supposed that their object could not otherwise be fully attained, than by thus burying the sacred cave beneath these foul pollutions.

Eusebius praised Constantine for how he dealt with the shrine:

And now, acting as he did under the guidance of the divine Spirit, he could not consent to see the sacred spot of which we have spoken, thus buried, through the devices of the adversaries, under every kind of impurity, and abandoned to forgetfulness and neglect; nor would he yield to the malice of those who had contracted this guilt, but calling on the divine aid, gave orders that the place should be thoroughly purified, thinking that the parts which had been most polluted by the enemy ought to receive special tokens, through his means, of the greatness of the divine favour. As soon, then, as his commands were issued, these engines of deceit were cast down from their proud eminence to the very ground, and the dwelling-places of error, with the statues and the evil spirits which they represented, were overthrown and utterly destroyed.

It can be seen, then, that the basilica was also a monument to Constantine (and possibly, to a lesser extent, to Heraclius, who re-built it and restored to it the True Cross). Eusebius records Constantine’s letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about the construction: ‘...I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered as it were of the heavy weight of foul idol worship; a spot which has been accounted holy from the beginning in God’s judgment, but which now appears holier still, since it has brought to light a clear assurance of our Saviour’s passion.’ Constantine thus appealed to the site’s sacred history and its apologetic role in relation to the Passion of Christ. Eusebius even claimed that the structure was fulfilment of prophecy:

Accordingly, on the very spot which witnessed the Saviour’s sufferings, a new Jerusalem was constructed, over against the one so celebrated of old, which, since the foul stain of guilt brought on it by the murder of the Lord, had experienced the last extremity of desolation, the effect of Divine judgment on its impious people. It was opposite this city that the emperor now began to rear a monument to the Saviour’s victory over death, with rich and lavish magnificence. And it may be that this was that second and new Jerusalem spoken of in the predictions of the prophets, concerning which such abundant testimony is given in the divinely inspired records.

The implication here is that the Herodian Temple had been destroyed as an act of divine judgment. Eusebius provides a detailed description of the building:

First of all, then, he adorned the sacred cave itself, as the chief part of the whole work, and the hallowed monument at which the angel radiant with light had once declared to all that regeneration which was first manifested in the Saviour’s person.

This monument, therefore, first of all, as the chief part of the whole, the emperor’s zealous magnificence beautified with rare columns, and profusely enriched with the most splendid decorations of every kind.

The next object of his attention was a space of ground of great extent, and open to the pure air of heaven. This he adorned with a pavement of finely polished stone, and enclosed it on three sides with porticos of great length.

For at the side opposite to the cave, which was the eastern side, the church itself was erected; a noble work rising to a vast height, and of great extent both in length and breadth. The interior of this structure was floored with marble slabs of various colours; while the external surface of the walls, which shone with polished stones exactly fitted together, exhibited a degree of splendour in no respect inferior to that of marble. With regard to the roof, it was covered on the outside with lead, as a protection against the rains of winter. But the inner part of the roof, which was finished with sculptured panel work, extended in a series of connected compartments, like a vast sea, over the whole church; and, being overlaid throughout with the purest gold, caused the entire building to glitter as it were with rays of light.

Besides this were two porticos on each side, with upper and lower ranges of pillars, corresponding in length with the church itself; and these also had their roofs ornamented with gold. Of these porticos, those which were exterior to the church were supported by columns of great size, while those within these rested on piles of stone beautifully adorned on the surface. Three gates, placed exactly east, were intended to receive the multitudes who entered the church.

Opposite these gates the crowning part of the whole was the hemisphere, which rose to the very summit of the church. This was encircled by twelve columns (according to the number of the apostles of our Saviour), having their capitals embellished with silver bowls of great size, which the emperor himself presented as a splendid offering to his God.

In the next place he enclosed the atrium which occupied the space leading to the entrances in front of the church. This comprehended, first the court, then the porticos on each side, and lastly the gates of the court. After these, in the midst of the open market-place, the general entrance-gates, which were of exquisite workmanship, afforded to passers-by on the outside a view of the interior which could not fail to inspire astonishment.

This temple, then, the emperor erected as a conspicuous monument of the Saviour’s resurrection, and embellished it throughout on an imperial scale of magnificence. He further enriched it with numberless offerings of inexpressible beauty and various materials, — gold, silver, and precious stones, the skilful and elaborate arrangement of which, in regard to their magnitude, number, and variety, we have not leisure at present to describe particularly.

Eusebius sums-up what the basilica was to be when he describes it as ‘a conspicuous monument of the Saviour’s resurrection’. Note how those viewing the structure would be inspired with ‘astonishment’. Its size and brilliance made it a contemporary wonder of the world. Thus, Jerusalem was to be defined by this structure. Under Hadrian, with the building of the city as Aelia Capitolina, which reflected his family name (Aelius) and his dedication of the city to Jupiter Capilitolinus (which referred to the shrine to Jupiter on Rome’s Capitoline hill), the city was defined as a Roman, pagan site, rather than an ethno-religious Jewish site, which from then on would remember its founder, Hadrian. Now, with the construction of the great basilica, Jerusalem became a Roman, Christian city, which from then on would remember the builder of the unique, globally renowned basilica, Constantine.

We should also bear in mind that the basilica was a place of pilgrimage, as we know from the visit of Silvia of Aquitaine, 380-385:

After a service of prayer in the Anastasis, the pilgrims were conducted by the Bishop (who seems to have played a very active part in the ceremonies) to the “Cross,” whilst interminable kyries were sung and benedictions performed. This Cross, covered with jewels and gilding, stood on the “Monticulus Golgotha.” ... the open space of Golgotha is described as decorated with innumerable lamps and lighted candles, hanging presumably within the surrounding colonnades...

She referred to the progress of the pilgrims:

She then gives picturesque details of the pilgrims’ visit to Imbomon, or the scene of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives: the return to Jerusalem after a night spent on Olivet; candelæ ecclesiasticæ or candle lamps throwing a weird light on the crowd of men, women, and children carrying palms and olive branches and singing hymns, the little ones overcome with fatigue being carried on men’s shoulders, and the noise of the returning multitude ever increasing to those who lay awake in Jerusalem. Then arriving at the city gate “at that hour when one man can distinguish another,” the Bishop leading the way into the Basilica, the great eastern doors were thrown wide open for the entering crowd.

The church was damaged by the Persians in 614, but restored by Heraclius in 630. After Constantine, Jerusalem was a Christian city:

During the Byzantine period, Jerusalem was known as an eminently Christian city. The great religious tension immanent in the city’s sanctity and its status as a patriarchal see made tolerance of older cultures difficult. The literary sources and archaeological findings provide no information pointing to the integration of classical literature, philosophy or art into the city’s new Christian culture...

It is uncertain that any attempt was made to build a Christian place of worship on the Temple Mount. Certainly, such a building seems to be absent from the memoirs of pilgrims during the Byzantine era – perhaps because, if it existed, it was not particularly important. Perhaps Constantine felt that it would have required a cleansing similar to that for the ground of the Anastasis, and that this was too expensive. The Mount had also been defiled by its recent pagan worship. More likely is that, from a Soteriological and Eschatological perspective, the Temple Mount was considered passé. The place of God’s presence was in Christ, and the means of atonement was put into effect – and eschatologically fulfilled – by the Crucifixion (cf. Hebrews 8.13). This is perhaps best illustrated by the preaching of Cyril of Jerusalem:

The sermons delivered by Cyril of Jerusalem to the catechumens in the mid-4th century reveal the religious origins of the new converts to Christianity. In the sermons, he relates to Christianity’s supremacy over the futility of Judaism and paganism. His proofs are directed at both former pagans and Jews. He educates the pagans by comparing the redemptive Christian mystery with the meaningless pagan processions and sacrifices in temples, which are nothing but worship of the devil. On the other hand, the frequent quotations from the Old Testament and the examples drawn from figures and episodes of the Jewish past – e.g., the ritual of the Passover sacrifice and the story of Pharoah drowning in the Red Sea – are directed especially to Jewish converts, who could understand such matters and identify with them more than other people.

Hence, the sacred centre of Jerusalem had moved from the Temple Mount to the Holy Sepulchre. What the Temple was under Solomon, the Holy Sepulchre was under Jesus. There was a suggestion by Julian the Apostate to let the Jews rebuild their Temple, but it came to nothing, especially after the 363 earthquake, and may have affected Christian attitudes to the place, or at least reinforced them.

1. The Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra)

Upon their conquest of Aelia, the Arabs did not try to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the Christians:

The Arabs do not appear to have injured the restored basilica or the Tomb, but on the contrary they became to a certain extent friendly partners in the property with the Christians. The entrance to the basilica on the east side, which seems to have been provided with a portico by Modestus, was converted into a small mosque for their convenience, whilst the area of the eastern hill on which the city stands (Mount Moriah) with its ruins of the Temple of Jupiter, was assigned to their exclusive use.

1. 2.1.Was the Temple Mount a rubbish tip?

Muslim sources usually depict the Mount as being a rubbish dump, and whilst this might be an exaggeration, it is probably also the case that the Christians attributed no continuing sanctity to the area. There would probably be little objection to the Arabs utilising the area for their worship. It does seem some mosque was present on the Mount from early on:

Umar ordered the Temple Mount to be cleansed of the piles of garbage that had accumulated on it, and he had a temporary mosque built on the site. Christians remained the majority population in Jerusalem for many years... Muawiyah is said to have done the initial planning for the construction of the Dome of the Rock on the site of Umar’s mosque; the edifice was completed by his successor Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in 691... The adjacent mosque of al-Aqsa, in Islamic tradition the second and holiest sanctuary on the Temple Mount, was built either by Abd al-Malik or his son al-Walid I, and it has served through the centuries as a preeminent place of worship and prayer.

However, it should be remembered that we rely on later Muslim sources for this information. There are other indications which suggest that this story may not be accurate, for example, a Maronite Chronicler writing about what happened in AG 971 (i.e. A.D. 661), suggests that the early Arab rulers were content to worship at the places associated with Jesus’ Passion:

“Many Arabs gathered at Jerusalem and made Mu’awiya king and he went up and sat down on Golgotha and prayed there. He went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary and prayed in it. In those days when the Arabs were gathered there with Mu’awiya, there was an earthquake;” much of Jericho fell, as well as many nearby churches and monasteries.

Granted that this is a Christian source, and we are uncertain about the date, but it seems that it is early, probably seventh century. The big question is why Mu’awiya did not worship on the Temple Mount, if this account is true. There is a famous account of a lady from Spain, Etheria, who in 383 performed a pilgrimage to the east, including Palestine. In her record of visits to Jerusalem, she says nothing about the Temple Mount itself. Rather, she seems to imply that the Temple functions had shifted to the Holy Sepulchre, as with the Feast of the Presentation in the Temple:

The fortieth day after the Epiphany is undoubtedly celebrated here with the very highest honour, for on that day there is a procession, in which all take part, in the Anastasis, and all things are done in their order with the greatest joy, just as at Easter. All the priests, and after them the bishop, preach, always taking for their subject that part of the Gospel where Joseph and Mary brought the Lord into the Temple on the fortieth day, and Symeon and Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, saw Him, treating of the words which they spake when they saw the Lord, and of that offering which His parents made. And when everything that is customary has been done in order, the sacrament is celebrated, and the dismissal takes place.

A late fifth or early sixth century visitor to Jerusalem whose record is preserved in the Breviary of Jerusalem starts his description of the city, after observing that it is built on a hill, by noting: ‘The basilica of Constantine lies in the middle of the city’. This demonstrates how imposing the building was, and how central to Jerusalem. He mentions a large basilica built called ‘Holy Wisdom’ over ‘the house of Pilate’, and then states: ‘From there, you go to the temple built by Solomon, of which nothing to remains but a crypt.’ Note again, there is nothing about the Mount being a huge refuse dump, which surely would preclude movement on to its site.

A work dated c. 570, referring to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem called The journey of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Piacenza, gives this account:

We prayed in the Praetorium where the Lord was tried, which is now the Basilica of St. Sophia. In front of the ruins of the Temple of Solomon, under the street, water runs down to the fountain of Siloam. Near the porch of Solomon, in the church itself, is the seat upon which Pilate sat when he tried our Lord. There also is a square stone, which used to stand in the midst of the Praetorium, upon which the accused was placed during his trial, that he might be heard and seen by all the people. Upon it our Lord was placed when He was tried by Pilate, and there the marks of His feet still remain. The portrait, which during His lifetime was painted and placed in the Prætorium, shows a beautiful, small, delicate foot, a person of ordinary height, a handsome face, hair inclined to curl, a beautiful hand with long fingers. And many are the virtues of the stone upon which He stood; for men take the measure of His footprints, and bind them upon their bodies for various diseases, and are healed. The stone itself is adorned with gold and silver.

Again, there is no reference to a refuse dump. There is mention of the ‘ruins’ of the Temple of Solomon, though this can be interpreted in a number of ways – perhaps the Temple of Jupiter had been torn down, or fell into disrepair through lack of use. It is theoretically possible that there were stones from the Herodian Temple still scattered around, though for the most part it would seem that the Romans had used such stones in building their pagan temple. In regard to this pagan temple, the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333-334) did not view it as in ruins: ‘There is no reason to suppose that the temple itself had fallen into ruins. The Bordeaux Pilgrim speaks of it as still standing, and says nothing to imply that it was ruinous or even dilapidated.’ Note that there is no reference to a rubbish tip in his day – it would surely have been difficult to impossible to visit the stone which he mentions if the Mount had been a refuse dump.

Another reason for us to question the later Muslim statement that the Mount was strewn with rubbish is the testimony of Theodosius the archdeacon, who visited Jerusalem between 518 and 530. Therein we read about a convent by the Mount: ‘Paragraph 11 tells about the enclosed convent of virgins below the pinnacle (pinna templi subtus monasterium est de castas), who receive their food through the walls above them and draw water from cisterns.’ It has been identified with remains ‘uncovered at the foot of the south wall of the Temple Mount, and recently identified as a monastery for women’. It is hard to imagine that a monastery/convent would be situated so near such a dire rubbish tip.

It is worth considering that the tradition about the Mount being a rubbish dump may have actually been influenced by Eusebius’ account of the Sepulchre having been defiled and covered, and of Constantine ordering its cleansing (Life of Constantine, III.26). A recent Muslim writer gives us this information:

The most common name for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in classical Arabic sources is the Church of Refuse, or garbage (Kanisat al Qumamah). The geographer al-Idrisi (493-559 AH, 1099–1165 or 1166 CE) gives us the following description for the Jerusalem Haram:

At the northern end we find the gate known as the Crow’s Pillar (‘Amud al Ghurab). If one enters [the area] from the Mihrab Gate, which is the western entrance, one would head eastward down the alley leading to the Great Church, known as Church of the Resurrection (Kanisat al Qiyamah), and referred to by Muslims as the Church of Refuse (Qumamah).

The author points out that this is ancient in usage:

Clearly then Muslims referred to the Sepulcher as Kanisat Qumamah (with or without the definite article al). Yaqut al Hamawi (574-626 AH, 1179–1229 CE) adds the following: “Qumamah: the greatest church for Christians, endowed with unparalleled beauty, wealth and design. It is located at the center of the city, surrounded by a wall. Inside the church is a tomb, which is called ‘resurrection’ (Qiyamah), because it is believed that the Messiah rose up from there. But in fact its [actual] name is qumamah (‘garbage’).” The further we go back in time the less frequently the term Church of the Resurrection (qiyamah) occurs until it disappears altogether while the term qumamah gains ascendency. The great author and essayist al Jahiz who lived in the eighth century CE (159-255 AH), refers to the place exclusively as Qumamah.

The Conjuring Fire: Monks in the church perform all sorts of tricks –such as the appearance of the oil in the lamps burning during the night of their festivals without being lit.

Elsewhere he also refers to how “many Christians are mesmerized by the oil lamps of the Qumamah Church [suddenly burning without being lit]. This is especially true of older Christian women”.

There are two explanations for this naming anomaly: The first is that the term is an intentional Arabic distortion of the original name, meant as an expression of contempt and denigration towards Christians and their shrines. This explanation is widely diffused in popular culture, as we note in the following source from the Web – “It was a common manner of insulting Christians to refer to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the Qumamah church, instead of Qiyamah.” Despite its diffusion though, no recognized scholarly authority upholds this view. It is an explanation that emerged, most likely, in the context of religious conflict, and re-emerged in recent decades in the region with the rise of sectarianism. It carries little or no weight as an explanatory notion since we do not find it adopted even in polemical anti-Christian debates.

Indeed, the famous Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) tells this story:

Hilaneh [i.e. Empress Helena] came to the place of the cross and prayed. Then she asked about the wooden cross upon which the Christians claim Christ was crucified. She was told what the Jews had done, and how they made the place a dump for all kinds of vile refuse, carcasses and unclean matter. She was highly disturbed by this (ista’dhamat) and had the wooden cross extracted from the earth. She commissioned the construction of a great church on the site which [Christians] presume to be the site of his burial. That place is known to this day as Qumamah [refuse dump]. Then she destroyed the temple of the Israelites, ordering that trash and refuse be dumped on top of the dome that is the Qibla of the Jews. This tradition continued until [the caliph] Omar Ibn al Khattab, may God have mercy on his soul, conquered Jerusalem and put a stop to this practice.

Of course, there was no ‘temple of the Israelites’ for Helena to destroy. The famed Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (c. 1300 - 1373) also relates this tale:

The Queen Mother Hilaneh ordered that the trash be removed, and built in its place a magnificently ornamented great church known today as al Qumamah in Jerusalem, after the refuse on which it was built. They call it al Qiyamah [‘resurrection’] in reference to the resurrection of Christ’s body. Hilaneh then ordered that all the town’s refuse and its garbage be placed on the rock which is the Qibla of the Jews. This continued until Omar Ibn al Khattab conquered Bayt al Maqdis, and he removed the garbage with his own mantle, and cleansed the place of all impurities and offensive matter. He refused to build a mosque in its place, but went across and built al Aqsa Mosque where the Prophet, God’s prayers on him, prayed on the night of Isra’.

Of course, neither Helena nor Constantine did any such thing. Eusebius gives this account:

Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardour, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.

Note that the ‘polluted’ soil was ‘transported to a far distant place’. Clearly, such a description cannot apply to the Temple Mount. The author continues, with reference to Al Jahiz (776 –868/ 869):

Significantly the oldest Arabic sources make no mention of the garbage dump, or of refuse in this context. For example, Al Jahiz, who typically dwells in detail on religious narratives and mythologies, and who presents these narratives with a great deal of relish (even though he generally does not subscribe to them) – does not mention this incident of garbage origins. This leads us to conclude that the linking of the name of the church as Qumamah with garbage is a later development; introduced to explain the origin of the name of the church, which by then had become obscure. I further suggest that a misunderstanding has taken place, leading to the association of the Church of the Sepulcher with garbage and refuse, through the legend of the Buried Cross. It is precisely this narrative that has transformed the initial incomprehension to a misunderstanding. When the origin of the term became obscure in later centuries, it was associated with the “garbage narrative” leading to the popular assumption about the “church of refuse.”

The fact that the earliest Arabic sources do not contain this story is highly significant. The author continues:

On the basis of all of this discussion I suggest that the term qumamah had no relationship originally with garbage or refuse. We need to look at the root word QMM, to search for an alternative meaning that makes sense in this context. The root, QMM generates two derivative meanings: elevation and union (gathering, accumulating or collecting) (al-‘uluw, and al-jami‘). Qumamah derives from the second sense, whence comes the word, signifying collecting garbage and remains. For garbage in Arabic is called such, because it is gathered (collected, accumulated), from the verb “tuqam” in the passive voice. As for the name of the church, we need to look at the two other variations of the word – “qumamat’,” and “al-qumamah.” If the usage has the definite article (“al”) attached to it, it most likely designates “the universal church,” or “the communal church,” or “great church,” or the “supreme church.” This usage is actually cited by al-Idrisi in the passage quoted earlier where he refers to “The supreme church known as the Church of the Resurrection, and called by Muslims ‘Qumamah.’” This supports the assumption that Qumamah refers to “the community,” as can be traced in the classical lexicon: qumamah = a group of people. Ar-Razi adds to this: “Al-Qummah, and al-Qumamah also mean ‘a collectivity’ [jama’at an-Nas].” More specifically I suggest the name Qumamah originally referred to “the central church” or to “the universal church,” meaning that it belongs to the Christian community as a whole, just as al Masjid al Jami‘ means the universal mosque for Muslims. For al Jami‘ is an attribute of the Mosque – and the main mosque in major cities used to be referred to as al Masjid al Jami‘ – i.e. that mosque which gathers and combines [yaQum].

Hence, the actual meaning of the phrase is the ‘Great Church’ – which indeed, was what in fact the Holy Sepulchre was in Jerusalem. In the light of this, we can understand how the story of the Temple Mount being used as a rubbish dump could have arisen.

It is possible that the Mount was strewn with some ruins, considering the war situation that had dominated the region for decades – just as London after 1945 was for some years characterised by empty, desolate places that were the consequence of bombing. Jerusalem had little opportunity to catch its breath before it faced the Arab siege and conquest. Antiochus Strategos, a monk resident in Palestine during the Persian war, informs us about what happened when the Persians took Jerusalem in 614: ‘Holy churches were burned with fire, others were demolished, majestic altars fell prone, sacred crosses were trampled underfoot, life-giving icons were spat upon by the unclean. Then their wrath fell upon priests and deacons: they slew them in their’ churches like dumb animals...’ He reports that the Jewish allies of the Persians acted likewise: ‘When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing.’ For a short time the Persians allowed the Jews to rule Jerusalem, and it seems that attempts were made to build a synagogue on the Mount, and even offer sacrifice, although clear evidence for either account is flimsy. Perhaps this could account for ruins on the Mount, although, as we say, evidence is weak.

By c. 680 it does seem that some Arab structure was present on the Mount as related by a Frankish/Gaulish bishop who visited there called Arculf in the 670s, who related this to Adomnán, the Ulster-born Abbot of Iona, who in turn presented the ensuing writing De locis sanctis (Concerning sacred places) to King Aldfrith of Northumbria in 698:

A holy bishop, a Gaul by race. He had experience of various faraway places and his report about them was true and in every way satisfactory. He stayed for nine months in the city of Jerusalem and used to go round all the holy places on daily visits. All the experiences described below he rehearsed to me, Adomnan, and I first took down his trustworthy and reliable account on tablets. This I have now written out on parchment in the form of a short essay.

Arculf refers to a ‘Saracen’ place of worship on the Temple Mount: ‘But in that renowned place where once the Temple had been magnificently constructed, placed in the neighbourhood of the wall from the east, the Saracens now frequent a four-sided house of prayer, which they have built rudely, constructing it by raising boards and great beams on some remains of ruins: this house can, it is said, hold three thousand men at once.’ This does not necessarily mean that it was built by ‘Umar or on his instructions: ‘It should, however, be here noted that none of the earlier Arab annalists (such as Biladhuri, or Tabari) record any details of the building, by ‘Omar, of the Aksa Mosque.’

Arculf adversely contrasts the ‘Saracen’ structure with the glory of the Temple, especially with the comment that the mosque was ‘rudely built’, which suggests that the Arab conquerors did not attribute much esteem to the building. He says nothing about it being previously a rubbish tip, but merely that it was constructed over the ‘remains of ruins’, though he does not state what. Was this a Byzantine church destroyed by the Persians and Jews in 614? There have been suggestions of a Byzantine church or at least a house under the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, ‘dated to the fifth to seventh centuries’:

The photo archives of a British archeologist who carried out the only archeological excavation ever undertaken at the Temple Mount’s Aksa Mosque show a Byzantine mosaic floor underneath the mosque that was likely the remains of a church or a monastery... The excavation was carried out in the 1930s by R.W. Hamilton, director of the British Mandate Antiquities Department, in coordination with the Wakf Islamic Trust that administers the compound, following earthquakes that badly damaged the mosque in 1927 and 1937. In conjunction with the Wakf’s construction and repair work carried out between 1938 and 1942, Hamilton excavated under the mosque’s piers, and documented all his work related to the mosque in The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque. Hamilton also uncovered the Byzantine mosaic floor...

Significantly, in a guide provided by the Jerusalem Waqf themselves in 1925, they declare that when Caliph ‘Umar went to the site, there was ‘the remains of an early basilica (probably on the present site of al-Aqsa)’. Possibly it had been destroyed during the Persian siege and occupation of the city. Even if this were simply a house, it militates against the view that the Mount was a giant rubbish tip. Among the suggestions is one that the church on the Mount was dedicated to Mary and was built by Emperor Justinian, mentioned by the sixth century author Proscopius:

It seems probable, also, that this latter Khalif, when he began to rebuild the Aksa, made use of the materials which lay to hand in the ruins of the great St. Mary Church of Justinian, which must originally have stood on the site, approximately, on which the Aksa Mosque was afterwards raised. Possibly, in the substructures still to be seen at the south-east corner of the Aksa, we have the remains of Justinian's church, described by Procopius as erected in 560 A.D., and burnt down in 614 by Chosroes II during the great Persian raid through Syria, which laid most of the Christian buildings of the Holy Land in ruins. Perhaps also the remarkable silence of all the Arab writers in regard to the date of ‘Abd al Malik’s rebuilding of the Aksa may be taken as an indirect proof that that Khalif did not erect the edifice from its foundations, but that he made use of the remains of the St. Mary Church (where ‘Omar had raised his primitive mosque), incorporating these into the new Aksa, which thus rose on the ruins of the Christian edifice.

However, the evidence of Proscopius can be interpreted differently, since it could refer to another hill, although, admittedly, the evidence is uncertain:

At Jerusalem he built a church in honour of the Virgin, to which no other can be compared. The inhabitants call it the ‘new church.’ I shall describe what it is like, prefacing my account by the remark that this city stands for the most part upon hilly ground, which hills are not formed of earth, but are rough and precipitous, so as to make the paths up and down them as steep as ladders. All the rest of the buildings in the city stand in one place, being either built upon the hills, or upon flat and open ground ; but this church alone stands in a different position ; for the Emperor Justinian ordered it to be built upon the highest of the hills, explaining of what size he wished it to be, both in width and in length.

Perhaps the main reasons for building a Muslim sanctuary there were simply space – it was free – and elevation from the smells and foul character of the city streets, as outlined by Arculf:

On the fifteenth day of the month of September yearly, an almost countless multitude of various nations is in the habit of gathering from all sides to Jerusalem for the purposes of commerce by mutual sale and purchase. Whence it necessarily happens that crowds of various nations stay in that hospitable city for some days, while the very great number of their camels and horses and asses, not to speak of mules and oxen, for their varied baggage, strews the streets of the city here and there with the abominations of their excrements: the smell of which brings no ordinary nuisance to the citizens and even makes walking difficult.

Interestingly, Arculf notes that between the Anastasis and the Golgotha church ‘lies that illustrious place where the patriarch Abraham built an altar, laid on it the pile of wood, and seized the drawn sword to offer in sacrifice his own son, Isaac: where is now a wooden table of considerable size on which the alms of the poor are offered by the people.’ The sacrifice by Abraham is usually associated with Mount Moriah, and thus the Temple Mount. This suggests that the complex built by Constantine had appropriated the functions of the Temple.

The biggest problem in evaluating what happened after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem is that we have no contemporary eyewitness sources to guide us:

I would like to pick on two events, which ... are certainly very important in the history of Jerusalem at that time... The first, is the taking of the city in roughly 637. I say roughly, because we don’t know the exact year that the Muslims took over the city of Jerusalem. If we don’t know when it happened, how do we know what happened? Since the sources don’t tell you what happened, it is particularly tricky. There is no contemporary eyewitness.

Grabar continues:

We have these accounts from Muslim but not Christian sources. I have doubts as to whether this patriarch [Sophronius] would have led this barbarian [Umar] through the city. Although it is possible that he was trying to make a deal, it is still an exaggerated image of an event. Something took place, but it is exaggerated in the way it is put together.

Indeed, it is far more likely that a deal was made with the besiegers, rather than waiting for the Arab amir to arrive. It is essential to bear in mind how late the Muslim traditions are about this supposed meeting. There is, for example, the fourteenth century Muthîr al-Ghirâm by Jamâl ad Din Ahmad which deals with ‘Umar’s entry to Jerusalem to meet Sophronius:

“Al Walîd states on the authority of Sa’id ibn ‘Abd al ‘Azîz, that the letter of the Prophet had come to the Kaisar (Cæsar) while he was sojourning at the Holy City. Now at that time there was over the Rock of the Holy City a great dungheap, which completely masked the Mihrâb of David, and which same the Christians had put here in order to offend the Jews, and further, even, the Christian women were wont to throw here their cloths and clouts, so that it was all heaped up therewith. Now, when Cæsar had perused the letter of the Prophet, he cried and said: ‘O, ye men of Greece, verily ye are the people who shall be slain on this dungheap, because that ye have desecrated the sanctity of this Mosque. And it shall be with you even as it was with the Children of Israel, who were slain for reason of the blood of Yahyâ ibn Zakariyyâ (John the Baptist).’ Then the Cæsar commanded them to clear the place, and so they began to do; but when the Muslims invaded Syria, only a third part thereof had been cleared. Now, when ‘Omar had come to the Holy City and conquered it, and saw how there was a dungheap over the Rock, he regarded it as horrible, and ordered that it should be entirely cleared. And to accomplish this they forced the Nabathaeans of Palestine to labour without pay. On the authority of Jabîr ibn Nafîr, it is related that when ‘Omar first exposed the Rock to view by removing the dungheap, he commanded them not to pray there until three showers of heavy rain should have fallen.

“It is related as coming from Shadâd ibn Aus, who accompanied ‘Omar when he entered the noble Sanctuary of the Holy City on the day when Allah caused it to be reduced by capitulation, that ‘Omar entered by the Gate of Muhammad, crawling on his hands and knees, he and all those who were with him, until he came up to the Court (of the Sanctuary). There he looked around to right and to left, and, glorifying Allah, said: ‘By Allah, verily this — by Him in whose hand is my soul! — must be the Mosque of David, of which the Apostle spake to us, saying, I was conducted thither in the night journey.’ Then ‘Omar advanced to the fore (or southern) part of the Haram Area, and to the western side thereof, and he said: ‘Let us make this the place for the Mosque.’

“On the authority of Al Walîd ibn Muslim, it is reported as coming from a Shaikh of the sons of Shadâd ibn Aus, who had heard it from his father, who held it of his grandfather, that ‘Omar, as soon as he was at leisure from the writing of the Treaty of Capitulation made between him and the people of the Holy City, said to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: ‘Conduct us to the Mosque of David.’ And the Patriarch agreed thereto. Then ‘Omar went forth girt with his sword, and with him four thousand of the Companions who had come to Jerusalem with him, all begirt likewise with their swords, and a crowd of us Arabs, who had come up to the Holy City, followed them, none of us bearing any weapons except our swords. And the Patriarch walked before ‘Omar among the Companions, and we all came behind the Khalif. Thus we entered the Holy City. And the Patriarch took us to the Church which goes by the name of the Kumâmah, and said he: ‘This is David’s Mosque.’ And ‘Omar looked around and pondered, then he answered the Patriarch: ‘Thou liest, for the Apostle described to me the Mosque of David, and by his description this is not it.’ Then the Patriarch went on with us to the Church of Sihyûn (Sion), and again he said: ‘This is the Mosque of David.’ But the Khalif replied to him: ‘Thou liest.’ So the Patriarch went on with him till he came to the noble Sanctuary of the Holy City, and reached the gate thereof, called (afterwards) the Gate Muhammad. Now the dung which was then all about the noble Sanctuary, had settled on the steps of this gate, so that it even came out into the street in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly on the steps as almost to reach up to the ceiling of the gateway. The Patriarch said to ‘Omar: ‘It is impossible to proceed and enter — except crawling on hands and knees.’ Said ‘Omar: ‘Even on hands and knees be it.’ So the Patriarch went down on hands and knees, preceding ‘Omar, and we all crawled after him, until he had brought us out into the Court of the Noble Sanctuary of the Holy City. Then we arose off our knees, and stood upright. And ‘Omar looked around, pondering for a long time. Then said he: ‘By Him in whose hands is my soul! — this is the place described to us by the Apostle of Allah.’”

“And it is reported on other authority to the last, namely, from Hisham ibn ‘Ammar, who had it from Al Haitham ibn ‘Omar ibn al ‘Abbasi, who related that he had heard his grandfather, ‘Abd Allah ibn Abu ‘Abd Allah, tell how, when ‘Omar was Khalif, he went to visit the people of Syria. ‘Omar halted first at the village of Al Jabiyah, while he despatched a man of the Jadilah Tribe to the Holy City, and, shortly after, ‘Omar became possessed of Jerusalem by capitulation. Then the Khalif himself went thither, and Ka’ab was with him. Said ‘Omar to Ka’ab: O, Abu Ishak, knowest thou the position of the Rock?’ and Ka’ab answered: ‘Measure from the wall which is on the Wadi Jahannum so and so many ells ; there dig, and ye shall discover it:’ adding: ‘ At this present day it is a dungheap.’ So they dug there, and the Rock was laid bare. Then said ‘Omar to Ka’ab: ‘Where sayest thou we should place the Mosque, or, rather, the ‘Where sayest thou we should place the Mosque, or, rather, the Kiblah?’ Ka’ab replied: ‘Lay out a place for it behind the Rock, whereby you will make one the two Kiblahs, that, namely, of Moses, and that of Muhammad.’ But ‘Omar answered ‘ Thou hast leanings still towards the Jews, O Abu Ishak. The Mosque shall be in front of the Rock (not behind it).’ Thus was the Mosque erected in the fore-part of the Haram Area.”

“Al Walid further relates, as coming from Kulthum ibn Ziyad, that ‘Omar asked of Ka’ab : ‘Where thinkest thou that we should put the place of prayer for Muslims in this Holy Sanctuary ?’ Said Ka’ab in answer: In the hinder (or northern) portion thereof, in the part adjoining the Gate of the Tribes.’ But ‘Omar said: ‘Not so; seeing that, on the contrary, to us belongs the fore-part of the Sanctuary.’ And ‘Omar then proceeded to the fore-part thereof. Al Walid again relates - on the authority of Ibn Shaddad, who had it of his father - ‘Omar proceeded to the forepart of the Sanctuary Area, to the side adjoining the west (namely to the south-west part), and there began to throw the dung by handfuls into his cloak, and we all who were with him did likewise. Then he went with it and we following him to do the same and threw the dung into the Wâdi, which is called the Wâdi Jahannum. Then we returned to do the like over again, and yet again he, ‘Omar, and also we who were with him until we had cleared the whole of the place where the Mosque now stands. And there we all made our prayers, ‘Omar himself praying among us.”’

It need hardly be stated that these accounts bear the hall-marks of legend, such as Muhammad’s letter to Byzantine Emperor, and the even more unlikely notion that the latter would get to read it and take it seriously. Equally, why at all would Sophronius be concerned to guide ‘Umar away from the Temple Mount? Surely he would be concerned that the conquerors might want to expropriate the Holy Sepulchre? There is also a contradiction in the accounts. The description of ‘Umar indicates a complete building, not ruins – and certainly not a dung-heap. We have already seen that the last-mentioned notion is unlikely to be historical.

The history of Tabari (839–923 A.D.) is late, and has some differences with other accounts – for example, it implies that some form of religious building already existed on the Mount, one that had a gate:

According to Abu Maryam, the client of Salamah, who said: I witnessed the conquest of Jerusalem with ‘Umar: He set out from al- Jabiyah, leaving it behind until he came to Jerusalem. He then went on and entered the mosque.  Then he went on toward the mihrab of David, while we were with him; he entered it, recited the prostration of David, and prostrated himself, and we prostrated ourselves with him. According to Raja’ b. Haywah — persons who were present at the event: When ‘Umar came from al-Jabiyah to Jerusalem and drew near the gate of the mosque...

Interestingly, there is no mention of the Night Journey. However, ‘the earliest mention of ‘Omar’s building a mosque in Jerusalem is the account found in the Chronicle of the Byzantine historian Theophanes... Theophanes was born in 751, and wrote his Chronicle towards the close of the eighth century A.D. (he died in 818 A.D., 203 A.H.), and he is therefore prior by more than half a century to the earliest Arab authorities. His youth is separated by considerably under a century and a half from the date of Omar’s conquest of Jerusalem.’ Even this is late by about a hundred and fifty years after the Arab capture of Jerusalem, but being a Byzantine account, it cannot be described as Arab/Muslim propaganda. However, its tone and content betray anti-Jewish attitudes, and its formulation of what happened in Jerusalem as a result of Jewish suggestions is historically questionable, especially that ‘Umar would be guided by them:

In this year Omar began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem, for the building, in truth, no longer then stood firmly founded, but had fallen to ruin. Now when Omar inquired the cause, the Jews answered saying: ‘Unless thou throw down the Cross, which stands on the Mount of Olives, the building of the Temple will never be firmly founded.’ Thereupon Omar threw down the Cross at that place, in order that the building (of the Temple) might be made firm; and for the same cause innumerable crosses in other quarters these enemies of Christ did likewise overthrow.

Of course, the Herodian Temple no longer stood at all, so unless this refers to the Jupiter shrine being in ruins, it is possible that Theophanes relied on local sources which engaged in a polemic against the local Jews. The account about the Cross on the Mount of Olives does seem rather fanciful. Theophanes also gives an account of the meeting between Sophronius and ‘Umar:

In this year Omar undertook his expedition into Palestine, where, the Holy City having been continuously besieged for two years (by the Arab armies), he at length became possessed of it by capitulation. Sophronius, the chief (or Patriarch) of Jerusalem, obtained from Omar a treaty in favour of all the inhabitants of Palestine, after which Omar entered the Holy City clothed in camel-hair garments all soiled and torn, and making show of piety as a cloak for his diabolical hypocrisy, demanded to be taken to what in former times had been the Temple built by Solomon. This he straightway converted into an oratory for blasphemy and impiety. When Sophronius saw this he exclaimed: ‘Verily, this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, and it now stands in the Holy Place;’ and (the Patriarch) shed many tears

Again, there seem to elements of legend in this, notably the response of Sophronius to ‘Umar’s actions, and again, we should remember that this tradition is a hundred and fifty years after the supposed events. Interestingly, there is nothing in this account about Sophronius’ attempted dishonesty, nor about the Temple being a dung-heap or rubbish tip. Indeed, for ‘Umar to ‘convert’ something ‘into an oratory for blasphemy and impiety’, this might imply that a building already existed, yet we know that a mere rudimentary wooden edifice was constructed for several thousand people, and that could scarcely have been accomplished overnight. It would be interesting to know Theophanes’ sources for this story; most likely, it was a local Christian source, which emended Muslim propaganda about what happened at the capture of Jerusalem. It is worth noting that in an unquestionably genuine text of Sophronius preaching on Epiphany 636 or 637 - i.e. before the Arab conquest – the Patriarch states the following about the Saracens:

Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: “Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans,” and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory.

Note that in this sermon – whilst the Arabs were yet outside Jerusalem – Sophronius calls the ‘God-hating Saracens’ themselves by the term ‘the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets’. Hence, Theophanes’ account might have been influenced by this.

Eutychius of Alexandria (877–940), Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote about the supposed meeting between ‘Umar and Sophronius in his Annals, but we must remember that he was writing in the tenth century, and seems to have used even Muslim sources for his work:

Then Umar said to him [Sophronius]: ‘You owe me a rightful debt. Give me a place in which I might build a sanctuary [masjid].’ The patriarch said to him: ‘I will give to the Commander of the Faithful a place to build a sanctuary where the kings of Rum were unable to build. It is the rock where God spoke to Jacob and which Jacob called the Gate of heaven and the Israelites the Holy of Holies. It is in the center of the world and was a Temple for the Israelites, who held it in great veneration and wherever they were they turned their faces toward it during prayer. But on this condition, that you promise in a written document that no other sanctuary will be built inside of Jerusalem.’ Therefore Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote him the document on this matter and handed it over to him.

“They were Romans when they embraced the Christian religion, and Helena, the mother of Constantine, built the churches of Jerusalem. The place of the rock and the area around it were deserted ruins and they [the Romans] poured dirt over the rock so that great was the filth above it. The Byzantines [Rum], however, neglected it and did not hold it in veneration, nor did they build a church over it because Christ our Lord said in his Holy Gospel ‘Not a stone will he left upon a stone which will not be ruined and devastated.’ For this reason the Christians left it as a ruin and did not build a church over it. So Sophronius took Umar ibn al-Khattab by the hand and stood him over the filth. Umar, taking hold of his cloak filled it with dirt and threw it into the Valley of Gehenna. When the Muslims saw Umar ibn al-Khattab carrying dirt with his own hands, they all immediately began carrying, dirt in their cloaks and shields and what have you until the whole place was cleansed and the rock was revealed. Then they all said: ‘Let us build a sanctuary and let us place the stone at its heart.’ ‘No,’ Umar responded. ‘We will build a sanctuary and place the stone at the end of the sanctuary.’ Therefore Umar built a sanctuary and put the stone at the end of it.”

Again, this is clearly legendary. The idea of the Mount being full of filth and wholly deserted does not seem to be historical. It is unthinkable that a Patriarch of Jerusalem would describe the Mount as the centre of the world: rather, the Holy Sepulchre would have held that distinction in the mind of Sophronius. Significantly, this tale suggests – and other narrations do not contradict this – that the original Arab place of worship was constructed around where the Al-Aqsa mosque is now situated, rather than in the centre, where the Dome is housed. Once again, we should note that there is no mention of the Night Journey.

John Moschus, a Cilician monk at a monastery near Jerusalem, and who died about 619, was an associate of Sophronius, and is best known for his Spiritual Meadow. In the Georgian translation of this work, which was finished and added to by Sophronius, we read this in Narrative 19 of the appendix:

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha).

Even if we accept that the ‘Capitol’ refers to the Temple Mount, this text does not say that this was because of its previous association with the Temple; again, it could simply mean that they knew that it was empty. However, we should remember that this tradition only occurs in the Georgian, and is therefore late.

Further, there are suggestions that the Temple Mount might not be in view, since Jerome makes this comment (c. 395): ‘From the time of Hadrian to the reign of Constantine— a period of about one hundred and eighty years — the spot which had witnessed the resurrection was occupied by a figure of Jupiter; while on the rock where the cross had stood, a marble statue of Venus was set up by the heathen and became an object of worship.’ Murphy-O’Connor comments: ‘Manifestly here Jerome is thinking, not of the Temple Mount, but of the site of the church of the Holy Sepulchre located on the west side of the Cardo Maximus.’

There is also the observations of a Gaulish pilgrim (‘the Bordeaux Pilgrim), who visited Jerusalem in 333-334 to consider: ‘There are two statues of Hadrian, and not far from the statues there is a perforated stone, to which the Jews come every year and anoint it, bewail themselves with groans, rend their garments, and so depart.’ Murphy-O’Connor comments on this:

The precise locality is important; the statues must be on the platform of the Haram esh‐Sharif. But two statues of the same emperor beside each other is so odd as to be improbable. How the Pilgrim of Bordeaux made the mistake has been revealed by an inscription which today appears upside‐down on the wall above the Double Gate:

To Titius Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus
Augustus Pius, Father of the Country,
Pontifex, Augur, by decree of the
Decurions.

TITO AEL(io) HADRIANO ANTONIO
AUG(usto) PIO P(atri) P(atriae)
PONTIF(ici) AUGUR(i) D(ecreto)
D(ecurionum).

Originally the inscription formed part of the plinth of a statue dedicated to Titus Aelius Antoninus Pius (86–161), who was adopted by Hadrian and named his successor in 138. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux evidently read or recalled only the first line. In reality, however, the two statues honoured Hadrian and Antoninus.

If this is the case why did Jerome identify one of the statues as that of Jupiter? Murphy-O’Connor suggests that Jerome’s illness at the time of writing affected his memory:

The question now is: how and why did Jerome mistakenly identify one of the statues as Jupiter? The Commentary on Isaiah was written between 408 and 410, at a time when Jerome's writing was interrupted by frequent illnesses. I suggest that they had the same impact on his memory as the haste with which he composed the Commentary on Matthew. It is possible, however, to unravel the tangle which an ageing mind inadvertently created. Jerome himself mentions Origen’s commentary on Matthew as the prime source of his own commentary on the first Gospel:

Many years ago I read Origen's twenty-five volumes on Matthew plus his sermons and a sort of verse‐by‐verse commentary.

Legisse me ante annos plurimos in Matheum Originis viginti quinque volumina et totidem eius homelias commaticumque interpretationis genus.

The impression he intended to give was that he did not remember much. Kelly, however, has pointed out that this remark ‘must be treated with scepticism, for the ample surviving fragments of Origen's great commentary reveal how freely he [Jerome] plundered it’. Jerome, therefore, knew that there was a statue of Gaius in the temple, because Origen had said so in his comment on Matthew 24:15 (see above). Jerome had also read Josephus. To quote Kelly again, Josephus was ‘the only non‐Christian historian he [Jerome] knew thoroughly and whom he had hailed as the Greek Livy’. In this case Jerome must have been familiar with the attempt of Gaius to have himself represented as Jupiter in the temple (see above). A tired mind fused these two items of information, thereby creating the myth of a statue of Jupiter on the esplanade of the temple in the Aelia Capitolina. The source of the error is so evident that Jerome cannot be cited in support of the thesis that the Capitoline temple was located on the Temple Mount.

Murphy-O’Connor goes on to suggest that Eusebius’ comments about what happened to the places where Jesus died and rose again (q.v.) was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence:

If the Capitoline temple was not on the site of the Jewish temple where was it? The one named alternative is that noted by Jerome in his letter to Paulinus (Epistle 58), which has been cited above, namely the site on which the Holy Sepulchre was built. This location met the criteria of Vitruvius admirably. It was a small hill which dominated the logical line of the Cardo Maximus... The one problem was that it had been cut by an ancient quarry. The only possible solution was the one adopted by Hadrian’s engineers, namely, to fill and level. What they had done was immediately recognized by their successors sent by Constantine, as Eusebius, an eyewitness, recorded, although he misinterpreted the intention...

In other words, what the pagan Romans had done to the places associated with the Passion and Resurrection was not conscious defilement, but rather simply what was required to build a temple complex. The language used by Eusebius may also suggest the true nature of what was established there:

The plurals — lifeless idols, accursed altars — betray that there was much more on the site than a temple to Aphrodite, and to this extent confirm Jerome’s claim. The same could have been deduced from the great amount of preparatory work needed to level the site for the buildings. The effort and expense would be justified for a Capitoline temple, the central sanctuary of the city, but not for the shrine of a minor deity. Finally, the presence of a temple of Aphrodite may paradoxically be another argument for the existence of a Capitoline on this site; there was a temple to Venus Erycina on the Capitol in Rome.

The question is, of course, what Sophronius – if he did indeed speak the words in the Georgian version – meant by ‘the Capitol’? Did he mean the Holy Sepulchre, or the Temple Mount? Murphy-O’Connor himself comments:

If Jerome in Epistle 58 is correct, how is the language of the Byzantine sources, who give the name Capitol to the area of the Jewish temple, to be explained? If the Capitoline temple had in fact been built on the place of the Passion, the site could not have been, and in fact was not, called the Capitol after the construction of the Holy Sepulchre. The prevalence of the name Aelia reflects the general awareness of the city’s origins as a Roman colony to which a Capitol was indispensable... When visitors in the early Byzantine period sought the Capitol, the imperial statues on the Temple Mount were the clearest evidence of the city’s Roman past. It was there, if anywhere, that the name Capitol would find an undisputed resting‐place.

Of course, Sophronius could hardly be described as a ‘visitor’ at this time, so, again, what did he mean? The Georgian text, if accurate, raises the possibility that the Arabs rushed to the site of the Holy Sepulchre. Even if the Georgian text is not valid, there might be reasons that the Arabs would indeed rush to that site, rather than the Temple Mount. We must remember that since the time of Constantine, Jerusalem had been defined by the Holy Sepulchre. It would be natural that they would want to see the latter up front. Moreover, if the story of the ‘Isrā’was current at this juncture, there might be a particular theological reason for such a visit (of which more later).

The seventh century Armenian historian Sebeos presents this story of how the Arabs built an initial mosque on the Mount, and interestingly, it has nothing to do with Sophronius:

I shall also speak about the plots of the rebellious Jews, who after gaining help from the Hagarenes for a brief while, decided to rebuild the temple of Solomon. Finding the spot called Holy of Holies, they rebuilt it with base and construction as a place for their prayers. But the Ismaelites, being envious of them, expelled them from that place and called the same house of prayer their own...

Apart from saying nothing about ‘ruins’ or a ‘dung-heap’, this would imply that the Arabs simply seized upon an opportunity to take over some place. Hoyland also notes other traditions: ‘The monk Anastasius of Sinai informs us that he had witnessed clearing work (ekchoismos) being undertaken on the Temple Mount ca. 660. Now on Friday, 7 June 659, “there was a violent earthquake in Palestine and many places there collapsed.” Very likely the mosque of ‘Umar was one of the edifices affected and it was, therefore, incumbent upon Mu’awiya to have the structure rebuilt.’ Perhaps this was the origins of the ‘ruins’ idea associated with the Mount. Again, if this understanding is valid, it is significant that no great edifice was constructed on the site, since Arculf’s testimony, which is subsequent to these events, indicates it was very rudimentary. It also indicates that no great theological significance was associated with the site.

1. The Dome of the Rock in relation to the Holy Sepulchre

It is well-known that the architecture of Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra) – specifically its dome - was based on the design of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Equally, it is also known that it performs a polemical function against Christianity – for example, its statement that ‘the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God’, whereas it states of Muhammad: ‘there is no god but Allah; He has no partner; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; pray for him’. The interesting point in all of this is that the Dome is not, in and of itself, a mosque. Obviously, the Al-Aqsa mosque provides that function, although Muslims came to regard the entire compound of what was later called the Haram al-Sharif as a mosque. So what is the Dome?

It has been suggested by some that ‘Abd al-Malik built the Dome in the course of his civil war with Ibn al-Zubayr, who supposedly had captured Mecca, and so ‘Abd al-Malik constructed the Dome to make Jerusalem an alternative place of pilgrimage. This derives from the history of Yaqubi:

One of the reasons given for building this monument, conveniently linked with the historical accounts of the time, was initiated by the Shi’i historian Yaqubi in 874 AD. Abd al-Malik’s provincial governor for the region of Makkah and Madinah, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, considered himself independent and defied the authority of the Umayyad caliph based in the capital city of Damascus. To dissuade people from travelling to Makkah for Hajj, the annual event of Muslim pilgrimage, Abd al-Malik is said to have built the Dome of the Rock. The intention was to create an object of piety as an alternative to the holy Ka’ba in Makkah, a cubical structure which is circumambulated as a liturgical requirement for the Hajj. The element of piety for the new monument would have been provided by a number of traditions about the city of Jerusalem, the platform itself and the ‘rock’ lying at its centre.

Several arguments are presented against this, especially from Muslims that ‘such an act would have been anathema to a pious person like Abd al-Malik who had re-issued the standardised Uthmanic text of the Qur’an’. This is an a priori theological suggestion, rather than historical argument. A more compelling criticism would be that Yaqubi was writing nearly two hundred years after the event, and so his presentation is open to criticism given its late origin. Of course, the same criticism applies to the Hadith collection of Bukhari. The most obvious historical criticism of Yaqubi is that the Dome’s calligraphy – which we will see is often polemical in nature – contains no attack on Mecca (or anywhere else), nor on Islamic theological deviance, but clearly responds to the religious and political circumstances of Jerusalem itself.

Another reason for the Dome’s construction is said to be the connection with the Night Journey (‘Isrā’) of Muhammad to Jerusalem, e.g. the famous Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328):

The first explanation is maintained by most Muslim writers and scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyya, who regard the motive and aim behind ‘Abd al-Malik’s work as religious. ‘Abd al-Malik, as one of the most knowledgeable men of his time, knew the sacredness and holiness of this place in Islam; therefore, he wanted to build the Dome of the Rock not only for commemorating the Prophet’s Night Journey and Ascension (al-isrā’ and al-mi‘raj)...

Other Muslim commentators echoed this belief that the Temple Mount was the place where Muhammad visited and from which he ascended to Paradise:

The second explanation for the Dome of the Rock was destined to become the one that was, and still is, generally accepted by the faithful. It is connected with the complex problem of the exegesis of sūrah 17, verse I, of the Koran: “Glorified be He Who carried His servant [i.e., Muhammad] by night from the masjid al-harām [i.e., Mekkah] to the masjid al-aqsā [i.e., the farthest place of worship].” As early as the first part of the second century, the biographer of the Prophet, Ibn Ishaq, connected this Night-Journey (isrā’) with the no less complex Ascension (Mi’raj) of Muhammad, and claimed that the masjid al-aqsā was in fact in Jerusalem and that it is from Jerusalem that the Prophet ascended into heaven. Al-Ya‘qūbī mentions in his account the fact that the Rock in the Haram al-Sharıf is “the rock on which it is said that the Messenger of God put his foot when he ascended into heaven.” Furthermore all the geographers describing the area mention a great number of qubbahs, maqams, mihrābs, etc. ...connected with the events of Muhammad’s Ascension. It might thus be suggested that the Dome of the Rock was built as a sort of martyrium to a specific incident of Muhammad’s life. The arguments could be further strengthened by the fact that, without doubt, the architecture of the Dome of the Rock follows in the tradition of the great Christian martyria and is closely related to the architecture of the Christian sanctuaries in Jerusalem, one of which commemorated the Ascension of Christ.

Again, we have the problem of late dates for this assertion. Both Ibn Ishaq and Yaqubi are writing many years after the purported miraculous journey of Muhammad to Jerusalem. Grabar further notes:

A. A. Bevan has shown that among early traditionists there are many who do not accept the identification of the masjid al-aqsā, and among them are to be found such great names as al-Bukharī and Tabarī both Ibn Ishaq and al-Ya‘qūbī precede their accounts with expressions which indicate that these are stories which are not necessarily accepted as dogma... A. Guillaume’s careful analysis of the earliest texts (al-Wāqidī and al-Azraqī, both in the later second century AH) has convincingly shown that the Koranic reference to the masjid al-aqsā applies specifically to al-Ji‘rānah, near Mekkah, where there were two sanctuaries (masjid al-adnā and masjid al-aqsā), and where Muhammad sojourned in dhū al-qa‘dah of the eighth year after the Hijrah. A. Guillaume also indicates that the concepts of isrā’ and Mi’raj were carefully separated by earlier writers and that Ibn Ishaq seems to have been the first one, insofar as our present literary evidence goes, to connect them with each other.

Of course, the idea that masjid al-aqsā was somewhere other than Jerusalem is equally speculative. We must separate the idea of the ‘Isrā’ in itself from its destination. Certainly, the subject matter of the initial verses of Surah Al-Isrā would suit a Palestinian destination. One possibility is that the ‘Isrā’ was believed to have occurred at the Holy Sepulchre. After all, at the time of Muhammad, the religious centre of Jerusalem was the Holy Sepulchre, not the Temple Mount. Of course, neither place is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an. Usually, Muslim commentators, and especially modern Muslim polemicists, claim that masjid means simply ‘a place of prostration (worship)’ and thus could simply refer to the holy city of Jerusalem itself.

However, since the Qur’an describes the Ka’bah as ‘the Sacred House’ (l-bayta l-harāma) in Surah al-Maidah 5.97, it is likely that ‘the Sacred Mosque’ (l-masjidi l-harāmi) in 17.1 is meant to be also the Ka’bah, rather than the Arab Holy City as a whole, and so it follows that (l-masjidi l-aqsā) is meant to be a specific building in Jerusalem, rather than the Byzantine Holy City as a whole. Again, it must be stated that at the time of Muhammad, this corresponded to the Holy Sepulchre, not the Temple Mount. It is noteworthy that in later tradition, i.e. the Hadith and Sirah, Muhammad is clearly brought to a building:

Narrated by Anas b. Malik

Sahih Muslim 0309.

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing. Then he took me to heaven...

Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa which is the temple of Aelia, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes. The following account reached me from ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and ‘A’isha the prophet’s wife, and Mu’awiya b. Abu Sutyan, and al-Hasan b. Abū’1-Hasan al-Basri, and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and Qatāda and other traditionists, and Umm Hāni’ d. of Abū Tālib. It is pieced together in the story that follows, each one contributing something of what he was told about what happened when he was taken on the night journey... It was certainly an act of God by which He took him by night in what way He pleased to show him His signs...

According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas’ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was brought to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem’s temple.

The phraseology used (‘entered the mosque’) indicates a building. That the Holy Sepulchre is ‘the Furthest Mosque’ might also explain the actions of Mu’awiya, according to the Maronite Chronicler, going to Golgotha and praying there. Another possibility is linked to the purported change of the qiblah (Surah Al-Baqarah 2.142-145). Although not explicitly stated in the Qur’an, the Hadith and Sirah indicate that the prior qiblah was Jerusalem. The question is when was the qiblah actually changed? Obviously, the Hadith and Sirah are late sources. Did the change actually happen after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem? We can understand that the Arabs, even if they had already changed the qiblah, would want to possess the original one, or at least pray there. Eutychius (Annals II) presents a story about ‘Umar often quoted by Muslims:

He proceeded, under the conduct of the patriarch, to the Church of the Resurrection. While there the Moslem’s hour of prayer arrived, and Omar expressed a wish to pray. “O Commander of the faithful,” said the patriarch, “pray here!” “I will not pray here,” replied the khalif. He was conducted to the Church of Constantine, in the middle of which a mat was spread for his accommodation: “Neither will I pray here,” he repeated. He then went out of the church to the door facing the east, and there prayed alone on the steps. Then sitting down he enquired:” Knowest thou, patriarch, why I would not pray within the church? Had I done so, you would have lost your right in it, for the Moslems would have taken it from you after my death, saying, Here prayed Omar.” Not satisfied with this precaution, but fearing lest his act, as it was, might be drawn into precedent, he asked for paper, and wrote an order that the Moslems should not pray even on the steps except one at a time, and should not be called to prayer there, as at their own mosks. This writing he delivered to the patriarch.

The whole report smacks of legend, and we must remember that Eutychius is writing in the ninth-tenth centuries, and thus many years after the events. Jeffery suggests that the ‘entrance to the basilica on the east side’ was ‘converted into a small mosque’ for the convenience of the Arabs, but the sources he gives for this are once again, late: ‘...Theophanes {c. 830) and Eutychius (c. 870). The Arab authors are of the thirteenth century. Arculf (697) does not seem to refer to the presence of a mosque within the portico.’ It is significant that Arculf – nearest to the time in question - does not mention any such mosque, and whilst it is incautious to argue from silence, it is difficult to imagine a pilgrim of the time not referring to such a structure. Of course, eventually a mosque, commemorating this supposed event, was indeed built adjacent to the Holy Sepulchre, but when was it built? There have been suggestions that this occurred c. 935, but there is no clear evidence for this. Indeed, Murphy-O’Connor makes an important point about the present ‘Mosque of Omar’:

Directly across from the main entrance of the Holy Sepulchre is the so-called Mosque of Omar... In popular tradition it commemorates the caliph’s prayer at the entrance of the basilica in February 638... In the C7, however, the entrance was on the east. The present entrance was inaugurated only in the C11, but it would have been the only one known to Saladin’s son, Afdal Ali, when he built the mosque in 1193...

Hence, the present mosque reflects the re-built Holy Sepulchre of the Crusader era, rather than the original Byzantine structure. This undermines the idea that there was a mosque built there before the time of Afdal Ali. Doubtless, there were attempts to inaugurate such a building, but they obviously came to nothing. However, this does suggest that Muslim/Arab attention was still focussed on the Holy Sepulchre. Doubtless, a major term of surrender from the side of the Jerusalem Christians is that the Holy Sepulchre be left inviolate. However, it must have smarted the Arab conquerors that the defining structure of Jerusalem was outside their control – especially if a tradition of the ‘Isrā’ did exist, or even if it later emerged. Interestingly, one reason suggested for the building of the Dome may have an element of truth in it:

Mukaddasi, who wrote in the year 985, gives another version of the reasons which induced ‘Abd al Malik to build the Dome over the Rock, which it may be well to quote at the present point. The paragraph occurs after the description of the Great Mosque at Damascus... Mukaddasi then continues:

“Now one day I said, speaking to my father’s brother, ‘O my uncle, verily it was not well of the Khalif al Walld to expend so much of the wealth of the Muslims on the Mosque at Damascus. Had he expended the same on making roads, or for caravanserais, or in the restoration of the Frontier Fortresses, it would have been more fitting and more excellent of him.’ But my uncle said to me in answer, ‘O my little son, thou hast not understanding! Verily Al Walid was right, and he was prompted to a worthy work. For he beheld Syria to be a country that had long been occupied by the Christians, and he noted herein the beautiful churches still belonging to them, so enchantingly fair, and so renowned for their splendour, even as are the Kumâmah (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem), and the churches of Lydda and Edessa. So he sought to build for the Muslims a mosque that should prevent their regarding these, and that should be unique and a wonder to the world. And in like manner is it not evident how the Khalif ‘Abd al Malik, noting the greatness of the Dome of the (Holy Sepulchre called) Al Kumâmah and its magnificence, was moved lest it should dazzle the minds of the Muslims, and hence erected above the Rock, the Dome which now is seen there?”’

(Muk., 159.)

Obviously, this quote, being dated to 985, is too late to provide definite evidence on the reason behind the Dome’s construction. However, if, for various reasons, the Arabs had to leave the Holy Sepulchre in peace, the only way that they could involve themselves in its centrality to Jerusalem is to build a monument based on its structure but countering its essential message. In this respect, the actual place where the Dome was built is irrelevant, save for its elevation, so it could be seen by all, rather than its history. Essentially, the Dome is the Arab ‘annexe’ to the Holy Sepulchre – based on it, aligned with it, but bigger, and countering the latter’s political and theological message – about the Roman, Christian character of Jerusalem, and its doctrine of Jesus. The Dome is the ‘mirror image’ of the Holy Sepulchre, and in this sense the ‘holy’ character of Jerusalem can be funnelled through the Dome’s alignment with the Holy Sepulchre. Hence, the Dome was in fact, more important than the Al-Aqsa mosque. The original mosque, as previously suggested, had no special character, other than as a meeting place for worshippers. The Marwanid mosque, however, by virtue of its alignment to the Holy Sepulchre’s Arab ‘mirror image’, gains in ‘sacred’ nature. Note that the Mosque is fitted in the structure towards the Dome, and not vice versa:

Al-Haram al-Sharif was conceived by ‘Abd al-Malik as an architectural means to achieve an omphalos - the site of the Tree of Life, interlocked with Judgment Day, Resurrection, and Paradise. The focal point of this conception was the Dome of the Rock, with its specific iconographic, decorative scheme. In placing emphasis on the Dome of the Rock, ‘Abd al-Malik had his architects align his new al-Aqsa Mosque according to the position of the Rock, thus shifting the main north-south axis of the Temple Mount, a line running through the Dome of the Chain and the Mihrab of ‘Umar.

Observe that the mosque was positioned in relation to the Dome. However, it is best not to see the new Haram al-Sharif as a re-positioned omphalos. Rather, that role was firmly associated with the Holy Sepulchre. What the Marwanids did was to associate their structure with the pre-existing omphalos of the Holy Sepulchre. The terms of the surrender evidently pre-empted them from taking over the latter, so they did the next best thing – build a bigger copy, one that was theologically correct, and which theologically corrects the message of the Holy Sepulchre, and establishes the divine right of the Arabs to rule Jerusalem, thereby changing it character from that of a Byzantine city.

To return to the central issue of the ‘Isrā’, the immediate questions are firstly, did this belief exist before Abd al-Malik, and secondly, was this in his mind when he constructed the Dome? Certainly, as we examine the calligraphy of the Dome, we find no mention of this event. It might be argued that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was intended to commemorate it, but it still leaves the questions as to why the Dome, rather than the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is in centre of the Mount, and secondly, why was the Dome – which is not even a mosque – built first? Let us first consider the Dome’s geographical position. As previously stated, it is in the centre of the Temple Mount, and we must consider at this juncture what the Arabs found when they captured Jerusalem:

But above all, two Christian edifices told the story of the great expectations of the Second Coming that in 630 was felt to be more close at hand than ever. One was the complex of the Holy Sepulchre; the other, the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives. These two symbols of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ stood, one opposite the other, kindling the faith that Jesus would soon return to the place from which he left earth, to establish the eternal new divine order. In between the two, on Mount Moriah, lay the huge rectangular space of the Jewish Temple in complete desolation, mute testimony to Jesus’s prophecy and proof, as far as the Christians were concerned, of the victory of their faith over Judaism.

As we have seen, it is very questionable that the Mount was ‘desolate’ before the Arab conquest, but nonetheless, it is significant that the Dome was built in alignment with two churches which emphasised the unique character of Jesus: His saving death and resurrection, and His triumphal Ascension, something no Muslim ever claimed in regard to Muhammad. No surprise, therefore, that the new religious building would ‘demote’ Jesus by stating: ‘The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him’ and ‘It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son.’

Even if we accept that the ‘Isrā’ was an established belief of the Arabs during the time of Abd al-Malik or even earlier, and that masjid al-aqsā does indeed refer to Jerusalem, this does not indicate that the Dome was constructed to commemorate the event – its motifs all are inward in relation to Jerusalem, referring to claims of Christianity as outlined in the Holy Sepulchre, rather than to an external event, such as the visit of Muhammad. Indeed, so central is the polemical character of the Dome to its construction that we should dismiss ideas that the Dome was an act of ‘re-sacralising’ the Mount. The Dome’s calligraphy never suggests this. Grabar notes that in Mediæval thought, there were certain traditions attached to the Mount:

But in medieval times Mount Moriah in general and the Rock in particular were endowed in Jewish legend with a complex mythology. Mount Moriah, through its association with the Temple, became the omphalos of the earth, where the tomb of Adam was to be found and where the first man was created. But another, more specific, tradition was attached to the Rock, that of the sacrifice of Abraham, through a confusion between the land of Moriah (Gen. 22:2) and Mount Moriah. It is not possible to say when the confusion first occurred, but it is already found in Josephus in the first century AD, and it became common throughout Talmudic literature. In other words, in the Jewish tradition, the Rock and the area surrounding it acquired mystical significance as the site of the Holy of Holies and became associated with a series of legends involving major figures of the Biblical tradition, especially Abraham and Isaac. The importance accorded to the Haram and to the Rock by the Jews is evidenced in early medieval times by the statement of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux who mentions a lapis pertusus “to which the Jews come every year and which they anoint,” probably a reference to the Rock itself which appears here to be thought of as a tangible remnant of the Temple.

The question is how far this would have influenced Arabs/Muslims in the first century of their new religion? By then, the defining sacred space of Jerusalem was the Holy Sepulchre, as Grabar acknowledges: ‘But, with the building of the Holy Sepulchre, the omphalos of the earth was transferred to another hill of Jerusalem, Golgotha, and together with it were also transferred the associations between Jerusalem and Adam and Jerusalem and Abraham.’ Given that the Dome clearly relates to the Holy Sepulchre, and concerns Christian, rather than Jewish themes, it does not appear that its construction was a claim that the Dome – or even the entire Haram al-Sharif – was seen as standing in the tradition of the Temple – note that reference to Solomon is absent from the Dome’s calligraphy.

In regard to the Dome’s octagonal character, sometimes it is suggested that this indicates that it was intended for tawaf – circumambulation. However, a more likely reason is that it reflected Byzantine church design:

A central circular space surrounded by an ambulatory was a fairly common type of commemorative or other religious building in Roman and Byzantine architecture... The rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (335 AD), also known as Anastasis... built by the emperor Constantine at a short distance away from Mount Moriah is the earliest example of this type of design in the Syrian region. Its design had possibly derived from the Mausoleum of Santa Costanza in Rome built by the same emperor a few years earlier. Both the buildings identified as having influenced the design of the Dome of the Rock have a central space covered by a dome carried by a ring of supports and an ambulatory between it and the outer circular wall...

In Palestine itself, there was also the example of the Church of Ascension in the Mount of Olives, an area adjacent to the Dome of the Rock:

... this domed building had an octagonal plan before 378 AD with exterior walls surrounding a space divided by a ring of columns with footprints of Jesus Christ at the centre. However, this building was destroyed by the Persians in 614 AD and the reconstructed building was described by Bishop Arculf ... the earliest Western Christian traveller to the holy lands in c. 670 AD, as ‘a great round church, having in its circuit three vaulted porticoes covered over above. The interior of the church, without roof or vault, lies open to heaven under the open air’.

There was also ‘the Tomb of the Virgin Mary, again in the same area of Jerusalem, which has an octagonal plan surrounding a circular colonnade.’ All this suggests that the Dome of the Rock was largely influenced by existing Byzantine churches in Palestine.

It should be noted that the Arabs captured Jerusalem in c. 638, so it is significant that they waited over fifty years to build such an imposing structure as the Dome of the Rock. There had been some form of mosque on the site before, but nothing to stir the imagination like the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is in this light that we need to see the actions of ‘Abd al-Malik. He did not destroy the existing basilica of the Anastasis – which might have led to insurrection among the Christians, something he would have wished to avoid, given his problems with dissident Muslims. Rather, he built near it an edifice that was even grander, based partly on the basilica itself. Also, since Constantine’s time, a greater building had been constructed in Constantinople itself – Hagia Sophia. The original Hagia Sophia had been started by Constantine himself. However, the famous basilica on the site had been built by the Emperor Justinian, who supposedly exclaimed upon seeing the completed construction, ‘Solomon, I have outdone thee.’ Its immense size meant that those approaching Constantinople by sea would first view the basilica. The Dome of the Rock is its architectural heir. As ruler of the Arab empire, ‘Abd al-Malik had now ‘outdone’ Constantine – the Dome of the Rock became the visible symbol of Jerusalem, as Hagia Sophia was of Constantinople. It demonstrated that Jerusalem was now an Arab, Islamic city. This should also be seen in the context of his Arabising of the Empire itself, in terms of language, coinage and bureaucracy.

It must be remembered that Damascus, the de facto capital of the Arab empire, had at one time been part of the Nabatæan realm, as had Petra, and also various towns in southern Palestine, such as Elusa and Nessana. They could therefore be described quite authentically as Arab towns. However, Jerusalem had never been part of the Nabatæan kingdom, so it was important – given Jerusalem’s sacred history – to somehow identify it with the Arab narrative. ‘Abd al-Malik performed this feat by beginning the building of the Al-Aqsa mosque, which commemorates the Night Journey from the Arab Holy City to the Byzantine Holy City.

Certainly, the Al-Aqsa mosque gave some verification to the idea that the Arab prophet had visited Jerusalem, but that in itself was not enough to ‘Arabize’ the city’s identity. The Dome of the Rock does so by its calligraphy, which stands in the place of the mosaics of Byzantine churches. For example, the northern portal inscription on the Dome states the following: ‘we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered’. This statement identified the Arab prophet Muhammad with the previous prophets of Israel, and by implication, presented him as their culmination – which, by implication, sanctified Arab political control of Jerusalem. Another inscription on the copper plate at this portal is probably an attack on the local Christians, since it starts by asserting that God ‘begetteth not nor was begotten’ and goes on to state: ‘Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion, however much idolators may be averse’. Hence, according to the Dome, what Muhammad brought was the true religion. One polemic is probably political, against the Byzantines: ‘Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt’. The message is: God gave the land to the Arabs, taking sovereignty of the holy city from the idolatrous Byzantines. Jerusalem is thus an Arab city, by right of divinely-inspired conquest.

This is also indicated by the Dome’s mosaics, which include jewels and crowns. Grabar notes:

These ornaments can all be identified either as royal or imperial ornaments of the Byzantine and Persian princes, with the former largely predominant, or as the ornaments worn by Christ, the Virgin, and saints in the religious art of Byzantium. Recent studies, in particular those of A. Grabar, J. Deer, and P. E. Schramm, have shown that these were all, in varying degrees and in different ways, symbols of holiness, power, and sovereignty in the official art of the Byzantine and Persian empires. In other words, the decoration of the Dome of the Rock witnesses a conscious (because of its position) use by the decorators of this Islamic sanctuary of representations of symbols belonging to the subdued or to the still active enemies of the Muslim state...

One can argue, first, that the crowns and jewels reflect an artistic theme of Byzantine origin which, also in an Islamic context, used royal symbols in a religious sanctuary to emphasize the sanctuary’s holiness. But one can also suggest that the choice of Byzantine and Sasanian royal symbols was dictated by the desire to demonstrate that the “unbelievers” had been defeated and brought into the fold of the true faith. Thus, in the case of the mosaic decoration, just as in the problem of the choice of the location of the building, one can present at the same time an explanation of the Dome of the Rock which would be purely religious and self-sufficient in Islamic terms alone (even though it may reflect practices found in other civilizations) and an explanation which brings up the relationship of the non-Muslims to the new faith.

The very fact that the mosaics include a Persian crown militates against any view that holiness is indicated; rather, the implication is that sovereignty and power are meant. The mosaics proclaim that God has given power to the Arabs – specifically over Jerusalem, and in contrast to the Christians, particularly the Byzantines. The ‘crowns’ (i.e., sovereignty) of the two empires that previously governed Jerusalem – the Persians and the Romans – have now passed to the Arabs. We will see that this ties-in with the calligraphy of the Dome.

The idea of the religious superseding of Christianity by the new Arab religion is married to that of the political supplanting of Byzantine authority by Arab rule. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre commemorated the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, unlike modern Muslim polemical material about the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Dome inscriptions do not deny that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead. Rather, on both the inner and outer octagon, Allah is simply presented as the author of life and death: ‘He quickeneth and He giveth death’. In the inner octagon, it also states: ‘Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary’. These thoughts are found in the Qur’an, but how much was extant in literary form at this time, and how much was influenced by the Dome inscriptions is another question. The main point for consideration at this juncture is that what the Dome does in regard to ‘previous prophets’ and the Holy Sepulchre’s commemoration of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. The Dome’s calligraphy on these issues does not attack Christianity in this respect; rather, it assimilates these doctrines by referring the miraculous power that causes death and resurrection to Allah.

The rest of the inscriptions essentially attack the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. In this way, the larger building (the Dome of the Rock) attacks the smaller – the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Dome is thus a monument - specifically to Arab religious and political supremacy: it is ‘a monument celebrating the victorious presence of Islam in the Christian city of Jerusalem...’ Again, ‘It was also meant to be a message of power to the Christians, whose defeated rulers had their crowns hanging in the sanctuary...’ That the Dome is a monument, rather than a place of worship, is also suggested by a smaller dome on the complex:

The other buildings built by Abd al-Malik on this platform are the congregational mosque on its south-east corner and the Dome of the Chain or Qubbat al-Silsila, a smaller open structure of two concentric rows of columns. Like the Dome of the Rock, the latter was also built on the elevated terrace, 2.5 m to 6 m higher than the platform itself. Among the various reasons given for the construction of the latter is the commemoration of the location of ‘mihrab Dawud’, i.e., the place of judgement by David and, hence, its other name ‘Mahkamat Dawud’.

The link with David, if it goes back to ‘Abd al-Malik, may suggest an assertion of political lineage in justification for Arab control of Jerusalem, although Surah Sad 38.20-21 speak of the mihrab Dawud, perhaps confusing his palace with the place of worship. While the Al-Aqsa mosque performs the function of worship, the Dome of the Rock is a political, religious and cultural statement – namely that Jerusalem was now, by the will of God, an Arab city.

The Dome also introduces, for the first time, the name Islam: ‘There is no good reason to suppose that the bearers of this primitive identity called themselves 'Muslims'. The earliest datable occurrence of this term is in the Dome of the Rock of 69; it is not otherwise attested outside the Islamic literary tradition until far into the eighth century.’

The Calligraphy of the Dome

1. As we have seen, the first mention of ‘Islam’ is dated back to the Dome of the Rock – some decades after the supposed death of Muhammad. Interestingly, the calligraphy does not explicitly mention the Qur’an by name. All it states – specifically on the northern portal – is that: ‘we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord.’ Another inscription declares: ‘Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth...’ The Dome simply refers to ‘that which was revealed unto Muhammad’ and the idea that Allah sent him ‘with the guidance’, which is ambiguous in regard to whether Muhammad was sent with a book. The only reference to a book is on the south side of the octagon, where we read: ‘Those who (formerly) received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning’. The reference here is clearly to the Christians who had received ‘the Book’, i.e. the Bible or possibly the Gospel, and not to the Muslims or the Qur’an.

Whelan’s article suggests that the Dome’s calligraphy is basically quoting from the Qur’an. She acknowledges that the quotations are not exact: ‘With minor variations, these Qur’anic passages reflect the text as known from the standard Cairo edition...’ This actually admits too much, since the Cairo edition (originally issued in 1924, revised 1936) is not based upon a critical edition of the Qur’an in the same way that Nestlé-Aland or the United Bible Societies have produced critical editions of the New Testament based on an examination of extant Greek manuscripts, early translations into Coptic, Syriac and Latin, and quotations from the Early Church Fathers, but rather on a specific tradition:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an. Initially, however, the publication of this edition was a purely Egyptian affair. It was the work of a government appointed committee, led by Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Husayni al-Haddad, that was meant to establish a uniform text for religious educationin Egypt.

Minor adjustments were subsequently made to this text in following editions, one published later in 1924 and another in 1936. The text released in 1936 became known as the Faruq edition in honor of the Egyptian king, Faruq (r. 1936–52). Yet the influence of the Cairo text soon spread well beyond Egypt. It has been adopted almost universally by both Sunni and Shi‘i Muslims, and by critical scholars as well, who have long since given up Gustav Flugel’s 1834 edition. Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745). But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936 among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept.

Not only was the Cairo text not a critical edition, it was a deliberate project to establish a de facto canonical text for Egyptian education:

In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools. In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

When the scholars in Cairo decided to fix a standard text according to Hafs ‘an ‘Asim, they still had to decide which reports of it to trust. Their project, then, involved comprehensive research of the classical qira’at works...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence. This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition. The Egyptian edition’s claim to validity is based not on antiquity, but rather on canonicity. The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

To say that the Dome’s words reflect what we see in the Cairo edition is no great proof that the former is actually quoting the Qur’an. All it suggests that there may have been oral or possibly written traditions at the time of the Dome’s constructions that it reflects. Furthermore, we should consider the possibility – which Whelan dismisses – that ‘Abd al-Malik himself may have influenced the text of the Qur’an. That is, the Dome’s calligraphy may be the origin – albeit in an edited from – of what the Qur’an states about Jesus in certain places. This should be linked to what the archaeological record informs us:

From as early as 22/643, coins, papyri, building inscriptions, tombstones, travelers’ graffiti, and possibly (but probably not) a tirāz silk, were written bism Allāh (“In the name of God”), and some were dated according to a new calendar corresponding to the era of the hijra. Some of the formulae used are identical to those which are later characteristically Islamic—e.g. bism Allāh al-rahman al-rahim (“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”), and amīr al-mu’minīn (“Commander of the Believers,” i.e. the caliph) — and a phrase common in graffiti, and first securely attested in 64/683-4, also appears in the Qur’ān — mā taqaddama min dhanbihi wa-mā ta’akhkhara (“May God forgive him for his sins, the earlier and the later ones” Qur’ān 48.2). It is remarkable, however, that none of these early religious writings mentions either the Prophet Muhammad or his religion, Islam. Thus, for example, the earliest tombstone of a Muslim, dated 31/651-2, from Egypt ... makes no reference to the Prophet, an omission that almost never occurs after 72/691-2... The first clear and detailed proclamation of Islam and of the role of Muhammad is in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, built by ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān (65-86/685-705) and dated 72/691-2. This marks a watershed, and immediately thereafter religious declarations become common, and only exceptionally do religious inscriptions fail to mention the Prophet.

A further, very important point is what the outer facade of the Dome states about Muhammad:

Attention has tended to focus upon the inscription on the inner façade of the octagon, which is principally concerned with defining the position of Jesus within the Islamic scheme. In the context of Marwānid state formation, it is the inscription on the outer façade that is of greater interest. Here, it is the figure of Muhammad that dominates. The inscription consists of four unitarian and/or anti-trinitarian verses, punctuated by five invocations to Muhammad. The invocation on the north-east side particularly attracts attention...: “Muhammad is the messenger of God. May God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of the resurrection on behalf of his [His?] community” (Muhammad rasūl Allāh şallā Allāh ‘alayhi wa-taqabbal a shaf[ā]’atahu yawm al-qiy[ā]ma fī ummatihi). It calls upon God to accept the intercession of Muhammad for the Muslims on the Day of Judgment. The idea is not Qurānic, for nowhere in the Qurān does Muhammad appears as an intercessor.

Note that the calligraphy makes a statement about Muhammad not found in the Qur’an (at least, not one that is in any extant Qur’anic manuscript). Does this mean that a Qur’anic tradition existed at one time but what subsequently removed? Or – and this may be the most plausible solution – that what became the Qur’an was influenced by the Dome itself. Despite John’s comment that ‘the inner façade of the octagon’ being ‘principally concerned with defining the position of Jesus within the Islamic scheme’, it is more than likely that the outer façade is also reacting to the Christology of the Holy Sepulchre, and the idea that the work of Christ on the Cross and thereafter ‘intercedes’ for Christians, especially on the Day of judgment/Resurrection. Perhaps the subsequent tradition on Muhammad’s intercessory role in the Hadith influenced was by the Dome.

A simple phrase bism Allāh al-rahman al-rahim does not necessarily imply fully developed Islam. The important point is how this changes after ‘Abd al-Malik. We have suggested that political and demographic motives were behind the changes and actions he made. Obviously, ‘professionalising’ the Arab religion from a mere Christological heresy linked to Arab identity and an incitement to plunder into something that could stand up to the established edifice of Christian theology was needed to prevent assimilation by, rather than to, the Arabs.

In a paper considering the Dome inscriptions, de Prémare notes how they correspond to the Qur’an, but not exactly:

The subjects of these texts are polemical. They are addressed directly to the “People of Scripture [ahl al-kitab],” referring to the Christians, as the polemic concerns mainly Jesus and the Trinity. We find those passages again in the Qur’an, both in complete lines and in fragments of lines, organized in different ways and with grammatical variants due to different arrangements or to a different syntactical context.

2.3.1 Inscriptions

How far do the inscriptions on the Dome agree with the Qur’an?

2.3.1.1 Inner Octagon

‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.’

Whelan presents this as ‘a conflation of 64:1 and 57:2’. This is what Surah At-Tagabun 64.1 states: ‘All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifieth Allah; unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him longeth praise, and He is Able to do all things.’ We will place the agreement in red:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

Surah At-Tagabun 64.1 is about the power of Allah, and how creation praises Him. The Surah goes on to attack those who deny the possibility of Resurrection: ‘7. Those who disbelieve assert that they will not be raised again. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Yea, verily, by my Lord! ye will be raised again and then ye will be informed of what ye did; and that is easy for Allah.’ Clearly, the focus of criticism cannot be Christians. In only one place is there anything resembling an assertion of monotheism – but, note, not an assertion of unitarianism - but it is really a call for believers to trust Allah: ‘13. Allah! There is no God save Him. In Allah, therefore, let believers put their trust.’ Furthermore, the actual verse supposedly quoted has been dissected and in the first place, linked to an assertion of unitarian monotheism, and in the second place, linked to assertion that Allah is the cause of life and death – which does not reflect the theme of the Surah.

The second text is Surah Al-Hadid 57.2, which reads: ‘His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He is Able to do things.’ This time, we will place the agreement in blue:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

There is an overlap between the two verses about the power of Allah ‘to all things’, but there is a stronger case for this clause to reflect Surah Al-Hadid 57.2. The main emphasis of the Surah is the cosmic power of Allah, and arguably the reference to Allah giving ‘life’ refers to the earth: ‘17. Know that Allah quickeneth the earth after its death.’ It is only towards the end that the Surah addresses Jesus and the Ahl ul-Kitab:

25. We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure; and He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and (many) uses for mankind, and that Allah may know him who helpeth Him and His messengers, though unseen. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

26. And We verily sent Noah and Abraham and placed the Prophethood and the Scripture among their seed, and among them there is he who goeth right, but many of them are evil livers.

27. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they

invented. We ordained it not for them. Only seeking Allah’s pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil livers.

28. O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah and put faith in His messenger. He will give you twofold of His mercy and will appoint for you a light wherein ye shall walk, and will forgive you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;

29. That the People of the Scripture may know that they control naught of the bounty of Allah, but that the bounty is in Allah’s hand to give to whom He will. And Allah is of infinite bounty.

Neither verse asserts unitarianism in face of Christian belief, and both have been removed from their contexts – that of the cosmic power of Allah. These are very strange verses, in the context of their passages, to choose to attack Christian distinctives.

The next part is ‘Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.’ Whelan presents this as ‘33:56 complete’. This is what Surah Al-Ahzab 33.56 states: ‘Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.’ Whelan’s position is confirmed. However, the Dome text continues: ‘The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.’ She acknowledges that this is extra-Qur’anic: ‘blessing, not in the Qur’anic text’. The main theme of the Surah is about the right of the Prophet to further marriages, rather than asking the blessing and mercy of Allah on him. So the question is: is the Dome quoting the Qur’an, or does the latter borrow from it?

There is no break in the Dome text leading to the next sentence, which suggests that the former sentence should be thematically linked to it – but which would divorce it from the Qur’anic text:

O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ - Cease! (it is)  better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.

Whelan comments that this is ‘4:171-72 complete’. This is what Surah An-Nisa 4.171-72 states:

171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”. Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

172. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him;

Whelan is right that this agrees with the Dome text, but she dissects it from what follows: ‘Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary.’ She presents this as an ‘interjection introducing the following passage’. However, we should consider the parallel with what followed the text of 33.56 earlier, concerning Muhammad: ‘The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.’ In both cases, blessing is requested on a Messenger.

Furthermore, there is a direct flow – and a theme of continuity in the Dome calligraphy - to the message of the next sentence: ‘Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive!’ Whelan comments: ‘19:33 complete, with change from first to third person’. However, why the change? If the antecedent sentence is introductory in nature, why not simply state that ‘Jesus said’ or something like it? Whelan also ignores that the exact reference would be to 19.15, where it refers not to Jesus, but rather to John the Baptist: ‘Peace on him the day he was born, and the day he dieth and the day he shall be raised alive!’ Why then take a verse referring to John and apply it to Jesus – unless the Qur’anic text was not yet stabilised? The next sentence in the Dome states: ‘Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’ Whelan comments: ‘19:34-35 complete’. The Dome then goes on to declare: ‘Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.’ Whelan comments: ‘19:36 complete, except for initial “and”‘. This is because the text in the Qur’an reads: ‘And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.’ We must remember that Surah Maryam 19. 33-36 is one, uninterrupted passage – so why are there two changes in the text, if the Dome is actually quoting the passage?

Again, we must remember there is no break in the Dome calligraphy which immediately leads on to the next sentence: ‘God (Himself) is witness that there is no God save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him, the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!’ Whelan comments: ‘3:18-19 complete’.

It is well-known that this is the first clearly dated reference to Islam, and in the Dome it serves as the climax to the building’s Christological polemic. What should be considered is that since the entire calligraphy follows a certain theme, and begins with the bismillah, as do most Surahs of the Qur’an, was this actually a passage in a variant Qur’an? The very fact that there are differences with the Qur’an as it now stands raises questions.

2.3.1.2 Outer Octagon

In regard to the outer octagon, we note major difference with the calligraphy of the inner ambulatory. There is a frequent appearance of the bismillah, in contrast to the inner octagon, which has only one. It starts:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

Whelan characterises the first sentence as ‘beginning of the shahadah’. In fact, the bismillah is not part of the Shahadah, nor is any reference to God being one or having no associate. The subsequent sentence she observes as reflecting Surah Al-Ikhlas: ‘112 complete except for the introductory basmalah’. The final sentence she arbitrarily dissects as ‘completion of the shahadah’, and ‘blessing’, ignoring that it is one sentence, and that the Shahadah does not include this blessing.

After that, we read on the outer octagon: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ Amazingly, Whelan characterises this as ‘shahadah, complete’. Yet the words ‘He is One. He has no associate’ are not part of the Shahadah. Neither does the Shahadah include the bismillah. The calligraphy continues: ‘Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation’, about which Whelan comments: ‘33:56 complete’.

A new sentence begins next to this on the Dome, again with the bismillah: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One’. Once again Whelan characterises this as ‘beginning of the shahadah, despite the words ‘He is One’ and the bismillah not being part of the Shahadah. The sentence continues: ‘Praise be to God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence’ which Whelan characterises as ‘17:111 complete except for the initial “And say”.’ Was this sentence part of a variant scripture or oral tradition before being included in the present Surah, as a result of its being present on the Dome? The sentence ends with ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of God’, on which Whelan comments ‘completion of the shahadah’, and then ‘the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy’, which Whelan describes as ‘blessing’, again ignoring that there is no break in the sentence, and that the Shahadah does not include this blessing.

The next sentence is substantially the same as the beginning of the calligraphy on the inner octagon: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things.’ Again, Whelan characterises this as ‘beginning of the shahadah’ and as a ‘conflation of 64:1 and 57:2.’ However, instead of saying ‘Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger, it states: ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of God’, which Whelan describes as ‘completion of the shahadah’, after which the sentence reads ‘the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people’, which Whelan simply describes as ‘blessing and prayer’. The variation from the inner octagon is significant. It introduces Muhammad as the eschatological intercessor, which surely corresponds to the Holy Sepulchre which celebrates Jesus’ intercessory work as the key to salvation. Not only is the Dome bigger than the Holy Sepulchre, it is claiming that Muhammad is a greater prophet, and the key to salvation. It is also an idea that is absent from the Qur’an, and only found in the Hadith. This may suggest that the Hadith borrowed the idea from the Dome.

The final sentence relating to belief states: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him’. Whelan regards this as ‘the shahadah complete’ followed by ‘blessing’, but as we have seen, this is not the case, and the added blessing in the sentence demonstrates this. Perhaps this should be seen as the climax of the polemic on the Dome’s outer octagon. It is followed by the foundation notice: ‘The servant of God ‘Abd’Allah the Imam al-Ma’mun, Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God’. It is possible that the title given to Allah here reflects the Qur’an, e.g. Surah Al-Waqi’a 56.80: ‘A revelation from the Lord of the Worlds’, but we should also note that the Nabatæan deity Dushara was called ‘Lord of the World’ in a text dated to 267 A.D., so it could equally reflect Arab tradition.

2.3.1.3 Copper plaques

2.3.1.3.1 Eastern entrance

Whelan presents the inscriptions at this point of entry:

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate” [basmalah], “praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He” [tahmīd], “ the Living, the Eternal, Originator of the heavens and the earth and the Light of the heavens and the earth and the Pillar of the heavens and the earth, the One, the eternally Besought of all” [a series of epithets] – “He begotteth not nor was begotten and there is none comparable unto Him” [112:3-4], “Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt” [3:26]; “all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory the Merciful, the Compassionate” [words of praise]. “He hath prescribed for Himself mercy” [6:12], “and His mercy embraceth all things” [7:156, with shift from first to third person], “may He be glorified and exalted” [words of praise]. “As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favor and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and” [prayer]....

We have already dealt with elements of this, but we shall proceed to address some distinctive points. For example, what Whelan describes as ‘a series of epithets’ combines the phrase ‘the Living, the Eternal’, found in Surah Ta-Ha 20.111 in relation to the Day of Judgment. The term ‘Originator of the heavens and the earth’ is found in Surah Al-Baqarah 2.117, and goes on to say: ‘When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’ Immediately, we move from a statement about divine ontology to His activity. The next title, ‘the Light of the heavens and the earth’ is found in Surah An-Nur 24.35: ‘Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.’ The immediate statement is ontological, but it goes on to describe how Allah leads men to His light. The subsequent title ‘the Pillar of the heavens and the earth’ is absent from both the Qur’an and the Hadith, but interestingly, in Nabatæan culture, betyls could be representations of gods. The sentence ends with ‘the One, the eternally Besought of all’, which resembles Surah Al-Ikhlas 112.1-2 ‘1. Say: He is Allah, the One! 2. Allah, the eternally Besought of all!’ Clearly, it excises ‘Allah’ from the text, and curiously dissects from the sentence which follows, which as Whelan notes is the same as Surah Al-Ikhlas 112.3-4. Why this should be so is a mystery, since the ‘series of epithets’ could easily have ended with the reference to Allah as ‘the Pillar of the heavens and the earth’, and then continued with a different sentence. Does this suggest that Surah Al-Ikhlas is a composite of different traditions?

This is an especially pertinent question given that the sentence goes on to state to some extent what Surah Al-i-Imran declares: ‘26. Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is the good. Lo! Thou art Able to do all things.’ Note, however, where the Dome statement ends: ‘“Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt”‘ and continues in the same sentence ‘“all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory the Merciful, the Compassionate” [words of praise].’  This reference to ‘all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You’, is not in the Qur’an, but there are several parallel Hadiths which resemble it, for example the following:

Narrated by Abdullah Ibn az-Zubayr

Sahih Muslim 1235

Ibn az-Zubayr uttered at the end of every prayer after pronouncing salutation (these words): “There is no god but Allah. He is alone. There is no partner with Him. Sovereignty belongs to Him and He is Potent over everything. There is no might or power except with Allah. There is no god but Allah and we do not worship but Him alone. To Him belong all bounties, to Him belongs all grace, and to Him is worthy praise accorded. There is no god but Allah, to Whom we are sincere in devotion, even though the unbelievers should disapprove it.” (The narrator said): He (the Prophet) uttered it at the end of every (obligatory) prayer.

Interestingly, there follows the obscure statement in regard to sovereignty that ‘its fate is (determined) by You’, an idea absent from both Qur’an and Hadith. In the context of Jerusalem, it may be a reference that sovereignty of the holy city had passed from the Roman Christians to the Arabs. Next we examine the text reference to ‘Lord of glory’. Interestingly, Allah is nowhere described in the Qur’an as ‘Lord of glory’. Interestingly, the phrase is in fact found in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 2.8: ‘...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory...’ Here the phrase clearly refers to Jesus, and to His crucifixion. On the Dome, eschatological destiny is determined by Allah, so perhaps this is a deliberate transference of the phrase from Jesus to Allah. However, it should be noted that the Dome, even in this regard, does not deny the crucifixion explicitly. There is a hadith where this title is used:

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik; Rabi’ah ibn Amir

Mishkat Al-Masabih 1496(R)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Recite frequently: O Lord of glory and honour.

Transmitted by Tirmidhi and Nasa’i.

However, since the Hadith is corpus is collated some time after the first Islamic century, the use of the title in such a narration may reflect the Dome, rather than vice versa.

Whelan notes that the text ‘“He hath prescribed for Himself mercy”‘ derives from Surah An-am 6.12, but it is only partial, as the full ayah states: ‘Say: Unto whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: Unto Allah. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, that He may bring you all together to the Day of Resurrection whereof there is no doubt. Those who ruin their souls will not believe.’ As one can see, the Dome reference is not even the full sentence in the ayah. This is strange, since the Dome is answering the Holy Sepulchre, which centres on the Resurrection of Christ (along with His death). Why would the Dome text exclude a reference to Allah being the source of resurrection?

Similarly, the Dome text “and His mercy embraceth all things” which Whelan identifies as ‘7:156, with shift from first to third person’ does not fully render Surah A’Raf 7.156, which reads: ‘And ordain for us in this world that which is good, and in the Hereafter (that which is good), Lo! We have turned unto Thee. He said: I smite with My punishment whom I will, and My mercy embraceth all things, therefore I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay the poor-due, and those who believe Our revelations…’ Again, it is surprising that no reference is made to ‘Our revelations’ in the Dome text in the context of attacking Christianity. Interestingly, Whelan identifies the closing phrase “may He be glorified and exalted” as ‘words of praise’, despite its echo in Surah An-Nahl 16.1 ‘The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).’ In context, it is an affirmation of tawhid, and again, one would have thought that this would be an appropriate full text in the context of the Dome’s polemic against Christianity.

What Whelan defines as ‘prayer’ is indeed such, and is instructive for how the Dome and early Islam regards Christianity:

“As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favor and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and”

Given that the Dome is attacking Christianity, it would seem that the message of the Dome is that Christians are polytheists – specifically by their belief in the Trinity and Deity of Christ. Christianity presented the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the means of salvation, whereas the Dome states that Muslims are saved by the mercy of Allah, His favour, grace, and forgiveness. It then presents the intercession of Muhammad as the accompanying means of salvation, though it does not suggest how these go together. There are several references to the ‘beautiful names’ of Allah, e.g. Surah Al-A’Raf 7.180; Surah Al-Ira 17.110; Surah Ta-Ha 20.8; Surah Al-Hashr 59.24. The first two invite believers to call on Him, though the connection to eschatological salvation is not explicit.

In the Qur’an, the term ‘noble’ is not identified with Allah, but rather with His revelations and prophets. The ‘face’ or ‘countenance’ of Allah is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah 2.272 (also in Surahs Al-A’Nam 6.52; Al-Kahf 18.28; Al-Qisas 28.88; Ar-Rahman 55.27), but again, the connection to eschatological salvation is not explicit. The idea is found in one hadith, however:

Narrated by Yahya ibn Sa’id

Al-Muwatta 51.4.10

When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was taken on the Night Journey (Isra’), he saw an evil jinn seeking him with a torch of fire. Whenever the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, turned, he saw him. Jibril said to him, ‘Shall I teach you some words to say? When you say them, his torch will be put out and will fall from him.’ The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ Jibril said, ‘Say, ‘I seek refuge with the Noble Face of Allah and with the complete words of Allah which neither the good person nor the corrupt can exceed, from the evil of what descends from the sky and the evil of what ascends in it, and from the evil of what is created in the earth and the evil of what comes out of it, and from the trials of the night and day, and from the visitations of the night and day, except for one that knocks with good, O Merciful!”‘

Again, however, despite the fact that this hadith may be earlier than those in the Bukhari corpus, it is still late, and we cannot say that it preceded the Dome. The reference to Allah’s liberality or generosity is likewise echoed to some extent in the Hadith:

Narrated Anas

Sahih Bukhari 9.93.481:

The Prophet said, “(The people will be thrown into Hell ( Fire) and it will keep on saying, ‘Is there any more?’ till the Lord of the worlds puts His Foot over it, whereupon its different sides will come close to each other, and it will say, ‘Qad! Qad! (enough! enough!) By Your ‘Izzat (Honour and Power) and YOUR KARAM (Generosity)!’ Paradise will remain spacious enough to accommodate more people until Allah will create some more people and let them dwell in the superfluous space of Paradise.”

We have already noted that the intercession of Muhammad is absent from the Qur’an, but present in the Hadith. Again, the aim is build up the position of Muhammad at the expense of Jesus. On the northern portal, Whelan supplies the following translation and comments:

“In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate” [basmalah], “praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He” [tahmid], “the Living, the Eternal”; “He has no associate, the One, the eternally Besought of all” [epithets] - “He begetteth not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him” [112:3-4, as in the eastern portal inscription] - “Muhammad is the servant of God” [introductory statement] “and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion, however much idolators may be averse” [61:9, with an adjustment at the beginning to introduce Muhammad]; “we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered” [2:136 or 3:84, with change of person and omission of the central section, where Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub, the “tribes,” Musa, and ‘Isa are mentioned individually], “the blessing of God be upon Muhammad, His servant and His prophet, and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and His blessing and His forgiveness and His acceptance...” [blessing].

Much here reproduces what has gone before, but we still meet changes from the Qur’anic text, such as what Whelan describes as the ‘change of person and omission of the central section, where Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub, the “tribes,” Musa, and ‘Isa are mentioned individually’. Again, the reference to ‘idolaters’ in this context probably refers to the Christians, rather than pagans, reflecting the practices of both the Orthodox and Monophysites. This raises questions about who the Qur’an is actually attacking with its criticism of ‘polytheists’ and ‘idolaters’ – is the real object Christians, rather than pagans? Amazingly, Whelan justifies these ‘changes’ from the Qur’anic text on the basis of the actions of later Muslims:

The copper inscriptions do not appear to represent “deviations” from the current standard text; rather, they belong to a tradition of using Qur’anic and other familiar phrases, paraphrases, and allusions in persuasive messages, in fact sermons, whether actual khutbahs or not. Of a number of such texts two examples cited by al-Tabari should suffice to demonstrate the point.

In a sermon supposedly delivered to the people of Khunasirah in northern Syria in 101/719-20, ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-’Aziz included the phrase “nor will you be left aimless,” a clear reference to Qur’an 75:36: “Thinketh man that he will be left aimless?” A more extended example, involving some of the same passages used at the Dome of the Rock, is the first part of a sermon delivered by Da’ud b.’Isa, governor of Makkah, in 196/811-12.

“Praise be to God, Owner of Sovereignty unto whom He wills and withdraws sovereignty from whom He wills, who exalts whom He wills and abases whom He wills. In His hand is the good; He is Able to do all things” [3:26, with change from direct address to God to the descriptive third-person singular]. “I bear witness that there is no God save Him... there is no God save Him, the Almighty, the Wise” [3:18, with shift from the third-person plural to the first-person singular and concomitant omission of references to angels and men of learning as beating witness]. “And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger, whom He sent to bring the religion, through whom He sealed the prophets” [further declaration of faith] “and whom He made a mercy for the peoples” [21:107, with shift from first-person plural to third-person singular].

The problem is quoting these later Muslims does not tell us what was the situation at the time of Abd al-Malik; it is an anachronistic argument.

Glaring omissions?

1. There are glaring omissions from the Dome calligraphy. The first is Surah An-Nisa 4.157-158 – ‘157. And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain, 158. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, wise.’ Given that the Dome is a literally monumental polemic against the themes of the Holy Sepulchre, the omission of these verses is startling. Almost the first comment any Muslim will make when the Crucifixion is mentioned is to quote these ayat to deny the reality of the crucified death of Jesus. It is almost unthinkable that these verses would be omitted in this context. Does this mean that they were not interpreted this way at that time? Or were these verses not yet in existence?

Another two omissions are found together in Surah Al-Maida 5.72-75:

72. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers. 73. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. 74. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 75. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

One would have thought that these verses – attacking the Deity of Christ, attacking the Trinity, and implying that Mary was a member of the Trinity would have been very appropriate material for the Dome’s polemic, yet they are absent. Again, we ask: was the Trinity not interpreted this way as yet, or did these verses not yet exist?

Neither does the Dome even mention the ‘Isrā. Since generations of Muslims were insistent that the entire compound of the Haram al-Sharif is a mosque, which finds its theological centre in the Night Journey, that being the main reason for building the Dome, this omission is indeed glaring. One might claim that the function of commemorating the ‘Isrā’ and Mi’raj is served by the Al-Aqsa mosque rather than the Dome, but that still raises the question as to why the Dome was built first, and the Al-Aqsa mosque built to fit in with it, rather than vice versa. That is, the Al-Aqsa mosque plays a supporting role to the Dome, not the other way round. Furthermore, whilst Abd al-Malik certainly began the building of the Al-Aqsa mosque ‘we cannot be sure that this caliph was indeed the first to apply the Quranic term al-Masjid al-Aqsa to a concrete mosque on the Temple Mount.’ That is, the new mosque, replacing what had gone before it, may initially have no great theological significance, other than the ‘cathedral’ for Arabs at Jerusalem to engage in worship.

There is also a curious absence in the Dome of any reference to the Mi’raj (literally, ‘ladder’), Muhammad’s Ascension to Paradise as the second stage of his Night Journey. The Ascension is completely absent from the Qur’an, most certainly in explicit terms, despite rather desperate attempts to find references to it in Surah Al-Isrā’ 17.60 and Surah An-Najm 53.7-18. However, it is present in the Hadith and Sirah, e.g. in Ibn Ishaq:

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

Sahih Al-Bukhari 6.240

He stated regarding the Verse:-

‘And We granted the vision (Ascension to the Heaven “Mi’raj”) which We showed you (O Muhammad as an actual eye-witness) but as a trial for mankind.’ (17:60)

“It was an actual vision which was shown to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) during the night he was taken on a journey (through the heavens). And the cursed tree is the tree of az-Zaqqum (a bitter pungent tree which grows at the bottom of Hell).

One of whom I have no reason to doubt told me on the authority of Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī; I heard the Apostle say, ‘After the completion of my business in Jerusalem a ladder was brought to me finer than any I have ever seen. It was that to which the dying man looks when death approaches. My companion mounted it with me until we came to one of the gates of heaven called the Gate of the Watchers. An angel called Ismā’īl was in charge of it, and under his command were twelve thousand angels, each having twelve thousand under his command.’

Nowhere does it specifically state the actual spot from where Muhammad ascended, just as nowhere in the Dome is there any allusion to, let alone mention of, the Mi’raj. Muslim sources came to associate the Mi’raj with the Dome of the Rock:

...the nocturnal journey, isrā, to Jerusalem was one year before the hijra and there is great support amongst Muslim exegetes, traditionists (muhaddithun) historians, as well as geographers for the view that the Prophetical nocturnal journey was to Jerusalem first, and that the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad to Heaven (mi’raj) started from Jerusalem, from al-Sakhra known now as Qubbat al-Sakhra (the Dome of the Rock), during the same night of isrā.

We know that by 903 at least, there was an edifice on the Mount which did commemorate the Ascension:

In 903, according to Ibn al Fakih, “in the northern part (of the platform) are (i) the Dome of the Prophet, (2) and the Station of Gabriel; (3) while near the Sakhrah (the Dome of the Rock) is the Dome of the Ascension.” His contemporary, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, on the other hand, mentions “(i) the Dome whence the Prophet made his ascent into Heaven; (2) the Dome over the spot where the Prophet prayed (in communion) with the (former) Prophets; ... (3) further the Praying-place of Jibrail.” Mukaddasi (who wrote in 985) states that the two Minor Domes were called “the Dome of the Ascension, and the Dome of the Prophet.” According to Nasir’s account in 1047, in his day the two were known as the Dome of the Prophet, and the Dome of Gabriel.

It is interesting, however, that there were no earlier references than these, so presumably either its construction came sometime after the Dome of the Rock or it was otherwise designated by name. Le Strange quotes the words of Nasir-i-Khusrau in 1047:

“And again, on the platform, is another Dome, that surmounts four marble columns. This, too, on the Kiblah side, is walled in, forming a fine Mihrab. It is called Kubbat Jibrail (the Dome of Gabriel); and there are no carpets spread here, for its floor is formed by the live-rock, that has been here made smooth. They say that on the night of the Mi’raj (the Ascent into Heaven) the steed Burak was tied up at this spot, until the Prophet - peace and benediction be upon him! - was ready to mount. Lastly, there is yet another Dome, lying 20 cubits distant from the Dome of Gabriel, and it is called Kubbat ar Rasûl (or the Dome of the Prophet) peace and benediction be upon him! This Dome, likewise, is set upon four marble piers.”

(N. Kh., 49.)

Mintz makes two interesting points about the Dome of the Ascension. Firstly, we are unsure of when its original structure was built; secondly, its very existence surely militates against the view that the Dome of the Rock was built to commemorate the Mi’raj:

One final argument against accepting the causal link between Muhammad’s isra’ and mi’raj and ‘Abd al-Malik’s construction of the Dome of the Rock is based on the buildings located on the Haram al-Sharif. Just north of the Dome of the Rock stands the qubbah al-mi’raj, or the Dome of Ascension. It is not known when or by whom this structure was built but it is thought to be a work of either Umayyad or Abbasid patronage as it is attested to in the writings of Ibn al-Fakih and Muqaddasi as one of the two minor domes, the other being the Dome of the Prophet. With the exception of the congregational al-Aqsa mosque, the Dome of the Rock was the first and by far the grandest structure erected on the Haram al-Sharif; had it been built as a monument to the Ascension of Muhammad, surely a second domed structure would not have been so named and dedicated.

The present Dome of the Ascension was re-built after the Crusader era. Again, one must ask; if the centrality of the Haram al-Sharif is based on either its previous Solomonic character as the Temple or on the Night Journey and Ascension, why was the Dome of the Ascension such a minor construction compared to the Dome of the Rock? Surely their positions – and focuses in relation to meaning – should be reversed? Perhaps the Dome of the Ascension was an after-thought, that only arose as the idea and theology of the ‘Isrā and especially the Mi’raj gained ground.

In alignment with the Dome of the Rock is the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives (built c. 384). Was this the basis for the idea of the Ascension of Muhammad? One Muslim source saw the existence of this church as among the reasons for Abd al-Malik’s building work: ‘The geographer al-Maqdisi, said that when ‘Abd al-Malik entered Jerusalem and saw the splendour of the cupola of the Church of the Ascension built by Justinian, he was amazed and wanted to build a similar building above the Rock in order that no Muslim would exalt and be amazed at the Church of the Ascension.’ Considering the Dome of the Rock’s programme of demoting Jesus and elevating Muhammad, the Biblical doctrine of the Ascension of Jesus always undermined the Rock’s polemic. After all, if Jesus bodily ascended into Paradise whilst Muhammad did not, there was little scope for even claiming equality between the two. Perhaps, then, in order to continue the polemic of the Dome of the Rock, the idea of the Mi’raj as an adjunct to the ‘Isrā arose. Certainly, it should be noted that the initial texts about the Night Journey do not include the Ascension, and imply that Muhammad prayed with the prophets in Jerusalem itself, and not in Paradise:

Narrated by AbuHurayrah

Sahih Muslim 0328

The Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him) said: I found myself in Hijr and the Quraysh were asking me about my night journey. I was asked about things pertaining to Bayt al-Maqdis, which I could not preserve (in my mind). I was very much vexed, so vexed as I had never been before. Then Allah raised it (Bayt al-Maqdis) before my eyes. I looked towards it, and I gave them the information about whatever they questioned me.

I also saw myself among the group of apostles. I saw Moses saying a prayer and found him to be a well-built man as if he were a man of the tribe of Shanu’ah. I saw Jesus, son of Mary, (peace be upon him) offering prayer; of all men he had the closest resemblance to Urwah ibn Mas’ud ath-Thaqafi. I saw Ibrahim (peace be upon him) offering prayer; he had the closest resemblance to your companion (the Prophet himself) amongst people.

When the time of prayer came I led them. When I completed the prayer, someone said: Here is Malik, the keeper of the Hell; give him salutation. I turned to him, but he preceded me in salutation.

We also find this in the Sirah:

According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas’ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was brought to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem’s temple. There he found Abraham, Moses, and Jesus among a company of the Prophets. The Apostle acted as their leader in prayer.

Note that this collective act of salat by the prophets is said to have occurred in Jerusalem, not in Paradise. Given that Ibn Ishaq is the first to link the Night Journey to the Ascension, perhaps the evidence suggests that the latter was a later construction, influenced by both Christian theology and by the Byzantine Church of the Ascension itself in relation to the Dome of the Rock. It might also be interesting to consider – especially given the failure of the Dome of the Rock to deny the crucifixion of Jesus – that the idea of Jesus’ Ascension was transmogrified into a divine rapture of Jesus from the cross, to further answer Christian apologetics. In this respect, the sacred geography of Christian Jerusalem may have influenced Islamic theology.

CONCLUSION

The only secure basis for understanding the significance of the Dome of the Rock is architectural. The written sources tend to be late and by outsiders, rather than Jerusalemites:

Remote written sources represent by far the largest body of evidence – if also the most problematic. Composed outside of Jerusalem, these texts include the wide-ranging chroniclers such as Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), Ibn Hisham (d. 835), al-Yaqubi (d. 897) and al-Tabari (d. 923), geographers such as Ibn al-Faqih (d. circa 903) as well as hadith, tafsir and adab literature... Jerusalem centered sources provide an insiders viewpoint into the city as they were composed by either natives or those who visited the city; to this group belong the works of native geographer Muqaddasi (d. Circa 1000), Christian pilgrims such as Arculf (d. circa 700), Muslim pilgrimage guides such as the one by Nasir-i Khosraw (d. circa 1080) and fadai’il (“virtue” or “praises”) literature datable before the crusades...

As we can see, the Muslim sources relating to our study are all late. Therefore, the best way to understand the Dome and its meaning is through its calligraphy and mosaics, as well as its geographical position. Firstly, we can say on this basis that the Dome is the principal building on the Haram al-Sharif. It was built first, it is the central position on the Mount, and the other buildings – including the Al-Aqsa mosque – are aligned to it. Secondly, its calligraphy is polemical in content – specifically against Christianity. Immediately we can dismiss any idea that it was built over against internal problems within the nascent Arab empire, such as Ibn Zubayr; its focus is internal to Aelia and the theological challenges the Byzantine city presented.

Thirdly, given that its polemical focus is Christianity, rather than Judaism, we can dismiss suggestions that it was built to re-sacralise the Temple Mount – that it was an Arab/Muslim, successor to the Jewish Temple, interrupted in history by Hadrian’s pagan construction. There is no reference in the calligraphy to either temple, Jewish or pagan, and none to Solomon as such. Its position on the Mount is purely for reasons of space and elevation – there was room on the Mount, and its height over the city allowed it to dominate the skyline, over against Christian edifices such as the Holy Sepulchre, thus asserting superiority. Fourthly, it does seem to have been built as a mosque as such – the Al-Aqsa performed that function. Rather it is a shrine and a monument – in fact, quite literally a monumental polemic against Christianity, specifically against the meaning of the Holy Sepulchre.

Fifthly, the fact that it was influenced both architecturally and – albeit in a negative way – theologically by the Holy Sepulchre, suggests its nature. The Arabs, by the terms of the city’s surrender, and given its demographic realities, could not sequester the Holy Sepulchre. Yet the Byzantine complex was the heart of Jerusalem, the omphalos of the world. The city derived its sanctity from the Holy Sepulchre. Very possibly, any incipient ideas of the Night Journey would have been associated with it, along the same lines that anyone hearing of a pilgrimage to Constantinople at the time would have assumed that the person was making for the Hagia Sophia, or the way modern Roman Catholics would assume that anyone on a pilgrimage to Rome would make for St. Peter’s.

CONCLUSION

The Dome, then, by its architecture and alignment can be considered in some way as a relay station, funnelling the sanctity of the Holy Sepulchre, allowing the Arabs to expropriate its holiness without seizing the structure in the way the Ottomans were later to take over and convert Hagia Sophia. However, as previously suggested, it is also the mirror of the Holy Sepulchre – not simply, its twin, but a copy from the opposite perspective, in this case theologically. Its polemic attempts to correct the meaning of the Holy Sepulchre. Further, its bigger size and physical elevation over Jerusalem also transforms the nature of Aelia just as the Holy Sepulchre transformed Aelia from a Roman, pagan city into a Roman, Christian one, so the Dome metamorphoses Jerusalem into an Arab, Muslim city – and its polemic about ‘sovereignty’ makes it clear that the city has ceased to be Byzantine.

None the less, the very polemic of the Dome causes problems for modern Muslims. Why no mention of the Night Journey, or the Ascension? Did either of these ideas not exist yet, or were they not applied to Jerusalem? Why no reference to Surah An-Nisa 4.157-158, traditionally used to deny the crucifixion of Jesus? Why none to Surah Al-Maida 5.72-75, attacking the Trinity and Deity of Christ? Why do not all the texts in the Dome agree exactly with the Qur’an? Anyone producing a war memorial of some kind from the late seventeenth/eighteenth to the twentieth centuries in an Anglophone majority Protestant country which involved a Biblical verse would surely have opened an edition of the Authorised (King James) Version and copied out the verse. Does this mean the Qur’an was not as yet finalised – that it was still in flux – especially as some texts are later found in the Hadith? These questions remain to be answered.

John 17:3-5 - Implications For Jesus And The Dawah Propagandists

INTRODUCTION

It is a favorite tactic of the dawah propagandists to quote part of John 17:3 where Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God” to disprove the deity of Christ. They always ignore or try to explain away v5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” They also ignore the general context and nature of the chapter. This paper explains why the dawah propagandists attempt to utilize the text, why they fail in so-doing, and what the chapter actually teaches us about the Person of Christ.

1. The Trinity and Person of Christ in Islam

To understand why the dawah propagandists frequently quote (or rather, misquote) John 17:3, we must consider what Islam teaches about the Trinity and the Person of Christ. To begin with the Trinity:

Surah An-Nisa 4:171

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God.

The contrast between “Allah is only One God” and the call to “say not ‘Three’” indicates that the Qur’an is accusing the Christians of professing Tritheism – belief in three separate deities. This is emphasized by the next verse:

Surah Al-Maida 5:73

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

It is clear from Surah 5:75 that the two other gods in view are Jesus and Mary; “The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” This is reinforced by this verse: Surah Al-Maida 5:116: “And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right.” So, the Qur’an accuses Christian of professing three distinct gods – Jesus, Mary and God. Note that the Arabic word qul means “Say”.

It need hardly be stated that Christians never professed or said any such thing. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three Persons – Father Son and Holy Spirit (e.g. Matthew 28:19), One Ousia, three Hypostases. The Three Persons are not separable – the doctrine of Perichorēsis - co-inherence, circumincession, the idea that all Three Persons of the Trinity ‘inter-penetrate’, mutually sharing in the life of the others. The Father is in the Son, and vice versa (John 10:38, 14:10, 23, 17:21, cf. 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Colossians 2:9), and the Spirit is the Spirit of both. They share one essence.

It follows that there are not three separable “parts” of God, any more than there are three distinct deities. Hence, he who receives the Spirit receives also the Son and Father. While each of the Persons is designated one, they cannot be added together. The reason for this is that the divine nature which they share is simple and indivisible. It is wrong to imagine that by “Triunity” Christians mean that God is composite. This would imply that the Persons, and thus the divine essence, was separable. We should avoid “ignorant arithmetic” (1+1+1=3). Because the Persons co-inhere, we always arrive at the fact that God is numerically one. God is a unique Being, not comparable to any finite creature, and only comprehensible through His own self-revelation.

The Qur’an is either ignorant, or willfully ignores what Christians have always said, and makes a false accusation against them. Whether it be the Scriptures, the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, the Creed of Nicaea, the Chalcedonian Definition, etc., it is clear that do not go around saying that there are three gods. It is this misrepresentation of Christian doctrine that prejudices the minds of the dawah propagandists. Despite the constant denials of Christians, carefully instructing them in what the Bible and Christian doctrine teaches, the Qur’an prejudices their intellects by making the false claim that Christians say there are three gods. Hence, they grab on to John 17:3 (“the only true God”) because they imagine it disproves the deity of Christ – who the Qur’an teaches – wrongly – that Christians say He is a god (note; not God).

This is tied to what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus:

Surah 5 Al-Maida

72. They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O children of Israel! worship Allah my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins Other gods with Allah Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode...

75. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.

Surah Mumineen 23:91

No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him...

The impression one gets from the Qur’an is that Christians go around saying that Jesus is a god, but do not affirm His humanity. Yet the various creeds as well as the teaching of the New Testament is that Jesus is True God (not a god) and True Man. The Qur’an never addresses the Christian doctrines of the Hypostatic Union, the Two Natures and Unipersonality of Christ. It merely sets up a straw man – the false accusation that Christians say that Jesus is a god. This failure to address the Christian profession that Jesus has two natures is fatal to the abuse of John 17:3 by the dawah propagandists.

1. The context of John 17

The chapter consists of prayer by Jesus to the Father during the Last Supper. It is often called “The High Priestly Prayer”, as it precedes the event in the garden (Gethsemane) where Jesus is arrested, leading to His crucifixion – His self-sacrifice. Before going any further, contra the claims of the dawah propagandists that Jesus always prayed like a Muslim, consider how the prayer begins (v1): “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you…” Raising one’s eyes in prayer is actually forbidden in Islam, as demonstrated by these ahadith (from www.sunnah.com):

Jabir b. Samura reported:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The people who lift their eyes towards the sky in Prayer should avoid it or they would lose their eyesight.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ تَمِيمِ بْنِ طَرَفَةَ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لَيَنْتَهِيَنَّ أَقْوَامٌ يَرْفَعُونَ أَبْصَارَهُمْ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ فِي الصَّلاَةِ أَوْ لاَ تَرْجِعُ إِلَيْهِمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Reference

Sahih Muslim 428

In-book reference

Book 4, Hadith 128

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Book 4, Hadith 862

(deprecated numbering scheme)

Abu Huraira reported:

People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away.

حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ، وَعَمْرُو بْنُ سَوَّادٍ، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ رَبِيعَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لَيَنْتَهِيَنَّ أَقْوَامٌ عَنْ رَفْعِهِمْ أَبْصَارَهُمْ عِنْدَ الدُّعَاءِ فِي الصَّلاَةِ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ أَوْ لَتُخْطَفَنَّ أَبْصَارُهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Reference

Sahih Muslim 429

In-book reference

Book 4, Hadith 129

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Book 4, Hadith 863

(deprecated numbering scheme)

By glorification, Jesus is talking about the imminent crucifixion, which, paradoxically, involves Jesus being glorified – specifically, what lay beyond this event – His return to the Father. That is, Jesus is talking about His death and what was occur immediately afterwards. Again, this is problematic for the dawah propagandists, since they deny the true crucifixion of Jesus! Before leaving this point, we should observe the basic error the dawah propagandists makes, led as they are by the misrepresentation of Christian belief in the Qur’an: they ignore that this passage is evidence of the two natures of Jesus. Prayer is a human act, and here Jesus prays. The human Jesus prays to God the Father. Therefore, we should expect that He would address the Father – in terms of YHWH in Heaven – as the only true God. Jesus is effectively denying to future pagan hearers that there is more than one god – and we should remember that Roman paganism was similar to Hinduism, in that it was syncretistic. Christianity, however, in keeping with its Old Testament roots, was exclusivist – i.e., monotheistic.

In terms of the Old Testament, in 2 Chronicles 15:3 we find “For a long time Israel was without the true God…”, and Jeremiah 10:10: “But YHWH is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King.” In historical context, this description is set over against the false gods of the pagan nations. This understanding is found in 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” So, clearly, the import is that YHWH, rather than any pagan gods, such as Zeus or Jupiter at the time Jesus was speaking, is the only true God.

The significance of this becomes clearer at verses 18-20: “18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…” Clearly, the Apostolic Commission would bring the Gospel to the pagan world, so Jesus’ prayer at v3 would look forward to His statement in these verses, and indeed, what is stated in v2 – “since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” Jesus’ authority is not geographically or ethnically limited, but applies to all humanity, with the offer of eternal life to people of all backgrounds. The syntax between v2 here Jesus has “authority over all flesh” and the reference to eternal life coming through knowledge of “the only true God, and Jesus Christ” suggests at least a major reason for Jesus referring to the uniqueness of God. We should note what Lindars states about the character of the Gospel of John (Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 1981, 1986, p. 7): “…it is pre-eminently an evangelistic work.”

1. Eternal Life and Truth in the Gospel of John

It is in the light of this prayer about His imminent glorification that we should consider these verses:

2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

The dawah propagandists neglect to give the full sentence in v3 - that Jesus is speaking about eternal life, which is in His gift (v2). What is eternal life, and how does one receive it? In the original Greek, v3 reads: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. There are two Greek words for life – bios βιος (from where we get the word biology), i.e., natural life, and zoē ζωὴ - which denotes quality of life, specifically, in the Bible, eternal life, the Life of the Age to Come, the Resurrection Age. Ladd (George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, Revised Edition, Edited by Donald A. Hagner, 1993, p. 291) states: “The exact phrase occurs in the LXX only at Daniel 12:2, where it translates hayyȇ ‘ôlam, “the life of the age,” designating the life of the future age after the resurrection of the dead.” One receives this by “knowing” the Father and the Son – Jesus, sent by the Father. In fact, one can only know the Father through the Son – John 17:26: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

It need hardly be said that no Old Testament prophet nor New Testament Apostle ever made such a claim that eternal life came through knowing God the Father and him. We should recall John 5:21 at this point, where Jesus claims to have the prerogative of granting (eternal/Resurrection) life:

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ.

It follows that in 17:3, Jesus is actually claiming to have the same standing as God the Father – to be the object of Faith and the means of salvation, through the grant of eternal life. The dawah propagandists’(mis)use of this verse actually undermines them! However, what are we to make of the reference to “the only true God”? Guthrie comments about eternal life here (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester/Downers Grove: IVP, 1981, p. 878).

It is in fact defined as follows: ‘This is eternal life, that they may know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent’ (17:3). Knowing God and knowing Jesus Christ is the main aim of heavenly living. Naturally this process begins in this life, but can reach its goal only in eternal life.

In the beginning of his prayer in John 17:1 Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven (i.e. to God). This fits in with John the Baptist’s description of the Spirit descending from heaven (1:32), and with the reference to a voice from heaven in response to a prayer of Jesus to the Father (12:28). The direction indicates the source, i.e. God.

Truth is a major issue in the Gospel of John. For example, John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”; 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”; 4:23-24: “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” More specifically, Jesus states of Himself in 14:6: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Note that Jesus states not only is He the truth, but also He is the life – zoē, so eternal life comes through Him. Concerning the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls Him in 14:17: “the Spirit of truth”. Specifically, in 17:17, Jesus states: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”.

We should look at the reference to “the only true God” in this light. The Son is truth, the Spirit is truth, the Father is truth. At this point, we are brought back to the evangelistic and missionary aspect of the prayer – that the Apostles, for whom Jesus is praying, will bring the Gospel message to people of all backgrounds, not just Jews. They will face people who believe in a multiplicity of gods, where the Christian message is that there is only one true God – the source of truth and giver of eternal life. That being so, since Jesus is “the truth” and “the life”, it follows that He is divine.

1. Textual variants and the Dawah propagandists’ eisegesis

The obvious rejoinder to the assertions of the dawah propagandists that John 17:3 effectively denies the deity of Jesus is what He says in v5:

And now, Father, [you] glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

The inventiveness of the dawah propagandists at this point excites our admiration, even if their attempts at exegesis miserably fail. At times, this has included the idea of the pre-existence of human souls, a concept wholly alien to the Bible. Another of their suggestions is that of divine prescience, of God having in His mind from all eternity to honor the Messiah, an exegesis that wins a prize for desperation. Finally, when all else fails, the dawah propagandists run to the works of the liberal Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, their “go-to guy” for exegesis, just as the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman is their constant reference for textual criticism.

It need hardly be said that whatever Brown’s credentials, he was not the infallible exegete that they seem to imagine, and his writings are not like Papal ex cathedra statements for the faithful. However, we should examine what Brown says on the matter (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), London/Dublin/Melbourne: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971, p. 743). Ironically, it is not to his exegesis that the dawah propagandists turn, but to his reference to textual variants in v5. This is what he writes:

which l had with you. Seemingly some of the Greek textual witnesses once read ēn, a form of the verb “to be,” in place of eichon, a form of the verb “to have.” Among the Latin Fathers and in some Ethiopic mss. there is support for the reading: “that glory which was with you” or “that glory by which I was with you.” Boismard, RB 57 (1950), 396 q, followed by Mollat in SB, suggests the originality of a text without any connecting verb (“that glory with you”), a reading for which there is some evidence in other Ethiopic mss. and in the Diatessaron.

before the world existed. Instead of “existed” (einai), some Western witnesses read “came into existence” (ginesthai). This may be under the influence of viii 58, “Before Abraham even came into existence [ginesthai], I AM.” If einai is the correct reading, this is the only example in the NT of the preposition pro with a present infinitive (BDF, §403). The verb “to be” is characteristically used of the Son in this Gospel; he is, while all other things come into existence.

Of course, the dawah propagandists never elaborate on the textual variants as delineated by Brown. The reason for this is obvious – these variants are hardly earth-shattering. Brown shows that the renderings that flow from the first variant “that glory which was with you” or “that glory by which I was with you” do not alter the meaning of the standard reading. The same is true of the second variant, which would read “And now, Father, [you] glorify me with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world came into existence.” In neither case would it change the meaning of the verse – that Jesus, as the Son, existed with the Father before Creation, and shared His glory. Significantly, the dawah propagandists never mention any of this.

It is also significant that Brown exegetes the text on the basis of the standard reading, indicating that he did not find the variants of convincing weight (pp. 753-754): “In xvii 5 the glory that Jesus requests is identified with the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world existed. Later in 24 this glory will be said to stem from the love that the Father had for Jesus before the creation of the world… The relation that xvii 5 established between the ultimate glory of Jesus and his pre-creational glory helps to explain why the first action of the glorified Jesus is that of a new creation in imitation of Genesis…” So, Brown sees the standard reading as normative. The same is true for commentators in general. Bruce Metzger’s famous Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) does not address it – presumably because the variants were of no consequence.

We turn now to the issue of the variant manuscripts themselves. Our colleague Mazkir comments:

τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον – Here the relative pronoun [ᾗ] (as often happens) has been attracted into the case of the antecedent noun to which it refers (τῇ δόξῃ). Strictly, grammatically, it should be in the case appropriate to the function it serves in the relative clause (drawing only its gender and number from its antecedent). In this sentence, grammatically-speaking, it should be in the accusative case [ἣν] as the direct object of the verb in the relative clause [εἶχον].

The only manuscript evidence which Nestlé-Aland offers in support of the reading ἣν, however, is its being the original reading in Codex Sinaiticus, which is clearly a grammatical correction of the otherwise widely-attested reading ᾗ. (The reading ᾗ is also, as deficilior lectio, most likely original — for why would a scribe change perfectly grammatical ἣν to ungrammatical ᾗ?).

Uncial manuscripts having been written without breathings, this obviously ‘grammatically correcting’ reading ἣν of Codex Sinaiticus [although it may not, of course, have originated with this ms] has then been misconstrued as the 3rd person sg. imperfect of the verb ‘to be’ [which would have a smooth breathing, of course], and this misconstrual of a ‘grammatical correction’ is most likely what is behind the Latin Fathers and Ethiopic mss. to which Brown refers.

As for Boismard’s article [‘Critique Textuelle et Citations Patristiques,’ Revue Biblique Vol. 57, No. 3 (Juillet 1950) 388-408], to which Brown refers, page 396, the relevant point is footnote (1) on that page. Mazkir continues:

Brown writes “Among the Latin Fathers…” — Novatian and Augustine, in fact, are the only Latin Fathers Boismard mentions as offering, in place of the glory which I had, what he calls “a quite curious variant”, viz., the glory which was. Boismard adds, “which, truth to say, does not offer great sense.” It is a grammatical correction which has been misconstrued as a verb.

Boismard goes on to suggest that there are good reasons (which he doesn’t go into) for thinking that the Diatessaron may have had no verb here — the glory with you — as also apparently found in some Ethiopian mss. And he then queries, “Would it be rash then to think that in Jn. 17:5 the primitive text also did not carry any verb …?”

This ‘correction plus subsequent misconstrual’ by Novatian and Augustine leaves εἶχον in the sentence redundant. Boismard and Mollat’s suggested solution of omitting the verb entirely (which the ancients may have come up with in the Diatessaron, if Boismard is right in that regard, and in the Ethiopan mss. to which he refers) looks like a counsel of despair, a cutting of the Gordian knot, solving drastically the dilemma of choosing between was and had!

The Nestlé-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012, p. 359) states in its Apparatus that the variant ginesthai is attested in D* (D2; Irlat Epiph), which denotes the original reading of the fifth century Codex Bezae (D), along with the second (later) corrector of this ms, a Latin rendering of Irenaeus (c. 395 according to the edition) and Epiphanius (fourth century). All of this is surely late – especially the Ethiopic material to which Brown makes reference, which cannot be older than the sixth century (Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 4th edition, pp. 119-120, observe: “…none of the extant manuscripts of the version is older than perhaps the tenth century and most of them date from the fifteenth and later centuries…”). We should also note Codex Bezae (D; 05; MS Nn. 2.41), which contains the four Gospels in the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke and Mark) with several omissions, and is a Greek-Latin diglot. An important book on textual criticism is that by Kurt and Barbara Aland (Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edition 1989, 1995, pp. 109, 110), which indicates that Codex Bezae was probably written by someone whose first language was Latin, and this may have influenced the rendering in John 17, and the Alands are definite that earlier renderings than that of Codex Bezae are to be preferred. They describe Codex Bezae as:

A Greek-Latin diglot (Greek text on verso), written in sense lines (for convenience in liturgical reading), this has been the most controversial of the New Testament uncials, the principal witness of the text called “Western,” although it was written in either Egypt or North Africa, probably by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. The Latin text is related to the accompanying Greek text, standing independently of the main Latin tradition, and probably representing a secondary product…

When D supports the early tradition the manuscript has a genuine significance, but it (as well as its precursors and followers) should be examined most carefully when it opposes the early tradition.

Mazkir comments on the textual matters directly relating to John 17:

Note in John 1:15 (30), the Baptist uses the verb ginesthai of the one coming after him having been before him. The two verbs, although not identical, are frequently used interchangeably — or, I should say, ginesthai is often used without the idea of process or of coming into being. (Cyril of Jerusalem quotes using εἶναι but comments using ginesthai). The only evidence which Nestlé-Aland gives in support of ginesthai is D* (denoting the original reading of Codex Bezae in the 5th century), along with D2 (the second corrector of the ms, who reverses the first corrector’s emendation of the original reading in the ms), the Latin rendering of Irenaeus (from c. AD 380), and Epiphanius (d. 403). The implication is that all the other standard witnesses read εἶναι. Boismard, in the article mentioned above, lists Irenaeus’ Latin text of his Adv. Haer., Novatian (d. 251), Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus (d. 411), Vigilius Tapsitanus (d. 484), Avitus of Vienne (d. 525?), and (probably) Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) as preserving this reading, but Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, Ephraem, Denys bar-Salibi, Irenaeus’ Armenian text, Eusebius of Caesarea, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria (14 times!), John of Damascus, Gaudens of Brescia (d. 410) and Hilary all have einai.

In the light of this, we can understand why commentators pay the variant readings scant attention. They do not even reach the scale of the proverbial storm in a teacup, but rather approximate to the level of a droplet of drizzle in the Pacific Ocean. One can only speculate about the reasons the dawah propagandists refer to this.

1. The Glory that the Son had with the Father before the world existed

We turn now to the actual exegesis of 17:5. What did Jesus mean by “glory” there? Brown (op.cit., p. 751) writes:

…it is a visible manifestation of majesty through acts of power. The glory that Jesus asks for is not distinct from the glory of the Father, for the sayings in viii 50 and xii 43 rule out ambition for any glory except the glory of God. “The hour” will bring Jesus back to the Father, and then the fact that he and the Father possess the same divine glory will be visible to all believers. The particular act of power that will make visible the unity of Jesus and the Father will be the gift of eternal life to believes; (vs. 2, “to all that you have given him”). The giving of eternal life is intimately related to the work that Jesus has been doing on earth (vs. 4) and brings that work to a completion, for his works on earth were signs of his power to give eternal life…

This explains why we should read that Jesus possesses glory but asks for it, as Brown continues:

Jesus’ request for glory may seem strange since John has made it clear that Jesus possessed and manifested glory throughout his ministry. The “We have seen his glory” of the Prologue immediately follows the reference to the Word’s becoming flesh (i 14). At Cana (ii 11) Jesus revealed his glory to his disciples; see also xi 4, 40, xii 28. Yet the glory of Jesus during the ministry was seen by way of sign, even as his life-giving power was exercised by way of sign. In “the hour” we have passed from sign to reality, so that “the hour” is the time for “the Son of Man to be glorified” (xii 23). When “the hour” is complete, eternal life can truly be granted in the gift of the Spirit (xx 22).

To understand further, we quote Hurtado (pp. 374-375):

One of the recurrent themes in GJohn is divine “glory”; it is attributed both to God and to Jesus. One of the most extraordinary references is in 12:37-43. After describing the unbelief of Jesus’ contemporaries in 12:37-38 as fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53:1, the author (in 12:39-40) cites Isaiah 6:10 as further explanation of this unbelief. Then we are told in 12:41 that Isaiah “saw his glory and spoke about him.” In the immediate context, the antecedent of “his” and “him” has to be Jesus… Thus 12:41 seems to claim baldly that Jesus was the glorious figure seen in the prophetic vision described in Isaiah 6:1-5!

It is helpful to quote Isaiah 6 to comprehend the significance of “glory” here:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”

4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts!”

So, when Isaiah saw the Glory of YHWH, he actually saw the Glory of the pre-Incarnate Jesus! It is helpful to explore further the concept of Glory in the Old Testament. Jacob explains this in some detail (Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1955, 1958, 1971, pp. 79-81):

The fundamental idea expressed by the root kbd is that of weightiness. Kabod designates whatever had weight... Since anything weighty inspires respect and honour, kabod not only denotes the obvious objective reality but the feeling which is experienced towards what inspires respect. This double meaning is particularly evoked where the glory of God is concerned. God reveals his glory, but his creatures must also give glory to him, as in Ps. 29.1; Jos. 7.19; Is. 42.8; 48.11. This glory is what God possesses in his own right, it is a kind of totality of qualities which make up his divine power; it has close affinity with the holiness which is of the nature of deity and it is a visible extension for the purpose of manifesting holiness to men…

Kabod is always conceived as something concrete… Kabod is always intended to be seen… The glory appeared to the children of Israel in the form of devouring fire at the top of the mount. Ex. 29.43: God meets with the children of Israel in the tent and he will be sanctified by his glory.

Ex. 40.34ff: When Moses had completed the construction of the tent, the cloud covered the tent and the glory of Yahweh filled the place…

According to Ezekiel the kabod is not merely the manifestation of God is concrete form, it is identical with him…

The kabod is very closely linked with the Temple; by it God consecrates the temple as the place of his presence… the temple is the normal place of his residence, as is brought out by 43.2ff…

Another Old Testament scholar, Eichrodt essentially concurs with Jacob’s presentation, notably the concept of Glory as a position of honor, and the visibility of the divine Glory (Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume Two, trans. J. A. Baker, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967, p. 30): “Kābōd denotes that which is ‘heavy’, ‘weight’; and when used of something ‘weighty’, that which distinguishes a man and wins him respect, primarily suggests the outwardly visible, whether it be wealth, for which kābōd can actually be used as a synonym, or an outward position of honour, power and success. Hence even God’s kābōd, his glory or majesty, includes an element of appearance, of that which catches the eye.” Anderson confirms this, and enables us to understand the paradox of humans being unable to look upon God’s essence and the fact that His Glory is indeed visible (Bernhard W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press: 1999, p. 110):

… “glory,” a term that pervades the Old Testament and the New (Hebrew.. kabod, e.g., Isa, 6:3; 40:5; Greek doxa, John 1:14; 15:8). Hebrew kabod has various meanings. It basically means “weight” and thus applies to a person of weight or importance. When applied to God, it refers to God’s visible manifestation. usually as radiance or resplendent light (later, the Shekinah). Only in this symbolic sense is God visible, otherwise no human being may see God (Exod. 33:20).

The twofold aspects of glory as outlined by Jacob confirms what Brown suggests about the dual nature of glory in the Gospel of John – it is the “totality of qualities which make up his divine power” and something His creatures must give to Him. Two other aspects are especially relevant. First, “it is a visible extension for the purpose of manifesting holiness to men”, which ties-in with John 17:4 where Jesus states: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.” Second, in John 1:14 we read: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the Unique [One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Greek is: “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.”·

Note how the Glory of God was tangibly present and visible in the Tabernacle and Temple. Now, in Jesus, the same is true. The word ἐσκήνωσεν eskēnōsen, usually translated “dwelt” is probably bettered rendered as “tabernacle”. So, the Word came as flesh and tabernacled among us, and we saw His Glory, the Glory of the Unique [One] of the Father. The unique Glory of the Unique One of the Father was visible in the Word (who was with God, and was Himself God) who came as flesh and tabernacled among us. Kaiser comments (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1978, 1991, p. 119):

The single most important fact in the experience of this new nation of Israel was that God had come to “tabernacle” (sdkan), or “dwell,” in her midst. Nowhere was this stated more clearly than in Exodus 29:43-46 where in connection with the tabernacle it was announced:

There [at the entrance] I will meet with the sons of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by My glory. I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar... I will dwell (“tabernacle”) among the sons of Israel, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.

…One of the most frequently repeated formulas of the promise would be:

I will be your [their] God;
You [they] shall be My people.
And I will dwell in the midst of you [them].

In its very first announcement, the dwelling of God was connected with the tabernacle. In fact, one of the names of the tent-sanctuary of God was miškān, which clearly was related to the verb šakān, “to tent, dwell, tabernacle.”

We can see now what Jesus meant in John 17:5 when He prayed that His pre-existent Glory which He enjoyed with the Father prior to Creation be restored to Him – via the Cross. His Glory was manifested on the Earth by His miraculous signs – John 2:11: “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” Again, and related to the visibility of divine Glory, note what Jesus says to Martha at the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11:40: “Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?’” However, the Glory that Jesus experienced from all eternity in Heaven was clearly of a greater magnitude to this limited experience of Glory on the Earth. This is underscored by Jesus request “glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world was” – obviously, the Glory Jesus had on Earth was not comparable to the greater glory in Heaven previously experienced with the Father.

Having examined what the Glory of God, meant in the Old Testament, we should consider its import in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of John. Guthrie comments (op. cit., pp. 90-91):

There is a strong OT background to the frequent references to the glory of God. Whereas the Hebrew word for ‘glory’ (kābôd) was used of anything which possessed splendour, honour, conspicuousness, it soon came to have a special significance when applied to God. It came in fact to stand for the revelation of God, as when the psalmist maintained that the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1). OT history is seen as a record of God’s revelation of his glory in his activities on behalf of his people. A more developed sense of the same idea is the use of ‘glory’ to denote the presence of God in a theophany, which was later to become known in Jewish theology as the Shekinah (šekînâ). But it is the translation of the Hebrew kābôd into the Greek doxa which provides the key for understanding the NT idea of the glory of God. We shall note that in the NT there are two senses in which doxa is used, as visible glory (in the sense of seeing the glory of God) and as uttered praise (in the sense of ascribing glory to God)…

John makes clear in his account that the glory which he and others had observed in the ministry of Jesus had a divine source (Jn. 5:41 ff.). Indeed the glory of Jesus Christ is again inextricably bound up with the glory of God (Jn. 1:14; 11:4, 40; 13:31). Whatever glorifies the Son of man is said to glorify God (13:31 f.). The essential point to notice is that God is not only assumed to be glorious, but is the pattern for the measuring of glory in others, even in the case of his Son (cf. Jn. 17:5). No glory can be greater than God’s.

It follows that Jacob’s outline of the nature of Glory in the Old Testament does indeed carry on into the New. In relation to the Gospel of John, the Gospel has a particular emphasis on Jesus as both the revelation and revealer of God, 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the Unique [One] [Himself] God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε·μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.” Remember our earlier point about the invisibility of God yet the visibility of His Glory. Jesus, the embodiment of divine Glory, reveals the Father, which should be linked to what Guthrie states about the Glory of God in the Old Testament coming “to stand for the revelation of God”. The Glory is the Revealer, and in the Gospel of John, the Revelation embodied. Observe how this echoes 17:4: “…this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ…”, and v26: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

One problem for the dawah activists misusing John 17:3 while evading the full force of v5 is that Isaiah 42:8 states: “I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” Why would Jesus, if not divine, ask for something that would be frankly blasphemous as to share in the unique, pre-existent, pre-mundane Glory of God – in effect, to be deified? Hurtado (op. cit., p. 380) comments in regard to Isaiah and the Gospel of John: “It is difficult to think that the author of GJohn somehow missed these emphatic statements. Even if he had missed or chosen to ignore them, we can be sure that the Jewish critics of Johannine christological claims, who are commonly seen as reflected in the objections voiced to Jesus' claims in GJohn, would have pointed to these statements in Isaiah.” We have seen that John refers to Isaiah 6 in relation to the Glory of YHWH and applies it to Jesus (12:41: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.”). Yet John in his comments applies these attributes to Jesus. By asking for the restoration of pre-mundane Glory, Jesus effectively claims deity for Himself.

This must be emphasized - what existed before Creation is obviously God, and Jesus claimed to have participated in the Glory of God prior to Creation. This brings us back to the beginning of the Gospel of John - 1:1-3, 9-10:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…

9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν…

9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

10 Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

The Logos, the Word, was with God and was God, and created all things. So, Jesus as the Word was the Creator. There is a consensus among scholars of all theological hue that John 1:1 reflects Genesis 1:1, e.g. Lindars (p. 82): “In the beginning: a deliberate allusion to Gen. 1.1…” Evans elaborates further (Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Sheffield: JSOT press, 1993, pp. 77-78.): “Even a casual reader of Scripture cannot help but hear the echo of Genesis 1-2 in the opening verses of the Johannine Prologue. Although there are not many verbal agreements, the conceptual parallels are obvious and quite significant.” Culpepper agrees with this, and points to its implications as Scripture: (R. Alan Culpepper, “The Prologue as Theological Prolegomenon to the Gospel of John”, Jan G. van der Watt, R. Alan Culpepper, and Udo Schnelle [Eds.], The Prologue of the Gospel of John Its Literary, Theological, and Philosophical Contexts. Papers read at the Colloquium Ioanneum 2013, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, p. 5)

John is unique among the Gospels in connecting Jesus with God’s work in creation. Raymond Brown observed that “the fact that the Word creates means that creation is an act of revelation.” By beginning with the words, “In the beginning,” John creates a clear echo of the opening words of the Book of Genesis, and perhaps suggests that this Gospel should be regarded as scripture – a continuation of the record of the mighty acts of God in creation, in history, and in the people of Israel.

This being so, we should consider the nature of the Genesis Creation account. Genesis is partly an anti-pagan polemic, and an apologetic work for monotheism. Whoever Creates is God, and there is only One God. God in His prescience inspired Moses to write the Genesis account as, in part, a monotheistic polemic against the views of the surrounding peoples in Egypt, Canaan and Mesoptamia. We encounter no theogonies (births of gods), no sexual activity between deities, no battle of the gods and no slaying of deities, as in their cosmogonies (creation accounts). In fact, there could be no sexual activity between the deities, nor any combat or killing of other deities either, for the simple reason, quite apart from ethical or ontological concerns, there is only one God! Creation was purely an act of the unique God. Consider Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

His creation is not brought into effect by sexual activity or by shedding the blood of some other deity, but simply through His word – note the recurring statement “God said”. Unlike some of the pagan cosmogonies, there is no indication in Genesis of pre-existing matter of any form. Before God created, there was nothing – and God created out of nothing. Above all, creation was uniquely an act of God. There were no other deities, and even heavenly beings such as the angels did not create or even aid in creation. Therefore, unlike the cosmogonies of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Canaanites, in Genesis (and the Tanakh in general), the office of Creator and the Being of God point to the same deity – the terms Creator and God are therefore synonymous – cf. Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember also your Creator”. Whoever creates is God, and only God creates. The Biblical God is the God whose first recorded act is to create.

This brings us back to the evangelistic nature of the Gospel of John, and Jesus’ prayer referring to those who will believe because of the witness of the Apostles. In John 10:16, Jesus indicates the global reach of His evangelistic work: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Initially, this meant the Gospel would go out into the Graeco-Roman world, whose chief god was Zeus/Jupiter, son of Cronus/Saturn, son of Uranus/Caelus. The Greeks had no sacred Scriptures as such, but Hesiod’s Theogony records their legends (Hesiod, Theogony; Works and Days, trans. by Catherine M. Schlegel and Henry Weinfield, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2006, pp. 27-28) :

105 That I may hymn the sacred race of those who never die,
They who were born of Gaia (Earth), Ouranos (starry Sky),
And Nux (the dusky Night) as well as Pontos (the salt Sea).
Say firstly how the first ones, gods and Earth, first came to be,
And rivers and unbounded ocean with its furious swell,
110 And the shining stars and broad firmament over all,
112 And how they shared the riches and the honors that then followed,
113 And how they took possession of Olympos many-hollowed.
114 Speak all these things, Muses, from your high Olympian home:
115 From the beginning, tell me which of these was first to come.
Chasm it was, in truth, who was the very first; she soon
Was followed by broad-breasted Earth, the eternal ground of all
The deathless ones, who on Olympos’s snowy summits dwell,
And murky Tartaros hidden deep from Earth’s wide-open roads,
120 And Eros, the most beautiful among the deathless gods Limb-
loosener he is of all the gods and of all men:
Thought in the breast he overwhelms and prudent planning; then
Out of Chasm Erebos and black Night both were born,
And then from Night came Ether and came Day as well in turn;
125 For Night conceived them, having joined with Erebos in love.
Now Earth first brought forth Ouranos, the starry Sky above,
An equal to herself, so he could cover her around,
And she might serve the deathless gods as firm, eternal ground.
She bore the hills, the gracious haunts of mountain goddesses then-
130 The Nymphs, who range the wooded hills and up and down each glen;
And without sweet desiring love, she bore the barren Sea,
Pontos, the raging salt-sea swell; and when she had lain with Sky,
She bore deep-eddying Ocean and Koios and Kreios too,
Hyperion, father of the Sun, Iapetos also,
135 And Thea and Rhea and Themis and, in turn, Mnemosyne,
Phoebe the golden-crowned one, Tethys lovely to see;
And after these the youngest came, Kronos, crooked and sly,
The cleverest of all her children and his father’s enemy.

Note how the initial Creation was by more than one deity, and involved sexual intercourse between Gaia (Mother Earth) and Ouranos (Sky) in an incestuous sexual act, rather than being the work of one, unique deity by His Word. According to the Library of Apollodorus Book I:VIII, Men not Women) were created by the Titan Prometheus (Apollodorus, The Library, Volume I, trans. by Sir James George Frazer, London: William Heinemann/New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921, p. 51): “Prometheus moulded men out of water and earth and gave them also fire, which, unknown to Zeus, he had hidden in a stalk of fennel.” According to Hesiod (op. cit., Works and Days, tp. 59) the first woman, Pandora, was created by Zeus through Hephaistos and other deities as a punishment for Men:

55 “Now you rejoice at having stolen fire, outwitting me:
Much misery both for yourself, yourself and men to be.
To them in recompense for fire, I shall bequeath a woe,
Which they will cherish in their hearts, although it lays them low.”
So spoke the father of gods and men, and laughed out loud; then bade
60 Hephaistos, the famed artisan, at once to mix and knead
Water and earth, and put in strength and speech distinctly human,
Make it in aspect like a deathless goddess, but a woman,
A lovely maiden and in her form desirable to men…
80 And called this woman the All-Gifted one, Pandora, because the divine
Olympians all gave her a gift and as a gift did give
Her as a woe to mortal men, who must earn their bread to live.

It can be seen how vastly different the cosmogonies of the Bible and Hellenistic mythology were, and we should remember that the Gospel of John was written in the Hellenistic city of Ephesus in Asia Minor in the 90s. The impact of the message of the Gospel there can be imagined – Creation was the work of a unique God, not a pantheon, and Jesus was the Creator. Unlike Prometheus, who was powerless to prevent Zeus from punishing him for giving fire to Man, Jesus was returning via the Cross to His pre-mundane glory. Jesus was the Creator of all things – the Cosmos, Men, women, everything. Further, John 17 tells us that He had authority over all flesh. Nor was He, in terms of His deity, born – He existed before Creation, since He was the Creator, and He was returning to His position of eternal Glory which He had enjoyed before the Creation.

The various commentators are agreed on this – He returns to His pre-existing glory, as Lindars comments on 17:5 (p. 520): “…the glorifying for which Jesus prays is conceived of as the restoration of a pre-existing glory. The phrases in thy own presence and with thee are almost identical, and are certainly identical in meaning. Jesus does not simply pray for vindication as the Son of Man, but for …the descent and return of the Revealer from the heavenly realm.” Barrett (p. 504) concurs: “παρὰ σεαυτῷ, that is, by causing me to return to the position I enjoyed before the incarnation; cf. παρὰ σοί, and with both cf. 1.1, πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The glory, that is, is the heavenly glory of Christ; the prayer is a prayer for exaltation and ascension. After the crucifixion the Son of man will ascend where he was before (6.62). With πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι cf. 8.58.” Carson (p. 557) comments:

What is clear is that Jesus is asking to be returned to the glory that he shared with the Father before the world began, i.e. before creation… Haenchen (2. 502) rightly observes that this means the incarnation entailed a forfeiture of glory… This does not mean that Jesus is asking for what might be called a ‘de-incarnation’ in order to be returned to the glory he once enjoyed. When the Word became flesh (1:14), this new condition was not designed to be temporary. When Jesus is glorified, he does not leave his body behind in a grave, but rises with a transformed, glorified body (to use a Pauline category; cf. notes on ch. 20) which returns to the Father (cf. 20:17) and thus to the glory the Son had with the Father ‘before the world began’.

Morris (Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, pp. 638-639) also agrees with the idea that Jesus was returning to pre-incarnate Glory:

Now Jesus prays God to glorify him. He looks for glory in the last place that people would look for it, namely in the cross. And he sees this glory for which he prays as linked with his preincarnate glory with the Father. There is a clear assertion of Christ’s preexistence here (we have already seen such a claim, 1:1; 8:58; 16:28). There is also the claim that he had enjoyed a unique glory with the Father in that preexistent state. And now, as evil men are about to do their worst to him, he looks for the Father to glorify him again in the same way.

We need hardly quote anyone else, given the unanimity of thought on the issue. It is clear that Jesus was claiming divine pre-existence, on parity with the Father. This is linked to what has been termed the “Descent-Ascent Schema”. That is, Jesus descended from Heaven – from the Father – and would return thence by the Cross. In 3:13 Jesus tells Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”, and in 6:62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In 16:28, Jesus states; “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father”. Jesus was going to be restored to His pre-mudane position of Glory – which means He is God.

CONCLUSION

The dawah propagandists have to engage in severe theological and exegetical gymnastics to manipulate John 17:3-5 to mean something other than its obvious, plain interpretation. They also have to ignore the general tenor of the Gospel - the “Descent-Ascent Schema”, the evangelistic character of the book, its display not only of the deity of Jesus but also His two natures, supremely displayed in John 17. They latch on to minor textual variant issues mentioned by Brown, but ignore how late and unimportant they are, as well as ignoring that Brown himself pays them no heed in his exegesis of the passage. It is the Qur’an that has misled them in this, with its false accusation that Christians say that there are three gods, and its deliberate ignoring of the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Unfortunately, their misdirection by the Qur’an leads them to grossly misinterpret this passage in John 17, which actually proves the opposite of what they claim.

“The Father Is Greater Than I”: What Did Jesus Mean?

INTRODUCTION

It is a feature of Islamic dawah polemics to quote part of John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”) to suggest that Jesus is not really divine. Note what we have just stated – Islamic polemicists are not quoting the entire verse, but only part of it. They are in company with groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses and way back, the Arians. Always, there is a conscious, deliberate ignoring of the full verse and the wider context in the chapter and the Gospel of John as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to examine the verse in its context and determine what Jesus meant by this.

1. The complete verse – John 14:28

The point to recognize is that the full verse indicates more than just what dawah activists claim: “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Note that the dawah propagandists always ignores that the statement does not stand alone, unlike John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Rather, the quote from 14:28 is not a complete sentence, but rather a clause, specifically a Causal clause (adverbial clause of reason). Wallace observes that the clause structure involves a Genitive of Comparison, and states: “In this context, it is obvious that Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, p. 111). The nature of the clause as causal is clear given that the clause starts with “for”. The Greek reads as follows:

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than me.

Note that the dawah propagandists always omit the conjunction ὅτι – hoti – “because” or “for”. Immediately, this tells us that the statement “for the Father is greater than I” looks back to what preceded it. The immediate predecessor of the clause is “because I am going to the Father”, which obviously does not stand alone, but itself looks back to the preceding statement “you would have rejoiced”. So, if we were to begin the sentence there, it would read: “you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Therefore, the import of the sentence is that the disciples should rejoice, because Jesus is going to the Father. It follows that the focus of the sentence is not a Christological statement about the essence of deity and the relations of Father and Son, but rather on the future motion of Jesus, and specifically His destination – to leave the disciples and to go to the Father. Naturally speaking, the departure of Jesus would be cause for sorrow, but Jesus reveals that paradoxically, it would be cause for rejoicing, because He is going to the Father.

1. The context of the verse

The chapter is part of the Last Supper discourse, and begins with the news that Jesus is going to the Father, for the purpose of preparing dwelling-places for the disciples:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

These statements look back to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in the preceding chapter where He indicates the means by which He will initially return to the Father:

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’

This refers to the departure of Judas Iscariot, to betray Jesus, and so Jesus is talking about the imminent crucifixion, which, paradoxically, involves Jesus being glorified – specifically, what lay beyond this event – His return to the Father. That is, Jesus is talking about His death and what was occur immediately afterwards. Again, the natural emotion the disciples would feel about this is grief and sorrow, but Jesus instead tells them to rejoice, since He is going – via the cross – to the Father. What would naturally be a time of pain (emotional for the disciples, physical for Jesus) and loss is actually a time for rejoicing and gain, since Jesus will go to the Father to prepare Heaven for the disciples. Therefore, His departure is especially gain for the disciples.

This is also true because of two accompanying consequences. Firstly, in 14:12 Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” So, the disciples will do greater works than Jesus because of His departure to the Father. We will come back to this. Secondly, in v16, Jesus promises them the reception of the Spirit: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” This is developed in 16:5-11:

5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Note what v7 states – that it is to the advantage of the disciples that Jesus departs in order that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, can come to them. So, the conviction of the world and the spread of the Gospel is dependent upon Jesus departing to the Father. It follows that Jesus – in His State of Humiliation, present on the Earth – cannot dispense the Spirit unless He departs to Father in Heaven to send the Spirit. This indicates that Jesus, on Earth, is necessarily self-restricted in some ways, but that this does not apply when He returns to the Father.

1. Motion and Destination in the Gospel of John

Fundamental to any interpretation of the Gospel of John is what has been termed the “Descent-Ascent Schema”. That is, Jesus descended from Heaven – from the Father – and would return thence by the Cross. So, the inter-related concepts of motion and destination previously mentioned are central to the Gospel. The Gospel begins (1:1) with the revelation that “the Word was with God” – at the Beginning (i.e. of Creation). Then, in v14, we read “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the Unique [One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Greek is: “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.”·It would be better to translate this as “And the Word came as flesh…” We immediately observe motion and destination – the Word moved from Heaven to Earth, i.e., from the Father to Humanity, and did so as flesh. In 3:13 Jesus tells Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man”, and in 6:62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In 16:28, Jesus states; “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father”.

So, Jesus has descended from Heaven – from the Father, and was returning to the Father in Heaven. Meeks writes (Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, In search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2002, p. 55): “The uniqueness of the Fourth Gospel in early Christian literature consists above all in the special patterns of language which it uses to describe Jesus Christ. Fundamental among these patterns is the description of Jesus as the one who has descended from heaven and, at the end of his mission which constitutes a krisis for the whole world, reascends to the Father.” This being the case, we should note the statement by Keener (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003, p. 983):

Jesus would be in a more pleasant state with his Father, he says, “because the Father is greater than I” (14:28). Elsewhere he speaks of the Father’s greatness (5:36; 10:29); as Jesus is greater than those he sends (13:16; 15:20), so is the Father greater than Jesus as his sender... Those who suggest, on the basis of texts such as 14:28, that John denies Jesus’ deity read them outside the broader context of John’s theological framework. In the whole of his Gospel, John plainly affirms Jesus’ deity (1:1; 8:58; 20:28) but distinguishes Jesus from the Father (1:1b, 2)… The issue is not Jesus’ nondeity, or even his distinction from the Father (which is assumed), but his subordination to the Father, which portrays Jesus as the Father’s obedient agent and therefore appeals to those who honor the Father to honor him.

At this point we should consider 17:5: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This is part of the “High Priestly” prayer of Jesus, so obviously offered in the State of Humiliation – while He was on Earth, as indicated by v4: “I glorified you on earth…” So, again, we see the distinction between the Father in Heaven, the place and position of eternal glory, and Jesus on the Earth – obviously, not in the same place and position of eternal glory. Yet that same place and position of eternal glory had indeed been the experience of the pre-existent Son before Creation. Now, via the Cross, Jesus would return to that same place and position of eternal glory He had enjoyed before His descent from Heaven. This enables us to understand what Jesus meant in 14:28 about the Father being “greater” – He, unlike the Son on Earth at that point – was in a greater position – that of eternal glory. Guthrie makes a very pertinent comment on 14:28: “It is not surprising that some see in this the inferiority of the Son to the Father, but it must be recognized that Jesus is contrasting the heavenly state with the earthly.” (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester/Downers Grove: IVP, 1981, p. 314).

It is worth noting the comments of other scholars on 14:28. Barrett states: “Jesus will return to the glory of the Father through death… the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John’s thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his earthly life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end.” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John An Introduction with Commentary and notes on the Greek text, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, Second Edition 1978, p. 468). Essentially, this confirms our point about Jesus being in the State of Humiliation on Earth but returning to His eternal glory with the Father. Carson helpfully shows an analogy between this verse and the Queen to demonstrate that Jesus is not affirming that the Father is of differing and superior essence (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 507):

At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern Arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius… In the clause before us, the Father is greater than I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God: the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant. If the writer of this commentary were to say, ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I’, no-one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I. The greater than category cannot legitimately be presumed to refer to ontology, apart from the controls imposed by context. The Queen is greater than I in wealth, authority, majesty, influence, renown and doubtless many more ways: only the surrounding discussion could clarify just what type of greatness may be in view.

Carson then proceeds to suggest what the clause actually means (Ibid., p. 508):

The only interpretation that makes adequate sense of the context connects for the Father is greater than I with the main verb (as does the preceding option), but understands the logic of the for or because rather differently: If Jesus’ disciples truly loved him, they would be glad that he is returning to his Father, for he is returning to the sphere where he belongs, to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (17:5), to the place where the Father is undiminished in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state.

Again, this supports our interpretation of the text. Lindars also agrees about divine ontology in the verse: “It does not mean that Jesus is a lesser kind of being, not truly divine.” (Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 1981, 1986, p. 485). Morris states: “John is not asserting, as the Arians maintained, that Jesus was a created being. He is talking about the departure of the human Jesus from this earth to be with the Father. In the light of this Jesus sees it as a matter for rejoicing that He returns to the Father.” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 659). comments: “Jesus is on the way to the Father who will glorify him. During his mission on earth he is less than the One who sent him, but his departure signifies that the work that the Father has given him to do is completed. Now he will be glorified with that glory that he had with the Father before the world existed.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), London/Dublin/Melbourne: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971, p. 655).

1. The word “greater” in the Gospels

The argument of the dawah propagandists is that when Jesus refers to the Father as “greater” in John 14:28, the word indicates superiority of essence. Clearly, in the light of John 10:30, 8:58, 1:1, etc., that cannot be the case. However, let us consider what “great” and more specifically “greater” means. In English, it involves a comparison of magnitude. Sometimes this means size or scale, or extension. Examples of this include the largest island in the British Isles, Great Britain. The island is not so-called because the natives had a high opinion of themselves, but because in French, Brittany – formerly Armorica – is Bretagne, and its larger island neighbor is Le Grande Bretagne. In America, there are The Misery Islands in Massachusetts, which include Great Misery and Little Misery. In this context, “great” obviously means “bigger”, and refers to the comparative size of the islands, and not the amount of negative emotion any visitor might experience.

Another possibility is the result of expansion, notably the metropolitanization of traditional cities, such as “Greater” Los Angeles, Toronto, Berlin, Sydney, etc. An instructive case is that of London. The City of London is ancient, has its own Lord Mayor (e.g., the famous Dick Whittington) and even its own police service. During the nineteenth century, its suburbs grew in terms of population as industrialization and metropolitanization advanced. This gave birth to “Greater London”, which is now officially recognized as “The Greater London Authority”, with its own executive Mayor and the Metropolitan Police, distinct from the City of London. The meaning of “Greater” here is obviously “bigger” by virtue of expansion – it does not reflect a qualitative difference from the City of London, or any other British city.

Another meaning is that of magnitude of accomplishment, as applied to persons. For example, we talk of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great. In each case, it refers to their accomplishments in the political and especially military field – Alexander establishing a great empire, Alfred beginning the process of establishing the English nation and fighting the Vikings, Peter modernizing Russia and extending its borders at the expense of Sweden, Catherine doing much the same at the expense of Poland and the Ottoman empire. Although Alexander – and perhaps some of his followers – considered himself to be a god, the others did not so-regard themselves, and at any rate, the designation is given to these individuals by others. None of those awarding this designation considered the persons here to be different in essence from any other human beings. They simply had, and gained, more power than others, and accomplished more.

At this point we turn to the Gospels. The Greek word for “greater” in John 14:28 is μείζων meizōn. There is also the word μεῖζόν meizon, used in Matthew 12:6, 41-42, 23:17, 19. It can be either an Adjective, Adverb, or Comparative, the root word being μέγα mega – “great”. Below are some the examples:

Matthew 11:11

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ· ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 12:6

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε.

I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.

John 1:50

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς πιστεύεις; μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ.

Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”

John 4:12

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;

Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.

John 5:20

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

John 5:36

ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου, τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα [c]ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν,

But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.

John 8:53

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ, ὅστις ἀπέθανεν; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον· τίνα σεαυτὸν ποιεῖς;

Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”

John 10:29

ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζων ἐστιν, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 13:16

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.

Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

John 14:12

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι·

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

John 14:28

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· Ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἄν, ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.

ou heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

The first example, from Matthew 11:11 contrasts the eschatological position of John the Baptist with ‘the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven’, as France observes (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, pp. 428-29):

The argument of vv. 7-10 is brought to a resounding conclusion with a solemn “Amen” saying: John is the greatest of all human beings so far. In this context the focus has been on his role as a prophet, but this saying surprisingly declares him not simply the greatest of prophets but the greatest of all people (even Abraham, Moses, David?), so important is his pivotal role in the eschatological drama. After such a declaration the second half of the verse is the more striking, as it contrasts those hitherto “born of women” and the members of the kingdom of heaven. The contrast is between two eras, that of preparation, culminating in John, and that of fulfillment, the arrival of the kingdom of heaven which Jesus has now inaugurated. John had proclaimed it (3:2), but he apparently remains outside while even the less important (cf. 5:19 for “least” and “great” in the kingdom of heaven) of those whom Jesus has now welcomed into the kingdom of heaven enjoys a privilege beyond that even of John himself.

Clearly, there was no difference in human essence between John and previous prophets, as there was none between him and anyone born supernaturally under the New Covenant. It is obvious, therefore, that “greater” is a matter of position, not essence here. This is also true of Matthew 12:6, where Jesus declares His superiority to the Temple. Obviously as a living being, rather than something inanimate like the Temple, Jesus was of different essence to it, but that is not the import. The Temple was the place of sacrifice, of divine-human reconciliation, and the dwelling-place of God. To again quote France (pp. 460-461):

…why does Jesus speak in the neuter of “something greater”? Here in v. 6 this might be explained formally by the fact that the immediate point of comparison is an institution, the temple, not a person. But when a very similar formula is used again in vv. 41 and 42, the point of comparison will be individual people of the OT, Jonah and Solomon, yet the neuter is found there as well. Both here and there it is the authority of Jesus himself which is immediately at issue, but not so much Jesus in his own person as in his role, as now (in comparison with priest, prophet, and king in the OT) the true mediator between God and his people; such a role is something new. Here in v. 6, where the contrast is with the temple rather than with a person, the neuter is perhaps also intended to point beyond Jesus himself to the new principle of God’s relationship with his people which will result from Jesus’ ministry, a principle which will remain embodied in the community of his disciples even when Jesus himself is no longer present.

As with John the Baptist, the arrival of Age of Fulfilment, the New Covenant, produces a radical change. The functions of the Temple are now realized in the Person and Work of Jesus as Messiah. That is, Jesus has a greater role, a greater position.

If we turn now to the Gospel of John, in 1:50 Jesus promises Nathanael that he will see greater things than Jesus’ revelation at that point. To understand this, we must know why Nathanael was so shocked at Jesus:

45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Carson (op. cit., p. 161) observes concerning the fig tree: “occasionally in rabbinic literature its shade is associated with a place for meditation and prayer…” Lindars (op. cit. p. 118) concurs, stating: “According to the Midrash Rabba on Eccles. 5.11, some rabbis taught the Law under a fig tree (cf. SB 1.858; 11.371).” That is, Nathanael was reading the Scriptures under the tree, and meditating on a particular event therein. What event was it? Obviously, the narrative of Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12. The name “Jacob”, ya’aqōb, means “he seizes by the heel.” His name prophetically worked itself out in his history, in his striking a twister’s bargain with his brother over the birthright and then deceiving his father in the matter of the blessing (not to mention his dodgy dealings with Uncle Laban later on, of course). Carson observes that Esau’s comment in Genesis 27:36 on Isaac’s words in 27:35 is a punning allusion to Jacob’s name, meaning something like “he has seized me by the heel” [with the sense, we might say, “he has got the better of me (by devious means)”]. It carries with it overtones of his being something of a cheat, a twister (how else could he have grabbed hold of his brother’s heel?!), a deceiver, (op. cit., pp. 160-161):

The encomium achieves extra depth in the light of the explicit reference to the Jacob story in the following verses. Doubtless Esau despised his birthright, but in Isaac’s view that did not make Jacob innocent. Isaac informs Esau, ‘Your brother came deceitfully (LXX ‘with deceit [dolos]’) and took your blessing’, to which Esau replies, ‘Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (Heb. ya‘aqōb)? He has deceived me (ya‘aqebēnî) these two times’ (Gn. 27:35–36). But Jacob came to be called Israel, after receiving a vision of God that transformed his character (Gn. 28:10ff.; 32:24–30). Nathanael, then, was an Israelite without deceit, an ‘Israel’ and not a ‘Jacob’…

The passage in Genesis 28 follows Jacob’s flight from Esau’s wrath. The actual dream he had was of particular significance for Nathanael, pace Lindars (p. 122): “It is possible that he is making use of rabbinic exegesis at this point, which is first attested in Targum Neofiti at Gen. 28.12. Thus Gen. Rabba lxviii.18; lxix.3 take ‘on it’ and ‘above it’ of Gen. 28.12 and 13 respectively to be ‘on him’ - i.e., on Jacob. One of the explanations given for this… interpretation is that the ‘image’ of Jacob is in heaven while his body sleeps on earth, and the angels maintain contact between them.” This explains both Nathanael’s shock and Jesus’ statement about the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Odeberg comments (Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.- B., 1929, p. 36):

On the background of these mystical interpretations of the ascent and descent of the angels on man, some light may be thrown upon the meaning of Joh. 151: the disciples of Jesus will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man i.e. they will see the connexion being brought about between the celestial appearance, the Glory, δόξα [doxa] of Christ, and his appearance in the flesh; it implies the manifestation (φανέρωσις [phanerōsis]) of his δόξα (211) on earth.

At this point, we can understand Nathanael’s shock and sudden confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah – somehow, Jesus was supernaturally aware of the subject about which Nathanael had been meditating, as evidenced by Jesus’ comment “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael would have been thinking about Jacob, Ya‘aqōb, the one who “deceived (ya‘aqebēnî)”, but whose Heavenly “image”, the true Israel, is the one upon whom angels ascend and descend. Hence Nathanael’s shocked response of acknowledgement of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.

Yet Jesus promises Nathanael something “greater” – an insight into His Glory - as Lindars comments (p. 120), this applies “to the unfolding of Jesus’ glory throughout the Gospel.” Nathanael had only recognized Jesus as the Royal Messiah, but Jesus, by manifesting His glory as the celestial Son of Man of Daniel 7, will show Nathanael that He is more than just an earthly figure like David – He is indeed literally Heavenly, having come from Heaven (we can thus see the link with the Heavenly Image of Israel in Jacob’s dream). However, both revelations are, obviously, equally supernatural – it is the spiritual insight that Nathanael will gain from His experience of who Jesus really is that is “greater” in quality.

The encounter of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4:12 begins with Him asking her for a drink, which surprises her, as “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”, only for Him to state (v10): “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” This leads her to reply: “11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” It is important at this point to note that she was not aware of who Jesus was, nor of His supernatural powers or standing as Messiah (or as the Samaritans termed him, the Taheb, who was not of Davidic ancestry, but rather a prophet like Moses – a teacher or lawgiver, who brought about the resurrection of the dead, among other matters). Clearly, therefore, she did not mean to ask if Jesus was “greater” in essence than Jacob. Rather, her comment refers to the well itself (Lindars, p. 182):

The thought that Jesus might know of a superior source of fresh water has occurred to the woman, but it is an affront to her Samaritan pride in possession of the patriarch’s well. If G. A. Smith is correct in saying that she used it because of the superiority of its water, no difficulty is caused by the fact that many other sources of supply are available in the vicinity, for she knows that none is better. So, for Jesus to claim that he has a better source, is to claim that he is a greater man than Jacob himself.

That is, in her mind, Jesus could only be “greater” than Jacob if He could show her a superior well – perhaps deeper, able to quench the thirst not only of Jacob himself, but also his family and cattle. Barrett (p. 234) essentially concurs with Lindars but emphasizes Jacob’s position as a Patriarch: “That Jacob himself drank of the well lends it distinction - even he needed no better water; that his cattle did so indicates the copiousness of the supply, also that Jacob’s well provided no more than material water, appropriate only to the animal life of man.” Clearly, Jacob as one of the Patriarchs could only be “greater” than someone who is not, but again, this indicates position, not essence. Of course, we know that Jesus, in terms of His divine nature, was indeed of greater essence than Jacob, but the woman did not know that, nor did it influence her question.

The next verse to consider is John 5:20: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” It is best to put this into context – Jesus is responding to objections that He healed on the Sabbath, and His claim to unique divine paternity and thus deity: “7 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” The verse in question is part of Jesus’ response:

19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Jesus denies that the Son can act independently of the Father. Obviously, ordinary human beings can and do act independently of the Father – they sin, for example. However, the unity of essence between Father and Son precludes such independent action, as Carson (p. 251) comments:

The Greek text of verses 19–23 is structured around four gar (‘for’ or ‘because’) statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and coextensive with all that the Father does. ‘Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father’ (Westcott, 1. 189). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus’ sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father.

On that basis, we proceed to v20 – that the Father shows the Son “all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” Morris comments (pp. 313-314):

Thus the Father shows (again the tense is present denoting continuous action) the Son all the things He does. This carries the implication that the Son does the things He is shown. Jesus’ actions do not proceed from merely human motivation. He acts only in accordance with the divine revelation. Thus He looks forward to doing greater works, for He will be shown greater works. The result will be that His hearers will be astonished. The following verses show that these “greater works” are the Son’s activities in giving life and in judging.

There is thus an identity of action between Father and Son – the latter acts completely in accordance with the will of the former. Beasley-Murray (George Beasley-Murray, John, Waco: Word, 1987, p. 76) comments: “The “seeing” of the Son in v 19 has its counterpart in the “showing” by the Father in v 20. It is an image of the perpetual communion of the Son with the Father in his day-by-day life (not in his pre-existence). The source of that communion, and its illumination and direction, is the Father’s love for the Son.” Barrett (p. 259) aptly comments: “The activity of Jesus is not merely a reflection of God's activity but a complete reflection, since the Father shows the Son all that he does.” Lindars (p. 222) comments on the “greater” works: “These greater works will be described in the next two verses. They will cause men to marvel, because what they have so far seen is only a faint shadow of the full scale of the eschatological task which Jesus will perform when he is glorified; cf. verse 28.”

The “greater” works are thus those of eschatological Resurrection and Judgment. It is true that in the Old Testament, we see resurrections performed by divine mandate through Elijah and Elisha, and in the New Testament later by the Apostles, but there is a qualitative difference between what is envisaged in v25 here - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” All resurrections in the Bible, save that of Jesus, were temporary revivifications – the person was simply restored to his/her natural life, and eventually the grave would re-claim that individual. However, the Resurrection of Jesus was different – He had a resurrection body, being the first fruits of the General Resurrection, and so the tomb would never re-claim its victim. Note that it is not the Father, but the Son whose voice would cause the General Resurrection.

This should be linked to v21: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will”. None of the resurrections performed by the Prophets or Apostles could have been realized apart from the will and power of God, however much the divine servants involved could have wished for such inherent power. Yet Jesus, as the Son, will give eternal life to whomsoever He (not the Father) wills, and by His own inherent power. Of course, there is no cleavage between the will and power of the Father and the Son, by virtue of their possessing the same essence.

In one sense, there is not gradation between Jesus miraculously healing someone, and later resurrecting the dead for the Judgment – divine power in miracles is obviously common to both. However, both Jesus and the works He will perform at the End of the Age will be a different position than during the healing in John 5:8-9 – obviously, Jesus will face no opposition – He will be the Divine Judge, and the miracle of Resurrection He will perform will be eternal in nature. In that sense, the works Jesus will perform will greater. However, in terms of divine power in miracle, it will be the same. The power that caused the invalid to walk is the same as resurrects people.

In John 5:36, Jesus declares that His testimony is greater than that of John the Baptist. What did He mean by this? The reference is the second clause in the verse indicate an answer: “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.” In one sense, this could refer to the fact that the ministry of Jesus, unlike that of John, was accompanied by miracles (10:41: “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true”). However, that is only part of the meaning. Unlike John, Jesus is the Messiah, and indeed, the Son, looking back to what Jesus says earlier in the chapter. Carson writes (pp. 261-262):

These ‘works’ include all of Jesus’ ministry, including the ‘signs’… which point to the climactic work, the work of redemption achieved in the cross and exaltation of the Lamb of God. Anyone who has followed John’s Gospel this far will know that these works are not some mere demonstration that Jesus is a notable human being, perhaps a prophet, following the conclusion of Nicodemus (3:2). The argument in this verse turns on the exposition of the Father/Son relationship found in 5:19–30. All that Jesus does is nothing more and nothing less than what the Father gives him to do. The works he does are thus peculiarly divine: they are the works of God. Once this Father/Son relationship is grasped, everything Jesus does simultaneously attests who he is and who the Father is.

Morris comments (p. 328):

The works which He does are no ordinary works. They are “the works which none other did” (15:24). They are the Father's works, and, indeed, it is the Father abiding in Him who does them (14:10). These works bear upon them the hallmark of their divine origin. They show that Jesus is not of human origin, but that the Father has sent Hm (for “sent” see on 3: 7). Jesus' words have particular force, set as they are in the context of the healing of the lame man.

John’s testimony did not have the force that the witness of Jesus enjoys, since it was not miraculously validated by the Father in the same way. After all, John himself saw the descent of the Spirit upon us and recognized what position He held (1:30ff):

30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Again, it comes down to position and role. The reference in John 8:53 resembles the encounter with the Samaritan woman: “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” Although in v58 Jesus effectively answers this by pointing out that there is indeed a difference of essence between Him and Abraham – i.e., He is YHWH – that obviously was not in the minds of His questioners/accusers. The actual “question” is really a rebuke – “who do you think you are!” Or, to use another colloquialism, “You’re giving yourself airs!” It looks back to the accusations in verse 51-52: “51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’” The initial answer Jesus gives indicates that He understood the nature of their question as an accusation that He was giving Himself airs – v54 “Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’” Jesus denies giving Himself airs – rather, the Father has appointed Him to the position He now has as Messiah. However, this is not actually pertinent to our point. What matters is the force of the accusation against Jesus – that He made Himself to be “greater” than Abraham, the Patriarch, and also the prophets. It is as if someone in the UK were to rebuke a person by saying: “who do you think you are – the King?” The point is, the accusers of Jesus make is that Jesus – whom they believe to be nothing more than human – cannot be in a higher position than the Patriarch.

When we come to John 10:27-29, we find Jesus making what at first glance might seem a trite statement – “27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Obviously, God is greater than humans or demons in terms of His power. Yet that is the point for our consideration – by virtue of His position as the Cosmic Ruler, His power is greater than any adversary. Again, what is contrasted is not essence, but position. The Creator is obviously more powerful than anything in His creation. His power come with the territory of being God.

The statement in John 13:16 “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” clearly relates to position, rather than essence, since human masters and servants, and messengers and senders are of the common essence of humanity, though existing separately. We need not spend any time on this, as it is obvious. That brings us to John 14:12: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” This is especially interesting, being in the same chapter and discourse as the verse this paper considers. Given all that Jesus has said about the nature of His works, how can it be true that mere humans could do greater works than the Son? Barrett comments (p. 460): “The greater works therefore are the gathering of many converts into the church through the activity of the disciples (cf. 17. 20; 20. 29), which however is effective only through the continuing power of Jesus’ word and the work of the Holy Spirit (15.26f.).” Morris (p. 646) concurs:

What Jesus means we may see in the narratives of the Acts. There are a few miracles of healing, but the emphasis is on the mighty works of conversion. 31 On the day of Pentecost alone more believers were added to the little band of believers than throughout Christ’s entire earthly life. There we see a literal fulfilment of “greater works than these shall he do”. During His lifetime the Son of God was confined in His influence to a comparatively small sector of Palestine. After His departure His followers were able to work in widely scattered places and influence much larger numbers of men. But they did it all on the basis of Christ’s return to the Father. They were in no sense acting independently of Him. On the contrary in doing their “greater works” they were but His agents.

Likewise, Lindars (p. 475): “As their works are the works of Jesus, they will be just as much the activity of God in the world as his own acts were. Moreover they will be greater. This does not, of course, mean better than those of Jesus, but more extensive, for it is through the mission of the disciples that the work of Jesus is to be extended through the world and down the ages; the phrase is an unmistakable allusion to 5.20.” Obviously, there is no gradation in the essential nature of the works of the Apostles and those of Jesus, it is simply because of the change in Jesus’ position – being exalted to Heaven – that the works can proceed on a great scale.

CONCLUSION

It can be seen from all we have surveyed that the use of part of John 14:28 – indeed, a truncated portion of the clause therein – by the dawah propagandists to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father is wholly illegitimate. Neither the context nor the use of “greater” by Jesus (especially in the Gospel of John) allow for such an interpretation. The text simply refers to the fact that the Father – on His throne in Heaven - was in a greater position than Jesus on Earth, in the State of Humiliation. Jesus stated that He was going to the Father, who was in a greater position, and since this would lead to the Apostles receiving the Spirit, Who will enable them to do “greater” works than those of Jesu during His earthly sojourn.

It should also be noted that the chapter begins with Jesus making a statement about Himself that indicates His deity:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Beasley-Murray (pp. 253-254) aptly comments on this as follows:

This so-called formula of reciprocal immanence is, as Schnackenburg puts it, “a linguistic way of describing... the complete unity between Jesus and the Father” (3:69). Significantly it was earlier stated to Jewish opponents of Jesus in justification of a statement closely related to hat in v 9, namely, “1 and the Father are one” (10:30, 37-38). The reality is greater than human language can express, but that to which it points is sufficiently clear: in the depths of the being of God there exists a koinonia, a “fellowship,” between the Father and the Son that is beyond all compare, a unity whereby the speech and action of the Son are. that of the Father in him, and the Father’s speech and action come to finality in him.

We should therefore look at v28 in the light of what Jesus has stated about Himself earlier in the chapter: He is indeed God, as well as being true Man.

The Ashtiname Of Muhammad

1. The Claim

Ashtiname is a Persian word meaning “Book of Peace”, and specifically refers to letter from Muhammad to St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai guaranteeing them – and Christians in general – toleration. Aside from the apologetic that this means that “Islam is a religion of peace”, etc., the supposed existence of the document (and others like it) is used to support claims for the historicity of Muhammad as portrayed in the Islamic sources; for the existence of “Islam” as such; for “Muslims” s such, as opposed to “Hagarenes”, etc. The claim is particularly linked to Imam Ilyas 'Abd al-'Alim Islam/John Morrow, a Canadian (Métis –French/First Nations heritage) convert to Islam, author of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (Angelico Press / Sophia Perennis, 2013). In his article “The Covenants of the Prophet and the Subject of Succession”, Religions, Volume 10; Issue 11, 593, 24 October 2019, he lists the covenants as follows (p. 2):

The Christian Covenants include: the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, which survives in two versions, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran, which includes short, medium, and long versions, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Syriac Orthodox Christians, and the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Coptic Christians, among others. The Jewish Covenants include: the Covenant of Madınah, the Treaty of Maqna, and the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Children of Israel of which half a dozen versions survive. A single Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Samaritans survives as does a Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Parsis.

The last-mentioned is strange, since “Parsis” refer to Iranian Zoroastrians who fled to India to escape the Islamic/Arab invasion that came after the death of Muhammad! Perhaps he meant “Magians”. Morrow recognizes that his thesis is controversial, but states (Ibid.): “All in all, there is enough evident that the Covenants of the Prophet are “authentic” or “correct,” and hence credible, in the sense that they can be traced back, as far as is reasonably possible, to the Prophet, and in the sense that they are consonant with the spirit of the Qur’an.” The last clause is very subjective, so we will ignore it. How far can the covenants be traced back - according to modern standards of historical criticism?

1. The Problem: Dates

Significantly, on p. 4, Morrow writes:

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (Mount Carmel manuscript), the Messenger of Allah describes his protection and his pact as “the most solid covenant that God has given a prophet sent or an angel drawn near” (Morrow 2017a, vol. 3, p. 20; Morrow 2013, p. 233).

The term malak muqarrab, angel of proximity or angel drawn near, is found in the following tradition attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: “There is a moment (waqt) for me with God, which neither an intimate angel (malak muqarrab), nor a messenger-prophet (nabı mursal) can share with me” (Hussainı 1983). This tradition, which is not found in canonical books of ahadıth, but which is frequently cited in Sufı works, is also translated as “I have a moment with God (lı ma‘a Allah waqt) in which no angel drawn near (malak muqarrab) or prophet sent (nabı mursal) rivals me” (Böwering 2012, p. 108).

Note the highlighted section. If the term is not even found in the Hadith literature, complied two centuries after the event, how late must be the tradition about the Covenants? Amazingly, on p.5, he quotes works where the phrase is used, none of which antedate the 10th century A.D., most being later:

References to the malak muqarrab are found in (Sa‘dı 1965) (d. 1291 CE) Gulistan or Rose Garden (119), the Ara’is al-bayan fı hada’iq al-Qur’an of Ruzbihan al-Baqlı (d. 1209 CE) (Godlas 1991), Mutannabı’s (d. 965 CE) Panegyrics (Hámori 1991), and the work of Hamıd al-Dın al-Kirmanı (d. 1021 CE) (Walker 1999), among many others. Since the malak muqarrab tends to be mentioned in early Sufı-Shı‘ite works, the Covenants of the Prophet seem to surface from the same current of Islam.

If the Covenants spring from a Sufi milieu, how can they go back to Muhammad himself? Again, note the dates of the sources for the Treaty of Maqna (p. 6):

Cited or mentioned in Waqidı (2013, d. 823 CE), Sa‘d (2001, d. 845 CE), Zanjaway (1986, d. 865 CE), Baladhurı (1866, d. 892 CE), Kathır (Kathır 2013, d. 1373 CE), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (Qayyim 1997, d. 1350 CE), among many others, and dated toward the end of the prophetic mission, the Treaty of Maqna promises the sons of Hanınah, which can also be vocalized as Habıbah or Janbah, who were Jews of Maqna, along with the rest of the inhabitants of the city located near Aylah…

Elsewhere, in The Prophet Muhammad and The Children of Israel by Dr. John Andrew Morrow, https://www.interfaithny.com/ICLIoct3.php, the author states concerning this Treaty:

The Treaty of Maqna was witnessed by God, the angels, and the Muslims who were present. It was written by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and witnessed by ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, Salman al-Farsi, and Abu Dharr, three prominent Companions of the Prophet. Tragically, the version of the Treaty of Maqna found in Muslim sources such as Ibn Sa‘d and Baladhuri, which was supposedly a faithful copy of the original that was in the hands of Egyptian Jews in the 8th century, has been proven to have been altered. A comparison of the original document found in the Cairo Genizah, as completed by Ahmed El-Wakil, shows this to be the case. This confirms that Sunni hadith and historical sources are not necessarily accurate reflections of early Muslim material. Generally compiled several centuries after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad, they are, to a large extent, censored accounts of the primary sources, altered to make them accord with the interpretations and interests of the rulers of the time. As a comparison of the surviving copies of the Covenants of the Prophet with the Jews, Samaritans, Zoroastrians, and Christians shows, the versions included in canonical books of Muslim tradition were edited to make them less tolerant than the originals. This demonstrates that a process of white-washing took place at a later point and that conflicts that took place centuries after the rise of Islam were projected back to the time of the Prophet. An attempt was made to free the Prophet from any association with Judaism and Christianity, presenting him as an illiterate pagan, as opposed to a literate monotheist with an in-depth understanding of Abrahamic religions.

The Treaty of Maqna from the Cairo Genizah is only one of half a dozen copies of covenants reportedly concluded between the Prophet Muhammad and the children of Israel, many of which have been passed down by Yemenite Jews. If the Treaty of Maqna found in Ibn Sa‘d and Baladhuri is generally treated as authentic by the majority of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars who have studied it, the same cannot be said of the covenants transmitted by Yemenite Jews. The general consensus of the mostly modern, secular, Jewish scholars who have examined them is that they are forgeries created by the Children of Israel in an attempt to secure rights from Muslim rulers. Several scholars, however, such as Hartwig Hirschfeld, Ahmed El-Wakil, and myself, have argued in favor of the general authenticity of the documents in question.

Morrow’s argument is that the Sunni Hadith literature is late and has been altered, and so have some references to this treaty. Given either the concurrent or even later dating for the Treaty and other covenants, how can they be taken seriously as historically authentic? To return to The Covenants of the Prophet and the Subject of Succession, consider the dates for another covenant Morrow mentions (p. 8):

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Jews was known to Ibn al-Sabbagh (d. 1451 CE), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (Qayyim 1997, d. 1350), Dhahabı (Dhahabı 2001, d. 1348), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE), and al-Nawawı (d. 1277) (El-Wakıl 2017, pp. 27–31). It was invoked in Natan’el al-Fayy umı’s Bustan al-‘uq ul in the twelfth century CE. It was familiar to al-Khatib al-Baghdadı (d. 1071) (El-Wakıl 2017, pp. 27–28). The document was also cited in shortened form by Ibn Hibban in the tenth century, along with Baladhurı (d. 892 CE), Ibn Zanjawayh (d. 865 CE), Ibn Sa‘d (d. 845 CE), and Waqidı (d. 823 CE), in the ninth century CE. According to the analysis of Hartwig Hirschfeld, the antiquity of Version H, which was found in the Cairo Geniza, “is so great that we may safely date it from the tenth century, if not still earlier” (174). Clearly, the document, in one form or another, dates to the early days of Islam. Consequently, one cannot speak of forgeries. At the very most, one can speak of reworking of ancient material by contraction or expansion.

None of the dates are prior to the 9th century A.D., and most are later. Morrow seems to regard even these dates as “the early days of Islam”. His idea of “forgery” seems elastic – “reworking of ancient material by contraction or expansion” – omitting and adding ancient material, other than by a contemporary colleague – tends to be viewed as forgery.

Ahmed El-Wakil, Masters’ thesis, 2017, Hamad bin Khalifa University, Doha, Searching for the Covenants: Identifying Authentic Documents of the Prophet Based on Scribal Conventions and Textual Analysis, p. 49, observes that there are four recensions of the Covenants with the Magi: The first recension is that of Sorabjee Jamshetji Jejeebhoy which was first published in 1851 CE by his father Sir Jamshetji Jejeebhoy, a Parsi-Indian philanthropist.” The situation deteriorates further:

The litho-copy of the Covenant with the Magi (also known as the “Ahd Nāmah’) was reproduced by Hamidullah and extensively studied by ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān. According to Khān “A member of the Jejeebhoy Family of Bombay is said to have in his possession a long roll of the ‘Ahd Nāmah, from which the one in this litho-copy has been transcribed. This roll of ‘Ahd Nāmah is reputed to have been copied from one on red leather owned by another Parsi gentleman in 1840 A.C., the trace of which has been entirely lost.”

If we examine the third and fourth recensions, the situation is not much better (pp. 50, 51):

A third recension was recorded by al-Sayyid ‘Alī Khān al-Shīrāzī (d. 1120 AH) in his book Al-Darajāt al-Rafī‘a fī Ṭabaqāt al-Shī‘a (The High-Ranking Stations of the Shia) of which a summary of its contents was made much earlier by Ibn Shahrashūb (d. 588 AH) in his Al-Manāqib (Virtues of the Family of Abū Ṭālib). Ibn Shahrashūb’s summary was copied out word for word by Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (d. 1111 AH) in his Biḥār al-Anwār (Oceans of Light)…

The fourth recension was transmitted by Abū al-Shaykh al-Iṣfahānī (d. 369 AH) in his Ṭabaqāt al-Muḥadithīn bi-Iṣfahān (The Rankings of the Narrators of Isfahan) and Abū Nu‘aym (d. 430 AH) in his Dhikr Akhbār Iṣfahān (Narrations from Isfahan). The transmissions of Abū al-Shaykh and Abū Nu‘aym are so similar to one another and the differences among them so few that they should be considered as two separate transmissions of one recension. Al-Mustawfī records in Tārīkh Kuzīda a version of the Covenant with the Magi that is almost identical to the Abū al-Shaykh/Abū Nu‘aym recension except that it has a few incoherencies and so it has not been used as part of the cross-comparison.

We see again the pattern of late dates and textual inconsistency. The review of Morrow’s book by Amidu Olalekan Sanni, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2015, Vol. 35, No. 4, also notes the late dates (pp. 589):

The covenants studied here by John Andrew Morrow were largely obtained from monasteries or archival repositories, and their copying history goes back to the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries (Father Scaliger’s 1629 [1538] edition of the Treaty with Mt. Sinai Monks, and Gabriel Sionita’s 1630 and Georg Nissel’s 1655 exemplar of same). The Arabic title given is al-‘Ahd wa-al-shurut. allatı sharat.aha Muhammad Rasul Allah li ahl al-millah al-nasraniyyah (The Treaty and Covenant which Muhammad the Messenger of Allah concluded with the Christian Community)…

…we find no evidence of pre-sixteenth century codices, even in Islamic sources (Ibn Sa‘d’s d. 845 alleged citation from the “covenant” is unsubstantiated, p. 69)…

1. St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai

El-Wakil comments about St. Catherine’s covenant (p. 6):

The copy of the Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai also claims to be an exact replica (naql al-aṣl) and an unadulterated copy (naqlan muṣaddaqan) of the original covenant which was handed over to Sultan Selim I. That these two covenants are allegedly word for word replicas of the originals is a significant claim in favour of their authenticity and textual accuracy. The similarity of language between them and other Christian covenants indicates that they all derived from a Master Template which was copied out and slightly modified depending on the Christian communities to whom they were given.

Selim I reigned 1487 – 1510 – so the current Sinai document, even if it originates from that time, is very late. In no Sunni hadith is any reference to St. Catherine’s, either directly or obliquely, ever made, even in narrations dealing with Egypt. In the Sira, we read the following: (A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967, 1998, p. 653):

Yazid b. Abu Habib al-Misri told me that he found a document in which was a memorandum (T. the names) of those the apostle sent to the countries and kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs and what he said to his companions when he sent them…

Then the apostle divided his companions and sent… Habib b.Abu Balta’a to the Muqauqis ruler of Alexandria. He handed over to him the apostle’s letter and the Muqauqis gave to the apostle four slave girls, one of whom was Mary mother of Ibrahim the apostle’s son…

This work was edited by Ibn Hisham (d. 833), so it is late, but there is no reference to the Sinai monastery there, even when it deals with the Egyptian Patriarch (usually identified as Cyrus, who was also Prefect). Modern academic scholars are skeptical of the authenticity of this tradition (Gabriel Said Reynolds, The emergence of Islam: classical traditions in contemporary perspective, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012, p. 49):

Most critical scholars question the tradition by which Muhammad sent out letters to world leaders — including the Byzantine and Persian emperors—with invitations to accept Islam. This episode is never mentioned in Byzantine or Persian (or any other non-Islamic) sources. If indeed it was a tradition developed by medieval Muslim scholars, it is still valuable for what it shows of their religious vision.

Morrow’s book was reviewed by Mubasher Hussain in Islamic Studies 57:3-4 (2018) pp. 311–322. On p. 312, Hussain notes:

Morrow has focused on six covenants, which are surprisingly not recorded in the classical Islamic sources, such as the Qur’an, the hadith collections, the sirah writings, books of Islamic history, and manuals of Islamic law. Four of them have no mention at all in Islamic sources. However, two of them (i.e., the first and the third) have a couple of indications which may lead one to trace some of their sentences back to Islamic sources. For that reason, the authenticity of these covenants has been questioned by both the Muslim and Western scholars.

Hussain then lists Morrow’s rather dubious criteria for authenticity:

First, some of these covenants have their shorter versions in the Islamic sources. For instance, the treaty of Najran, which is also cited in Ibn Sa‘d’s al-Tabaqat should be considered authentic on the ground that its version found in the Islamic sources is simply a summary of the complete covenant found in the Christian monastery (p. 354). Second, he holds that the content analysis of these covenants proves them to be sound (p. 353). Third, while they contain certain variations due to scribal negligence, the content of these covenants is in complete agreement with the true teachings of Islam (p. 353). Fourth, they are witnessed by a number of Prophet’s companions (p. 353). Fifth, with reference to certain covenants, the absence of definitive evidence of forgery, in author’s view, is a proof of their authenticity (p. 98).

Hussain also notes the vital problem in authenticating the St. Catherine’s document:

… the treaty titled “The Prophet Muhammad and the Monks of Mount Sinai” (65–98), about which the author admits that its original copy is lost (pp. 77, 82), contains an impression of a hand which is claimed to be of the Prophet (peace be on him) (see pp. 81, 222). However, the impression surprisingly shows the outer side of the hand, which is possible only if it is taken using a camera!

Absent the original document, verification is well-nigh impossible. In assessing documents, the criteria should surely be: Paleography; carbon dating; quotation in other documents from around the same age or just subsequently. Morrow’s criteria are highly subjective – not least stylistic analysis - and circular. Hussain also notes (p. 317) Morrow’s lack of engagement with the Sira:

Morrow has defended Islam and Muslims on several hot issues including jihad and terrorism (pp. 59–62, 111). However, he has strangely consulted only the secondary sources of the sirah (for instances, see pp. 45, 47, 49, 84, 113, 117, 118, 126) while the original sources are widely available. The reviewer could not find a single reference to primary sources of sirah throughout the book. Moreover, many citations lack the reference at all (see pp. 83, 115–116, 122) and some of them have incomplete references (see pp. 43, 47, 56, 78, 122).

In Morrow’s rebuttal to Hussain (The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad Continue to Cause Controversy, By John Andrew Morrow, October 16, 2019, https://themaydan.com/2019/10/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad-continue-to-cause-controversy/), he asserts:

As for the claim that the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad are not found in classical Islamic sources, this is inaccurate. The original copy of Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran reportedly formed part of the collection of the Bayt al-Hikmah of Baghdad. Its rediscovery in 878/879 CE by Habib the Monk, as recorded in the Chronicle of Seert, was considered a major historical event at the time. None of the Muslim scholars from that period disputed it. Prior to that, the Covenant of Najran was cited in various fragmented forms by Abu Dawud (d. 889), Ibn Zanjawayh (d. 865), Ibn Sa‘d (d. 845), Abu ‘Ubayd (d. 825), al-Waqidi (d. 822), Yahya b. Adam (d. 818), al-Shaybani (d. 805), Abu Yusuf (d. 798), al-Balkhi (d. 767), and Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 770). It forms part of a continuum. It was transmitted, in one form or another, from the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the 21st century.

The authenticity of the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Sinai was confirmed by Muslim Caliphs from early Fatimid times until the end of Ottoman times. It is mentioned, quoted or reproduced in full in firmans, fatwas, and ahdnames from the 10th century until the 20th century…

The oldest surviving documents dealing with the ‘Ahd al-Nabi or Covenant of the Prophet from St. Catherine’s Monastery date from the same period as most prophetic traditions, namely, two to three centuries after the fact.

Even if this were true, it is clear that the St. Catherine’s covenant cannot be traced back to Muhammad’s time.

In Gabriel Said Reynold’s review of Morrow’s book in First Things, February 2014, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/02/briefly-noted, he notes the late dating, dismisses the covenants as forgeries, and states:

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is a translation of, and commentary on, documents that purport to be “covenants” the Prophet Muhammad made with Christian communities, assuring them of their protection. Forged by Christians intent on proving to their Muslim overlords that the Prophet himself had guaranteed their well-being and the preservation of their property, they are all quite late.

The earliest copies of “the covenant of the Prophet with the monks of Mt. Sinai” date to the sixteenth century (over nine hundred years after the death of Muhammad). The “covenant of the Prophet with Assyrian Christians” dates to the seventeenth century (and is in an Islamic Persian script that did not exist in Muhammad’s day), and the “covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of the world,” which includes twenty-two signatures meant to be those of the Prophet’s companions, dates to the sixteenth.

The fact that the supposed original copy of the St. Catherine’s covenant was sent to Selim I is perhaps explained by the following (Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964, 1977, p. 352):

From time to time a zealous sultan or mufti would declare that it was the duty of the Turks to exterminate all the Christians; and the bloodthirsty Selim I… is said to have been restrained with difficulty from killing Christians… They normally commandeered at least one church in every conquered town and transformed it into a mosque, and they might commandeer more if the city was big - at Constantinople itself they appropriated at least eight other churches beside the great St Sophia. In 1537 the Turkish muezzins in Constantinople declared that according to Moslem law all Christian churches in a conquered city must be destroyed, and that Constantinople was a conquered city. The Patriarch embraced with lamentations the image of the Virgin in Our Lady Pammacaristos, his cathedral since the loss of St Sophia, consulted the Grand Vizier and the legal authorities, distributed presents, and hired an ancient witness named Mustapha who said that he was 102 years old, had fought at the siege of Constantinople, and could testify that the city had not been conquered but had surrendered. The lawyers accepted the plea, and the passing of the danger was celebrated with litanies and thanksgivings.

It seems fairly obvious that the man Mustapha was bribed, and we can see why the monks of St. Catherine would want to manufacture something to dissuade Selim (and anyone else, before or after) from expropriating their property.

If we examine the tradition further, we see more legends (James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai, London: Orbis, 1985; pp. 18-19):

As tradition has it, in AD 625 the monks sent a delegation to Mohammed himself, begging his protection. Later Mohammed allegedly visited the monastery, and travellers were and are shown the divinely enlarged imprint of his camel’s hoof on the rock. In any event the monks did obtain a document, purportedly from Mohammed, that guaranteed their safety. A later Sultan is said to have carried this away, leaving an authenticated copy still displayed in St Catherine’s.

Whatever the truth in these traditions, the monks of Mount Sinai undoubtedly managed to gain recognition and protection from the Sultans, and took great care not to jeopardize their precarious security. Yearly they persuaded the Sultans in Constantinople to renew their charter of protection. And these Christian monks developed a uniquely tolerant relationship with Islam.

Remarkable evidence of this is provided today by an Islamic mosque standing within the walls of the Christian monastery itself, to serve the religious needs of its Moslem servants. An immediately arresting sight in this singularly Christian context, it was built in the eleventh century, at a time of great danger to the monks Hakim was ravaging and pillaging Christian foundations or slightly later in the 1090s when Archbishop John the Athenian was murdered by hostile Moslems. One account has the monks building the mosque overnight, as a means of protection against marauders who might have burned St Catherine’s to the ground; the sight of the minaret rising above the monastery walls would turn away militant Islam.

CONCLUSION

The St. Catherine’s covenant and its parallels are obvious forgeries, produced for the reasons Reynolds suggests – security from Islamic violence or expropriation. The dating is too late, and the originals – not produced in an age of papyrus – are lost. The criteria for authenticity that Morrow suggests does not meet the standards of valid historical criticism. It is clear that the St. Catherine’s covenant does not provide evidence for the traditional understanding of Muhammad, Islam or Muslims.

Antarah

INTRODUCTION

In a video, The Dirham Coin didn’t even exist in Muhammad’s time? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXhPk28x2M 19 Feb 2020), one Muslim objected to the presentation with these words:

salim shawi 8 hours ago (edited)

Smith has claimed that the dirham was introduced after the advent of Muhammad and that it was not created until the time of ʿUmar. This is simply factually incorrect. The pre-Islamic romance poetry of ʿAntara mentions the word dirham. وَكَأَنَّ فَارَةَ تَاجِرٍ بِقَسِيمَةٍ = سَبَقَتْ عَوَارِضَهَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الفَمِ أَوْ رَوْضَةً أُنُفًا تَضَمَّنَ نَبْتَهَا = غَيْثٌ قَلِيلُ الدِّمْنِ لَيْسَ بِمَعْلَمِ جَادَتْ عَلَيْهِ كُلُّ بِكْرٍ ثُرَّةٍ = فَتَرَكْنَ كُلَّ حَدِيقَةٍ #كَالدِّرْهَمِ It has been recognized by both Muslim and non-Muslim philologists that the word dirham is of non-Arabic origin. For example, al-Jawālīqī (d. 1145 CE / 539 AH) states in his Al-Muʿarrab: أفي كلِّ أسواقِ العراق إتاوةٌ=وفي كلِّ ما باعَ امْرُؤٌ مَكْسُ ##د

This seems to have been borrowed from the Islamic Awareness site, “Dirham”" In The Time Of Joseph?, First Composed: 25th February 2006; Last Updated: 7th April 2006 https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/contrad/external/dirham which contains these references:

Smith has claimed that the dirham was introduced after the advent of Muhammad and that it was not created until the time of ʿUmar. This is simply factually incorrect. The pre-Islamic romance poetry of ʿAntara mentions the word dirham.  

19. Or her mouth is as an ungrazed meadow, whose herbage the rain has guaranteed, in which there is but little dung; and which is not marked with the feet of animals.

20. Or as if it is an old wine-skin, from Azri‘at, preserved long, such as the kings of Rome preserve;

21. The first pure showers of every rain-cloud rained upon it, and left every puddle in it like a dirham;

22. Sprinkling and pouring; so that the water flows upon it every evening, and is not cut off from it.[3]

Commenting on the presence of the word dirham in ʿAntara’s poetry Arthur Jeffery says:

It was doubtless an early borrowing from the Mesopotamian area...[4]

It is clear that the pre-Islamic Arabs were aware of the dirham…

It was shown that pre-Islamic Arabs were aware of the dirham. The evidence comes from the pre-Islamic romance poetry of ‘Antara.

The two references are: W. Ahlwardt (Ed.), The Divans of The Six Ancient Arabic Poets: Ennābiga, ‘Antara, Tharafa, Zuhair, ‘Alqama And Imruulqais, 1870, Trübner & Co.: London, p. 45, XXI:21, and A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Qur’an, 1938, Oriental Institute: Baroda (India), p. 130.

Who was ‘Antarah?

Who was this pre-Islamic poet ‘Antarah? According to the Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, volume 1 (Edited by Julie Scott Meisami and Paul Starkey, London & New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 94 (by T. Bauer), he was a poet of mixed Arab/Abyssinian heritage of the sixth century A.D.:

Antara ibn Shaddad al-Absī

(second half of sixth century CE)

Pre-Islamic poet and hero. As son of a noble bedouin and an Abyssinian slave-girl, he himself had the status of slave, and it is reported that only after he had proven his prowess in battle did his father acknowledge him to be free. The struggle to make up for his lowly birth by bravery and success in combat is more than once reflected in his poetry. He took part in the War of Dāhis between his tribe (‘Abs) and the Dhubyān. Most of his poetry is about this war and other battles, or is dedicated to the glorification of military virtues. Besides his Mu‘allaqa, his best and most important poem, only few lines could gain greater fame. The story of his life, however, which served as an example for the superiority of personal virtue over noble descent, made him a legendary figure and he became the hero of a celebrated epic

Note the word “legendary”. The actual epic is addressed by G. Canova on pp. 93-94:

‘Antar, romance of

‘Antara ibn Shaddad is the famous pre-Islamic poet of the ‘Abs tribe, author of a renowned Mu‘allaqa; because of his dark skin he is considered one of the Arab ‘ravens’. His exploits in war and the story of his love for ‘Abla (their main features already related in Abū al-Faraj al-Isbahānī’s Kitab al-Aghānī) provided the inspiration for numerous legends from an early date. The conjunction of these legends between the eleventh and twelfth centuries CE produced a lengthy chivalrous romance, the Sirat ‘Antar, which was the subject of public recitals by professional storytellers, especially in Syria, Iraq and Egypt, where they were known as ‘anātira. The romance’s various manuscripts and printed editions feature the names of the numerous ‘authors’ to whom it has been attributed: al-Asma’ī, Abū ‘Ubayda, Yūsuf ibn Isma’īl, Ibn al-Sa’igh al-’Antarī, etc. The romance is in fact a popular work, though distinguished from the other siras by language closer to literary usage. ‘Antar is an example of the perfect knight of the Jāhiliyya; in the romance he is also the champion of Islam, and there are many references to the period of the conquests and the Crusades. Two versions of the Slrat ‘Antar, a briefer Syrian-Iraqi one and a Hijazi (Egyptian) one, have come down to us. Its characters speak in verse, whereas the rāwī’s descriptions are in rhyming prose. Four groups of stories, with numerous digressions, may be identified:

1 ‘Antar’s childhood and his love for ‘Abla;

2 his exploits in Mesopotamia, Iran, Africa, etc.;

3 his relations with the Christians;

4 the contest with his rival al-Asad al-Rahīs who eventually killed him.

The early part also contains such episodes of the Qisas al-anbiyā’ (see Legends of the Prophets) as the stories of Nimrod and Abraham. This romance drew the interest of nineteenth-century Orientalists, who saw ‘Antar as the paramount bedouin hero, the Arab Achilles. Later research from the viewpoint of comparative literature (B. Heller) has brought out themes common to the Sīra and to great epic poetry. H.T. Norris has analysed ‘Antar’s African adventures, pointing out the knowledge of Ethiopia common to the late medieval Arab world. P. Heath’s recent work seeks to trace the romance’s literary structure, moving beyond traditional approaches based on historical philology.

Note both the legendary character of the material and its late date – “between the eleventh and twelfth centuries CE”. In terms of ‘Anatarah’s poetry, this seems to have been collated by Abū al-Faraj al-Isbahānī in his Kitab al-Aghānī, about which H. Kilpatrick writes (pp. 30-32):

Abū al-Faraj al-Isbahānī

(284- c. 363/897 - c. 972)

Abu al-Faraj ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Isbahānī, ‘Abbasid man of letters, historian, musicologist and poet. A descendant of the Umayyads, Abu al-Faraj grew up in Baghdad…

A Zaydī (moderate) Shī‘i by conviction, Abu al-Faraj was mainly interested in poetry, music, political and social history, genealogy and philology…

Of his twenty-five titles listed in the sources - mainly on historical, genealogical, literary and musical subjects - four have survived: …the Kitab al-Aghānī (Book of Songs), on which Abu al-Faraj spent many years, but which is incomplete… These four books are all compilations; that is, Abu al-Faraj is responsible for assembling the material, but his own voice is seldom heard, except in occasional comments. He is fairly unusual among literary compilers of this period in painstakingly mentioning isnāds…

The Kitab al-Aghānī, Abu al-Faraj’s masterpiece, is a much more complex work. Its starting point is the aim to present a correct version of the melodies of the hundred best songs chosen, it is said, for Harun al-Rashid and revised by Ishaq al-Mawsili for al-Wāthiq. Abu al-Faraj attaches to each song information about the poet and the composer, the poem from which the words were taken, the event which occasioned the poem and the circumstances in which the song was performed. The articles relating to the Hundred Songs take up about a third of the book; they are followed by a section on royal composers, caliphs and their descendants, and by a third, much longer, section of articles relating to songs chosen by Abu al-Faraj himself. In the third Cairo edition the Aghānī runs to some 9,000 pages.

Although it contains much historical material, the Aghānī is not a history. Rather, it provides a series of portraits of poets, musicians and personalities from pre-Islamic to ‘Abbasid times. The subjects, some of whom are extremely obscure, are drawn from all kinds of milieus and exhibit a great variety of behaviour; the poetry, artistic prose and anecdotes in the book provide a panorama of Arabic literature up to the end of the third/ninth century. Recurrent themes - such as the truthfulness of poetry or the permissibility of listening to music (see samā‘) - give the work a certain unity, while the juxtaposition of disparate material presents the reader with unexpected parallels and comparisons.

These facts are very revealing. Abū al-Faraj al-Isbahānī wrote about three hundred years after ‘Antarah, and his work involved “painstakingly mentioning isnāds” – indicating that we are dealing with the compilation of oral traditions. This mirrors the issues surrounding the Hadith literature.

Manuscript dates

This becomes further complicated when we examine the dates of the manuscripts. In the work The Divans of The Six Ancient Arabic Poets: Ennābiga, ‘Antara, Tharafa, Zuhair, ‘Alqama And Imruulqais, Ahlwardt informs us (pp. xvii, xxiv): “The MSS. employed to edit the text are… 14. Cod. Berol. Peterm. 196. Contains a collection of the poems that occur in romance ‘Antar… Date of copy 1212 (=1798 A.D.).” Indeed, all the mss. used for the various poems are very late. Obviously, the later the manuscript, the greater the opportunity for emendation, unless we have something earlier with which to compare it.

The full reference from Jeffery’s work simply demonstrates dependence on Ahlwardt: “It was doubtless an early borrowing from the Mesopotamian area, for it occurs in the old poetry, e.g. 'Antara xxi, 21 (Ahlwardt, Divans p. 45).” If we turn to The Romance of Antar: An Epitome of the First Part, Translated by Terrick Hamilton, Esq., with selections from the poetry, in Arabian Poetry For English Readers. Edited, With Introduction and Notes, by W. A. Clouston, (Glasgow: M’Laren and Son, 1881), p. 171, we read:

IT is generally believed that this celebrated Arabian Romance was composed, in the eighth century, from traditionary tales which had been long current in the East, by El-Asma’ee, a famous philologist and poet at the court of Hároon Er-Rasheed. Other authors and sources (for instance, Johainah and Abu Obeidah) are mentioned in the work, but these, according to Von Hammer, have been inserted by story-tellers in the coffeehouses. Lane, in his admirable work on the Modern Egyptians, remarks that the ’Ulamà (learned men) “in general despise the romance, and ridicule the assertion that El-Asma’ee was its author”: their opinion, however, on a question of this kind, is of little value.

Again, there is a consensus of late compilation from obviously oral traditions. With this agrees Antar, A Bedoueen Romance, Translated from the Arabic, by Terrick Hamilton, Esq. Oriental Secretary to the British Embassy at Constantinople, (London: John Murray 1819), p. ii:

The following Romance, as it may be called, was first put together, probably from traditionary tales current at the time, by Osmay, one of the eminent scholars, who adorned the courts of Haroun-al-Raschid, and of his two learned successors, Al-Amyn, and Al-Mamoun…

We find the same analysis in modern scholarship, e.g. Peter Heath, The Thirsty Sword: Sirat Àntar and the Arabic Popular Epic, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1996), p. xvi:

The present study draws from and builds on the modern study of epic. It focuses on a popular epic from the Arabic storytelling tradition, the account of the adventures and achievements of the pre-Islamic Arab poet ‘Antara ibn Shaddad. Sirat Antar (The Life Story of ‘Antar) is one point of culmination in the rich tradition of the premodern Arabic popular epic. These popular epics (usually termed in Arabic sira sha’biyya) are works of battle and romance, primarily concerned with depicting the personal prowess and military exploits of their heroes. Pseudo-historical in tone and setting, they base many of their central characters on actual historical figures. Details of history are quickly transcended by the imaginative improvements of fiction, with the result that historical features usually reflect only general setting, atmosphere, and tone. The creators of siras may not have intended to contradict history, but they were quite willing to refashion it for their own purposes.

Sirat 'Antar purports to recount the life story of the famous pre-Islamic Arab poet and warrior 'Antara ibn Shaddad. The historical ‘Antara was a half-caste slave (his father was Arab and his mother black African) who won freedom and fame through his poetic and martial abilities and ended life as a respected member of the northern Arabian tribe of ‘Abs. The Sira builds upon the framework of ‘Antara’s life to construct its own pseudo-historical account.

CONCLUSION

So, even if there were an historical figure called Antar(ah), the reality is that the redacted historical romance is actually unhistorical – essentially apocryphal legend. All of this raises severe questions about the historical reliability of poetry ascribed to him. The late dating of manuscripts does not help. It follows that to base an argument on his supposed use of the word “dirham” is questionable at best – what hard textual evidence do we have from the general time he is said to have originated and transmitted poetry mentioning this word? The fact is, what we have is the late textual redaction of generally legendary oral material, testified by even later manuscript evidence. It follows that no historical significance can be attributed to Antarah’s alleged poetry.

Caliph Umar I

AL-ʿUHDA AL-ʿUMARIYYA – THE AMAN OF CALIPH UMAR I TO PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANS

INTRODUCTION

The Al-ʿUhda Al-ʿUmariyya (not to be confused with the infamous Pact of ‘Umar and its discriminatory provisions) – the aman (guarantee of security) supposedly given by Caliph ‘Umar I to Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, guaranteeing religious security to the Christians of Jerusalem/Palestine, has been employed by dawah activists as evidence of the historicity of Islam. Obviously, the conquest of the Aelia - Holy City of Jerusalem - was major event in history, and was eventually followed by the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), illustrating that Al-Quds (Jerusalem) is, alongside Mecca and Medina, one of the major sacred sites of Islam. The text also demonstrates respect for non-Muslim religious sanctities. However, this paper will show that the historicity of the aman is invalid.

1. The Claim

After the surrender of Jerusalem to the Arabs (637), Caliph ‘Umar is supposed to have visited the city met the Patriarch Sophronius. Hoyland elaborates (Robert Hoyland, In God’s path: The Arab conquests and the creation of an Islamic empire, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 48): “‘Umar was allegedly dressed in filthy garments of camel hair, and the patriarch, seeing this, offered him a clean loin cloth and over-garment, but ‘Umar refused, only accepting in the end, after Sophronius’s insistence, to wear the clean clothes for a short time until his own had been washed.”

Thereupon, ‘Umar gave guarantees to Sophronius and the Christians of Aelia (the Roman/Byzantine name for Jerusalem and its province in Palestine, and thereafter by the Arabs) - Al-Munshar (Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: A history of tolerance and tensions, London & New York: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007, p. 89) “Wars and battles usually bring destruction and bloodshed to both sides. However, this was not the case in 16 AH/637 CE in the conquest of Aelia (Islamic Jerusalem)… The basis of their treatment was laid down when Patriarch Sophronious agreed to hand over the keys of Aelia peacefully to Caliph ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the leader of the victorious Muslim army, and in return the caliph issued his Assurance of Safety to the People of Aelia (al-‘Uhda al-‘Umariyyah).” Al-Munshar (p. 85) observes that there are different reasons ascribed to the visit:

There is disagreement among historians regarding the reason for the arrival of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab in al-Sham. Some historians believe it was in response to the request of the Christians of Aelia, who had agreed with Abu ‘Ubaydah to surrender Aelia only to Caliph ‘Umar personally. Other historians argue that it was in response to the request of ‘Amr Ibn al-‘As, who wrote to ‘Umar after he understood from the Christians of Aelia that the person to whom Jerusalem would be surrendered had the name of ‘Umar. Still others suggest that ‘Umar came to al-Sham to sort out a number of matters, such as dividing the booty, supervising the judicious distribution of properties taken over by the Muslims, organizing the military command in al-Sham, making arrangements for the stipends paid to troops and for their rations and setting the inheritance of those martyred in battles.

He also notes that there is more than one version of the aman (p. 89): “It is therefore important to describe the various versions of the Assurance and to examine two of them more closely. These are al-Tabari’s version, written almost three centuries after the event but regarded as the most famous and longest version of the Assurance, and the version of the Orthodox patriarchate of Jerusalem.” On p. 92, he notes: “Al-Tabari was born at the end of 224 AH /839 CE and wrote his history between 290 AH /902CE and 303 AH/915 CE. His version of ‘Umar’s Assurance is quoted from Saif Ibn ‘Umar (d. 170 AH /786 CE)”

The text of the aman according to Tabari is as follows, beginning with the explanation “According to Khalid and `Ubadah: `Umar made peace with the people of Jerusalem in a1-Jabiyah. He wrote for them the peace conditions. He wrote one [identical] letter to all the provinces (of Palestine) except to the people of Jerusalem” (Yohanan Friedmann [trans.], The History of al-Tabari [Ta’rikh al-rusul wa ‘l-muluk], Volume XII, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992, pp. 191-192):

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety (amān) which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and the healthy of the city, and for all the rituals that belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited [by Muslims] and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem. The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like the people of the [other] cities, and they must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. As for those who will leave the city, their lives and property will be safe until they reach their place of safety; and as for those who remain, they will be safe. They will have to pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property, and abandon their churches and their crosses will be safe until they reach their place of safety. Those villagers (ahl al-ard) who were in Jerusalem before the killing of so-and -so may remain in the city if they wish, but they must pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines, and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing will be taken from them before their harvest is reaped. If they pay the poll tax according to their obligations, then the contents of this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs, and of the faithful. The persons who attest to it are Khālid b. al-Walid, ‘Amr b. al-‘Asi, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Awf, and Mu‘awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. This letter was written and prepared in the year 15/636 - 37.

The rest of the letters were identical to the letter of Lydda [which follows]:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is what the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, awarded to the people of Lydda and to all the people of Palestine who are in the same category. He gave them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, their sick and their healthy, and all their rites. Their churches will not be inhabited [by the Muslims] and will not be destroyed. Neither their churches, nor the land where they stand, nor their rituals, nor their crosses, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted, and none of them will be harmed. The people of Lydda and those of the people of Palestine who are in the same category must pay the poll tax like the people of the Syrian cities. The same conditions, in their entirety, apply to them if they leave (Lydda).

Al-Munshar (pp. 99-100) observes that there is another version of this text:

On the 1 January 1953 the Orthodox patriarchate of Jerusalem published a new version of ‘Umar’s Assurance. They stated that it was a literal translation of the original Greek text kept in the Greek Orthodox library in the Phanar quarter of Istanbul… Published in English for the first time, it reads as follows:

In the name of God, the most Merciful the most Compassionate. Praise to God who gave us glory through Islam, and honoured us with Iman, and showed mercy on us with his Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and guided us from darkness and brought us together after being many groups, and joined our hearts and made us victorious over the enemies, and established us in the land, and made us beloved brothers.

Praise God O servant of God for his grace. This document of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab giving assurance to the respected, honoured and revered patriarch, namely Sophronious, patriarch of the Royal sect on the Mount of Olives, tur al-Zaitun, in holy Jerusalem, al-Quds al-Sharif, which includes the general public, the priest monks, nuns wherever they are. They are protected. If a dhimmi guard the rules of religion, then it is incumbent on us the believers and our successors, to protect dhimmis and help them gain their need as long as they go by our rules. This assurance (aman) covers them, their churches, monastery and all other holy places which are in their hands inner and outer: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; Bethlehem, the place of Prophet Issa (Jesus); the big church; the cave of three entrances, east, north and west; and the remaining different sects of Christians present there and they are: the Karj, the Habshi and those who come to visit from the Franks, the Copts, the east Syrians, the Armenians, the Nestorians, the Jacobites, and the Maronites, who fall under the leadership of the above mentioned patriarch. The patriarch will be their representative, because they were given from the dear, venerable, and noble Prophet who was sent by God, and they were honoured with the seal of his blessed hand. He ordered to look after them and to protect them. Also we as Muslims [believers] show benevolence today towards those whose Prophet was good to them. They will be exempted from paying jizyah and any other tax. They will be protected whether they are on sea or land, or visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or any other Christian worship places, and nothing will be taken from them. As for those who come to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Christians will pay the patriarch dirham and a third of silver. Every believing man or woman will protect them whether they are sultan or ruler or governor ruling the country, whether he is rich or poor from the believing men and women. This assurance was given in the presence of huge number of noble companions: ‘Abdullah, Othman Ibn ‘Afan, Sa‘id Ibn Zayd and ‘Abd Al-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf and the remaining noble companions’ brothers. Therefore, what has been written on this assurance must be relied upon and followed. Hope will stay with them, Salutation of God the high on our master Muhammad, peace be upon him, his family and his companions. All praise to God lord of the world. God is sufficient for us and the best guardian. Written on the 20th of the month Rabi‘ al-Awal, the 15th year of the Prophet Hijra. Whosoever reads this assurance from the believers, and opposes it from now and till the Day of Judgment, he is breaking the covenant of God and deserving the disapproval of his noble messenger.

Perhaps the most startling difference is the latter version’s exemption from paying jizyah.

Another source is Abū Abdullāh Muhammad b. Umar al-Wāqidī, who “was born in Medina around the year 130/747, towards the end of the Umayyad caliphate during the reign of Marwān b. Muhammad, and died at the age of 78 around 207/823” (Rizwi Faizer, The Life of Muhammad: Al- Wāqidī’s Kitāb Al-Maghāzī, London & New York: Routledge, 2013, p. xi), and is usually known as Al-Wāqidī. The work quoted is Futuh al-Sham (Book of the Conquests of Syria), but this attribution is uncertain (p. xiii): “Al- Wāqidī’s Kitāb Al-Maghāzī is his only extant work. Of all the other books recorded in classical biographical and bibliographical works that he is said to have authored, a few others had been thought to exist. However, these are now understood to be false ascriptions; this is notably the case in a series of works describing the Arab conquests of various regions (the futūh literature). The attribution of these works to al- Wāqidī should be taken simply as indicative of his renown as a historian of the early period”. At any rate, this is what the work presents (Sulayman al-Kindi [trans.], The Islamic Conquest of Syria: A translation of Futuhusham: the inspiring history of the Sahabah’s conquest of Syria as narrated by the great historian of Islam, al-Imam al-Wâqidî, London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 2000, pp. 399-400):

The two climbed the wall. The governor stood at the patriarch’s side with the cross before them. They called out to Abu ‘Ubaydah, “What do you want, old man?”

Abu ‘Ubaydah: This is ‘Umar., Commander of the Believers. There is no commander above him. Now come to receive his amnesty, to surrender and to pay the Jizyah.

Patriarch: O man, if he is really the highest ranking then let him approach us so that we can recognise his characteristics. Let him come out alone from amongst you and stand directly in line with us so that we can see him. If he is the man described in the scriptures then we will come down and seek amnesty and pay the Jizyah. If it is not him then you will get nothing but battle from us.

Abu ‘Ubaydah returned to inform ‘Umar. When he wanted to go his men said, “O Commander of the Believers, are you going to them without any weapons, all alone and only wearing these rags? We fear treachery against you.”

‘Umar. recited:

….Say: Nothing will afflict us except that which Allah has decreed for us. He is our Protector. Upon Allah should the Believers rely. [9:51]

He then called for his camel which he mounted. He wore nothing besides his rags and a cotton cap on his head. Only Abu ‘Ubaydah accompanied him and rode ahead of him. When they came to the patriarch and governor and stopped in line with them, Abu ‘Ubaydah-ss called out, “This is the Commander of the Believers.” He then called out to his people, “Woe unto you! Go down for amnesty and protection. By God! This is the mentioned companion of Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah.”

When the Romans heard the patriarch they rushed down, having been severely taxed by the siege, and opened the gates. They went to ‘Umar  seeking his guarantees and offering the Jizyah. This only humbled ‘Umar ~ and he prostrated his head on the camel’s hump out of gratitude to Allah. He dismounted and said, “Return to your city with the guarantees you seek since you have agreed to pay Jizyah.”

They returned without locking the gates, while he too returned to the Muslim camp to spend the night. In the morning ‘Umar finally entered the city. This was on a Monday and he remained there until Friday. Then he marked off a plane in the East which became Masjid ‘Umar, Here he led his men in Salatul Jum’ah The patriarch rubbed his eyes, looked and shouted out loud, “This is he who is described in our books, the man who will conquer our city without doubt.”

The next source to consider is ʾAḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī (d. 892), and his work Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (Book of the Conquests of Lands). In this, we read (Philip Hitti [trans.] The Origins of the Islamic State: Translation with Annotations Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān of al-Imâm abu-l’Abbâs Aḥmad ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri. 1, New York: Columbia University Press, 1916, p. 214):

…the inhabitants of Jerusalem asked to capitulate to abu-‘Ubaidah on the same terms as those of the cities of Syria as regards tax and kharâj, and to have the same treatment as their equals elsewhere, provided the one to make the contract be ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattâb in person, Abu-‘Ubaidah communicated this in writing to ‘Umar who came first to al-Jabiyâh in Damascus and then to Jerusalem. He made the terms of capitulation with the people of Jerusalem to take effect and gave them a written statement.

The conquest of Jerusalem took place in the year 17.

This implies that the Jerusalem Christians surrendered by agreeing to the jizyah and also land tax (the latter unmentioned in the previous narrations. It also states that they were given an assurance in writing. The obvious question is where is this document? However, al-Balādhurī also notes two different accounts (Ibid.):

Al-Kâsim ibn-Sallâm from Yazid ibn-abi-Habib: — Khâlid ibn-Thâbit al-Fahmi was sent by ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattâb, who was at that time in al-Jâbiyah, at the head of an army to Jerusalem. After fighting with the inhabitants, they agreed to pay something on what was within their fortified city and to deliver to the Moslems all what was outside. ‘Umar came and concurred, after which he returned to al-Madînah.

Hishâm ibn-’Ammâr from al-Auzâ’i: — Abu-’Ubaidah… came to Palestine and camped in Jerusalem, whose people asked him to make terms with them, which he did in the year 17, with the stipulation that ‘Umar would come in person, put the terms into effect and write a statement of them to the people.

There is no substantial difference between the three accounts suggested by al-Balādhurī, but the very fact that there is some ambiguity is significant – for example, in the second narration, ‘Umar’s visit follows the surrender. It is clear from several references to al- Wāqidī in the book that al-Balādhurī was partly dependent on him – or at least, works ascribed to him (p. 9):

Al-Wâkidi (d. 207/823) wrote 28 books recorded in al-Fihrist, only a few of which have come down to us. Having lived at Baghdâd his works were certainly accessible to al-Balâdhuri, who quotes him on 80 different occasions and more than any other source. Most of the quotations are made through ibn-Sa‘d, the secretary of al-Wākidi, and one of al-Balâdhuri’s teachers. A comparison between the campaigns against banu-an-Nadir and banu-Kuraizah in al-Balâdhuri, and the corresponding ones in al-Wâkidi’s Kitâb al-Maghâzi, shows many points of contact but no absolute interdependence.

As we have seen, the authenticity of the ascription to al- Wāqidī is questionable. We should also note what Othman Ismael Al-Tel (The First Islamic Conquest of Aelia (Islamic Jerusalem): A Critical Analytical Study of the Early Islamic Historical Narratives and Sources, Dundee: Al-Maktoum, 2003, p. 153) informs us about some sources of al-Balādhurī: “…‘Umar, accompanied by the Muslims, headed to al-Jābīya from Aelia after it was conquered, as al- Wāqidī indicates and as is also understood from the accounts of Ibn Sa‘d and al-Balādhurī on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Muslm Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124 A.H/742 A.D).” (Regarding al-Zuhrī, see below).

Al-Munshar (p. 90) refers to Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ash-Shaybani, a.k.a. Ali ‘Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (d. 1233), specifically his Chronicle (Al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh)  “Ibn al-Athir wrote a note about the significance of the Assurance to the People of Aelia. He reported that the Christians of Aelia sent a delegation to ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab while he was staying at al-Jabiyah. When the Muslims saw a detachment of horsemen with drawn swords glittering in the sun coming towards their camp, they took up arms in order to beat back what appeared to be an enemy attack (of Christians). However, ‘Umar realized at once that it was a delegation from Aelia coming to offer surrender. The caliph then wrote an Assurance of Safety for the Christians of Aelia in return for their payment of jizyah, and they opened the gates of the walled city to him.”

Aḥmad ibn Abī Ya‘qūb ibn Ja'far ibn Wahb ibn Waḍīḥ al-Ya‘qūbī (d. 908), wrote a chronicle named Tarikh al-Ya‘qūbī. Therein we read this about the surrender (Matthew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson, Michael Fishbein [Eds.], The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī: An English Translation, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018, p. 775):

Abū ʿUbayda wrote to ʿUmar informing him of how the people of Īliyāʾ (Jerusalem) had been contentious and held out. One authority has said that the people of Īliyāʾ asked that the caliph himself should be the one who made a peace agreement with them. Abū ʿUbayda therefore drew up the agreements and covenants that would be binding upon them and wrote to ʿUmar. ʿUmar departed for Syria... This took place in Rajab of the year 16. He encamped at al-Jābiya in the territory of Damascus; then he made his way to Bayt al-Maqdis and took it by treaty. He wrote them a document, as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate: This is a document written by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb for the people of Bayt al-Maqdis. You shall be secure in your lives, your property, and your churches, which will not be used for billeting or destroyed, unless you cause public discord. He summoned men to bear witness.

….People have differed on | the treaty of Bayt al-Maqdis. Some have said that the Jews made the agreement; others have said the Christians. The consensus is the Christians.

Observe that there is no reference to jizyah therein. There are other Muslim commentators who mention the aman, but they are even later, so we will not quote them.

Among the Christians, according to Al-Tel (p. 23) we have “In non-Islamic sources, ‘Umar’s visit to Jerusalem is mentioned by Theophanes, the Patriarch of Alexandria Eutychius Sa‘īd Ibn al-Bitrīq who died in 284 A.H/897 A.D, the Syriac chronicler Michael the Syrian and the chronicler Agapius (Mahbūb) of Minjib.” Theophanes the Confessor, a Byzantine monk (d. 818), wrote a Chronicle in which he mentions the surrender (Harry Turtledove, The Chronicle of Theophanes: English translation of anni mundi 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813), with introduction and notes, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 39):

ANNUS MUNDI 6127 (SEPTEMBER 1, 635-AUGUST 31, 636)

A.D. 627

Roman Emperor Herakleios: 31 years: year 26 Arab ruler Umar: 12 years: year 2

Bishop of Constantinople Sergios: 29 years: year 27

Bishop of Jerusalem Sophronios: 3 years: year 3

Bishop of Alexandria Cyrus: 10 years: year 3

In this year Umar campaigned against Palestine; after he had besieged the holy city for two years’ time he took it on terms. For Sophronios, the chief prelate of Jerusalem, negotiated a treaty for the security of all Palestine. Umar entered the holy city clad in a filthy camel-hair garment. When Sophronios saw him, he said, “In truth, this is the abomination of the desolation established in the holy place, which Daniel the prophet spoke of.” With many tears, the champion of piety bitterly lamented over the Christian people. While Umar was in Jerusalem, the patriarch asked him to accept a muslin garment to wear, but he would not let himself wear it. Sophronios barely persuaded him to do so until his own cloak was washed —  then Umar gave it back to him once more and wore his own.

This would confirm that the city surrendered under a treaty, not unconditionally.

Eutychius Sa‘īd Ibn al-Bitrīq, otherwise known as Eutychius of Alexandria (d. 940), Melkite Patriarch, wrote a Chronicle called Eutychii Annales (The Annals of Eutychius), in which he addresses the issue (Roger Pearse [trans.], The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 18c (part 4), https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2016/07/11/the-annals-of-eutychius-of-alexandria-10th-c-ad-chapter-18c-part-4/):

Then the news of the arrival of Omar ibn al-Khattab came to the muslims. Abu Ubayda ibn al-Garrah left the command of his men to Iyas Ibn Ghanm; Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan left his to Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Amr ibn al-As to his son Abd Allah, and they met with Omar ibn al-Khattab. Then they all set out for Jerusalem and besieged it. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, then went to Omar ibn al-Khattab. Omar ibn al-Khattab granted him his protection, and wrote a letter to them which stated that: “In the name of God, gracious and merciful. From Omar ibn al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the city of Aelia. A guarantee is granted on their persons, their children, their property and on their churches, and they will not be destroyed or be reduced to dwelling places” and he swore this in the name of Allah. After the gate of the city was opened and he went in together with his men, Omar went to sit in the courtyard of the Church of the Resurrection. When it was time for prayer, he said to the patriarch Sophronius: “I would like to pray.” The patriarch replied: “O prince of believers, you may pray as well just where you are.” “I will not pray here,” said Omar. Then the patriarch Constantine led him into the church and ordered mat to be laid in the middle of the church. But Omar said: “No, I will not pray either.” Omar then went out and walked to the step that was at the door of the Church of St. Constantine, on the east side. He prayed alone on the steps, then he sat down and said to the patriarch Sophronius: “Do you know, O patriarch, why I have not prayed in the church?” The patriarch replied: “I do not really know, O prince of the believers.” “If I had prayed in the church,” said Omar, “it would have been taken away from you, and you would have lost possession because on my departure the Muslims would take it from you, saying in chorus: ‘Here Omar prayed'”. Bring me a piece of paper so I can write you a ‘sigili'”. Omar then wrote a ‘sigili’, prescribing that no Muslim should pray on the steps except one by one, and that ritual prayer could be held unless someone the muezzin ascended. He wrote a ‘sigili’ and gave it to the Patriarch. Then Omar said: “You owe me for your life and for the goods which I granted you. Come, give me a place where I can build a mosque.” The Patriarch said: “Give to the prince of believers a place where he can build a temple that the king of Rum was not able to build. This place is the Rock on which God spoke to Jacob and Jacob called “the gate of heaven”; the sons of Israel called it “Sancta Sanctorum” and it is at the center of the earth. It was once the temple of the children of Israel, which they have always magnified and every time they prayed they turned their faces towards it, wherever they were. This place will I give you, provided you write me a ‘sigili’ that no other mosque will be built in Jerusalem other than this”.

Omar ibn al-Khattab wrote him a ‘sigili’ and handed it to him. When the Rum became Christians, and Helena, mother of Constantine, built churches in Jerusalem, the place of the Rock and its surroundings were lying in ruins and abandoned; on the Rock so much earth had been thrown and it was reduced to a huge garbage dump. The Rum had totally neglected it, and not held it in high regard, as in fact had the children of Israel. They had erected no church on it, because of what Christ, our Lord, had said in his holy gospel: “Behold, your house is left in ruins,” and again: “There will not remain one stone upon another that has not been demolished and destroyed”. It was for this reason that the Christians left it in ruins and not built on there any church. The patriarch Sophronius took Omar ibn al-Khattab by the hand and took him out to that place of refuse. Omar lifted the hem of his robe, filled it with earth and poured it into the valley of Gehenna. As soon as the Muslims saw Omar ibn al-Khattab take the earth in his lap, they all hastened to take the earth, each in his lap, or clothes, or shields, some in baskets of palm leaves and some in basins until they emptied the place, cleaned it up and the Rock became visible. Then some of them said: “Let’s build the mosque so that the Rock is our qibla“. But Omar said: “No, let’s build the mosque and leave the Rock out at the back”. So Omar built the mosque, leaving the Rock at the rear of it. Then Omar went on a visit to Bethlehem. Now it was the time of prayer, and he prayed inside the church facing Mecca. At this time it was all covered with mosaics. Then Omar wrote a ‘sigili’ for the Patriarch which provided that Muslims would not pray in that place but in another. He also forbade prayer in the church and the muezzin to call the faithful to prayer. He also stipulated that no changes should be made to these provisions. In these present days the Muslims have contravened the ‘sigili’ of Omar ibn al-Khattab. They have removed the mosaics from the ceiling and have written what they wanted, they make communal prayer, and the muezzin is calling the faithful. The same thing they have done at the step that was at the door of the Church of Constantine and on which Omar had prayed; they have appropriated the middle atrium of the church and have built inside it a mosque which they have called the mosque of “Omar”. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, died after having held the office four years. After his death Jerusalem remained without a patriarch for twenty-nine years.

This seems to confirm that the city surrendered under guarantees, but no mention is made of jizyah or kharaj. There seems to be a propagandistic element to it – that the contemporary Muslims were violating promises made by ‘Umar.

Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) was Patriarch of the Jacobite (Syriac Orthodox) Church. His chronicle (Matti Moosa [trans.] The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation, Teaneck: Beth Antioch Press, 2014, p. 459) presents a similar story:

At the end of the year 948 of the Greeks (A.D. 636-7), which is the 26th year of Heraclius and the 15th year of the Tayoye (Arabs, Muslims), the Caliph Umar came to Palestine. He was received by Sophronius, bishop of Jerusalem, and talked with him about the country. Umar provided him with a covenant instituting that no Jew should have authority to dwell in Jerusalem. When Umar entered Jerusalem, he ordered a masjid (mosque) to be built on the site of the Temple of Solomon for their (Muslims) worship.5 When Sophronius saw Umar wearing a ragged garment, he brought him a clean raiment and a loincloth and begged him to accept it. Umar refused because he was accustomed not to take anything from anyone. He said, “No one should take anything from another person unless it has been given to him by God. For God gives every man what he wills. And if he was greedy to take a thing from a person, he would be behaving against the will of God.”

Umar was praised for many things like these. In fact, the Tayoye (Arabs) related many praiseworthy traits about him. The truth is that he was just and removed from avarice. Indeed, despite all the treasures and the possessions the Tayoye (Arabs) took from the Persians and the Romans, he did not take anything for himself, not even a new garment. When he rode a camel, he used his cloak as a saddle. When he sat down or slept, the ground was his seat. When Bishop Sophronius insisted (that he should accept a new garment), Umar said to him, “Since you have insisted that I should accept the new garment, I will, due to your honor, borrow it from you but will give it back to you when my own garment has been cleaned.” This is exactly what he did.

One could be forgiven that this simply states that Sophronius was promised that no Jews would be allowed into Jerusalem, but it probably means that the covenant merely included this.

Agapius (Mahbūb ibn-Qūṣṭānṭīn), Melkite Bishop of Manjib in Syria (d. 941-2) wrote Kitab al-‘Unwan (Book of headings or History). Roger Pearse has translated the work of Alexander Vasiliev, itself a translation into French, (Kitab Al-`Unvan: Universal History, written by Agapius (Mahboub) of Menbidj, 1909, p. 194, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/agapius_history_02_part2.htm): “In this same year, Omar, son of Khattab, moved towards Syria and arrived at Jerusalem The patriarch went out before him and admitted him into the city. Omar looked at the city and the temple which was there, and prayed there. After remaining there for forty days, he arose and went to Damascus where he remained a long time; then he returned to Yathrib.” Hoyland writes concerning Agapius (Robert G. Hoyland [trans. and introduction, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011, pp. 35-36):

Agapius has very little information for the years 630-750s that is not drawn from Theophilus of Edessa. The only other source that we can detect is a Muslim history, which is revealed from the occasional provision of a Hijri date or the full name of a Muslim authority, and also from notices such as who led the pilgrimage in certain years and who the governors were for a particular caliph. He would also seem to be dipping into it for certain events of key importance to the political life of the Muslims, especially their on this subject, except for some of the natural phenomena (earthquakes, eclipses, comets), in which Michael seems to have taken a special interest and concerning which he assiduously sought out additional material.

Theophilus of Edessa (695–785 CE), was a Maronite scholar in the court of Caliph Al-Mahdi. Hoyland quotes further from Agapius (p. 115):

Agapius: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab went up to Syria and arrived at Jerusalem. The patriarch went out to him and brought him into the city. He looked at it and at the temple that was in it. He prayed in it and remained there for forty days. Then he departed and went to Damascus. He stayed there a long time and then returned to Yathrib. I ‘Umar travelled from Yathrib until he came to Palestine and he encamped there. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, came out to him and took from him a peace agreement for the holy city and all the cities of Palestine. ‘Umar gave to him the peace agreement and he drew up for him a document (stating the terms of the agreement). In the document (it was written that) protection was withheld from any Jew that we found in Jerusalem from this day onwards; any (Jew) that we find will be punished in respect of his life and his property. Then ‘Umar entered Jerusalem and prayed in it. He entered the great temple, which Solomon son of David had built, and he ordered the establishment of a congregational mosque for the Muslims to pray in. The patriarch saw that ‘Umar’s dress was filthy, made of wool, and he asked him to accept from him a garment, but he refused. The patriarch insisted and so ‘Umar said: ‘Be so kind as to take these clothes of mine and give them to someone to wash and lend me these clothes that you have brought for me to wear until my clothes are washed and then I will return them to you.’ The patriarch did that, taking ‘Umar’s clothes and giving them to a washer-man. When the latter was done with them, he (Sophronius) brought them to him (‘Umar), who put them on and returned his (Sophronius’) clothes to him.

Although the timeline is somewhat confused, it resembles what we have read earlier.

1. The Historicity

Note the dates for these sources – none of them are contemporary, or even near the time of the events they describe:

Al-Tabari (d. 923)

Saif Ibn ‘Umar (d. 786)

al-Wāqidī (d. c. 823)

al-Balādhurī (d. 892)

al-Zuhrī (d. 742)

Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233)

al-Ya‘qūbī (d. 908)

Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818)

Eutychius of Alexandria (d. 940)

Michael the Syrian (d. 1199)

Agapius (d. 941-2)

Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785)

Regarding ‘Umar’s visit to Jerusalem, Hoyland observes (In God’s Path, p. 48): “This event is not reported by any early source and appears first only in a mid-eighth century chronicle, which concentrates on the meeting between ‘Umar and the patriarch Sophronius.” We should immediately note how late is Tabari’s version. Even if it is true that he quotes Saif Ibn ‘Umar, the latter lived around 140 years after the events described. Fred Donner, “Sayf B. ʿUmar”, (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume IX, Leiden: Brill, 1997, p. 102), observes that both Mediaeval Muslim scholars, and contemporary historians are skeptical about the reliability of much that he wrote:

SAYF B. ‘UMAR, a compiler of historical narrations on early Islamic history. Virtually nothing is known about Sayf or his life, except that he lived in Kufa and probably belonged to the Usayyid clan, part of the ‘Amr branch of the tribe of Tamlm… Sayf died in the time of al-Rashid (r. 170-193/786-809), but this may be merely al-Dhahabi’s guess, deduced from Sayf’ position in various isnāds.

Sayf’s importance rests on the fact that his Kitāb al-futūh al-kabīr wa 'l-ridda was chosen by the famous historian al-Taban (d. 310/923) as his main source for the ridda and the early Islamic conquests… The reliability of Sayf’s narrations has long been contested, however, beginning already with the mediaeval hadith specialists and their biographers, who noted the suspect character of his hadiths; some accused him of zandaka, others simply noted that he put fabricated accounts (mawdū‘at) in the mouths of trustworthy transmitters. Many modern scholars, after examination of both the content and the isnāds of Sayf’s accounts, have expressed similar doubts.

We reproduce what we wrote about al-Zuhrī in our paper on The Constitution of Medina, Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, allegedly from Medina, moved to Damascus, d. 741-2. Mustafa Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature: with a Critical Edition of Some Early Texts (Indianapolis: American Trust, 1978, p. 76), writes about him (observe the late dates again):

Zuhri (51-125) compiled a biography of the Prophet which was absorbed into the works of later authors and thus perished in the course of time as a work on its own. Some modern researchers have doubts about this report. Recently almost the whole work of Zuhri, which is more than 200 pages, has been published in one of the hadith works of the third century which has came to light for the first time. Even the editor did not notice that it was the work of Zuhri. A detailed study was carried out, and it was found that several students of Zuhri reported portions of this book. This information was recorded by authors who died some 150 years after Zuhri yet their wordings are very similar, which is almost impossible except if the original book was used.

The Futuhusham: ascribed to al-Wâqidî clearly has legendary material. Even Al-Mushar expresses skepticism (p. 86):

It is doubtful that a Christian prophecy with ‘Umar’s description existed in Christian holy books because of the following unanswerable questions. First, why did the patriarch not mention anything about Caliph ‘Umar before, during the siege? Aelia was under siege for four months. If the patriarch knew of this prophecy, why did he not offer to surrender the city earlier? Furthermore, I could not find any reports by priests or monks in al-Sham or Aelia that refer to a prophecy describing ‘Umar. This is especially significant because of Aelia’s importance to Christians all over al-Sham, a region that had now fallen into Muslim hands. Also, several peace pacts had already been concluded with Muslims. Why had Muslim leaders not been told about the prophecy describing ‘Umar, especially when they were preparing to march on Aelia?

Theophanes’ Chronicle suggests that Sophronius did see ‘Umar as prophesied in the Scriptures, but only negatively.

As we have seen, we are not sure that Al-Wāqidī actually authored the work attributed to him. Patricia Crone (Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 225) comments about his worth as a historian - that he was essentially a storyteller [qāss – popular storytelling]:

Now it has long been recognized that our evidence on the rise of Islam goes back to storytellers; but it is usually assumed that the storytellers simply added some legends and fables to a basically sound tradition that existed already, possibly distorting this tradition to some extent, but on the whole doing no damage that we cannot simply deduct. This is a gross underestimation of their contribution. In the case of Sūrat Quraysh, Ibn Ubayy, the Jews of Medina, ‘Amr and the Najāshī, ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s well, Muhammad and Khadīja, it was the storytellers who created the tradition: the sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist…

In the absence of an alternative tradition, early scholars were forced to rely on the tales of storytellers, as did Ibn Ishāq, Wāqidī, and other historians. It is because they relied on the same repertoire of tales that they all said such similar things, as Jones has pointed out. Wāqidī did not plagiarize Ibn Ishāq, but he did not offer an independent version of the Prophet’s life, either: what he, Ibn Ishāq, and others put together were simply so many selections from a common pool of qāss material.

There is disagreement between Christian and Muslim sources about the terms of the Assurance – did it involve paying jizyah; or jizyah and kharaj; and a guarantee excluding the Jews? Either side would have apologetic and practical reasons for making their respective claims (paying or not paying tax).

CONCLUSION

What happened to the actual document of the Assurance? No historian of any background mentions any epigraphical/inscriptional evidence that can be securely dated to the time of ‘Umar in Jerusalem which mentions his visit or the Assurance. In short, the sources are too late, too contradictory or even legendary to take them seriously. It follows that we cannot prove the authenticity of the event, and therefore the so-called Assurance cannot provide early evidence for Islam.

Constition Of Medina

INTRODUCTION

Extravagant claims are often made for the so-called Constitution of Medina. It is claimed as the oldest constitution for Mankind, the oldest example of multi-faith/multi-culturalism, an egalitarian document guaranteeing religious liberty and equality. In terms of modern dawah activists, it is also seen as evidence for the historicity of Islam. In this paper we will examine the document to see if this is valid, specifically in terms of historicity.

1. Historicity

The first point to note is the multiple references to Jews:

16. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality.

17. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped…

29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

30. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

31. The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

34. Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews…

37. The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

43. The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims…

52. The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jews in Medina and its vicinity:

One tomb inscription at Hegra from 42/43 AD, in Nabatæan Aramaic reads: ‘This is the tomb which Shubaytu son of ‘Ali’u the Jew made...’ In al-’Ulā, we also find such Jewish tomb inscriptions in the same language, as with one from 307 AD. In nearby Tayma, there is a similar example from 203 AD which is important because it appears that it refers to a local headman, either of his ethnic group or of the town itself, and another example from Hegra in 356/7 also refers to someone who held an analogous position there. The significance of this is that these ‘are important texts for north Arabian Jewry, for they imply that some of them at least were members of the elite of the society.’ This being so, we may infer that their social prominence would have allowed for the dissemination of their religious beliefs and practices among the general population, at least in terms of knowledge.

However, it should be noted that whilst the inscriptions cover ‘a large period of time, at the very least the first century BCE to the fourth century CE’, they are ‘relatively few in number’, and ‘not geographically very widespread, principally hailing only from al-Ula and Mada’in Salih.’ Hoyland comments that ‘the limited nature of this epigraphic crop’ is surprising, particularly given ‘the very frequent reference to Jews in the Qur’an.’ He then observes that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’ Of course, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, but it is startling that there are so little archaeological indications of a substantial Jewish presence in the area in keeping with the picture supplied by the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. It should be noted that Hawting observes that: ‘... it is only Muslim tradition that informs us of a Jewish community in Yathrib.’

Interestingly, this calls into question the treatment of Jewish tribes in Yathrib according to the Hadith.

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.362

Banu An-Nadir and Banu Qurayzah fought with the Prophet (peace be upon him) violating their peace treaty, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) exiled Banu An-Nadir and allowed Banu Qurayzah to remain in their homes (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought the Prophet (peace be upon him).

He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims. But some of them came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam.

He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa’, the tribe of Abdullah ibn Salam and the Jews of Banu Harithah and all the other Jews of Medina.

The massacre of the Banu Qurayzah has long been a major ethical dilemma for Muslims, and a frequent cause of criticism for Islam. However, the question for this study is not the moral problem, but rather the historical: did it even happen? After all, if there is no epigraphic evidence for Jews in Medina and Khaybar, despite their long-standing and strong presence in both localities, how can we believe the stories of the warfare that was supposed to have happened in both places? There is only a limited reference in the Qur’an that is supposedly linked to the Qurayzah incident, but nothing explicit, Surah Al-Ahzab 33:26-27: ‘And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.’ It is only in tradition that these verses are related to the Qurayzah event.

Significantly, there is no contemporary non-Islamic evidence for the event – not even from Arabian Jews. Indeed, the only evidence comes from much later Muslim sources. These include Al-Waqidi, 748 – 822, whom we saw earlier and noted that even Muslim historians questioned his veracity; Ibn Hisham, d. 833, who edited the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (who died c. 767); and Tabari, d. 923. There is thus a problem of historical reliability about this event. This is intensified when we consider the lack of archaeological evidence. W. N. Arafat, surveying the issues, observes: ‘If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.’ The situation is not helped by present Saudi policies:

It is particularly frustrating that there has been no archaeological investigation of the Arabian environment traditionally associated with the life of the Prophet and the early development of Islam. Nor will there be. The Mosque of the Haram at Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet at Medina have been razed to the ground and completely rebuilt in such a manner as to deny any possibility of archaeological excavation, even were it to be permitted. Outside the precincts of the two Holy Mosques, archaeological investigation of sites in Saudi Arabia that might yield evidence for the nature of religion in the sixth and seventh centuries is actively discouraged. Historians cannot expect any deus ex cavea.

Moreover, the Jewish presence – such as it is – is not located in either Yathrib, as the Hadith and Sira claim with at least three Jewish tribes there, not even at Khaybar, supposedly a Jewish stronghold, but rather in the Nabatæan region of Hegra and al-’Ulā. In one sense this should be no surprise. Jewish diaspora communities naturally drifted to major areas of population and trade, such as the southern Nabatæan capital of Hegra, and it should be observed that Hegra ‘enjoyed the status of a civitas in the Roman province of Arabia’, indicating its continuing importance, making it attractive for a continuing Jewish diaspora presence. Hoyland notes that the Midrash Rabbah 79.7 regarding Genesis 33.19 records a visit of two rabbis in the third century AD to ‘Hegra of Arabia’ to ‘learn again’ the meaning of ‘some Aramaic words that they had forgotten.’ Again, this points to the continuing importance of the city, not least among Jewish scholars. A substantial Jewish presence further in the interior might be more surprising.

Note especially Hoyland’s comment that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’ If there is no extant archaeological evidence for Jews in Yathrib/Medina, then it is impossible that the so-called “Constitution of Medina” is historically valid; rather, it is a legendary, apocryphal construct. Further evidence comes from the late dating of the sources for the document.

The earliest source seems to be the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767)/Ibn Hisham (d. 833).  Given that its redaction is dated to the 9th century AD – two centuries after the events it portrays – it cannot be considered a valid historical source. It is equivalent to someone writing the first history of the 1812 War between the US and UK in 2012, or the first history of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo in 2015! Other sources include Kitab al-Amwal (The Book of Revenue/Finance) by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim bin Salam (d. 838), and Al-Bidāya wa-n-Nihāya (The Beginning and The End) by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) [see Serjeant, p. 9, below]. Again, we note the late dates of these authors. Donner observes (Fred M. Donner., Muhammad and the believers: at the origins of Islam, Cambridge & London: Belknapp, 2010, p. 227):

The “umma document,” sometimes also called the “Constitution of Medina,” the “sahifa document,” or the “sunna jami'a,” is a group of connected documents or treaty clauses apparently concluded between the prophet Muhammad and the people of Yathrib. The original documents are now lost, but the text is preserved, with mostly minor variations, in two early Islamic literary texts: the Sira (a biography of the prophet) of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (died ca. 150/767), and the Kitab al-amwal (a book on property) of Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (died 224/838).

Denny observes (Frederick M. Denny, “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, (Jan., 1977. p. 39):

Ibn Ishaq preserved this ancient document, which does not appear in any other historical source, in his Sirah. It is placed, for logical reasons, near the beginning of his account of the Medinan period, but we do not know for sure that it belongs there. It seems to consist of separate documents from differing times in Medina, edited together in the form preserved in the Sirah. There is little doubt among scholars that it authentic, and that it, like the Qur’an, is intimately connected with Muhammad’s thought and activity.

It is amazing that traditional scholars have seen the document as authentic in the light of its absence from historical sources other than the Sira, and in view of its conglomerate but redacted nature. Watt presents the arguments for its authenticity (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, p. 225):

This document has generally been regarded as authentic, though it has not always been given the prominence appropriate to an authentic document of this sort. The reasons for its authenticity have been succinctly stated by Wellhausen. No later falsifier, writing under the Umayyads or 'Abbasids, would have included non-Muslims in the ummah, would have retained the articles against Quraysh, and would have given Muhammad so insignificant a place. Moreover the style is archaic, and certain points, such as the use of ‘believers’ instead of ‘Muslims’ in most articles, belong to the earlier Medinan period.

These arguments are very subjective and weak. If it is an apocryphal work, one would expect the possibility of minor theological divergence (Cf. the Protoevangelium of James, which essentially argues for the perpetual virginity of Mary, in contrast to the canonical Gospels). If apocryphal, it may be an apologetic/polemical work, the idea being that Muhammad tried to be nice to the Jews, but the latter were so wicked and treacherous that in the end he had to expel and exterminate them. On p. 226, Watt presents the arguments that it is a redaction of several distinct traditions from different dates:

This discussion of the date has assumed that the document is a unity; but that is the point that ought to be examined first. There are reasons for thinking that articles which originated at different dates have been collected. Thus there are certain linguistic variations : the believers are mostly spoken of in the third person, but sometimes they are ‘you’ and sometimes ‘we’ (as in 23, 16, 18); mostly they are ‘believers’, but twice they are ‘Muslims’ ( 25, 37). Again, certain articles come near to being repetitions of other articles; they deal with the same problem but may have slight alterations. Both 23 and 42 say that disputes are to be referred to Muhammad, though 42 is more precise. Both 20 and 43 are directed against Quraysh. The points about Jews in 16 and 24 are similar to those in 37 and 38; and indeed 24 and 38 are identical. Finally both 30 and 46 deal with the Jews of the Aws. It is to be noted that the articles which are similar do not occur together, as one would expect where articles dealt with different aspects of the same point. On the contrary one set is spread between 16 and 30 and another set between 37 and 46. This is sufficient to justify an examination of the possibility that the document as we have it contains articles from two or more different dates.

Like many other observers, he notes that the covenant does not mention the three main Jewish tribes in Medina (p. 227):

It seems probable, then, that the three main Jewish groups are not mentioned in the document. If that is so, the document in its present form might belong to the period after the elimination of Qurayzah. The difficulty that much attention is given to Jewish affairs at a time when there were few Jews in Medina could be explained by the hypothesis that the document in its final form was intended as a charter for the Jews remaining in Medina and included all relevant articles from earlier forms of the Constitution of the city.

However, could the answer be that such tribes did not exist at all – q.v. the archaeological evidence? The Jewish entities that are mentioned may simply reflect another tradition of mythical Jewish tribes whose evil character led to the late harsh denunciations of the Qur’an. Note how Ibn Ishaq introduces the subject (A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967, 1998, p. 231)

The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations as follows…

The tone of this introduction is that Muhammad gave them every chance. The later history demonstrates they failed in their “reciprocal obligations”. Michael Lecker, The Constitution of Medina: Muḥammad’s First Legal Document, (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 2004), p. 10ff, observes that there are a number of variants to Ibn Ishaq’s version, on p. 19ff that there are a number of variants to Abu Ubaid’s version. On p. 191 Lecker writes:

Serjeant (9) bases his study of the Kitab on Ibn Ishaq’s recension, remarking that Abu ‘Ubayd’s text is defective. Crone believes that Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension is later than Ibn Ishaq’s. 197 However, she remarks (203 n. 16):

“Ibn Hisham knew of another recension which may well have been Abu

‘Ubayd’s: he tells us that some have al-birr [read: al-barr] al-mu(isin for

al-birr al-mal:ir;l, which is precisely what Abu ‘Ubayd has”.

Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension has an isnad going back to Zuhri, who died roughly a quarter of a century before Ibn Ishaq. But this should not lead to the conclusion that it is earlier than Ibn Ishaq’s recension, because the latter also received it from an informant of Zuhri’s generation. Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension is indeed much shorter than Ibn Ishaq’s and many clauses are missing in it; however, in some minor points it is superior. For instance, minhum in the list of Arab participants (§§4-11) appears in

Abu ‘Ubayd throughout and must reflect the original reading.

It is significant that Abu ‘Ubaid relied on isnad, rather than written documents.  Surely, if the Constitution was an extant written document, Abu ‘Ubaid would have been able to inspect it? Lecker informs us that Abu ‘Ubaid got his isnad from Zuhri (p. 192): “At one point (166 no. 328) Abu ‘Ubayd records a fragment of the Kitab with the following isnad: Abu ‘Ubayd ....- ‘Abdallah b. Salih). ....- al-Layth b. Sa’d .....- ‘Uqayl b. Khalid al-Ayli .....- Zuhri… Abu ‘Ubayd had yet another text of the Kitab (166 no. 329) with the same isnad but for his immediate source who was not ‘Abdallah b. Salih but Yahya b. ‘Abdallah b. Bukayr.”

The place where Abu ‘Ubaid got his isnad is also significant – not Medina, but Egypt! “Abu ‘Ubayd gained access to Zuhri’s recension in Egypt. Both his immediate informants, ‘Abdallah b. Salih and Yahya b. ‘Abdallah b. al-Bukayr, were Egyptians. Abu ‘Ubayd must have received Zuhri’s recension after his arrival in Egypt with Yalhya b. Ma‘in in 213/828.” This seems to refer to Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, allegedly from Medina, moved to Damascus, d. 741-2. Mustafa Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature: with a Critical Edition of Some Early Texts (Indianapolis: American Trust, 1978, p. 76), writes about him (observe the late dates again):

Zuhri (51-125) compiled a biography of the Prophet which was absorbed into the works of later authors and thus perished in the course of time as a work on its own. Some modern researchers have doubts about this report. Recently almost the whole work of Zuhri, which is more than 200 pages, has been published in one of the hadith works of the third century which has came to light for the first time. Even the editor did not notice that it was the work of Zuhri. A detailed study was carried out, and it was found that several students of Zuhri reported portions of this book. This information was recorded by authors who died some 150 years after Zuhri yet their wordings are very similar, which is almost impossible except if the original book was used.

Note what Lecker states about the time and place of these isnads (p. 192): “In sum, at the beginning of the third century of Islam at least two nearly identical versions of the Kitab in Zuhri’s recension were circulating in Egypt.” NB- not 1st century AH in Medina. Significantly, there is no reference in the Qur’an to such a “constitution” or “covenant”, even obliquely, nor in the Hadith.

R. B. Serjeant suggested that he had found Qur’anic references (“The “Sunnah Jāmi’ah,” Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the “Taḥrīm” of Yaṯẖrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called ‘Constitution of Medina’”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1 1978, p. 5):

In my initial examination of the ‘Constitution’ I stated that many Qur’anic verses appear to allude to one or other of the eight documents it comprises. It would indeed be surprising if the Qur’an made no reference to, at least, documents A and B, that are fundamental as establishing the confederation at Yathrib which conceded Muhammad political supremacy. While I do not undertake to distinguish, systematically and in toto, Qur’anic allusion to each of these eight documents, I regard Surah III, 101 seq., as making clear and unmistakable reference to the pact(s) embodied in documents A and B; further research might well reveal many more.

This is what S. 3:101-104 states: “How can ye disbelieve, when it is ye unto whom Allah’s revelations are recited, and His messenger is in your midst? He who holdeth fast to Allah, he indeed is guided unto a right path. O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah with right observance, and die not save as those who have surrendered (unto Him) 103 And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah’s favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided, 104 And there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency. Such are they who are successful.” Surely, Serjeant is guilty of eisegesis.

Even is there is correspondence at times between the Qur’an and the Constitution, is not the obvious conclusion that the latter is secondary to the former in terms of time and composition, rather than the reverse? That is, it is apocryphal. Serjeant also comments (p. 9):

Abu ‘Ubayd (154-224/770-838) has not always correctly understood the documents, but the main interest in his account is the isndd he gives going back to al-Zuhri (c. 51-124/671-742) who is reported to have said, ‘ I have heard that the Apostle of God wrote this writing...’ Al-Zuhri’s version is defective and inferior to that of Ibn Ishaq. It looks as if Ibn Ishaq had access to a written document, not necessarily, though possibly, the original, whereas al-Zuhri as reported by Abu ‘Ubayd did not.

This all sounds very uncertain, and at best secondary. The overwhelming attitude of the Qur’an to the Jews, especially in the so-called “Medinan” verses, is hostile, and the same is true of the Hadith. Rather, the prevailing option is expulsion from the Hijaz, possibly the entire Arabian Peninsula, or subjugation through the Jizyah. The latter policy is borne out in Islamic history; we do not find the idea of constitutionally-guaranteed liberty and equality to be the normative practice of any caliphate. Islamic rulers were guided in this by their ulema, especially fuqaha, who were themselves guided by Fiqh, based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. Had the Constitution been valid, the negative policy of Caliphates from Abu Bakr onwards towards Jews and others requires some explanation.

1. Internal character

The document reads less like a constitution, established by a constitutional convention along the lines of the US or Canada, and more like a Royal/Presidential Decree/Edict. The edict does not primarily address freedom of religion as such, but merely allows for peaceful arrangements based on Muhammad’s authority, and for common defense. Note the first reference to Jews (Guillaume, p. 232): “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided. The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God.” The emphasis is on Jews obeying Muhammad. The equality refers to the protection of his person, not religious practice. The next reference to Jews (p. 232-233) concerns war taxation:

The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families. The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sa’ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Thalaba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Thalaba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha’laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.”

Later, we read about self-financing in war: “The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally's misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.” The military character continues later: “Everyone shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs; the Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves the same standing with the people of this document in pure loyalty from the people of this document.”

In essence, this resembles a military pact, like NATO, affirming the autonomy of the members, but enjoining their collective action. However, that autonomy is limited by the authority of Muhammad (p. 233): “None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound.” “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God.” Since this was essentially a military pact, the treachery of the Jews in allying themselves with the pagans becomes more startling – they secretly allied themselves with the enemy of the people (Muslims) who were sworn to come to their protection. This suggests that the conduct of the Jews resembles that of some kind of fifth column. Another analogy would with the exasperation of UK PM Churchill with King Leopold III of the Belgians, who prematurely surrendered to Germany in 1940, leaving British and French troops exposed at the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940.The popular press in Britain thereafter denounced him as “King Rat”. As a result, after the war he was obliged to abdicate.

CONCLUSION

In the light of this, we can see the propaganda value of the so-called covenant – it enabled Muslims to point to the unending treachery of the Jews; that they could not be trusted; that they had to be thoroughly subjected. The big problem is the historicity of the ‘constitution’, which cannot be proven. Perhaps the propaganda value of the covenant is the very clue to its origins – it was simply propaganda, nothing more.

Footnotes:

1. Hoyland, Robert G., ‘The Jews of the Hijaz in the Qur’ān’, in Reynolds, Gabriel Said (Ed.), New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in Its Historical Context 2, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), p. 93.

2. Ibid., p. 94.

3. Ibid., pp. 95, 96.

4. Ibid., p. 96.

5. Ibid., p. 110.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 111.

8. Hawting. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam, p. 16.

9. The Hadith claims that Khaybar was a Jewish stronghold:

   Narrated by Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab

   Al-Muwatta 33.1.1

   The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to the Jews of Khaybar on the day of the conquest of Khaybar, “I confirm you in it as long as Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, establishes you in it, provided that the fruits are divided between us and you.”

   Sa’id continued, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to send Abdullah ibn Rawahah, to asses the division of the fruit crop between him and them, and he would say, ‘If you wish, you can buy it back, and if you wish, it is mine, ‘They would take it.”

10. Arafat, W. N., ‘New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1976), p. 104.

11. Johns, ‘Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years’, p. 433.

12. Hoyland, ‘The Jews of the Hijaz in the Qur’ān’, p. 115.

13. Ibid., p. 92.

Did The Muslim Hijra To Abyssinia Actually Happen?

INTRODUCTION

Islamic history, as disclosed in the Seerah, the Hadith, and supposedly the Qur’an, claims that during the pagan persecution of Muslims at Mecca, Muhammad sent some of his followers (in two groups) to the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia (Ethiopia, specifically Axum) in what now would be called political asylum. It is also claimed that some verses of the Qur’an reflect this. Indeed, the Hadith claims that one of the female refugees was later given by the Abyssinian king (the Negus) as a bride to Muhammad. A further claim is that the Negus actually converted to Islam. Using the tools of historical criticism, we will now examine these claims to see whether they have any merit in terms of historicity. If they do not, then this is further evidence that Islamic origins are not what the traditional view would assert, and this in turn raises further questions about the historical truth of other Islamic claims.

1. THE HIJRA IN THE SEERAH, HADITH AND QUR’AN

In the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume, Alfred, The Life of Muhammad: A translation of Ishāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967; Karachi, 2004, p. 146), it is expressly stated that the pagan persecution of Muslims in Mecca was the reason that Muhammad sent some of them to Abyssinia:

When the apostle saw the affliction of his companions and that though he escaped it because of his standing with Allah and his uncle Abu Talib, he could not protect them, he said to them: ‘If you were to go to Abyssinia (it would be better for you), for the king will not tolerate injustice and it is a friendly country, until such time as Allah shall relieve you from your distress.’ Thereupon his companions went to Abyssinia, being afraid of apostasy and fleeing to God with their religion. This was the first hijra in Islam.

The Seerah gives a list of those who migrated, and then states (p. 148): “The total number of those who migrated to Abyssinia, apart from the little children whom they took with them or were born to them there, was eighty-three men if ‘Ammar b. Yasir was among them, but that is doubtful.” It is then claimed that the Quraysh sent two men to urge the Negus to expel these refugees (p. 150):

When Quraysh saw that the prophet’s companions were safely ensconced in Abyssinia and had found security there, they decided among themselves to send two determined men of their number to the Negus to get them sent back, so that they could seduce them from their religion and get them out of the home in which they were living in peace. So they sent ‘Abdullah b. Abu Rabi’a and ‘Amr b. al-’As b. Wa’il. They got together some presents for them to take to the Negus and his generals.

Later, we are told what these “presents” – in effect, bribes - were (pp. 150-151):

Muhammad b. Muslim al-Zuhri from Abu Bakr b. ‘Abdu’l-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hisham al-Makhzuml from Umm Salama d. Abu Umayya b. al-Mughlra wife of the apostle said, ‘When we reached Abyssinia the Negus gave us a kind reception. We safely practised our religion, and we worshipped God, and suffered no wrong in word or deed. When the Quraysh got to know of that, they decided to send two determined men to the Negus and to give him presents of the choicest wares of Mecca. Leatherwork was especially prized there, so they collected a great many skins so that they were able to give some to every one of his generals. They sent ‘Abdullah and ‘Amr with instructions to give each general his present before they spoke to the Negus about the refugees. Then they were to give their presents to the Negus and ask him to give the men up before he spoke to them.

The Negus, however, point blank refused to hand over the refugees (p. 151):

The Negus was enraged and said, ‘No, by God, I will not surrender them. No people who have sought my protection, settled in my country, and chosen me rather than others shall be betrayed, until I summon them and ask them about what these two men allege. If they are as they say, I will give them up to them and send them back to their own people; but if what they say is false, I will protect them and see that they receive proper hospitality while under my protection.’

A further attempt by the Quraysh to obtain the expulsion of the refugees failed, notably when they challenged the latter on their Christological differences with the Ethiopian Christians (p. 152):

So when they went into the royal presence and the question was put to them, Ja’far answered, ‘We say about him that which our prophet brought, saying, he is the slave of God, and his apostle, and his spirit, and his word, which he cast into Mary the blessed virgin.’ The Negus took a stick from the ground and said, ‘By God, Jesus, son of Mary, does not exceed what you have said by the length of this stick.’ His generals round about him snorted when he said this, and he said, ‘Though you snort, by God! Go, for you are safe in my country.’

According to the Seerah, the Negus actually converted to Islam, and this led to a revolt against his rule (pp. 154-155):

Ja’far b. Muhammad told me on the authority of his father that the Abyssinians assembled and said to the Negus, ‘You have left our religion’ and they revolted against him. So he sent to Ja’far and his companions and prepared ships for them, saying, ‘Embark in these and be ready. If I am defeated, go where you please; if I am victorious, then stay where you are.’ Then he took paper and wrote, ‘He testifies that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and apostle; and he testifies that Jesus, Son of Mary, is His slave, His apostle, His spirit and His word, which He cast into Mary.’ Then he put it in his gown near the right shoulder and went out to the Abyssinians, who were drawn up in array to meet him. He said, ‘O people, have I not the best claim among you?’ ‘Certainly,’ they said. ‘And what do you think of my life among you?’ ‘Excellent.’ ‘Then what is your trouble?’ ‘You have forsaken our religion and assert that Jesus is a slave.’ ‘Then what do you say about Jesus?’ ‘We say that he is the Son of God.’ The Negus put his hand upon his breast over his gown, (signifying), ‘He testifies that Jesus, the Son of Mary, was no more than “this”.’ By this he meant what he had written, but they were content and went away. News of this reached the prophet, and when the Negus died he prayed over him and begged that his sins might be forgiven.

This is also obliquely mentioned in the Hadith:

Narrated Jabir:

When Negus died, the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Today a pious man has died. So get up and offer the funeral prayer for your brother Ashama.”

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الرَّبِيعِ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءٍ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ مَاتَ النَّجَاشِيُّ ‏ “‏ مَاتَ الْيَوْمَ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ، فَقُومُوا فَصَلُّوا عَلَى أَخِيكُمْ أَصْحَمَةَ ‏”‏‏.‏

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3877

In-book reference: Book 63, Hadith 102

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadith 217

Narrated Abu Huraira:

that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) informed them (i.e., his companions) of the death of Negus, the king of Ethiopia, on the very day on which the latter died, and said, “Ask Allah’s Forgiveness for your brother”

حَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ صَالِحٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، وَابْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَخْبَرَهُمَا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَعَى لَهُمُ النَّجَاشِيَّ صَاحِبَ الْحَبَشَةِ فِي الْيَوْمِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ، وَقَالَ ‏ “‏ اسْتَغْفِرُوا لأَخِيكُمْ ‏”‏‏.‏

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3880

In-book reference: Book 63, Hadith 105

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadith 220

‘Imran b. Husain reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

A brother of yours has died; so stand up and offer prayer for him, i.e., Negus. And in the hadith transmitted by Zubair (the words are): “Your brother.”

وَحَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، بْنُ أَيُّوبَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُلَيَّةَ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي الْمُهَلَّبِ، عَنْ عِمْرَانَ بْنِ حُصَيْنٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ إِنَّ أَخًا لَكُمْ قَدْ مَاتَ فَقُومُوا فَصَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ يَعْنِي النَّجَاشِيَ وَفِي رِوَايَةِ زُهَيْرٍ ‏”‏ إِنَّ أَخَاكُمْ ‏” ‏‏

Reference: Sahih Muslim 953

In-book reference: Book 11, Hadith 88

USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 4, Hadith 2083

It should also be noted that the Hadith states that the Negus arranged for one of the female refugees to marry Muhammad:

Ibn Az-Zubayr reported on the authority of Umm Habibah that she was the wife of Ibn Jahsh, but he died, He was among those who migrated to Abyssinia. Negus then married her to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ فَارِسٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ أُمِّ حَبِيبَةَ، أَنَّهَا كَانَتْ عِنْدَ ابْنِ جَحْشٍ فَهَلَكَ عَنْهَا - وَكَانَ فِيمَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَى أَرْضِ الْحَبَشَةِ - فَزَوَّجَهَا النَّجَاشِيُّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهِيَ عِنْدَهُمْ ‏.‏

Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 2086

In-book reference: Book 12, Hadith 41

English translation: Book 11, Hadith 2081

Az-Zuhri said:

The Negus married Umm Habibah daughter of Abu Sufyan to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for a dower of four thousand dirhams. He wrote it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who accepted it.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ حَاتِمِ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ شَقِيقٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ النَّجَاشِيَّ، زَوَّجَ أُمَّ حَبِيبَةَ بِنْتَ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى صَدَاقٍ أَرْبَعَةِ آلاَفِ دِرْهَمٍ وَكَتَبَ بِذَلِكَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَبِلَ ‏.‏

Grade: Da’if (Al-Albani)

Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 2108

In-book reference: Book 12, Hadith 63

English translation: Book 11, Hadith 2103

There is no definite reference to Ethiopia/Abyssinia in the Qur’an. It is claimed that Surah Al-Nahl 16.41-42 refers to the Muslim migration to Abyssinia: ‘41. And those who became fugitives for the cause of Allah after they had been oppressed, We verily shall give them goodly lodging in the world, and surely the reward of the Hereafter is greater, if they but knew; 42. Such as are steadfast and put their trust in Allah.’ (Pickthall). The word Pickthall translated as ‘became fugitives’ is هَاجَرُوا -hājarū – ‘emigrated’.

Ibn Kathir (c. 1300 – 1373 A.D.) in his Tafsir (Riyadh: Maktaba Da-us-Salam, 2003, p. 466) states:

This may have been revealed concerning those who migrated to Ethiopia, those whose persecution at the hands of their own people in Makkah was so extreme that they left them and went to Ethiopia so that they would be able to worship their Lord. Among the most prominent of these migrants were Uthman bin Affan and his wife Ruqayyah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, Jafar bin Abi Talib, the cousin of the Messenger, and Abu Salamah bin Abdul-Asad, among a group of almost eighty sincere and faithful men and women, may Allah be pleased with them. Allah promised them a great reward in this world and the next.

However, he further notes (p. 467): ‘Ibn Abbas, Ash-Sha`bi and Qatadah said: (this means) “Al-Madinah.” It was also said that; it meant “good provision.” This was the opinion of Mujahid. There is no contradiction between these two opinions, for they left their homes and wealth, but Allah compensated them with something better in this world.’

Tafsir Al-Jalālayn (Feras Hamza [trans., Amman: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2007, p. 283) by Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maḥallī (d. 864 AH / 1459 A.D.) and Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH / 1505 A.D.) regards the reference as being to Medina, rather than Abyssinia: ‘And those who emigrated for God’s cause, to establish His religion, after they had been wronged, through harm, [those] from among the people of Mecca — these were the Prophet (s) and his Companions — truly We shall lodge them in this world in a goodly lodging, namely, Medina, and the reward of the Hereafter, that is, Paradise, is surely greater, grander, did they but know, that is, the disbelievers — or those who stayed behind and did not emigrate — [did they but know] the honour that belongs to emigrants, they would have followed them.’ Watt comments:

When the level of prosecution became intolerable for some of the Muslims, Muhammad encouraged them to emigrate to Abyssinia, a country with which Mecca had trading relations. The primary motive was to escape from persecution, but there may also have been secondary motives of various kinds, perhaps even the hope that the Christian emperor (or Negus) might become a Muslim. Two separate emigrations are sometimes spoken of, but this seems to be an unjustified deduction from the fact that Ibn Ishaq has two separate lists. It is also said that some of the Emigrants came back when they heard that after the “satanic verses” the leading Meccans had joined Muhammad in the prayer; they did not hear of the cancellation until they were near Mecca, but they then returned to Abyssinia. What seems likely is that there was a succession of small groups rather than two emigrations of large parties. Not all the Muslims in Mecca emigrated. Those who did nearly all belonged to a specific group of clans, and this was doubtless because these clans were more vigorous in persecuting their own members. Some of the Emigrants returned to Mecca before the hijrah, but others remained in Abyssinia until six years after that event, presumably making a good living as traders.

(Watt, W. Montgomery & McDonald M. V., The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988, pp. xliii- xliv).

Tabari (Ibid., p. 98) writes:

Ali b. Nasr b. ‘Ali al-Jahdami and ‘Abd al-Warith b. ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith-’Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith-Aban al-’Attar-Hisham b. ‘Urwah-’Urwah: He wrote to ‘Abd al-Malik as follows, referring to the Messenger of God: …When the Muslims were treated in this way, the Messenger of God commanded them to emigrate to Abyssinia. In Abyssinia there was a righteous king called the Negus in whose land no one was oppressed and who was praised for his righteousness. Abyssinia was a land with which Quraysh traded and in which they found an ample living, security, and a good market. When the Messenger of God commanded them to do this, the main body of them went to Abyssinia because of the coercion they were being subjected to in Mecca. His fear was that they would be seduced from their religion. He himself remained, and did not leave Mecca. Several years passed in this way, during which Quraysh pressed hard upon those of them who had become Muslims. After this, Islam spread in Mecca and a number of their nobles entered Islam.

Abu ja’far (al-Tabari): There is a difference of opinion as to the number of those who emigrated to Abyssinia in this, the first emigration. Some say that there were eleven men and four women. Those who say this:

Al-Harith-Ibn Sad-Muhammad b. ‘Umar-YUnus b. Muhammad al-Zafari-his father-a man of his tribe; also ‘Ubaydallah b. ‘Abbis al-Hudhali-al-Harith b. al-Fudayl: Those who emigrated in the first emigration did so by stealth and in secret, and numbered eleven men and four women. They went to al-Shu’aybah, some riding and some walking. As they arrived, God caused two merchant ships to halt there for the Muslims, and in these they were carried to Abyssinia for half a dinar. This took place in the month of Rajab in the fifth year from the time of the Messenger of God’s commissioning as a prophet. Quraysh set out in pursuit of them and reached the sea at the place where the Muslims had embarked, but did not capture any of them. The emigrants said, “We came to Abyssinia and were hospitably lodged by the best of hosts. We had security to practice our, religion, and we worshipped God without being persecuted and without hearing unpleasant words.”

… Abu Ja’far (al-Tabari): Others say that those Muslims who went to Abyssinia and emigrated there, apart from their children who went with them when they were young or were born there, were eighty-two men, if ‘Ammar b. Yasir, who is doubtful, is included among them…

Then Ja’far b. Abi Talib emigrated, and after that there was a steady flow of Muslims. They assembled in Abyssinia and remained there, some coming with their families and some singly, without their families. Ibn Ishaq then reckons that there were eighty-two men in all, including the ten I have mentioned by name, some who had their families and children with them, some who had children born in Abyssinia, and some who had no family with them.

1. THE HIJRA IN EXTERNAL SOURCES

Historical criticism always looks for external corroboration, to ensure that a claim is not mere propaganda. Obviously, in terms of the hijra to Abyssinia, we should be looking for Ethiopian sources. Elfasi, M. and Hrbek, Ivan, Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century (Paris: UNESCO, 1988; Oxford: Heinemann, 1995, p. 560), tentatively identifies the Negus – something the Islamic sources quoted previously do not: “In about 615, during the reign of King Armah, or more probably that of his father, Ella-Tsaham, a significant event took place. Some followers of Muhammad whose lives were threatened found refuge at the court of Axum where they were favourably received.” Stuart Munro-Hay (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991, Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity, p. 18) observes that there is a dearth of information from the time in question:

Very little is known of the fifth century history of Aksum, but in the sixth century the dramatic events following upon king Kaleb of Aksum’s expedition to the Yemen greatly interested the Christian world. Several ambassadors from Constantinople, sent by the emperor Justinian to propose various trading and military arrangements, have left accounts of their embassies. One ambassador described the king’s appearance at an audience (Malalas, ed. Migne 1860: 670). Another Greek-speaking visitor, Kosmas, called ‘Indikopleustes’, who was in Ethiopia just before Kaleb’s expedition, was asked by the king’s governor at Adulis to copy an inscription so that it could be sent to the king at Aksum. He complied, and preserved the contents of the inscription, together with various other interesting details about Aksumite life, in his Christian Topography (Wolska-Conus 1968, 1973).

After the time of Kaleb, foreign reports about Ethiopia grow much sparser. The Byzantine historian Procopius mentions (ed. Dewing 1961: 191) that Kaleb’s successor had to acknowledge the virtual independence of the Yemeni ruler Abreha, but all the rest of our information on the later Aksumite kings comes from inferences drawn from their coinage.

Later (p. 261), he notes; “For any ideas about the political situation in Ethiopia at the end of the Aksumite period, we rely on very tenuous information.”  Munro-Hay, like others, identifies the Negus in question as Ashama ibn Abjar, known as Armah in Ge’ez. He is said to have reigned c. 614–630 (Tamrat, Taddesse, Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1972, p. 34). Tamrat informs us (p. 34f):

His name is given as El Asham, son of Abdjar, and father of King Arma. El-Asham, the Negashi, had welcomed the companions of Muhammad whom the latter had sent to Aksum to take refuge from anti-Muslim persecutions in the Hijaz. When the news of the death of King El-Asham reached the Prophet in A.D. 630 he is said to have remembered him with affection and pronounced some prayers for him. This has apparently created the tradition that the king was in fact a convert to the new religion, and the tradition has in the end led to his being considered as a Muslim saint. In the sixteenth century, when Gragn’s triumphant army was on its way from Tamben to Agame, the elated Muslim troops asked for their leader’s permission to visit the tomb of this friend of the Prophet. His name is here given as Ashamat En-Nedjachi (certainly a variant of Tabari’s El-Asham) and the tomb seems to be near Wiqro where there is still a site remembered as such by the local people. The significance of this is that we should have a tradition of the tomb of an early seventh-century king (d. before the end of A.D. 630) of Aksum outside the ancient capital.

It can be understood, therefore, that there seems to be no extant evidence from the time for the hijra of any Muslims from Arabia – no Aksumite documents or stelae, the latter of which were a feature of Aksumite culture: “The remarkable commemorative monuments (Chapters 11 and 12) illustrate Aksumite technological and organisational capabilities, as well as many aspects of the kingdom’s history, including its military expansion and its gradual adoption of Christianity” (Phillipson, David W., Foundations of an African Civilisation: Aksum & the northern Horn 1000 BC - AD 1300, Woodbridge and Rochester, James Currey, 2012, p. 48). Phillipson makes a further observation about the paucity of historical records for the hijra in relation to the Negus Armah (p. 211):

A further relevant  factor is the identification of Armah with the Aksumite king who granted refuge to early followers of the Prophet Mohammed, as recalled in Muslim tradition that was committed to writing some two or three centuries later. The Muslim shrine at Negash in eastern Tigray incorporates a tomb that is traditionally attributed to this period. No reflection of these events has yet been recognised in the archaeological record or, less surprisingly, in Christian tradition. The comments recorded by the Prophet’s followers about the rich decoration of the church of Mary at Aksum require further consideration since, taken at face value, they might imply that Aksum was still the royal capital at this time. It should be noted, however, that the written record of these comments is not contemporaneous; it is possible that the details of the church’s dedication and location represent a subsequent and potentially misleading gloss.

If coinage is any indication, the story of the Negus’ conversion to Islam can be dismissed as propaganda. In the British Museum (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1989-0518-485) Museum number 1989,0518.485, there is an Aksumite coin accredited to the reign of Armah, with this description and list of the inscription:

Copper alloy coin. (whole) (whole)

    Full length figure seated on high-backed chair, crowned and holding a long staff topped with a cross. The royal figure divides the legend. In left field, dot. (obverse) (obverse)

    Cross supported on a stem descending to a ring at the base of the coin, flanked by two wheat-stalks emerging from the same stem. The cross has a punch-hole in the centre, filled with gold. (reverse) (reverse)

        Inscription type: inscription

        Inscription position: obverse

        Inscription language: Ge’ez

        Inscription script: Ge’ez

        Inscription translation: King Armah

        Inscription type: inscription

        Inscription position: reverse

        Inscription language: Ge’ez

        Inscription script: Ge’ez

        Inscription translation: Let there be joy to the people

Production date

    600-630 (circa) (circa)

Production place

    Minted in: Aksum (town)

    Africa: sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia: Tigray: Aksum (town)

If Armah had actually converted to Islam, it is inconceivable that his tomb would be honored or that his coinage would be allowed to survive. The important point is that his coinage suggests his continuing Christian faith, which contradicts the Islamic sources.

1. THE HADITH AND SEERAH, MECCA, AL-SHUʿAYBA, NAJRAN AND THE GHASSANIDS

We have seen that the Qur’an is at best ambiguous on the event. The basic problem with the Hadith and Seerah is their late dating – one hundred and fifty to two hundred years after the event: Sahih Bukhari (d. 870); Sahih Muslim (d. 875); Abu Dawud (d. 888); Ibn Ishaq (d. 767). They cannot act as historical reliable sources on the basis of their dates alone, even more so when we realize they are written from a position of power and as sectarian propaganda. A further problem is that Mecca does not appear or any early map, nor is mentioned in nay document until The Chronicle of 741 (Continuatio Byzantia-Arabica) a Latin document written in Muslim Spain: (The Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle: Full Translation and Analysis, translation by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, https://www.aymennjawad.org/23129/the-byzantine-arabic-chronicle-full-translation): “…Macca- as they consider it, the home of Abraham, which lies in the desert between Ur of the Chaldeans and Carra the city of Mesopotamia.” If Mecca did not exist in the supposed time of Muhammad, it raises further questions about the historicity of the entire event. Further, as Crone has indicated, Mecca was far from being the prosperous commercial hub of Islamic sources (Crone, Patricia, “Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Meccan Leather Trade”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 70, No. 1 2007, p. 63):

According to the Islamic tradition, Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe, made their living in pre-Islamic times as traders who frequented a number of places, above all southern Syria, where they sold a variety of goods, above all leather goods and other pastoralist products such as woollen clothing and clarified butter, perhaps live animals as well. That they made (or had once made) a living selling goods of this kind in Syria is the one of the few claims regarding the rise of Islam on which there is complete agreement in the tradition.

The leather trade might be in keeping with the bringing of hides to Aksum, but there is a further problem: “…the Quran itself describes these pagans as agriculturalists rather than traders…”. There is another problem (p. 64):

The tradition locates the trading society in question so far away from southern Syria that it is hard to see how its members could have made a living by trading there unless they specialized in commodities which were low in bulk and weight and could be sold at very high prices. If the traders set out from Mecca, they had to make enough of a profit to cover food, water and other expenses, such as tolls, for men and animals for two months, this being how long it took for a caravan to make the journey to Syria and back according to one tradition.

How much more would this be the case if the Meccans had to transport their goods to the coast, hire ships, and then compete with local Africans and wealthy foreign traders at Adulis or anywhere else in the Aksumite kingdom? Surely the costs would more than eat up the profits? In her book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 124), Crone examines whether there could have been a major trading relationship between Mecca and Ethiopia: “Ethiopia is a problematic case. It is identified as a Qurashi matjar of some importance in both Ibn al-Kalbi’s account and elsewhere; yet there is practically no concrete evidence on the trade in question.” She also questions where the supposed trade actually took place (p. 125):

There is no information on where the traders went in Ethiopia. The name of Adulis, the famous Ethiopian port, is unknown to the sources on pre-Islamic Arabia and the rise of Islam; and though all the stories on Qurashis in Ethiopia, be it as traders or as diplomats, involve the Negus, the tradition also fails to mention Axum. In fact, it would seem to be wholly ignorant of Ethiopian place names. Hashim dies in Gaza and Muttalib makes it to Radmān in Ibn al-Kalbi’s īlāf-tradition, but their brother ‘Abd Shams is despatched in Mecca itself.

The work by G. R. Hawting ‘The Origin of Jedda and the Problem of al-Shuʿayba’ (Arabica Tome 31, Fascicule 3 Nov., 1984, p. 318), raises problems for the idea that the Quraysh chased the Muslim refugees from al-Shuʿayba: “There are a number of reports in Muslim tradition which, referring to the Jāhiliyya and the early Islamic period, mention al-Shuʿayba and sometimes explain that it was the port of Mecca.” Yet it is sometimes confused with Jeddah (p. 319): “Occasionally, different versions of the same report have Jedda and al-Shuʿayba as variant readings.” Hawting then states (p. 320): “… the fact that the name of al-Shuʿayba is often followed by an explanatory gloss seems to point to a lack of familiarity with it in the Islamic period…” There is a far bigger problem with the very existence of the port (p. 324):

Turning now to al-Shuʿayba, the difficulty is to find any trace of it outside the rather sparse information given by Muslim tradition. As we have seen, that information consists mainly of the occurrence of the name al-Shuʿayba in connexion with particular incidents said to have taken place in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times, notably the rebuilding of the Ka’ba by Quraysh, and the explanatory gloss which is sometimes given that it was the port of Mecca before Jedda. Apart from that, only Ibn al-Mujāwir adds anything original, referring to it as a great bay (khawr ‘azīm) and situating it « opposite Wādi ‘l-Muhram >> but he gives no source and, apart from the vague geographical reference, even if we accept the factual basis of the statement, it does not much increase the information to be gleaned from other sources.

Hawting observes regarding evidence for al-Shuʿayba (pp. 325, 326): “It seems, therefore, that there is no information about al-Shuʿayba apart from the meagre details in Muslim tradition, and there is a strong impression that the Muslim scholars themselves had no real knowledge about it… As for al-Shuʿayba, if it was indeed the port of Mecca in the, then its disappearance without trace seems to indicate that it must have been small and unimportant, and this too could throw light on the status of Mecca before Islam.” If al-Shuʿayba did not exist, then neither the refugees nor the Quraysh could have departed for Aksum through it.

Yet another problem is that why would the would-be refugees make the dangerous journey to the cast and then across the sea? To the south of Mecca was the Christian entity of Najran, and to the north the Christian Ghassanid kingdom (and even further north, the Christian Byzantine Empire). Would it not have been easier, safer and more sensible to make for either of these, which were after all, fellow-Arabs, speaking the same language, rather than chance it in Africa?

1. THE NINE SAINTS

The historical sources do not support the Islamic narrative, and it is inherently implausible. So how and why did it originate? Ironically, there is an Ethiopian tradition of the Nine Saints which may point to its origin. Tamrat (op. cit., pp. 23-24) informs us about their story:

…the advent of groups of Syrian missionaries—the Sadqan, and the Nine Saints—that the traditions of the Church show definite signs of progress in the kingdom of Aksum.

The episode of the Sadqan and the Nine Saints is placed towards the end of the fifth century, and may have been connected with anti-monophysite persecutions in the Byzantine empire after the Council of Chalcedon. Before the advent of these clerics in Ethiopia, it seems that the effective sphere of influence of the Church was limited to a narrow corridor between Adulīs and Aksum along the main caravan routes. But they established permanent outposts beyond these frontiers and the monastic communities attributed to the Nine Saints alone extend from the river Märäb north of Aksum as far as the district of Gär’alta in central Tigré. The other group, collectively known as Sadqan, are said to have settled and taught in the district of Shimäzana…

The efforts of these men brought the Church deep into the interior, and the traditions of their conflicts with the local people4 probably represent pagan resistance to the fresh incursions of the new religion. It seems that the importance of these communities lay, more than in anything else, in serving as permanent centres of Christian learning. No doubt the first thing these Syrian monks set out to do was to translate the Bible and other religious books into Ethiopic.

Paul B. Henze, Layers of Time: A History of Ethiopia (New York: Palgrave, 2000 p. 38), also addresses the issue:

Following the official conversion, several Christians are said to have come from the Roman Empire to help spread the Gospel. They have gone down in Ethiopian tradition as the Tsadkan, the Righteous Ones, but little is known about them. The most important development for the spread of Christianity throughout the country was the arrival of the Nine Syrian Saints in the latter half of the fifth century. They have been glorified in Ethiopian tradition and commemorations of them remain important in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church calendar, but it is not easy to sift fact from legend. They are thought to have been monks and priests expelled from the East Roman Empire after the Council of Chalcedon in AD 45l. This council rejected the Monophysite doctrine, which affirmed the single nature of Christ, and alienated many eastern Christians. Only two or three of the saints actually came from Syria. Others have been traced to Constantinople, Cilicia, Cappadocia, and even Rome. They were warmly received by Emperor Ella Amida II and were active during the next three reigns establishing churches and monasteries, translating the Bible and organizing Christian communities.

We can see here obvious parallels with the Hijra tale. Two groups make their way to Ethiopia and proclaim their faith – remembering that some of the Muslim refugees are said to have stayed and established the first Abyssinian Muslim community. In the case of the Nine Saints, they were likewise fleeing religious persecution. Essentially, Islam has appropriated and redacted this tradition as has been done with other Jewish and Christian traditions, notably apocryphal stories and legends such as the Seven Sleepers. The question is why? An obvious reason is that syncretistic redaction is a feature of the Qur’an and Hadith/Seerah, and that is reason enough. Mingana (Mingana, Alphonse, “Syriac Influence on the Style of the Kur’an”, Bulletin of The John Rylands Library, Manchester. Vol. 11, No. 1, 1927, p. 83) may point to another answer: “…the majority of the Christians round about Hijaz and South Syria belonged to the Jacobite community and not to that of the Nestorians. This was the state of affairs even in the middle of the ninth Christian century…” The Jacobites, like the Copts of Egypt and Abyssinia, were Monophysites. Yet, as Mingana observes (ibid.): “Now the pronunciation used in the Arabic proper names mentioned above is that of the Nestorians and not that of the Jacobites. The latter say ishmō’il, isrōil and Ishōk etc., and not Ishmā’il, Isrā’il, and Ishāk, as they appear in the Kur’an.”

The problem is that whereas the Hijazi Christians were Jacobites (Monophysites), the Nestorians were present on the (opposite) Gulf coast – what is now Iraq, Kuwait, the Saudi Eastern province, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Oman. If Islam did actually originate in the Hijaz, why was not the Qur’an influenced by the Arabic-Syriac of the Jacobites, as opposed to that of the Nestorians? If, however, the Monophysite Christianity the Muslims first encountered was in Abyssinia, rather than the Hijaz (still less the Gulf), and we add in the tradition of the Nestorian Monk Bahira recognizing the prophethood of the young Muhammad, we can see how the Abyssinian Hijra tradition played an apologetic role in the reconstruction of Islamic origins in the centuries after the birth of the religion.

CONCLUSION

The Abyssinian Hijra story is devoid of historical corroboration from the Ethiopian side. The story of the conversion of the Negus is controverted by the Christian images on his coinage. Reference from the Qur’an is at best ambiguous and is anyway disputed. The late dating of the Hadith and Seerah robs them of any realistic claims to historicity. The lack of evidence for Mecca at this time further complicates the issue. Likewise, the location and even existence of al-Shuʿayba must be questioned. The same goes for the idea of Meccan trade with Aksum. Surely, any Hijazi refugees would make for Najran or the Ghassanid kingdom, rather than an uncertain maritime journey. The evidence suggest that the story was redacted form the Ethiopian tradition of the Nine Saints for apologetic purposes. These facts raise further questions about the historicity of Islamic origins as traditionally presented.

History Of Jeddah

INTRODUCTION

In examining the historicity of Mecca, and thus of Muhammad’s supposed ministry therein, and events like the Hijra to Abyssinia, we come upon a related issue – the historicity of Jeddah in terms of reaching back to the time f Muhammad. This paper examines this issue

1. MUSLIM CLAIMS

According to the Jeddah Municipality (https://www.jeddah.gov.sa/English/JeddahCity/History.php/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160307005027/https://www.jeddah.gov.sa/English/JeddahCity/History.php),

Some archaeologists’ studies suggest the existence of inhabitants in the region now known as Jeddah since the Stone Age seeing as they found some artifacts and ‘Thamoudian’ writings in Wadi (valley) Breiman east of Jeddah and Wadi Boib northeast of Jeddah. Some historians trace its founding to the tribe of Bani Quda’ah, who inhabited it after the collapse of Sad (dam) Ma’rib in 115 BC. Some believe that Jeddah had been inhabited before the tribe of Bani Quda’ah by fishermen in the Red Sea, who considered it a center from which they sailed out into the sea as well as a place for relaxation and well-being. According to some accounts, the history of Jeddah dates back to early times before Alexander the Great, who visited the city between 323 and 356 BC.

The site goes on to claim: ‘In 647 AD, Othman bin Affan chose the city as a major port for entering the city of Makkah and accessing it by sea. At that time, it was named ‘Balad Al-Qanasil’ (country of consulates). In their travels, Ibn Jubayr and Ibn Battuta mention that the city had Persian architecture when they visited it.’ Ibn Jubayr (1145 – 1217) was a Spanish-Arab geographer; Ibn Battuta (1304 – 1368/1369) was a Moroccan Berber scholar and explorer. Their contributions are too late for any impact on the city’s early existence. Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Hajj (https://www.hajinformation.com/main/h301.htm) declares: ‘Jeddah, located on the west coast of Saudi Arabia on the Red Sea, was founded as a small fishing village more than 2,500 years ago.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/place/Jeddah-Saudi-Arabia) entry on Jeddah states: ‘The city takes its name (which means “ancestress” or “grandmother”) from the location there of the reputed tomb of Eve, which was destroyed in 1928 by the Saudi government whose Wahhābī leanings taught that it encouraged shirk (idolatry).’

1. MODERN RESEARCH

G. R. Hawting ‘The Origin of Jedda and the Problem of al-Shuʿayba’, Arabica Tome 31, Fascicule 3 (Nov., 1984), observes some of the Islamic stories about Jeddah (p. 319):

Other traditions assume the existence of Jedda in the Jāhiliyya, even that it was the port of Mecca. Alexander the Great departed from Jedda for the bilād al-maghrib after coming to Mecca to accomplish the hajj. In one of the versions of the story which explains how the original monotheism of the Meccan sanctuary came to be corrupted it is said that certain idols were washed up at Jedda after the Deluge and later brought to Mecca where they were set up around the Ka`ba. AI-Ya’qūbī lists Jedda as the last of the makhālīf or kuwar of the Yemen in the pre- Islamic period. Jedda is, of course, closely associated with Eve in Muslim tradition, probably on account of the similarity between its name and the Arabic word for grandmother and it is frequently named as the place where Eve was set on earth after the expulsion from Paradise. At the time of Babel, it is reported, 'Amr b. Ma'add was dwelling at Jedda.

Clearly, much of this is legendary. Alexander was not a Muslim – he was a bi-sexual polytheist who believed himself to be the son of Zeus-Amon. He was intending to invade Arabia after his return from India, but died before he could do so: ‘But Alexander was dead, and his death also signalled the abandonment not only of his invasion of Arabia but also of his so-called final plans, which were contained in his alleged will that Perdiccas read out to the army.’ (Dawn L. Gilley and Ian Worthington, ‘Alexander the Great, Macedonia and Asia’, in Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington [Eds.] A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2010, p. 199)

Alexander did send naval expeditions there: ‘Alexander sent three naval expeditions from Babylon. The first was under Archias, “who went as far as the island of Tylus (Bahrain).” (Arrian, Anabasis, book vii, chapter 20:6 and 7) Alexander then sent another naval expedition under Androsthenes, who sailed to a part of the peninsula of Arabia.  The third naval expedition Alexander sent was under Hieron of Soli. Arrian wrote: “Hieron had received instructions to sail round the whole Arabian peninsula as far as the Arabian Golf near Egypt over against Heroopolis. Though he had sailed round the greater part of Arabia Hieron did not dare go further, but turned back to Babylon.” (Arrian, Anabasis, book vii, chapter 20: 7, 8)

Hieron’s sailing “round the greater part of Arabia” means that he sailed around western Arabia. However, he turned back. We suppose the reason Hieron turned back before reaching the Egyptian Gulf opposite to Heroopolis was the arid tract of central western Arabia. There were no inhabitants, cities, or harbors to give anchorage for his fleet. This corresponds to the part of western Arabia where Mecca was later built, a region that later Greek geographers described as uninhabitable.

A previous expedition that Alexander sent while still in Egypt is very important. He sent Anaxicrates from the Egyptian city of Heroopolis to explore western Arabia. Scholars consider Anaxicrates’ reconnaissance very successful. Dr. Himanshu Prabha Ray wrote, “Anaxicrates surveyed the whole of the Western coast of Arabia as far as the Bab-al-Mandeb.” (The archaeology of seafaring in ancient South Asia, Press of the University of Cambridge, 2003, page 170. Dr. Stanley Burstein, an expert in the ancient geography of Arabia, stated that Anaxicrates provided an “accurate account of political conditions in Western Arabia.” (Burstein, Agatharchides of Cnidus, On The Erythraean Sea, The Hakluyt Society, London, 1989, page 3).’ (http://rrimedia.org/Resources/Articles/studies-by-classical-writers-show-that-mecca-could-not-have-been-built-before-the-4th-century-ad)  This is what Arrian says (Aubrey de Selincourt/J. R. Hamilton [trans.], Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, London: Penguin, 1958, re. ed. 1971, pp. 381-383):

The fact is, Alexander had ideas of settling the seaboard of the Persian Gulf and the off-shore islands; for he fancied it might become as prosperous a country as Phoenicia. The naval preparations were directed against the Arabs of the coast, ostensibly because they were the only people in that part of the country who had sent no delegation to wait upon him, or shown their respect by any other normal act of courtesy; actually, however, the reason for the preparations was, in my opinion, Alexander’s insatiable thirst for extending his possessions.

Report has it that Alexander had heard that the Arabs worshipped only two gods, Uranus and Dionysus, the former because he is seen to contain within himself not only the stars but the sun too, the greatest and clearest source of blessing to mankind in all their affairs, and the latter, Dionysus, because of the fame of his journey to India. Alexander accordingly felt it would not be beyond his merits to be regarded by the Arabs as a third god, in view of the fact that his achievements surpassed those of Dionysus; or at least he would deserve this honour if he conquered the Arabs and allowed them, as he had allowed the Indians, to retain their ancient institutions. Moreover, the wealth of their country was an additional incitement - the cassia in the oases, the trees which bore frankincense and myrrh, the shrubs which yielded cinnamon, the meadows where nard grew wild: of all this report had told him. Arabia, too, was a large country, its coast (it was said) no less in extent than the coast of India; many islands lay off it, and there were harbours everywhere fit for his fleet to ride in and to provide sites for new settlements likely to grow to great wealth and prosperity.

This clarifies that Alexander never visited the Hijaz.

Hawting notes some confusion in the Islamic accounts of Jeddah (pp. 319-320): ‘Occasionally, different versions of the same report have Jedda and al-Shu’ayba as variant readings. For example, some versions of the story of the rebuilding of the Ka’ba by Quraysh have the ship wrecked at Jedda instead of the, in this instance, better attested al-Shu`ayba. Describing the flight of Safwān b. Umayya from Mecca at the time of its conquest by the Prophet, a tradition given by Ibn Ishaq says that he fled towards Jedda, while in the version given by al-Wāqidī he fled to al-Shu’ayba.’ He then observes (p. 320):

What these reports seem to show is that al-Shu’ayba is named with relative infrequency, that it occurs only in a limited group of traditions, and that there was a tendency to supplant it with the name of Jedda. It seems clear that, where both Jedda and al-Shu’ayba are named in different versions of the same report, al-Shu’ayba represents the «original» reading and Jedda a later emendation since, in the Islamic period, al-Shu’ayba had no importance and there would be no reason to substitute it for Jedda. On the other hand, the fact that the name of al-Shu’ayba is often followed by an explanatory gloss seems to point to a lack of familiarity with it in the Islamic period, and the substitution of Jedda for al-Shu’ayba may sometimes be an involuntary reading back into the Jāhiliyya of the conditions of the Islamic period. Those traditions associating Jedda with Eve could be relatively late attempts to provide it with a religious significance of the sort analysed by von Grunebaum.’

Significantly, he observes (p. 320f): ‘Muslim traditions about the origins of Jedda are scarce and problematic.’ He quotes two reports about Jeddah’s origins by Ibn al-Mujāwir (d. 1291) and then states: ‘…I am inclined to see both reports as reflexions of the fact that in the late 4th/10th century Jedda did receive an influx of, and was developed by, merchants from Persia.’ In other words, the traditions are read back at a later date. This is even more true of the tradition of Caliph ‘Uthmān making Jeddah the port of Mecca (p. 321-322):

The most frequent account of the circumstances in which Jedda became the port of Mecca associates it with the caliph ‘Uthmān. According to the most detailed version of this account, in the year 26/647 ‘Uthmān officially made Jedda the port of Mecca at the request of the Meccans. They has asked him to change (yuhawwilu) the sāhil from al-Shu’aybiyya (sic in the text), which was the sāhil of Mecca in the Jāhiliyya, to Jedda, which «is its sāhil today». The reason why they wanted the change was the greater proximity of Jedda to Mecca. In response to their request, ‘Uthmān, who was in Mecca for the performance of an ‘umra, went out to Jedda, saw its position, and ordered the changing of the sāhil to it. He went into the sea, made ghusl in it, and said that it was mubārak. He then ordered those who were with him to do the same, and everyone who did so wore a mi’zar. ‘Uthmān then left Jedda for Medina, and at that time the people abandoned the sāhil of al-Shu’aybiyya.

This detailed tradition appears, so far as I know, only in a comparatively late source, the of al-Nahrawālī, who died in 990/1582. He cites as his source the Ta’rīkh of al-Hafiz Najm al-Din ‘Umar b. Fahd, whose literary activity was in the second half of the 9th/15th century, and who was a pupil of al-Fāsī, the author of the Shifā. In the Shifā’, however, ‘Uthmān’s action is mentioned only briefly, not in the detail which al-Nahrawālī provides, and there has to be some doubt, therefore, about the source and antiquity of al-Nahrawālī’s details… Al-Fāsī’s briefer reference to the substitution by ‘Uthmān comes presumably from the 3rd/9th century al-Fakihī.

It can be seen that the supposed 7th century linkage of Jeddah to Mecca is based on much later traditions. Hawting then observes:

None of this seems sufficient as evidence for the origins of Jedda or whether it existed before Islam. On ground of common sense it is difficult to see why the Meccans should have used al-Shu’ayba as a port if a more convenient site was at hand and also why they would need to get the caliph’s agreement to use Jedda instead of al-Shu’ayba. In general the tradition of ‘Uthmān’s institution of Jedda as the port of Mecca, as well as being poorly attested, does riot sound convincing.’

Hawting does not consider the reverse of his statement – that if Jeddah did exist in antiquity, why would an existing inland oasis use a more distant port? Or, if there no early evidence for either Jeddah or Mecca, does this imply that neither existed? He then notes the lack of non-Muslim evidence (pp. 323-324): ‘Muslim sources, then, are of doubtful value when it comes to answering the various questions about the origins of Jedda. Non-Muslim sources certainly provide no grounds for thinking that it existed before Islam, in spite of the general assumption in modem works that it did. Jedda does not appear to be mentioned in any pre-Islamic source, either south Arabian or classical. This argument from silence is not in itself positive evidence, but it is striking that, in contrast to Jedda, we do have pre-Islamic attestation of Yanbū‘ (Jambia), the port of Medina (Yathrib).’

Hawting notes similar problems for al-Shu’ayba (p. 325): ‘It seems, therefore, that there is no information about al-Shu’ayba apart from the meagre details in Muslim tradition, and there is a strong impression that the Muslim scholars themselves had no real knowledge about it.’ He infers from all this (p. 326):

I would suggest that both are to be associated with the emergence of Mecca as the site of the Muslim sanctuary. Although, in the later Middle Ages, Jedda came to acquire a role as an entrepot in the trade between the Mediterranean and the Far East, and thus came to have some importance in its own right", generally it has been important only as the port of Mecca. One would expect, therefore, that its fortunes would be closely connected with those of Mecca. As has been noted, there is no reliable indication that Jedda had any importance before Islam, and it may be that its origins are to be put in the early Islamic period. It seems natural to associate it with the growing importance of Mecca at the same time. As for al-Shu’ayba, if it was indeed the port of Mecca in the Jāhiliyya, then its disappearance without trace seems to indicate that it must have been small and unimportant, and this too could throw light on the status of Mecca before Islam.

Ulrike Freitag, in her seminal work A History of Jeddah: The gate to Mecca in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020, p. 40) states:

According to Islamic tradition, Jeddah was founded by the third Caliph ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān in AH 26/AD 647 as the harbour best suited to supply Mecca and make it accessible to pilgrims arriving by sea. The fact that it replaced an earlier port in the vicinity, be it al-Shuʿayba or the Ptolomeian Kentos, points to the strategic importance of the location: seen from Mecca, the town was situated at the end of the shortest route to the sea. Its landing area, protected by coral reefs that were traversed by a canal and lagoons, offered shelter to small boats. Due to the wind regime in the Red Sea, ships from the Indian Ocean could sail about as far as Jeddah during the latter parts of the northeast monsoon. North of Jeddah, whereby persistent northerly winds and coral reefs were common, mostly smaller vessels which could sail closer to the coast were used. Jeddah also had disadvantages: freshwater had to be brought into the town as there were no springs in the vicinity. The coastal plain was only sparsely populated, with only a few oases situated in the foothills of the mountain range which separates the coastal plain (Tihāma) from the highlands.

If the vicinity of Jeddah was so sparse in terms of population and water, why would sail ships, coming from India or China want to stop there, rather than the more fertile African coast of the Red Sea? Agatharchides of Cnidus (2nd century BC) (Agatharchides of Cnidus On the Erythraean Sea, Translated and edited by Stanley M. Burstein, London: The Hakluyt Society, 1989), refers to what is now Yemen (pp. 159-160): ‘Immediately adjacent is the tribe of the Sabaeans, the greatest of the peoples in Arabia and the possessors of every sort of good fortune. For their country produces all the necessities for life as lived among us…’ However, he does not seem to mention any port near where Jeddah is. Similarly, the 1st century AD work The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea refers to the same general area (Wilfred H. Schoff, The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: Travel and trade in the Indian Ocean by a merchant of the first century, New York: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1912, pp. 30-31):

The market-town of Muza is without a harbor, but has a good roadstead and anchorage because of the sandy bottom thereabouts, where the anchors hold safely. The merchandise imported there consists of purple cloths, both fine and coarse; clothing in the Arabian style, with sleeves; plain, ordinary, embroidered, or interwoven with gold; saffron, sweet rush, muslins, cloaks, blankets (not many), some plain and others made in the local fashion; sashes of different colors, fragrant ointments in moderate quantity, wine and wheat, not much. For the country produces grain in moderate amount, and a great deal of wine. And to the King and the Chief are given horses and sumpter-mules, vessels of gold and polished silver, finely woven clothing and copper vessels. There are exported from the same place the things produced in the country: selected myrrh, and the Gebanite-Minaean stacte, alabaster and all the things already mentioned from Avalites and the far-side coast. The voyage to this place is made best about the month of September, that is Thoth; but there is nothing to prevent it even earlier.

Yet nothing about the area near Jeddah. A recent study notes (Chiara Zazzaro, The Ancient Red Sea Port of Adulis and the Eritrean Coastal Region: Previous investigations and museum collections, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013, pp. 1, 2):

…the Red Sea coast was characterised by a succession of well-protected bays, especially on the western side which is considered more suitable for navigation. In particular, the presence of springs originating from ancient wadyan (rivers) in the north-western coastal sector not only provided fresh water supplies for mariners but also helped to reduce the growth of coral reefs in correspondence to the merse (bays). In the 2nd millennium BC and in the early 1st millennium AD some of these bays formed lagoons developed at the wadi mouths which provided natural access for ships (Blue 2007; Hein et al. 2008). It was common during antiquity to exploit the geomorphology and natural conditions of the coast to establish ports, especially in the Indian Ocean.

It continues:

The Red Sea basin is characterised by three main deep channels for navigation. The central channel is the deepest, suitable for navigation by large modern ships. The two lateral channels are parallel and separated from the coasts by two sequences of coral reefs; they can take small and medium ships (Red Sea Pilot 1909: 3), as they did during antiquity.

Navigation in the Red Sea was conducted not far from the coast, always keeping sight of the mainland landmarks and such features as islands and coral reefs. Bays, scattered islands and reefs played an important role in the Red Sea navigation, being used as stopping places during the night. The fact that navigation in the Red Sea during Antiquity was mainly conducted at a short distance from the coast, and presumably along the two minor navigable channels, is also demonstrated by the fact that the first century sailors’ manual Periplus Maris Erythraei, gives particular emphasis to the description of the coastal landscape and of landmarks which served for orientation to sailing boats.’ The existence of this manual, Periplus Maris Erythraei, which we examined earlier, is significant.

On p. 2 it notes:

A series of well-protected bays all along the Eritrean coast may also have provided favourable mooring spots and anchorages. On the other side, the north-west coast of the Red Sea has a number of underground fresh water sources, not far from the coast, which may have guaranteed water supply for boats and ships navigating along the coast while the southern Red Sea coast is very arid and with few water resources. In this case, wells and cisterns carved in the bedrock all along the south-western shore of the Red Sea and on the islands may have provided the necessary water supply for sailing boats and ships in this region since earlier times (Puglisi 1953; Puglisi 1969)… the Eritrean coast south of Massawa is characterised by several protected bays that make for good anchorages.

So why would anyone choose the more hostile Arabian coast north of Yemen?

CONCLUSION

It can be seen that there are serious – indeed, severe - questions about the origins of Jeddah, and indeed, of any maritime trade reaching to the mid-Hijaz at the time of Muhammad. If Jeddah did not exist in antiquity, and neither did any comparable port near Mecca, what does this say about Mecca’s historical authenticity? Indeed, what does it say about the historicity of the traditional narrative of Islamic origins in general? What does it say about te origins of the Qur’an, if the preceding questions are valid?

The Last Sermon Of Muhammad

INTRODUCTION

The last sermon of Muhammad is a matter of frequent concern and expression by Muslims. It advocates ethnic equality, and also makes the theological point about Muhammad being the final prophet. However, it must be asked how historical it is. We face the same problem with it as we do with the hadith and Sira literature – their late dates. Utilizing the procedure of Redaction Criticism, we must ask whether aspects of the Farewell Sermon are actually taken from other traditions. Further, we may ask whether the sermon was invented to bestow dignity on a prophet about whom other traditions presented him as experiencing an agonizing death. Notably, he calmly suggests that he might not be living anymore – in effect, predicting his death.

1. The Claim

Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon (www.islamreligion.com, 2013) states the following:

Prophet Muhammad undertook his farewell pilgrimage in the year 10 A.H. His farewell pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the most significant historical events in the minds of Muslims, for it was the first and last pilgrimage made by Prophet Muhammad, as well as being the model for performing the fifth pillar of Islam, the Hajj. Prophet Muhammad’s final sermon was delivered during the Hajj of the year 632 C.E., the ninth day of Dhul Hijjah, the 12th month of the lunar year, at Arafat, the most blessed day of the year. There were countless Muslims present with the Prophet during his last pilgrimage when he delivered his last Sermon.

No evidence is presented for these claims in this document. In recent years, much has been made of two statements suggesting gender and ethnic equality. The first states: “O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.” The second states: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood.” Another sentence, which has often been used as ammunition against the Ahmadiyya and Bahais, is this: “O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.”

1. Sources

• Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2159 Book 7, Hadith 2159:

Sulaiman bin ‘Amr bin Al-Ahwas narrated from his father who said:

“During the Farewell Pilgrimage, I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) saying: ‘Which day is this?’ They said: ‘The day of Al-Hajj Al-Akbar. ‘He said: ‘Indeed your blood, your wealth, your honour is sacred to each other, just as this day of yours is sacred in this city of yours. Indeed, no one commits a crime except against himself. Indeed none commits a crime for which his son is accountable, nor does a child commit a crime for which his father is held accountable. Indeed Ash-Shaitan has lost hope of ever being worshipped in this city of yours, but he will have compliance in what deeds of yours you consider insignificant, which he will be content with.”’

Grade

Hasan (Darussalam)

Reference

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2159

In-book reference

Book 33, Hadith 2

English translation

Vol. 4,

Book 7, Hadith 2159

Sunan al-Tirmidhi Vol. 1, Book 7, Hadith 1163

Sulaiman bin Amr bin Al-Ahwas said:

“My father narrated to me that he witnessed the farewell Hajj with the Messenger of Allah. So he thanked and praised Allah and he reminded and gave admonition. He mentioned a story in his narration and he (the Prophet) said: “And indeed I order you to be good to the women, for they are but captives with you over whom you have no power than that, except if they come with manifest Fahishah (evil behavior). If they do that, then abandon their beds and beat them with a beating that is not harmful. And if they obey you then you have no cause against them. Indeed you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, then they must not allow anyone whom you dislike to treat on your bedding (furniture), nor to admit anyone in your home that you dislike. And their rights over you are that you treat them well in clothing them and feeding them.”

Grade

Sahih (Darussalam)

Reference

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1163

In-book reference

Book 12, Hadith 18

English translation

Vol. 1, Book 7, Hadith 1163

• Sunan an-Nasa’i 4131 Book 37, Hadith 166

It was narrated from Jarir that

During the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Messenger of Allah [SAW] asked the people to be quiet and listen, and said: “Do not revert to disbelievers after I am gone, striking the necks of one another (killing one another).”

Grade

Sahih (Darussalam)

Reference

Sunan an-Nasa’i 4131

In-book reference

Book 37, Hadith 166

English translation

Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4136

• Sahih Muslim Book 15, Hadith 159

Ja’far b Muhammad reported on the authority of his father:

We went to Jabir b. Abdullah and he began inquiring about the people (who had gone to see him) till it was my turn. I said: I am Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Husain. He placed his hand upon my head and opened my upper button and then the lower one and then placed his palm on my chest (in order to bless me), and I was, during those days, a young boy, and he said: You are welcome, my nephew. Ask whatever you want to ask. And I asked him but as he was blind (he could not respond to me immediately), and the time for prayer came. He stood up covering himself in his mantle. And whenever he placed its ends upon his shoulders they slipped down on account of being short (in size). Another mantle was, however, lying on the clothes rack near by. And he led us in the prayer. I said to him: Tell me about the Hajj of Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him). And he pointed with his hand nine, and then stated: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stayed in (Medina) for nine years but did not perform Hajj, then he made a public announcement in the tenth year to the effect that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was about to perform the Hajj. A large number of persons came to Medina and all of them were anxious to follow the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) and do according to his doing. We set out with him till we reached Dhu’l-Hulaifa. Asma’ daughter of Umais gave birth to Muhammad b. Abu Bakr. She sent message to the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) asking him: What should 1 do? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Take a bath, bandage your private parts and put on Ihram. The Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) then prayed in the mosque and then mounted al-Qaswa (his she-camel) and it stood erect with him on its back at al-Baida’. And I saw as far as I could see in front of me but riders and pedestrians, and also on my right and on my left and behind me like this. And the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was prominent among us and the (revelation) of the Holy Qur’an was descending upon him. And it is he who knows (its true) significance. And whatever he did, we also did that. He pronounced the Oneness of Allah (saying):” Labbaik,O Allah, Labbaik, Labbaik. Thou hast no partner, praise and grace is Thine and the Sovereignty too; Thou hast no partner.” And the people also pronounced this Talbiya which they pronounce (today). The Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) did not reject anything out of it. But the Messenger of Allah (May peace. be upon him) adhered to his own Talbiya. Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) said: We did not have any other intention but that of Hajj only, being unaware of the Umra (at that season), but when we came with him to the House, he touched the pillar and (made seven circuits) running three of them and walking four. And then going to the Station of Ibrahim, he recited:” And adopt the Station of Ibrahim as a place of prayer.” And this Station was between him and the House. My father said (and I do not know whether he had made a mention of it but that was from Allah’s Apostle [May peace be upon him] that he recited in two rak’ahs: “say: He is Allah One,” and say: “Say: O unbelievers.” He then returned to the pillar (Hajar Aswad) and kissed it. He then went out of the gate to al-Safa’ and as he reached near it he recited: “l-Safa’ and al-Marwa are among the signs appointed by Allah,” (adding: ) I begin with what Allah (has commanded me) to begin. He first mounted al-Safa’ till he saw the House, and facing Qibla he declared the Oneness of Allah and glorified Him, and said: “There is no god but Allah, One, there is no partner with Him. His is the Sovereignty. to Him praise is due. and He is Powerful over everything. There is no god but Allah alone, Who fulfilled His promise, helped His servant and routed the confederates alone.” He then made supplication in the course of that saying such words three times. He then descended and walked towards al-Marwa, and when his feet came down in the bottom of the valley, he ran, and when he began to ascend he walked till he reached al-Marwa. There he did as he had done at al-Safa’. And when it was his last running at al-Marwa he said: If I had known beforehand what I have come to know afterwards, I would not have brought sacrificial animals and would have performed an ‘Umra. So, he who among you has not the sacrificial animals with him should put off Ihram and treat it as an Umra. Suraqa b. Malik b. Ju’sham got up and said: Messenger of Allah, does it apply to the present year, or does it apply forever? Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) intertwined the fingers (of one hand) into another and said twice: The ‘Umra has become incorporated in the Hajj (adding):” No, but for ever and ever.” ‘All came from the Yemen with the sacrificial animals for the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and found Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her) to be one among those who had put off Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. He (Hadrat’Ali) showed disapproval to it, whereupon she said: My father has commanded me to do this. He (the narrator) said that ‘Ali used to say in Iraq: I went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) showing annoyance at Fatimah for what she had done, and asked the (verdict) of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) regarding what she had narrated from him, and told him that I was angry with her, whereupon he said: She has told the truth, she has told the truth. (The Prophet then asked ‘Ali): What did you say when you undertook to go for Hajj? I (‘Ali) said: 0 Allah, I am putting on Ihram for the same purpose as Thy Messenger has put it on. He said: I have with me sacrificial animals, so do not put off the Ihram. He (Jabir) said: The total number of those sacrificial animals brought by ‘Ali from the Yemen and of those brought by the Apostle (ﷺ) was one hundred. Then all the people except the Apostle (ﷺ) and those who had with them sacrificial animals, put off Ihram, and got their hair clipped; when it was the day of Tarwiya (8th of Dhu’l-Hijja) they went to Mina and put on the Ihram for Hajj and the Messenger of Ailah (ﷺ) rode and led the noon, afternoon, sunset ‘Isha’ and dawn prayers. He then waited a little till the sun rose, and commanded that a tent of hair should be pitched at Namira. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then set out and the Quraish did not doubt that he would halt at al-Mash’ar al-Haram (the sacred site) as the Quraish used to do in the pre-Islamic period. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), however, passed on till he came to ‘Arafa and he found that the tent had been pitched for him at Namira. There he got down till the sun had passed the meridian; he commanded that al-Qaswa should be brought and saddled for him. Then he came to the bottom of the valley, and addressed the people saying: Verily your blood, your property are as sacred and inviolable as the sacredness of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this town of yours. Behold! Everything pertaining to the Days of Ignorance is under my feet completely abolished. Abolished are also the blood-revenges of the Days of Ignorance. The first claim of ours on blood-revenge which I abolish is that of the son of Rabi’a b. al-Harith, who was nursed among the tribe of Sa’d and killed by Hudhail. And the usury of she pre-Islamic period is abolished, and the first of our usury I abolish is that of ‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib, for it is all abolished. Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner. I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray. And you would be asked about me (on the Day of Resurrection), (now tell me) what would you say? They (the audience) said: We will bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), discharged (the ministry of Prophethood) and given wise (sincere) counsel. He (the narrator) said: He (the Holy Prophet) then raised his forefinger towards the sky and pointing it at the people (said): “O Allah, be witness. O Allah, be witness,” saying it thrice. (Bilal then) pronounced Adhan and later on Iqama and he (the Holy Prophet) led the noon prayer. He (Bilal) then uttered Iqama and he (the Holy Prophet) led the afternoon prayer and he observed no other prayer in between the two. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then mounted his camel and came to the place of stay, making his she-camel al-Qaswa, turn towards the side where there we are rocks, having the path taken by those who went on foot in front of him, and faced the Qibla. He kept standing there till the sun set, and the yellow light had somewhat gone, and the disc of the sun had disappeared. He made Usama sit behind him, and he pulled the nosestring of Qaswa so forcefully that its head touched the saddle (in order to keep her under perfect control), and he pointed out to the people with his right hand to be moderate (in speed), and whenever he happened to pass over an elevated tract of sand, he slightly loosened it (the nose-string of his camel) till she climbed up and this is how he reached al-Muzdalifa. There he led the evening and ‘Isha prayers with one Adhan and two Iqamas and did not glorify (Allah) in between them (i. e. he did not observe supererogatory rak’ahs between Maghrib and ‘Isha’ prayers). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then lay down till dawn and offered the dawn prayer with an Adhan and Iqama when the morning light was clear. He again mounted al-Qaswa, and when he came to al-Mash’ar al-Haram, he faced towards Qibla, supplicated Him, Glorified Him, and pronounced His Uniqueness (La ilaha illa Allah) and Oneness, and kept standing till the daylight was very clear. He then went quickly before the sun rose, and seated behind him was al-Fadl b. ‘Abbas and he was a man having beautiful hair and fair complexion and handsome face. As the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) was moving on, there was also going a group of women (side by side with them). Al-Fadl began to look at them. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) placed his hand on the face of Fadl who then turned his face to the other side, and began to see, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned his hand to the other side and placed it on the face of al-Fadl. He again turned his face to the other side till he came to the bottom of Muhassir. 1680 He urged her (al-Qaswa) a little, and, following the middle road, which comes out at the greatest jamra, he came to the jamra which is near the tree. At this be threw seven small pebbles, saying Allah-o-Akbar while throwing every one of them in a manner in which the small pebbles are thrown (with the help of fingers) and this he did in the bottom of the valley. He then went to the place of sacrifice, and sacrificed sixty-three (camels) with his own hand. Then he gave the remaining number to ‘All who sacrificed them, and he shared him in his sacrifice. He then commanded that a piece of flesh from each animal sacrificed should be put in a pot, and when it was cooked, both of them (the Prophet and Hadrat ‘All) took some meat out of it and drank its soup. The Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) again rode and came to the House, and offered the Zuhr prayer at Mecca. He came to the tribe of Abd al-Muttalib, who were supplying water at Zamzam, and said: Draw water. O Bani ‘Abd al-Muttalib; were it not that people would usurp this right of supplying water from you, I would have drawn it along with you. So they handed him a basket and he drank from it.

Reference

Sahih Muslim 1218 a

In-book reference

Book 15, Hadith 159

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Book 7, Hadith 2803

(deprecated numbering scheme)

• Sunan ibn Majah Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1851

It was narrated that:

Sulaiman bin Amr bin Ahwas said: “My father told me that he was present at the Farewell Pilgrimage with the Messenger of Allah. He praised and glorified Allah, and reminded and exhorted (the people). Then he said: ‘I enjoin good treatment of women, for they are prisoners with you, and you have no right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit clear indecency. If they do that, then forsake them in their beds and hit them, but without causing injury or leaving a mark. If they obey you, then do not seek means of annoyance against them. You have rights over your women and your women have rights over you. Your rights over your women are that they are not to allow anyone whom you dislike to tread on your bedding (furniture), nor allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses. And their right over you are that you should treat them kindly with regard to their clothing and food.’

Grade

Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference

Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1851

Arabic reference

Book 9, Hadith 1924

Sunan ibn Majah Vol. 4 Book 25, Hadith 3055

It was narrated from Sulaiman bin ‘Amr bin Ahwas that his father said:

“I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say, during the Farewell Pilgrimage: ‘O people! Which day is the most sacred?’ three times. They said: ‘The day of the greatest Hajj.’ He said: ‘Your blood and your wealth and your honor are sacred to one another, as sacred as this day of yours, in this land of yours. No sinner commits a sin but it is against himself. No father is to be punished for the sins of his child, and no child is to be punished for the sins of his father. Satan has despaired of ever being worshipping in this land of yours, but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that. All the blood feuds of the Ignorance days are abolished, and the first of them that I abolish is the blood feud of Harith bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib, who was nursed among Banu Laith and killed by Hudhail. All the usuries of the Ignorance days are abolished, but you will have your capital. Do not wrong others and you will not be wronged. O my nation, have I conveyed (the message)?’ (He asked this) three times. They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘O Allah, bear witness!’ three times.”

Grade

Hasan (Darussalam)

English reference

Vol. 4, Book 25, Hadith 3055

Arabic reference

Book 25, Hadith 3171

Significantly, there is no explicit reference in Bukhari – the most prominent hadith collection. The nearest are the following:

Narrated Abu Bakra:

The Prophet (ﷺ) delivered to us a sermon on the Day of Nahr. He said, “Do you know what is the day today?” We said, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give that day another name. He said, “Isn’t it the Day of Nahr?” We said, “It is.” He further asked, “Which month is this?” We said, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give it another name. He then said, “Isn’t it the month of Dhul-Hijja?” We replied: “Yes! It is.” He further asked, “What town is this?” We replied, “Allah and His Apostle know it better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give it another name. He then said, “Isn’t it the forbidden (Sacred) town (of Mecca)?” We said, “Yes. It is.” He said, “No doubt, your blood and your properties are sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this town of yours, till the day you meet your Lord. No doubt! Haven’t I conveyed Allah’s message to you? They said, “Yes.” He said, “O Allah! Be witness. So it is incumbent upon those who are present to convey it (this information) to those who are absent because the informed one might comprehend it (what I have said) better than the present audience, who will convey it to him. Beware! Do not renegade (as) disbelievers after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another.”

Reference

Sahih al-Bukhari 1741

In-book reference

Book 25, Hadith 219

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Vol. 2, Book 26, Hadith 797

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Bakra’s father:

Once the Prophet (ﷺ) was riding his camel and a man was holding its rein. The Prophet (ﷺ) asked, “What is the day today?” We kept quiet, thinking that he might give that day another name. He said, “Isn’t it the day of Nahr (slaughtering of the animals of sacrifice)” We replied, “Yes.” He further asked, “Which month is this?” We again kept quiet, thinking that he might give it another name. Then he said, “Isn’t it the month of Dhul-Hijja?” We replied, “Yes.” He said, “Verily! Your blood, property and honor are sacred to one another (i.e. Muslims) like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours and in this city of yours. It is incumbent upon those who are present to inform those who are absent because those who are absent might comprehend (what I have said) better than the present audience.”

Reference

Sahih al-Bukhari 67

In-book reference

Book 3, Hadith 9

USC-MSA web (English) reference

Vol. 1, Book 3, Hadith 67

The scattered nature of the references suggest that what is now considered as the Farewell Sermon is actually a redaction of different traditions. We should also note that Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon (www.islamreligion.com) presents a very sanitized version of Muhammad actually said about women. The Hadith corpus actually suggests that the rights of husbands include sexual gratification and the right to perpetrate corporal punishment to wives. Mohammad Omar Farooq, “The Farewell Sermon of Prophet Muhammad: An Analytical Review”, Islam and Civilisational Renewal, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2018, pp. 326-327, comments:

Gender issues are generally thought to feature prominently in the Farewell Sermon. However, only three hadith collections (Sahih Muslim, Sunan Ibn Majah and Jami al-Tirmidhi) deal with it specifically. The longest coverage of gender issues occurs in Sunan Ibn Majah. Moreover, only Ibn Majah specifically mentions the reciprocity of rights between men and women. The other four are silent regarding this gender-related theme. Also, only Sahih Muslim and Sunan Ibn Majah mention the permissibility of chastising women (without being harsh or injurious). The others do not mention this aspect. This part of the message is consistent with the orthodox, literal and non-contextual understanding of Qur’anic verse 4:34.

In the Hadith, there is no reference to ethnic/racial equality. Farooq comments:

Quite remarkably, this repudiation is not included in any of the Sihah Sittah. It is mentioned only in Musnad Ahmad. Also, a report circulated in some contemporary writings that the sermon included a statement that there was no superiority of one gender over another. However, that seems to be a clear misattribution, as no early source mentions this.

• The Sira of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham states (A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967, 1998, pp. 651-652):

O men, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you in this place again after this year. Your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, as this day and this month are holy. You will surely meet your Lord and He will ask you of your works. I have told you. He who has a pledge let him return it to him who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but you have your capital. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. God has decreed that there is to be no usury and the usury of ‘Abbas b. ‘Abdu’l-Mu!!alib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pagan period is to be left unavenged. The first claim on blood I abolish is that of b. Rabi’a b. al-Harith b. ‘Abdu’l-Mugalib (who was fostered among the B. Layth and whom Hudhayl killed). It is the first blood shed in the pagan period which I deal with. Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in your land, but if he can be obeyed in anything short of worship he will be pleased in matters you may be disposed to think of little account, so beware of him in your religion. “Postponement of a sacred month is only an excess of disbelief whereby those who disbelieve are misled; they allow it one year and forbid it another year that they may make up the number of the months which God has hallowed, so that they permit what God has forbidden, and forbid what God has allowed.’“ Time has completed its cycle and is as it was on the day that God created the heavens and the earth. The number of months with God is twelve; four of them are sacred, three consecutive and the Rajab of Mudar which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have the enjoyment of their persons by the words of God, so understand (To and listen to) my words, O men, for I have told you. I have left with you something which if you will hold fast to it you will never fall into error-a plain indication, the book of God and the practice of His prophet, so give good heed to what I say.

Know that every Muslim is a Muslim’s brother, and that the Muslims are brethren. It is only lawful to take from a brother what he gives you willingly, so wrong not yourselves. O God, have I not told you? I was told that the men said ‘O God, yes,’ and the apostle said ‘O God, bear witness.’

Yahya b. ‘Abbad b. ‘Abdullah b. al-Zubayr from his father told me that the man who used to act as crier for the apostle when he was on ‘Arafa was Rabi’a b. Umayya b. Khalaf. The apostle said to him, ‘Say: O men, the apostle of God says, Do you know what month this is?’ and they would say the holy month. Then he said, ‘Say to them: God has hallowed your blood and your property until you meet your Lord like the sanctity of this month. Do you know what country this is?’ And they said ‘The holy land’ and he said the same as before. Do you know what day this is? and they said the day of the great hajj, and he said the same again.

Again, note that Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon (www.islamreligion.com) presents a very sanitized version of Muhammad actually said about women. The Sira again suggests that the rights of husbands include sexual gratification and the right to perpetrate corporal punishment to wives. In the Sira, there is no reference to ethnic/racial equality.

The next source is the Tarikh of Al-Tabari (Ismail K. Poonawala, trans., The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’1-mulnk) VOLUME IX: The Last Years of the Prophet, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 112-114):

Ibn Ḥumayd — Salamah — Ibn Isḥāq — ’Abdallāh b. Abī Najīḥ: Then the Messenger of God proceeded to perform his pilgrimage, showing the people its rites and teaching them its customs. Then he addressed them in a speech and elucidated [certain things]. After he had praised and glorified God, he said, “O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. God has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of ‘Abbās b. ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabī’ah b. al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, who was nursed among the Banū Layth and was slain by the Banū Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example. O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another, [in order] to agree with the number that God has hallowed, and so profane what God has hallowed, and hallow what God has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that God created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with God is twelve: [they were] in the Book of God on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is called the month of] Muḍar, which is between Jumādā [II] and Sha’bān.” “Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency (fāḥishah). If they do, then God permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with custom (bi’l-ma’rūf). Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awan) with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of God, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: that is, the Book of God and the sunnah of His Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O God, have I not conveyed the message?” It was reported [to me] that the people said, “O God, yes,” and the Messenger of God said, “O God, bear witness.”

Ibn Humayd-Salamah-Muhammad b. Islaaq-Yahya b. ‘Abbad b. ‘Abdallah b. al-Zubayr-his father ‘Abbad: The man who used to repeat the Messenger of God’s words loudly to the people when he was on ‘Arafah was Rabi’ah b. Umayyah b. Khalaf. The Messenger of God would say to him. “Say: O people, the Messenger of God says, do you know what month this is?” and they would say, “The sacred month.” Then he would say, “Say to them: God has made your blood and your property sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, like the sanctity of this month of yours.” Then he said [to him], “Say: the Messenger of God says, O people, do you know what land this is?” Rabi ‘ah would call out loudly and they would say, “The Holy Land.” He would say, “Say: God has hallowed your blood and your property until you meet your Lord like the sanctity of this land of yours.” Then he said, “Say: O people, do you know what day this is?” Rabi’ah repeated [this] to them and they said, “The day of the Greater Pilgrimage.” He said, “Say: God has made your blood and your property sacrosanct until you meet your Lord like the sanctity of this day of yours.”

Again, note that Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon (www.islamreligion.com) presents a very sanitized version of Muhammad actually said about women. Tabari again suggests that the rights of husbands include sexual gratification and the right to perpetrate corporal punishment to wives. In Tabari, there is no reference to ethnic/racial equality. Tabari’s account seems largely based on the Sira. Farooq mentions the work Kitab al-Bayan wa al-Tabiyin by al-Jahiz al-Basri (d.869). The relevant point is translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Adab of Islam, http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm)

The “Farewell Sermon” of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) at hajj: All praise is Allah’s. We praise Him, seek His help, ask His forgiveness, and we repent unto Him. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our selves and our bad actions. Whomever Allah guides none can lead astray, and whomever He leads astray has no one to guide him. I testify that there is no god but Allah alone, without any partner, and I testify that Muhammad is his slave and messenger. I enjoin you, O servants of Allah, to be godfearing towards Allah, I urge you to obey Him, and I begin with that which is best.

To commence: O people, hear me well: I explain to you. For I do not know; I may well not meet you again in this place where I now stand, after this year of mine.

O people: your lives and your property, until the very day you meet your Lord, are as inviolable to each other as the inviolability of this day you are now in, and the month you are now in. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness. So let whoever has been given something for safekeeping give it back to him who gave him it.

Truly, the usury of the Era of Ignorance has been laid aside forever, and the first usury I begin with is that which is due to my father’s brother ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. And truly the blood-vengeance of the Era of Ignorance has been laid aside forever, and the first blood-vengeance we shall start with is that which is due for the blood of [my kinsman] ‘Amir ibn Rabi‘a ibn Harith ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. Truly, the hereditary distinctions that were pretensions to respect in the Era of Ignorance have been laid aside forever, except for the custodianship of the Kaaba [by Bani ‘Abd al-Dar] and the giving of drink to pilgrims [by al-‘Abbas].

A deliberate murder is subject to retaliation in kind. An accidental death from a deliberate injury means a death resulting from [something not usually used or intended as a deadly weapon such as] a stick or a rock, for which the indemnity is one hundred camels: whoever asks for more is a person of the Era of Ignorance.

O people: the Devil has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, though he is content to be obeyed in other works of yours, that you deem to be of little importance.

O people: postponing the inviolability of a sacred month [claiming to postpone the prohibition of killing in it to a subsequent month, so as to continue warring despite the sacred month’s having arrived] is a surfeit of unbelief, by which those who disbelieve are led astray, making it lawful one year and unlawful in another, in order to match the number [of months] Allah has made inviolable. Time has verily come full turn, to how it was the day Allah created the heavens and the earth. Four months there are which are inviolable, three in a row and forth by itself: Dhul Qa‘da, Dhul Hijja,  and Muharram; and Rajab, which lies between Jumada and Sha‘ban. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness.

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness.

O people, believers are but brothers. No one may take his brother’s property without his full consent. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness. Never go back to being unbelievers, smiting each other’s necks, for verily, I have left among you that which if you take it, you will never stray after me: the Book of Allah. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness.

O people, your Lord is One, and your father is one: all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most godfearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab other than godfearingness. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness. —At this, they said yes.

He said, Then let whomever is present tell whomever is absent.

O people: Allah has apportioned to every deserving heir his share of the estate, and no deserving heir may accept a special bequest, and no special bequest may exceed a third of the estate. A child’s lineage is that of the [husband who owns the] bed, and adulterers shall be stoned. Whoever claims to be the son of someone besides his father or a bondsman who claims to belong to other than his masters shall bear the curse of Allah and the angels and all men: no deflecting of it or ransom for it shall be accepted from him.

And peace be upon all of you, and the mercy of Allah. 

Again, note that Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon (www.islamreligion.com) presents a very sanitized version of Muhammad actually said about women. Jahiz again suggests that the rights of husbands include sexual gratification and the right to perpetrate corporal punishment to wives. In Jahiz, there is finally a reference to ethnic/racial equality, but there is no reference to the claim “white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white”.

1. Redactional observations

Farooq comments (p. 322): “Most notably, we consider how, contrary to popular belief, the text of the sermon as we have it is a composite, not a single narrated piece.” Clearly, then, the modern presentations – and indeed, the classical ones – are redactional, rather than going back to Muhammad himself. He quotes (p. 323) Hakan Kosova (Ed.), A Tribute to the Prophet Muhammad (Somerset, NJ: Tughra Books, 2007), about the nature of the Sermon:

The Farewell Sermon is a compilation of several sermons which were delivered at different times in Mina, Muzdalifa, and Arafat during the Prophet’s pilgrimage in AH 10 (631). The Prophet addressed more than 100,000 believers who were observing the hajj, the major pilgrimage to the sacred precincts in Mecca…The Prophet delivered his sermon in different locations and heralds repeated his words to the great number of people who attended. This sermon was called ‘Farewell’ Sermon because in this sermon the Prophet implied that he would soon die and that he would not be able to perform the pilgrimage another time. The days-to-come bore out this predication and he was reunited with his Beloved with[in] three months of the final sermon.

This observation ties-in with what we have seen is the scattered nature of the Sermon, and its obvious debt to various traditions. Again, Farooq observes (p. 323):

Some non-Muslim scholars have been skeptical about the “textual authenticity” of the sermon. However, this skepticism is not necessarily about the content of the sermon, as this basically corresponds to the teachings of the Qur’an. Rather, doubts seem to be directed at the assumption that the sermon is one whole piece, not a composite constructed from fragments of Prophetic sayings.

The fact that the sermon merely reflects what has been stated elsewhere surely demonstrates its secondary – and thus inauthentic – character. Farooq observes (p. 25): “The longer versions of the sermon are not available in the hadith collections, but rather only in the biographies and histories, which are less reliable as sources. The versions in the hadith are much shorter and appear in scattered fragments.” The evolutionary character of the sermon is a classic sign of apocryphal character. And development. Farooq essentially demonstrates this when he shows that the major themes of the sermon are consistent with the Qur’an – or, perhaps we should say, derive from the Qur’an (pp. 325-329):

Theme #2: Transition from Jahiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance)

The reference to Jahiliyyah and the society’s coming out of it is mentioned only in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood. The other five do not mention it. The Qur’an mentions about Jahiliyyah when inviting the people to light and illumination of Islam:

Then is it the judgement of [the time of] Jahiliyyah they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain (in faith). (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:50).

Theme #3: Freedom from bloodshed

Abolition of all prior claims to blood revenge is mentioned only in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood. The other five do not mention it. Sanctity of human life is emphatically and universally mentioned in the Qur’an:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors. (Surah al-Maidah, 5: 32)

Theme #4: Riba (Abolition)

As part of this Farewell Sermon, the theme of riba (usually equated with interest) and its prohibition/abolition is mentioned only in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood. The other five do not mention it. Riba is categorically prohibited in the Qur’an:

Those who consume riba cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, “Trade is [just] like riba.” But God has permitted trade and has forbidden riba. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with God. But whoever returns to [dealing in riba] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein. (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 275)…

Theme #8: Obedience/Adherence

The theme regarding the importance of obeying those in authority, even if that person be a black slave, is mentioned only in Sahih Muslim. It is not mentioned in any of the other six collections…:

O you who have believed, obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you should believe in God and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. (Surah an-Nisa, 4: 59).

Farooq notes (p. 328) that the reference to the Qur’an and Sunnah in the sermon “are not mentioned like this in the Sihah Sittah. They are mentioned in other sources, such as the Muwatta of Imam Malik and al-Mustadrak of Hakim al-Nisharburi. Another version with two weighty things (thaqalain) is mentioned in only Sahih Muslim (as part of Sihah Sitta).”

Further, in Shia narrations, as implied (though not explicitly stated by Farooq), the two legacies are the Qur’an and Ahl al-Bayt.

Finally, in what could be characterized as Source and Redaction Criticism, Farooq (p. 330) comments: “Given that there are so many, rather long hadiths in various collections, it is puzzling as to why there is no one single complete narration of this special, historic sermon. What is available seems to be a composite that a later generation has put together from bits and pieces. Thus, whenever the sermon is shared or mentioned, it should be noted that it is actually a composite of many fragments.”

An observation by Watt (Montgomery Watt, Muhammad in Medina, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, p. 79), points to one historical context for the emergence of the sermon:

As Muhammad returned to Medina from the ‘farewell pilgrimage’ to Mecca in March 632 (xii/10) he was seen to be in poor health, and rumours spread. False prophets appeared as leaders of revolt against the Islamic state, first al-Aswad in the Yemen and Musaylimah in the Yamamah, and then Tulayhah among the tribe of Asad. As his health continued to deteriorate (though he was still able to attend to business), disaffection grew. His death on 8 June 632 (13/iii/II) led to the outbreak of a series of rebellions in various quarters of Arabia. These are regarded as primarily religious, and are known collectively as the Riddah or ‘apostasy’.

Note the warning we saw in some traditions against becoming renegades/apostates and slaying one another. This could reflect the Riddah wars, or even the later multiple Sunni-Shia splits. Tat is, the Sermon could be a redactional invention against such divergence of opinion and civil conflict.

1. Dates

• Sahih Bukhari (d. 870); Sahih Muslim (d. 875); Al-Tirmidhi (d. 892); An-Nasai (d. 915); Ibn Madja (d. 886).

• Sira of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767)/Ibn Hisham (d. 833).

• Tabari (d. 923)

• Jahiz (d. 868/869).

• It follows that the Hadith corpus, the Sira and Jahiz are all compiled two centuries after the event, and Tabari still further away. They are simply not reliable as historical accounts, given their late dates.

1. Non-Muslim contemporary accounts of Muhammad’s death

1. Muslim sources

Typically, Muhammad’s death is dated to 632. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq states that the invasion of Palestine was led by Usama bin Zayd, rather than Muhammad himself:

219 - THE SENDING OF USAMA B. ZAYD TO PALESTINE

‘Then the apostle returned and stopped in Medina... He ordered the people to make an expedition to Syria and put over them Usama b. Zayd b: Harith ... He ordered him to lead his cavalry into ...Palestine.’

Immediately after this, Muhammad’s fatal illness began:

242 - THE BEGINNING OF THE APOSTLE’S ILLNESS

‘... the apostle began to suffer from the illness by which God took him to what honour and compassion He intended for him shortly before the end of Safar or in the beginning of Rabiul-awwal. It began, so I have been told, when he went to Baqiul-Gharqad in the middle of the night and prayed for the dead. Then he returned to his family and in the morning his sufferings began... Then it was that the illness through which God took him began. Yaqub b. Utba from Muhammad b. Muslim al-Zuhri from Ubaydullah b. Abdullah b. Utba b. Masud from Aisha, the prophet’s wife, said: The apostle returned from the cemetery to find me suffering from a severe headache and I was saying, ‘O my head!’ He said, ‘Nay, Aisha, O my head!’ Then he said, ‘Would it distress you if you were to die before me so that I might wrap you in your shroud and pray over you and bury you?’ ...then his pain overcame him as he was going the round of his wives, until he was overpowered in the house of Maymuna.’

The origins of this purportedly go back to when Muhammad conquered Khaybar, a supposedly Jewish stronghold in Arabia, and a Jewess gave him poisoned lamb:

177 - THE REST OF THE AFFAIR OF KHAYBAR

‘...When the apostle had rested Zaynab d. al-Harith, the wife of Sallam b. Mishkam prepared for him a roast lamb, having first inquired what joint he preferred. When she learned that it was the shoulder she put a lot of poison in it and poisoned the whole lamb. Then she brought it in and placed it before him. He took hold of the shoulder and chewed a morsel of it, but he did not swallow it... the apostle spat it out, saying, ‘This bone tells me that it is poisoned.’ Then he called for the woman and she confessed, and when he asked her what had induced her to do this she answered: ‘You know what you have done to my people. I said to myself, If he is a king I shall ease myself of him and if he is a prophet he will be informed (of what I have done).’ So the apostle let her off... Marwan b. ‘Uthman b. Abu Sa’id b. al-Mu’alla told me: The apostle had said in his illness of which he was to die when Umm Bishr d. al-Bara’ came to visit him, ‘O Umm Bishr, this is the time in which I feel a deadly pain from what I ate ... at Khaybar.’ The Muslims considered that the apostle died as a martyr in addition to the prophetic office with which God had honoured him.’

In terms of his actual death, the Sirah does not actually present a date:

243 - THE APOSTLE’S ILLNESS IN THE HOUSE OF AISHA

‘...The apostle died with the heat of noon that day... Al-Zuhri said that Anas b.Malik told him that on the Monday ... on which God took His apostle he went out to the people as they were praying the morning prayer...’

It would seem from this that Muhammad died on a Monday, subsequent to the Khaybar conquest and also the invasion of Palestine. Usually, the first raids are dated to 629, with the conquest of Palestine in 634-40. The Hadith agrees that he died on a Monday, the result of the poisoning at Khaybar:

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik

Sahih Al-Bukhari 1.648

AbuBakr used to lead the people in prayer during the fatal illness of the Prophet... till it was Monday. When the people aligned (in rows) for the prayer the Prophet ...lifted the curtain of his house and started looking at us and was standing at that time... On the same day he died.”

Narrated by Aisha

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.713A

The Prophet ... during his illness from which he died, used to say, “O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaybar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut by that poison.”

Narrated by Umm Mubashshir

Abu Dawud 4499

Umm Mubashshir said to the Prophet ... during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah...? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaybar. The Prophet ... said: ‘And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.’

These texts give Muhammad the dignity of a martyr, poisoned by a Jewess, of which people the Qur’an presents as the objects of Allah’s anger (Surah Fatiha 1.7) and the most hostile to Muslims (Surah Maidah 5.82).

1. External Sources

The first problem is that external sources do not corroborate the Muslim sources. The second is that these sources are earlier, even contemporary and thus, historically, to be preferred. Our third problem is that unlike with the death of Jesus, Muhammad by the time of his death was an important political leader, and Palestine had been transformed into a vital part of Byzantine Empire by virtue of Christian pilgrimage to its prestigious holy sites. His death would indeed be noted.

A fourth problem is archaeological. Robert Hoyland observes that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’ [Hoyland, Robert G., ‘The Jews of the Hijaz in the Qur’ān’, in Reynolds, Gabriel Said (Ed.), New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in Its Historical Context 2, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), p. 111]. This being so, there could not have been any Jewess present in Khaybar to poison Muhammad! The Doctrina Jacobi, dated 634, by a Jew who had been forcibly baptized, indicates that Muhammad was still alive then:

When [Sergius] the candidatus was killed by the Saracens ...we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying, “A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens and he is preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.” And when I arrived in Sykamina, I visited an old man who was learned in the scriptures, and I said to him, “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” And he said to me, groaning loudly, “He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war-chariot.”

Note the present tense in these statements – the Saracen Prophet has appeared, coming (not had come), ‘is (not ‘was’) preaching’ (not ‘preached’), ‘He is (not ‘was’) false’. This indicates that Muhammad was still alive in 634 – two years after his supposed fatal illness and death in Medina. Furthermore, far from being dead, he was present at the invasion of the Levant. The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai, dated 635-45 also indicates that Muhammad was still alive at the time of its composition:

... Metatron, the foremost angel ... answered him and said: “Do not fear... for the Almighty only brings the kingdom of Ishmael in order to deliver you from this wicked one (Edom). He raises up over them (Ishmaelites) a prophet according to His will...”

Note again the present tense.

The Nestorian Khuzistan Chronicle (c. 660) also seems to imply that Muhammad was alive when the Arabs invaded Persia and the Levant:

Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael... whose leader... was Muhammad... they gained control over the entire land of the Persians... They also came to Byzantine territory, plundering and ravaging the entire region of Syria. Heraclius, the Byzantine king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than 100,000 of them.

This is not quite as clear as the other sources, but yet again, the implication is that Muhammad led the northern conquests.

The Miaphysite Chronological Charts (691-92; 10-11th century mss.) of Jacob of Edessa misdate the death of Muhammad to c. 627, but also misdate the raids into Palestine to 625-26, again indicating that Muhammad was alive during the attack on Palestine.

According to Jacob’s charts, in 620/21 “the first king of the Arabs, Muhammad, began to reign for seven years.” Seven years later, the chart records in 627/28 the beginning of Abū Bakr’s reign as the second king of the Arabs, which lasted for two years and seven months. This of course places Muhammad’s death in 627/28, four to five years before the traditional date. (Shoemaker, p. 37).

Beside the year 625/26, on the left side of the chart, Jacob records that “the Arabs began to make raids in the land of Palestine.” Even if Jacob gets the date wrong, he holds that Muhammad was still alive at the conquest of Palestine.

The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria: The Life of Patriarch Benjamin (before 717). Section written by George the Archdeacon, narrating time between Patriarch Cyril (d. 444) and reign of caliph Sulaymān (715–17). He refers to Byzantine Emperor having a dream of being defeated by a ‘circumcised nation’; thinking of Jews, he orders them all to be baptized.

And after a few days, there arose a man among the Arabs, from the southern regions, from Mecca and its vicinity, named Muhammad. And he restored the worshippers of idols to knowledge of the one God, so that they said that Muhammad is his messenger. And his nation was circumcised in the flesh, not in the law, and they prayed toward the south, orienting themselves toward a place they call the Ka‘ba. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and he crossed the Jordan and damned it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, because of their corrupt faith and the excommunication that was brought against them and because of the Council of Chalcedon by the ancient fathers.

This passage identifies Muhammad as leading the conquest of “Damascus and Syria,” crossing over the river Jordan with his followers and into Palestine, where the Roman armies fell before him. George probably relies on earlier sources, possibly from an earlier life of Benjamin.

During the earliest years of Islamic rule in Spain, two Latin chronicles, the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle of 741 and the Hispanic Chronicle of 754, were written almost simultaneously. (Shoemaker, p. 40). They are not polemical; rather, quite positive towards the Muslims. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah may be contemporary. Byzantine-Arab Chronicle states: ‘When a most numerous multitude of Saracens had gathered together, they invaded the provinces of Syria, Arabia, and Mesopotamia, while one named Muhammad held the position of leadership over them…’ This indicates that Muhammad was alive at the time of the conquest. Hispanic Chronicle states:

The Saracens rebelled in 618, the seventh year of the emperor Heraclius, and appropriated for themselves Syria, Arabia, and Mesopotamia, more through trickery than through the power of their leader Muhammad, and they devastated the neighboring provinces, proceeding not so much by means of open attacks as by secret incursions. Thus by means of cunning and fraud rather than power, they incited all of the frontier cities of the empire and finally rebelled openly, shaking the yoke from their necks. In 618, the seventh year of Heraclius, the warriors invaded the kingdom, which they forcefully appropriated with many and various consequences.

Even if the dates are questionable, the point is, Muhammad was still alive at the invasion of Palestine. There is also an alleged letter from Caliph ‘Umar II (717-20) to Byzantine Emperor Leo II (717-41) dated late eighth century where ‘Umar declares in relation to Muhammad’s commission to jihad that ‘...with him in whom we trust, and in him in whom we believe, we went off.... to fight... Persia and Byzantium.’ Once again, note the present tense, and also the explicit statement that Muhammad was alive and with the army of conquest. This being so, reports of his death in 632, before such conquests, cannot be sustained.

There are other, later sources, but we can see that the earliest sources indicate that Muhammad was alive during the conquest of Palestine, and likely died there or in the Levant, rather than in Yathrib. The earliest sources on the time and place of his death contradict later, i.e., Muslim sources. Shoemaker notes (p. 18): ‘At least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries indicate in varied fashion that Muhammad was still alive at the time of the Palestinian conquest, leading his followers into the Holy Land some two to three years after he is supposed to have died in Medina according to traditional Islamic accounts.’  This is a serious contradiction, given the number of traditions, their geographic and demographic distribution, and above all, their early dates. Again, Shoemaker comments: ‘The unanimity of these sources, as well as the failure of any source to contradict this tradition prior to the emergence of the first Islamic biographies of Muhammad beginning in the mid-eighth century, speaks highly in their favor.’

These sources include the Doctrina Jacobi, dated c. 634 by a Jew forcibly converted to Christianity, and the Khuzistan Chronicle, by a Syriac Christian, dated c. 660. Muslims might suggest that these documents are confused, but they could only propose this based on an a priori commitment to their religious sources, rather than objective historical analysis, which usually favors the earliest sources for any event. Bart Ehrman [Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York: Harper Collins, 2012), p. 41]: ‘Historians ...prefer to have sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.’

1. Why the Discrepancies?

Shoemaker (The Death of a Prophet, p. 258ff) suggests Yathribi parochialism and that the emerging cult of Yathrib as the ‘city of the Prophet’ tied to Abbasid denigration of the Jerusalem-centric Marwanids produced a new tradition of Muhammad’s martyrdom in Yathrib, allowing for his mosque to become an alternative center of pilgrimage and devotion rather than the Temple Mount.  This may be possible, if one accepts the premise that Jerusalem under the Marwanids was meant to be the focus of pilgrimage. Of course, this would be true if the original Qiblah were elsewhere, e.g., Petra.

Furthermore, as the Arabization of the state proceeded, and the need to distinguish the Arab religion – named Islam on the Dome of the Rock by Abd al-Malik – from Jews and Christians – as well as invent a sacred history that could include Yathrib, what better way to invent a tale of a Jewess martyring the Prophet and his dying in the city from which many jihadis came? Yathrib receives only one, passing reference in the Qur’an (S. 33.13; there are possibly others, if by ‘the city’ Medina is meant); it is only in the Hadith – compiled much later – that Yathrib/Medina receives the elevation of a holy city:

Narrated by AbuShurayh

Sahih Al-Bukhari 1.104

‘…He glorified and praised Allah and then said, “Allah and not the people has made Mecca a sanctuary…”’

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Zayd

Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.339

The Prophet …said, “The Prophet Abraham made Makkah a sanctuary, and asked for Allah’s blessing in it. I made Medina a sanctuary as Abraham made Makkah a sanctuary and I asked for Allah’s blessing in its measures - the Mudd and the Sa’s Abraham did for Makkah.”

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik

Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.91

The Prophet …said, “Medina is a sanctuary from that place to that….”

Narrated by AbuHurayrah

Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.93

The Prophet …said, “I have made Medina a sanctuary between its two (Harrat) mountains.”…

Shoemaker (p. 160) holds that Palestine was vital to Muhammad because he believed that the Hour of Judgment was imminent, as suggested by the Qur’an (16.79; 40.18; 53.57, etc.). Also, that it would take place in Jerusalem – a common belief among Jews and Christians at the time.  In that case, we can understand why Muhammad would himself lead the assault on Palestine as a matter of urgency – he saw himself as bringing about the End. Consider also the confusion that would be caused by his death before the Hour – of which he was supposed to be the harbinger (pp. 172-173). Hence, his death was a major problem for the new faith, requiring some extensive re-working of its theology – including changing the date and possibly the place of his demise, as well as its cause.

Another possibility concerns deteriorating relations between Jews and Muslims. The earliest sources do not depict Jewish-Muslim controversy; Jews were doubtless overjoyed that persecuting Byzantines were vanquished (as the Doctrina Jacobi indicates), and probably hoped that they would be allowed to re-build their Temple. However, the Arab conquerors sequestered the Mount for themselves, and under the Marwanids, intensified their presence therein. The reason to fight the Byzantines and Persians was that they were politically empowered, but this was not true of the Jews. What better way for the Caliphate to justify hostility than to borrow from the smear against ‘Jews as Christ-killers’ to accuse them of being ‘Messenger-killers’? This could be tied to the Jewish claim to the Mount:

Narrated by Aisha Sahih Al-Bukhari 2.414

The Prophet ... in his fatal illness said, Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their Prophets as places for worship”...

His death by poisoning would also elevate Muhammad to the level of a martyr – rather like Jesus, commemorated by Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulcher. Beyond this, the death of Muhammad has no theological significance for Muslims – a martyr only benefits 70 relatives with special intercession. The general intercession of Muhammad is unrelated to his death:

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik

Sahih Al-Bukhari 8.317B

The Prophet said, ‘For every prophet there is an invocation that surely will be responded to by Allah,’ (or said), ‘For every prophet there was an invocation with which he appealed to Allah, and his invocation was accepted (in his lifetime), but I kept my (this special) invocation to intercede for my followers on the Day of Resurrection.’

CONCLUSION

The combination of factors we have investigated here do not allow for the conclusion that the Farewell Sermon of Muhammad is historically authentic. Rather, it is apocryphal. There are different traditions in the distinct sources, and the further away from the actual time, the longer the sermon. Doubtless, the crafting and redactional of the sermon served an apologetic purpose against Jews and Christians, by giving Muhammad a dignified death. It also discouraged internal divisions among Muslims, especially civil conflict. A further problem is that the oldest – and thus most reliable – sources for the death of Muhammad are non-Muslim, and they suggest that Muhammad did not die at the time indicated by the later, Islamic sources. If that is so, we cannot be sure if the Farewell Pilgrimage was indeed the last hajj of Muhammad, or even if it occurred. If it did not, then he would not have given the Farewell Sermon. Since it is most unlikely that that it is historically authentic, the attempt to use it as evidence for the historical authenticity of Islam and Muhammad falls by default.