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.

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.

Interpretations of Jahiliyya and Rashidun

Were Pre-Islamic Women worse off than Muslim Women?

By Beth Peltola

The Status of women in Islam can be properly understood only when we know their status during jahiliyya (the period of ignorance or pre-Islamic period). The reason is obvious. No revolution, political or religious (and Islam was indeed a socio-religious revolution), can remove all traces of the past. 1

Terms such as the “spirit” of Islam are employed in order to argue that the spirit of Islam is justice, egalitarianism, equality, or humanism – either as single signifiers or combinations of these qualities…Often history is invoked to argue that these ideals were evident at the very inception of Islam as a tradition in the seventh century. 2

Glossary:

• Jahiliyya – the time of ignorance before Islam, according to Muslim sources

• Rashidun – the golden era of Islam from the time of Muhammad and the first four rightly guided caliphs

PART 1

A. Ambiguity Surrounding the Jahiliyya and Rashidun Periods

The prevalent view in most Islamic writing is the notion that Islam, in contrast to the surrounding Arabian tribes and religions, ennobled the position of women. Muslim scholars champion a view of ‘degradation’ for pre-Islamic women. 3

The Modernist scholar Asghar Ali Engineer echoes this belief when he says,

“What was the status of women in pre-Islamic society? Was it better or worse than in the Islamic period? The theologians maintain that women enjoyed no rights whatsoever and were treated no better than a commodity.” 4

Yet, it is difficult to come to a firm understanding of the exact environment which existed before the time of Muhammad, due to the lack of material available to us; and that which is extant (mainly Islamic sources) provide a contradictory picture of Islam’s formation 5, as well as the environment from which it arose. For example, Raga’ Elnimr, a feminist, states,

Much of the history of pre-Islamic Arabia is obscured by myth and legend and romantic notions have often been confused with factual elements. One feature, however, which seems to stand out as the most striking characteristic of Arabian society is its diversity. 6

Modernist, progressive Muslims, take the position that though some of the treatment of women in the early days of Islam may not be considered to have parity with the standards of the Western world today, in its context, the arrival of Islam improved the status of women. For them, this improvement set in motion a paradigm which should have developed the gradual ennoblement of women up to the modern era, largely due to their belief in Islam’s principle of ‘justice’ 7. Though, in reality, they contend that women’s liberty and rights in the modern era have been trampled by Islamic male elitist interpreters 8.

Keeping in mind the notion of women’s ennoblement by Islam, consider the claims of the Modernist writer, Asghar Ali Engineer on the Jahiliyya:

• Women used to be enslaved and ‘inherited as a possession.’ Engineer believes Qur’an 4:19 prohibited this practice 9when is states “O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit a woman by compulsion”.

• ‘After inheriting a woman from her father, a man would marry her.’ Engineer deems Qur’an 4:23 prohibited the practice. Although the verse doesn’t seem to address this particular issue.

• Qur’an 81:9 refers to the practice of infanticide – burying baby girls alive – which the Arabs allegedly practiced during the Jahiliyya period. Engineer refers to a Hadith which claims Muhammad said that those who do not bury their daughter alive, nor humiliate her, nor prefer a son to her, ‘will be sent to paradise’ 10.

• In pre-Islamic Arabia there were no restrictions on the number of wives a man could have, and making political alliances through marriage was the norm; for example, according to al-Tabari, a man of the Quraysh tribe married on average ten wives. Engineer refers the reader to Qur’an 4:3 to show that the practice of polygamy was restricted, and was in fact not the norm for Muslims, according to the Qur’anic injunction which states, ‘if you … fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then (only) one – or (from among) those whom you rightfully possess.’ When this verse was revealed Engineer states that the prophet told his men to choose four of their wives and divorce the rest 11. According to Engineer, this was an improvement in the treatment of women 12.

It is interesting that in the very verse Engineer uses for his argument of how Islam stopped the excesses of pre-Islamic Jahiliyya, which to him, is an improvement, a devastating Allah-ordained opt-out injunction is given, outlined in the oft-repeated phrase ‘except what your right hand possesses’. That is, the woman you own is open to be treated by you as you wish. It is important to note that only Muslim chaste women are permitted slightly better treatment, whilst there are cruel stipulations as to how un-chaste, and non-Muslim women, especially slave-girls, are to be treated 13. What’s more, unchaste women are to be confined to houses until taken by death, or Allah ordains some other way for them, (Qur’an 4:15).

So, are the Islamic views of a despicable Jahiliyya period justified? Not everyone agrees.For instance, Ghada Karmi, a senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Durham University, believes that “the situation for women in pre-Islam was not quite as bad as has been attested,” and reiterates the problem of defining the Jahiliyya experience for women, due to little available information, much of which came through, “the censorship of ardent Muslim believers wishing to throw a bad light on everything which preceded Islam.” 14

What she does determine, however, is that during this period there were female goddesses, a fact which suggests to her a matriarchal or matrilineal society. It was a society where marriage was flexible and women had considerably more independence and control over their own lives, where women stayed with their kin family after marriage; and a society where polyandry was practiced 15. Furthermore, in this society a woman’s word was final when placing the paternity of her child on a man; a practice in direct contrast to Islam today, where a man can legally deny paternity to a child, no matter what a mother says, and his testimony holds supremacy against hers 16.

Karmi states further that unlike the earlier Jahiliyya period, “a hierarchical social structure which ensures male supremacy is fundamental to the Qur’anic view of society.” 17 In contrast, this patriarchal hierarchical structure was not the only form of societal makeup before the advent of Islam. Karmi then concludes, “we cannot know fully what the social situation in seventh century Mecca was, nor to what social forces the Islamic revelation had to address itself.” 18

Therefore, any further discussion of pre-Islamic Arabia and the advent of Islam and what it brought to Arabia, and the world, must be considered with this in mind. Never-the-less, there are two areas of historical investigation which may aid a deeper understanding of women pre-Islam, that found externally, in archaeological and documentary evidence, be it fairly sparse, and that found internally in the histories of Islam and through a re-consideration of who Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife represents. Asking whether she is a woman of the Jahiliyya, or a woman of the Rashidun?

B. The Debate on the Status of Women in the Jahiliyya and Rashidun

Modernist Scholars, such as Leila Ahmed and Fatima Mernissi, often refer to Western, non-Muslim scholarship, to support their views of the Jahiliyya. They regard the widely held Muslim views of the Jahiliyya to be inconsistent with the mounting evidence gleaned by historians around the world 19.

Taking into consideration the ambiguous, and at times conflicting reports from early Muslim scholars and historians, 20there is external evidence to suggest that during the Jahiliyya, at least women of a higher status commanded greater resources and were held in great esteem. Certain customs and rules did not apply to them 21. For example, Khadijah was a woman of great prowess in business, and had authority over men in her field of expertise.

However, Muslim scholar Haifa Jawad sees Khadijah as an exception among the small elite, rather than as an example of the general condition of women in that society. She takes Engineer’s ideas a step further, using more emphatic language to communicate her position of pre-Islamic women:

• ‘men enjoyed absolute right over women,’

• ‘husbands enjoyed… absolute power,’

• ‘inhuman treatment,’

• ‘degradation of womanhood,’

• ‘deplorable situation,’

• ‘liberties of women were… trampled on’

• ‘captured women were completely under the authority of her captor,’ et al 22.

She then contrasts it with the situation of women under Islam, stating that, “with the advent of Islam, the position of women was radically redefined.” 23 She begins her defence with a list of verses commonly referred to by Muslim scholars to support the ennoblement of women in Islam, 24 and employs the commonly held misconception among Muslims, that Christians see Eve as responsible for mankind’s sin, in contrast to Muslims, who put the responsibility on both Adam and Eve 25. Furthermore, she believes that Islam created a new relationship between men and women “based on respect and mutual understanding,” wherein taking care of the woman, and respecting her were emphasised. She adds,

It is within this context [‘being allowed to attain the highest ranks of progress materially, intellectually and spiritually’] 26.

However, in order to uphold her position of ‘ennoblement’ under Islam, she has to ignore a plethora of stories from Muhammad’s biography 27, and direct Qur’anic edicts to men and for men on divorce, punishment and divinely ordained obedience of women to men, none of which supports ‘ennoblement’ in the eyes of Western society today, and in direct contrast and contradiction with the divine Biblical edicts of how a man is to treat his wife today 28.

A similar verdict is held by Dr. Jamal Badawi, a highly influential Egyptian Scholar living in Canada, in an essay on the status of women in Islam. He introduces his subject with a quick overview of the position of women seen throughout history, from the pre-Islamic era up to the 19th century, including a look at the ‘Mosaic’ Biblical period. Each example is given in contrast to the Islamic position which he believes only needs more clarification, because in Western culture, a “disparity between the sexes exist”, implying there is none in Islam 29.

He quotes what he considers are “Biblical decrees,” by citing the Encyclopaedia Biblica’s descriptions of the Mosaic Law, as well as unfavourable examples from the early church fathers, and examples from Roman times; building a case for the destructive environment for women living under such worldviews and societies 30. He then notes the central Arabian treatment of women before Islam – the time of Jahiliyya – citing Qur’anic examples against infanticide, and sayings of Muhammad as a contrast to Mosaic Law and previous Arabian culture, concluding that Muhammad’s words are “favourable towards women” 31.

It is a skewed picture of history, with a deep misunderstanding of previous culture and ancient Mosaic culture, never-the-less, many a Muslim signs up to his impression of the past without a question as to its reliability. It is with this in mind that he, along with Haifa Jawad, and their many counterparts, present their views on the days of Jahiliyya and the influence of Islam on it. But are they correct? Does the evidence, both in the Qur’an and in the life of Muhammad, really affirm ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ for women? Are the descriptions of Jahiliyya, such as those presented by Haifa Jawad, in actual fact a better reflection ofthe Qur’anic view of woman, rather than pre-Islamic, or non-Islamic.

In fact, isn’t it true that the biography of Muhammad and Qur’an 2:223, 228; 4:3, 24; 4:34, 33:53; 66:1-5 either dictate, or by means of deduction, give men:

• ‘absolute rights over women,’

• ‘absolute power’

• allow cruel treatment

• a degraded view of womanhood

• provide a ‘deplorable situation,’

• allow the ‘liberties of women’ to be trampled on

• complete control and abuse of the women they capture, enslave and marry.

C. A truer picture of women under Islam

The historical data, from within Muslim sources themselves, point to this deteriorating scenario for women under Islam, and would need to be ignored by scholars who espouse an ‘ennoblement’ of women from the dawn of Islam, if they are to continue to maintain their position. Take for example, the detailed stories of how non-Muslim women were treated with little regard by the growing Muslim community during the Rashidun period. Female captives faced a daunting future when taken during Muhammad’s battles and campaigns as he fought to gain territory in Arabia 32. Many troubling stories are detailed of non-believing women, taken as captives by the early Muslims, who had little choice but to turn to Islam after their capture if they were to escape judgement, or treated as mere chattel 33.

In today’s world, Muhammad and his tribal warriors affirmed the practice of sexual violence against women in war, the trafficking of women in sex-slavery, and the forced marriages of women (including married women). The early Islamic literature reports that ‘spoils of war’ were subsequently taken as wives, sold ‘for horses and weapons,’ retained for ransom leverage 34, or kept as slaves and concubines by the Muslim raiders 35. Suggesting that during Muhammad’s last ten years, there seems to have been few freedoms for non-Muslim women who found themselves under his ‘protection’ 36.

There are further disturbing stories, such as reports from Muhammad’s young teenage wife Aisha, which tell of women being captured, abused, enslaved, and killed. Aisha is said to have related one such incident of a woman in fear of what she was about to face

She was…talking with me and laughing immoderately as the apostle was killing her men [the men of the Quraysh tribe] in the market when suddenly an unseen voice called her name…the woman states, “I am to be killed… because of something I did.” 37 She was then beheaded.

Safiyah bint Huyayy, a wife Muhammad took as booty in battle 38, is another such story of a captured woman. The Jews gave up all their possessions as loot to Muhammad at the siege of Khaybar after Kinana the Chief, Safiyah’s husband, and her relatives were tied to stakes and burned with fire to torture out of them the whereabouts of their wealth. His victims included her father, brother, first husband, three uncles and several cousins. Kinana’s 17 year old wife was then forced to become Muhammad’s wife, and Muhammad consummated the wedding soon after, not waiting for the prescribed iddah (waiting period) as dictated in the Qur’an. (2:234-235; 65:1-6). Her life is an example of the lives of the women enslaved by Muslim groups which are prolific today, such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, as well as ongoing stories of forced marriages within Muslim communities of the world 39.

“Diḥyah al-kalbī had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Diḥyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” 40

Another woman, ‘Asmā’ d. Marwān, came to an untimely death at the end of a Muslim sword while suckling her child. Her murder, an act praised by Muhammad. Yet, what was her crime? She wrote poetic verse against Muhammad after he killed a relative from her clan 41. Her open poetic critique suggests she lived in an Arabian tribe that gave people, including women, an arena for free speech; something seriously lacking among those who followed Muhammad.

Similarly, the prolific Muslim historian, al-Tabari (d.923), early compiler of Tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) and histories of Islam, relates stories of Muhammad ordering the execution of women, reporting the following command: ‘the messenger of God commanded that six men and four women should be killed’ 42 What’s more, Muhammad’s closest companions were not exempt from horrific crimes against women. For example, Ibn Hisham 43 (who wrote the earliest full biography of Muhammad) writes of girls among the spoils of the battle of Hawāzan, whom Muhammad gave to ‘Ali, ‘Uthman, and ‘Umar 44.

A further illuminating study on the role of women pre-Islam (or non-Islamic woman of other tribes) can be seen in discussions between Muhammad and his men. The exegete, Ibn Kathir, details a story of Umar, a companion of Muhammad stating: “We, the people of Quraysh, used to have authority over our women. But when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our own started acquiring the habits of the Ansari Women.” 45 Sahih Bukhari also narrates the same story narrated by `Abdullah bin `Abbas, of Umar going to talk to Muhammad about the problem and found Hafsa weeping, along with many other Muslims, due to a rumour that Muhammad had divorced all his wives for their behaviour. Muhammad had not divorced them, but swore that he would not go to his wives for one month, because of his severe anger towards them “until Allah the Exalted and Most Honoured censured him.” This story is repeated by many narrators, exegetes and Hadith, providing some illumination of the power of women outside of Islam compared to the control of women within Islam.

It was always in response to domestic situations within Muhammad’s family that Allah responded with Qur’anic verses that defended and excused Muhammad of his oaths. We see this in sura 66:3-5 which refers to the above ‘disobedience’ of two of his wives, (traditionally held to be Hafsa and Aisha), by threatening them to toe-the-line. After one of Muhammad’s young wives had shared a secret of Muhammad with another wife, Allah informed him in part of what she had said. Allah then responds with the following threat to the wives:

“If you two [wives] turn in repentance to Allah, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if you help one another against him then verily, Allah is his Maulā (Lord, or Master, or protector), and Jibrail, and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. It may be if he divorced you that his Lord would give him instead of you, wives better than you, – Muslims, believers, obedient, turning to Allah in repentance, worshipping Allah sincerely, given to fasting (or emigrants), previously married and virgins.”

It would seem, then, that strict obedience is expected and demanded from the women of Muhammad, which in turn means the same for all the women of Islam, if they are to obey the Qur’anic injunction of obeying Muhammad 46).

All of the above stories come from traditionally held authoritative Islamic sources, from their own history, and thus, according to most Muslim Jurists, from their own prophet. It is difficult to reconcile such stories with Jamal Badawi and like-minded Muslim scholar’s apologetic for an Islamic ‘ennoblement of women’. It seems Islam in fact teaches and exemplifies quite the opposite of ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ for women.

D. Khadija and Aisha as examples of the Jahiliyya versus Islamic Women

The debates of what truly constituted a woman’s life before Islam and after Islam’s advent continue unabated. These debates largely remain in academic circles, especially among Modernist, liberal Muslim scholars, who find traditional Muslim views of womanhood based on the Sunna and Sira objectionable. Popular belief, however, among Traditional Muslims paint a despicable picture for women pre-Islam, and an ennoblement of women post Islam, although their particular view of ‘ennoblement’ is negated by Modernists.

One example of a Modernist challenging traditional belief is Leila Ahmad’s reference to Khadija and Aisha as examples of what Islam would do for women after its inception; Khadija representing the pre-Islamic woman 47, and Aisha representing what was to become the norm for Muslim women. She states,

Autonomy and monogamy were conspicuously absent in the lives of women Muhammad married after he became the established prophet and leader of Islam, and the control of women by male guardians and the male prerogative of polygyny were thereafter to become formal features of Islamic marriage 48.

She continues to say, “It was Aisha’s lot… which would prefigure the limitations that would thenceforth hem in Muslim women’s lives.” 49 These ‘limitations’ are referred to as ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ in most popular Islamic literature.

Conclusions

A quick perusal of the literature available to us, reveal a mixed view of Jahiliyya, with some Modernist scholars contradicting the current Islamic apologetic of a ‘deplorable situation’ for women in Jahiliyya. They acknowledge that the evidence does not all point towards a ‘despicable’ situation for women, although they still champion a ‘spirit of Islam’ that sought to bring about some sort of ‘emancipation’ for women. However, in the end, it is Islamic literature itself that unwittingly provides clues of a better life for women pre-Islam, or outside of Islam, by stipulating a continued tightening of control for women post-Islam, especially for the non-Muslim women under Islamic control.

Whilst Muslim apologists in the West attempt to convince the Muslim masses of a betterment for women with the inception of Islam, their convictions fail to stand up when analysed in the light of their own Traditions; the Sira (biographies), the Tafsir (exegetes), the Tariq (histories) and their Qur’an. Furthermore, the inequalities brought upon women wherever Islam has dominated, is compelling for a narrative that underlines, spells out and points to Islamic holy literature written to men and for men. Overwhelmingly, the data highlights the establishment of the ‘degradation of women’ with few liberties and untenable wellbeing with the dawn of Islam.

1. Asghar Ali Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam (London: C. Hurst and Co, 1992), 20.

2. Ebrahim Moosa, “The Debts and Burdens of Critical Islam,” Progressive Muslims on Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, ed. Omid Safi (Oxford: OneWorld Publications, 2003), 111 – 144.

3. Haifaa A. Jawad, The Rights of Women in Islam: An Authentic Approach (Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1998), 2ff. This practice seems to have continued under Muhammad’s jurisdiction, cf. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishāq’w Sīrat rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 461ff.

4. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 20.

5. C.E. Bosworth, “Al-Tabarī.” in Encyclopaedia of Islam Vol.10, eds. P.J Bearman, TH. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, W.P. Heinriches (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000 2), 11-15.

6. Raga’ El-Nimr, “Women in Islamic Law,” in Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, ed. Mai Yamani (Reading: Ithaca Press, 1996), 87.

7. Amina Wadud, Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 14ff.

8. Ibid., 87.

9. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 20.

10. Sunan Dawud, in Engineer, The Rights of Women, 21.

11. Engineer, The Rights of Women, 22.

12. Ibid.

13. The same phrase ‘what your right hand possesses’ is repeated in 4:24-25; 23:6; 24:34; 70:30; 33:50.

14. Ghada Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism” in Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, ed. Mai Yamani (Berkshire: Ithaca Press, 1996), 76.

15. Polyandry: women having more than one husband at a time.

16. Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism,” in Feminism and Islam, 77.

17. Ibid., 79.

18. Ibid., 80.

19. Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam: Historical roots of a Modern Debate (Newhaven & London: Yale University Press), 43.

20. Patricia Crone, ‘What do We Actually Know About Mohammed?’ (31.08.2007), at Open Democracy.net, http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp, accessed May 5th, 2007.

21. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 33.

22. Jawad, The Rights of Women in Islam, 2ff. This practice seems to have continued under Muhammad’s jurisdiction, cf. Guillaume, The life of Muhammad, 461ff.

23. Ibid., 4.

24. Cf. Qur’an 3:194; 33:32; 16:95; 9:71; 48:5.

25. Cf. Sherif Abdel Azim’s [Ph.D. from Queens University in Ontario, Canada] essay, challenging the position of women in the Judeo Christian traditions at http://www.islamworld.net/compwomen.html, and the Christian response at http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Azeem/women_response.htm.

26. Jawad, in The Rights of Women In Islam, 7.] that Islam has granted women broad social, political and economic rights, education and training rights and work opportunity rights. To protect these rights from being abused by men, Islam provided firm legal safeguards ((Ibid., also cf. S.A.A Mawdudi, Purdah and the Status of Woman in Islam (Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd, 1998), 150-155.

27. Read about Muhammad’s disturbing marriage to Safiyah bint Huyayy (See Alfred Guillaume/Ishaq 241-242, 511, 514-515, 516-517, 520; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 134-135; Al-Tabari, V. 39, pp. 184-185), and his unofficial concubine: a beautiful Coptic concubine (possibly sent as a gift from the governor of Egypt). Muhammad went to Hafsa for her day, but she was not at home, so he took her slave girl instead, Mariya. Hafsa caught them. The slave girl got pregnant, but the baby died. Aisha was very jealous and both women refused to sleep with Muhammad. It was then that Muhammad received the revelation from Allah threatening to replace them with better wives for Muhammad, if they did not start towing the line (S 66:5) (Guillaume/Ishaq, 653; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 137, 141; Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 193-195; Bewley/Saad 8:148-151).

28. Ephesians 5:25 ‘Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’, as well as the celebration of the love and intimacy between a man and woman in the Song of Songs.

29. Jamal A.Badawi, “The Status of Women in Islam,” http://www.iad.org/books/S-women.html, accessed 5th December 2005.

30. See, Sherif Abdel Azeem, “Women in Islam Verses Women in the Judeo Christian Tradition, Islam101, http:// www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/women3.html, and the Christian response at: http://www.answering- islam.de/Main/Responses/Azeem/women_response.htm.

31. Jamal A. Badawi, The Status of Women in Islam (Birmingham: Islamic Propagation Centre International, no date given), 8.

32. Al Waqidi, 348-349. Guillaume, 466; Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 117; Vol. 9, p. 137; Vol. 39 p. 164-165.

33. Juwayriyya bint Al-Harith a Jewess, a very beautiful wife of the chief, who was taken as booty. She tried to buy her freedom, butcaught Muhammad’s eye. Aisha was very jealous of her (Guillaume/Ishaq, 490-493; Al- Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 133; Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, p. 182-184).

34. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishāq’w Sīrat rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 593.

35. Ibid., 466.

36. Ibid., 464.

37. Ibid.

38. Guillaume/Ishaq 241-242, 511, 514-515, 516-517, 520; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 134-135; Al-Tabari, V. 39, pp. 184-185.

39. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/11/forced-marriage-pakistan-matrimony-laws, accessed 3rd June, 2016.

40. Al Tabari VIII:117

41. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 675 & Ibn Sa’d, Haq.S. Moinul, ed., Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir 2, p. 30-31.

42. Al-Tabari, “The Victory of Islam,” in The History of al-Tabari, Vol.8, trans. Michael Fishbein (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 178-181.

43. Muslims believe his writings are based on an earlier version of Muhammad’s biography written by Ibn Ishaq, but very little, if any of Ishaq’s writing are in existence, except for references in material too late to be authentic.

44. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 593.

45. Sahih Bukhari Vol. 3, book 43, # 648; http://sunnah.com/bukhari/46/29, accessed 11.06.16.

46. “He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad) has indeed obeyed Allah…” (S. 4:80) “Nor does he speak from (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed.” (S. 53:3) “And Allah said: “Oh you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.” (S.47:33) “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” (S. 33:21) “And verily, you are on an exalted standard of character.” (S. 68:4) “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.” (S. 33:36)

47. Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism,” in Feminism and Islam, 78.

48. Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam, 42ff.

49. Ibid., 43.

The Siege of the Banu Qurayza

Anees

In the context of: Is Muhammad a model for today?

It is the year 627 AD, year 5 after Hijra, somewhere between February-March; the Meccans have retreated from the battle of the Trench. It is here that Muhammad and his troops now turn towards the Banu Qurayza, the third largest and richest of the three Jewish tribes of Medina (the other two, the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, having been banished from Medina earlier). However, the Banu Qurayza were not as lucky as the other two. According to some of the earliest Muslim historians and commentators (Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Kathir), the Banu Qurayza were besieged for 25 days by the Muslims, led by Muhammad. Qur’anic passages from chapter 33 refer to the incident, although in a more oblique manner. Hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud also give narratives of the event. After the final surrender of the Banu Qurayza, ditches were dug and the men, between 600-800 of them with tied shoulders, were then beheaded, and buried in them, while their children and women were taken as captives, or sold for horses and weapons. Before we get into the ‘nitty-gritty’ of the event and the historic sources, let us first look at the milieu at that time in Medina. Often overlooked, it nonetheless resulted in the banishment of these tribes which arose with the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina.

The late Meccan period brought challenges to Muhammad. Abu Talib, who was the primary source of Muhammad’s security against the pagans, passed away, and so did Khadija, the wife of Muhammad, an influential character. The situation was bleak and due to much hostility exposed Muhammad to threats. In order to gain strength and have his new religion survive he had to establish connections with other tribes, which forced him to migrate to Yathrib (Medina), the town inhabited by a number of Jewish tribes. Watt asserts that,

“In such circumstances if Islam was not to fade away, some fresh line of activity was urgently required. All that could be done in Mecca had been done; therefore, the chief hope lay in advances elsewhere.” (Watt, 1953, p.138)

Before migrating to Medina, Muhammad had acquired his new religion to fit the Judaic Christian tradition, which was considered superior to the Arab paganism. This new religion of Muhammad he felt would seek to reunify the Jewish and Christian traditions, known as the people of the scriptures, with whom God cared to speak to, unlike the Arab pagans whom he belittled. Over the years, using whatever information Muhammad could get hold of, “a work in progress”, he established connections with material from the earlier scriptures. The polytheistic paganism was being challenged by the already existing monotheistic traditions, before Muhammad’s arrival on the scene. According to the traditional view Mecca was situated on the trading crossroads and was home to the sanctuary considered holy by the Arabs (Watt, 1953). Patricia Crone (in her research of 2004) challenges the historicity of Mecca’s engagement in heavy trading, doubting the city even existed this early; however, we shall approach the subject with the traditional view for now. According to the traditional Islamic account, the pilgrims would come to the sacred shrine and bring stories, as well as their experiences from the tribes of other regions. Watt maintains (1953) that there were only a few Jews in Mecca as well as people of the Christian faith. Carimokam (2010) points out that paganism was already a dying tradition and the movement towards monotheism was already taking place. There are accounts of both positive and negative reactions to Muhammad’s prophetic call. Armstrong (1993) acknowledges that there was a widespread feeling of spiritual inferiority. There were some Jewish tribes in Yathrib (Medina) and Fadak (to the north of Mecca), and some of the northern tribes on the borderlands of the Persian and Byzantine empires who had converted to Monophysite and Nestorian Christianity. Perhaps this could account for the influence of Nestorian Christianity in the Qur’an.

The work of Puin (2008) suggests that the Qur’an’s central theological tenets were influenced by Syrian Christianity. Although the Arabs cherished the superior tradition of the Jews and Christians, they experienced cultural isolation as paganism wore away, and this made them reluctant to embrace a tradition cloaked in a foreign language.

According to Wellhausen (1975), the Banu Qaylah maintained control of Medina, at the time of the Hijra. The Banu Qaylah were further divided into sub groups, the Banu al-Aus and the Banu al-Khazarj. Ibn Ishaq tells us that the Aus and Khazarj were polytheists who knew little about heaven and hell. The Jews were the second largest community in Medina. Lewis (1950) acknowledges that the Jews were disliked by the Arabs, due to their engagement in agricultural, and handiworks, which made them economically and culturally superior to the Arabs. Consequently they were attacked and almost eliminated. This has also been supported by the work of Wellhausen (1975), which suggests that even though the Jews did not have political control of Medina, nonetheless, due to their economic power and large numbers, they remained a threatening force.

Ibn Ishaq writes that,

There were two parties: The B. Qaynuqa and their adherents, allies of Khazarj; and al-Nadir and Qurayza and their adherent’s allies of Aus. When there was war between Aus and Khazraj the B. Qaynuqa went out with Khazraj, and al-Nadir and Qurayza with Aus, each side helping its allies against his own brethren so that they shed each other’s blood, while the Torah was in their hands by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden them. When the war came to an end they ransomed their prisoners in accordance with the Torah each side redeeming those of their men who had been captured by the polytheists. God said in blaming them for that; ‘Will you believe in a part of the scripture and disbelieve in another part?’ (Ibn Ishaq, p.253)

The Islamic sources do show us the prevalent inherent antagonism of the different tribes in Mecca. According to them, when Muhammad entered Medina, he longed to bring harmony between the tribes of the city so that they could all unite as a force. Muhammad made an effort to bring his new religion as close to Judaism as possible. He wished his revelations would strike a chord with the Jews and they would accept him as a prophet. Armstrong notes,

Thus he prescribed a fast for Muslims on the Jewish Day of Atonement and commanded Muslims to pray three times a day like the Jews, instead of only twice as hitherto. Muslims could marry Jewish women and should observe some of the dietary laws. Above all Muslims must now pray facing Jerusalem like the Jews and Christians. (Armstrong, 1993, p.184)

The traditions tell us that it was in Medina for the first time that Muhammad confronted the Jews, who had superior knowledge of the scriptures. It was easy for them to point out fallacies in Muhammad’s revelations, which differed substantially from the Judaic version. Armstrong (1993) acknowledges that the Jews had sound religious reasons to reject Muhammad; although they awaited the Messiah’s arrival, they believed the era of prophecy was over. Ironically the same theological reason is used by Muslims to reject later claims of prophet-hood. The greatest disappointment for Muhammad was the Jewish rejection which made his religious authority unstable. Nonetheless, Armstrong (1993) notes that some of the friendly Jews helped Muhammad to understand the Bible so that he could give rebuttals to the Jews criticisms. Muhammad learned the chronology of the prophets for the first time. He could now see why it was so crucial that Abraham lived before Moses and Jesus. He also learned that although Jews and Christians follow the same Abrahamic religion, they had serious theological disagreements between them. Muhammad had been oblivious to these details previously. Carimokam (2010) notes that the details in Muhammad’s ‘revelations’ almost disappeared in the Medinan period. Nonetheless, he made the utmost effort to attain the acknowledgement of the Jews, in order to unite with them as an alliance against the Meccans; yet, that unity never materialized, for Muhammad soon turned to violence.

We learn through Ibn Ishaq that Muhammad and his followers orchestrated various military raids and killings during the Medinan period. These included raids on Waddan, Buwat, al-Ushra, al-Kharrar, Safawan, B. Sulaym, Dhu Amarr, Al-Furu, Qaynuqa, Dhatu’l-Riqa, Dumatu’l-Jandal, B. Qurayza, B. Lihyan, Dhul Qarad, B. al-Mustaliq, Muta, and a Meccan caravan at Qarada, as well as the killing of Ka’b b. al-ashraf, Abu Afak, Sallam, and Asma bint Marwan, and finally the banishment of B. Nadir.

Through a Muslim apologist’s eyes all of these raids and killings were defensive and justified, and in each case the resisting party was considered obviously wrong. Yet, such an approach seems farfetched and inconceivable. For instance the raid on the Meccan caravan at Qarada resulted in all mainstream trading routes becoming risky for the Meccans forcing them not to travel along the western trade route to Syria. After a waiting period of almost one year Abu Sufyan concluded that they needed to find an alternate route to Syria before all of their trading stock was consumed. Furat Ibn Hayyan was hired to take them to Syria, by an eastern Iraqi route, not known to the Muslims. Nonetheless, the news was leaked to Muhammad and Zayd Ibn Harith was sent to seize the caravan. The Muslim captors warned Ibn Hayyan that if he embraced Islam Muhammad would not kill him. Thus, when he was brought in front of Muhammad, Ibn Hayyan accepted Islam and was set free (Tabari, cited in Carimokam, 2010, p.367).

Carimokam (2010) argues that this could be taken as a case of forced conversion, and as Islam spread many would face the same fate as Ibn Hayyan, following Muhammad’s practice. The event also proves that the trade route to Syria from Mecca was totally under the influence of Muhammad, and the Meccans were struggling as a result. Could it be these developments which inevitably pushed the Meccans to retaliate against Muhammad, leading first to the battle of Uhud (625) and subsequently to the battle of the trench (627)? Armstrong (1993) defends Muhammad’s practice, acknowledging that in the time of Muhammad, in a region where there was no central authority, each tribe was a law unto itself. Yet, it is my view that Muhammad, a guest in Medina, quickly appropriated the role of policing all of Medina, which included subjugating the indigenous Arabs who had invited him there to begin with (known as the ‘Ansar’), while forcing the Jewish families of Medina to join with him against the Meccan ‘Quraishi’, yet they had nothing to gain from Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan merchant caravans, nor the booty that Muslims obtained from these raids. What Armstrong does not recognize (or maybe doesn’t want to) is that Muhammad’s group of Muslims in seventh century Arabia followed their own social norms, raided caravans, used captive women sexually, traded them for armour, and slaughtered subjugated tribes. These practices would become the example of Islam and be imitated as the best example for all Muslims from this period on.

To underline these points we shall now return specifically to the siege of the Banu Qurayza in 627. Ibn Ishaq tells us that after the battle of the trench (al-Khandaq), once the Meccans had retreated, instead of putting his weapons down, Muhammad was instructed to turn against the Banu Qurayza Jews, on the orders of the angel Gabriel.

Narrated by ‘Aisha,

When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel, whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Bani Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, book 52, Number 68)

We also learn from the Tafsir of Ibn Khathir,

The Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, “Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah” He said, “Yes” He said, “But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.” Then he said: “Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayza. According to another report, “What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons” He said, “Yes”. He said, “But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.” He said: “Where?” He said, “Banu Qurayza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.” So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayza. (Ibn Kathir, p.213)

Ibn Ishaq tells us that Muhammad and his troops besieged the Banu Qurayza for twenty-five nights until “they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts” (Ibn Ishaq, p.461).   When the Jews were certain that Muhammad would not release them, Ka’b b. Asad proposed three possibilities; 1. Accept Muhammad as a prophet 2. Kill their women and children and fight the Muslims 3. Take Muhammad and his men by surprise on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza decided not fight. Perhaps they had hopes they would be exiled by Muhammad, like the banu Qaynuqa and the Al-Nadir Jewish tribes. Wellhausen (1975) questions how Muslim historians can know about these negotiations from behind the bastioned walls of Qurayza? In my opinion there could be only two possibilities; 1. These are later developments, where historians put words in the mouths of the Jews; 2. The surviving women and children could have passed on the traditions, since they were eye witnesses to the event. Nonetheless, since we have no Jewish account of this incident, the authenticity should be taken with some scepticism.

According to Ibn Ishaq, al-Aus, an ally of the Qurayza, tried to convince Muhammad to banish them from Medina, but instead they had to face a worse fate. Carimokam (2010) notes that when Abdullah b. Ubbay b. Salul had earlier urged Muhammad to spare the previous Jewish tribe, the banu Qaynuqa, Muhammad got angry and it took great effort by him to convince Muhammad to banish them. Wellhausen (1975) also points out that Muhammad’s initial intention was to kill the Banu Qaynuqa. Muhammad asked Aus if they would be happy to submit to the judgement of one of their own leaders, and consequently Sa’ad b. Mu’adh was chosen as the arbitrator.  It is worth noticing that according to Ibn Ishaq it is Muhammad who chooses Sa’ad, not the Jews;

When al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: ‘Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them?’ When they agreed he said that Sa’ad b. Mu’ad is the man. (Ibn Ishaq, p.463)

Interestingly, later Muslim writers assert that it was the Jewish Banu Qurayza themselves who chose Sa’ad as the arbitrator.

Narrated by Abu Said,

The people of (the tribe of) Qurayza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa’ad. The Prophet sent for him (Sa’ad) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), “Get up for your chief or the best among you!” Sa’ad sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), “These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa’ad said, “So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have judged according to the King’s (Allah’s) judgment.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278)

The notion that a tribe on its knees, subdued and surrendered, besieged for 25 nights, were then given a choice to choose their arbitrator is somewhat incoherent. Could this be a case of an evolving hagiography with the passage of time? Muslim polemicists like W.N Arafat (1976) argue that Ibn Ishaq’s accounts are on shaky grounds because they were written some one hundred and forty years after the event, hence there is room for many alterations. That very well might be the case, however if Ibn Ishaq’s records are murky, al Bukhari’s would be even more so, since they were written a full two hundred and forty years after the event. As we noted earlier, Ibn Ishaq’s are the earliest Muslim sources to this event, and we don’t even have any Jewish sources to verify whether they are true!

Muslim apologists like Arafat (1976) also claim that Ibn Ishaq did not apply a strict method of a chain of narrators, known as isnad to verify the credibility of his sources. Nonetheless, the work of Watt (1991) shows that while many of the isnadsthemselves were fabricated, Ibn Ishaq was quoted as one of the prominent ‘scientific’ transmitters. The Isnad method was a later development, hence the work of Ibn Ishaq could not be dismissed out of hand. We also learn that al-Bukhari authenticated some 4400 hadiths from approx. 600,000. This in itself suggests that a huge number of fabricated hadiths were in circulation at that time. Contemporary scholars would also be discredited with this approach.

Nonetheless, even if Sa’ad was chosen by the Qurayza, this still doesn’t shift the entire burden of responsibility on Sa’ad’s shoulders, as Muhammad was the supreme authority and his decision could override Sa’ad’s, yet he chose not to. Wellhausen (1975) points out that the demise of the Banu Qurayza was inevitable once Sa’ad was selected as the arbitrator, because of his hostility towards the Qurayza.

Narrated by ‘Aisha,

So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sa’ad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfil your order.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 461)

The above extract shows the very hostile viewpoint taken by Sa’ad towards people making defiling remarks against Muhammad.

Ibn Ishaq tells us further about Sa’ad’s verdict,

Do you covenant by Allah that you accept the judgement I renounce on them? They said yes, and he said, ‘And it is incumbent on the one who is here?’ (looking) in the direction of the apostle not mentioning him out of respect, and the apostle answered Yes. Sa’ad said, ‘Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.’ (Ibn Ishaq, p.464)

According to Ibn Sa’ad,

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, authorised Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh to give a decision about them. He passed an order: He who is subjected to razors (i.e. the male) should be killed, women and children should be enslaved and property should be distributed. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: You have decided in confirmation to the judgement of Allah, above the seven heavens. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, returned on Thursday 7 Dhu al- Hijjah. Then he commanded them to be brought into al-Madinah where ditches were dug in the market. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sat with his Companions and they were brought in small groups. Their heads were struck off. They were between six hundred and seven hundred in number. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 93)

According to Al-Tabari, those killed were only men,

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (Tabari, Volume 8, p.38)

We also learn this from Atiyyah al-Qurazi,

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

According to Ibn Kathir’s commentary, the number was as high as 800 men.

Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz’21, p.213)

Even the Qur’an, Chapter 33, Verses 26-27 speaks of this incident, saying,

And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts [so that] a party you killed and you took captive a party. And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their properties and a land which you have not trodden. And ever is Allah, over all things, competent.

Muslim apologists like Arafat argue that only the warrior men were beheaded, yet these sources above prove that all the males post pubescent were killed. Interestingly, in the Qur’an there are only two categories given, the ones who were killed and the ones taken captives. It is clear from the sources above that only the women and children were taken as captives and then sold for horses and weapons. Some Muslims suggest that Sa’ad derived the punishment from Deuteronomy 20:12-14, which stipulates that all men are to be killed; yet if this was true, than Sa’ad should have read verses 16-17 which clearly states that all living things (including women and children) were to be killed, something Sa’ad did not follow. Furthermore, if the earliest Muslim sources have been corrupted, then it adds to the obscurity of Islam. It should also be taken into account that these events, as difficult as they are, would be used in legal Islamic proceedings of punishment throughout the world today, and would be interpreted as sharia law.

The slaughter of the Banu Qurayza is commonly justified by Muslim apologists on the basis that the entire tribe was treasonous towards the treaty that Muhammad made with them. Yet, according to Ibn Ishaq, it was only 7 men amongst the Banu Qurayza who joined the Meccans, and so were treasonous. Unfortunately, the entire Banu Qurayza tribe paid the price for these 7 men through either enslavement, or death. Is that just, or a model we should use today?

It has been discussed previously that Muhammad’s utmost struggle was to gain Jewish acceptance and unite Medina as a force against the Meccans. It is at this point that we need to introduce the ‘Constitution of Medina’, signed, according to Islamic Tradition, by both the Jews and the Muslims.

Ibn Ishaq relates,

This is a document from Muhammad the prophet [governing the relations] between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and laboured with them. A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and Muhammad the apostle of God. (Ibn Ishaq, p.232-233)

It is worth noticing that in the last line Muhammad is portrayed as the arbitrator between God and man. How would any Jew accept a treaty which designates Muhammad as the arbiter between them and God; what’s more, why would they have agreed to such a treaty? We will never know, since we have no Jewish confirmation of such a treaty.

It is well known that the Jews did not consider Muhammad’s revelation, the Qur’an, authoritative, nor therefore, himself as a prophet. From a Jewish perspective the Qur’an was a patchwork consisting of miscellaneous incongruous material much of which was made up of Jewish apocryphal borrowings. Far from being the ‘unalterable speech’ of God, much of the Qur’an is borrowed from earlier Jewish material written in the second century AD, or later. For instance; Surah An-Naml (27) in the Qur’an was revealed during the middle stage of the Prophet’s stay in Mecca. The story of Solomon and the queen of Sheba, in this surah, has been ‘lifted’ directly from The Second Targum of Esther, a 2nd century apocryphal account, with parts of the story omitted in the Qur’an.

As we mentioned earlier, Muhammad was not indigenous to Medina. He and his followers migrated to Medina, from Mecca, according to the Traditions, in 622 AD. It was the Jews who were indigenous to the city, and had lived there for centuries. Thus, he was the guest, not them. Yet, with the banishment of the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Al-Nadir, a pattern was already in place that would ultimately lead to the Banu Qurayza’s demise, and they could foresee that. The Banu Qurayza were being sucked into this confrontation between Muhammad and the Meccans, a problem which was not theirs. If they had indeed signed such a treaty (unlikely as it now seems), perhaps breaking the treaty would have been the only choice left to ensure their neutrality and survival. Nonetheless, the Muslim sources agree that they surrendered after the siege.

Watt (1956) acknowledges that the Banu Qurayza could have been detrimental for Muhammad and his clan, because of their economic clout, but since they didn’t struggle against him, their reluctance jeopardised their own existence.

It must also be noted that Muhammad made a good deal of profit in destroying the Banu Qurayza, since 1/5th of all their booty went to him personally, a practice which from this time on became commonplace.

Ibn Ishaq states,

Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. It was the first booty on which the lots were cast and the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids. Then the apostle sent Sa’ad b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons. (Ibn Ishaq, p.466)

Not all of the Banu Qurayza were acquiescent, however, for there was one woman who stood up to the prophet, refused to be his wife, and refused to accept Islam. As Ibn Ishaq continues,

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said: ‘Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and you.’ So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. So the apostle put her aside and felt some displeasure. (Ibn Ishaq, p.466)

The episodes concerning Muhammad and his wives are also referred to in the Qur’an, Chapter 33, Verses 49- 50, though interestingly, nowhere does it refer to the Jewish Rayhana’s refusal. It states,

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. 

We also learn from Sahih al-Bukhari that the Muslim captors used to use the captive women sexually. Al Bukhari mentions this in a narration by Abu Said Al-Khudri,

While he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about ‘coitus interruptus’?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432)

Once the Banu Qurayza were defeated, all of the Jews were then thrown out of Medina, their home for many centuries. According to al-Bukhari, and narrated by Ibn Umar,

Bani An-Nadir and Bani Qurayza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Qurayza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again). He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qaynuqa’, the tribe of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina (Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 362)

Conclusion

Almost all of the material quoted above, concerning the situations surrounding the attack on the Banu Qurayza, come from the earliest Muslim sources. It is striking that Muslim apologists hold the accounts of these earlier historians of Islam (Ishaq and Hisham) with disdain and instead choose to go with the later developments (Bukhari and Muslim). It has to be kept in mind we are mulling over the historicity of the events through uniquely Muslim sources. The closest documentation we can even obtain concerning this early history of Islam does not appear before the emergence of Ibn Ishaq’s ‘Sirat Rasul Allah’ (765 AD), transmitted through Ibn Hisham (833 AD), over 200 years after the events they refer to, followed by Al Waqidi and others. The later hadith literature, such as al Bukhari, Muslim and others astonishingly emerge some 240 to 300 years after these events, a good 100 years after Ibn Ishaq. The long silence that surrounds the history of early Islam has profound implications and raises some serious questions concerning its reliability. Ironically Muslim apologists like W.N. Arafat who reject the earliest historic writings of Ishaq and Hisham, choosing instead al Bukhari and Muslim, stand against historical critical practice, which starts from the premise that the closer the document is to the event, the more reliable it tends to be. Ishaq and Hisham are indeed the closer writings, and thus should be the more reliable.

Nonetheless, whether we accept the early or late Muslim sources, they all give us a rather disturbing picture of Islam’s final and greatest prophet, who Muslims consider a model for all people, in all places, and for all time. This picture describes a man from Mecca, invited as a guest to Medina to arbitrate between the native Arabs and Jews. Yet, within two years he quickly sides with one group (the Arab Ansars), against the other (the Jewish clans), and takes on a policing role. After two years of wooing the Jews, he then takes over political power of the city and turns against them, blaming them for not supporting him in his grievances against the Meccans, a grievance which had nothing to do with them. After first exiling two of the Jewish clans for not supporting him, he then turns his attention against the last, largest, and richest of the Jewish families, the Banu Qurayza, whom he attacks and defeats within 25 days. He then chooses a hostile person to arbitrate their surrender, who stipulates that all the 600 – 800 men be beheaded in one afternoon, and the children, women and goods be taken and divvied up, with 1/5th going to Muhammad himself. Indeed Muhammad benefitted greatly from the demise of these Jews.

Later Muslim sources say killing them was legitimate because the Qurayza tribe were all guilty of treason, as they betrayed the ‘Treaty of Medina’, which they had signed earlier, possibly under duress. According to the earlier sources, it was only 7 of the men who sided with the Meccans, yet the entire tribe was convicted, while the treaty itself stipulated that Muhammad would be the arbiter between them and God, a document no Jew would sign, considering their high view of prophet-hood, their disdain for Muhammad, and their refusal to accept the Qur’an as a revelation. Thus, all were indicted for the guilt of a few.

The question for us today is this; if these are the actions of Islam’s greatest prophet, and their greatest paradigm, than what should we expect from Muslims today who choose to follow such a model? Could they, following this model, not likewise move to our cities as guests, begin to police us, and demand we sign a document accepting Muhammad as a prophet, even as our arbiter with God (at the moment they already demand that we not criticize him publicly)? And if we refuse to accept their prophet, as the Banu Qurayza did, should they not do as their prophet did, and attack us, kill our men, and enslave our women and children? Perhaps that scenario seems to you a bit ‘far-fetched’ (and hopefully not prophetic). Nonetheless, is Muhammad’s treatment of the Banu Qurayza a model worth emulating, and should Muhammad be a legitimate paradigm for anyone, anywhere, and for any time, including today, here in Britain? I think not…how think ye?

References

-Arent Jan Wensinck, Muhammad and the Jews of Medina (Berlin: Freiburg, 1975)

-Bernard Lewis, Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6th edition (May 23, 2002)

-Gerd Puin, The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History, Prometheus Books (2008)

-Gilchrist, Jam Al-Qur’an, Jesus to the Muslims (1989)

-Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Phoenix; New Ed edition (2001)

-Karen Armstrong, A History of God, Vintage, 1999

-M. J. Kister, “The massacre of the Banu Qurayza: a re-examination of a tradition,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986)

-Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah, A Guillaume (Trans), London, 1955

-Muhammad ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. (translated into English by S. Moinul Haq), 2 volumes, Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1972.

-Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the rise of Islam, Gorgias Press (20 July 2004)

-Sahaja Carimokam, Muhammad and the People of the Book, Xlibris, Corp, 2010

-Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz’ 21 (Part 21): Al-Ankabut 46 to Al-Azhab 30, Muhammad Saeed Abdul Rehman MSA Publication Limited, 2009

-The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein, State University of New York Press, Albany, (1997)

-W. Montgomery Watt, Early Islam, EDINBURGH University Press, 1990

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, Clarendon press, 1956

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad Prophet and statesman, Oxford, 1961

-W. Montgomery Watt, “The Condemnation of the Jews of Banu Qurayza: A Study of the Sources of the Sira,” in Early Islam: Collected Articles (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990)

-W. N. Arafat, “New Light on the Story of the Banu Qurayza,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2 (1976)

Overview

Manuscripts

Christianity

New Testament written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., & before the fire of Rome, because these events and the martyrdoms of James (62 A.D.), Paul (64 A.D.) & Peter (65 A.D.), all pivotal Christian events, are not mentioned.

New Testament manuscripts

• 5,300 Greek

• 10,000 Latin Vulgate

• 9,300other early versions

• + 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!

Magdalene Manuscript

(Dr.Thiede)=50-68A.D.

(KE=Kurios=Lord) oldest of 98 Papyrus

=15,000 translations: Latin, Syriac, Coptic Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian, Ethiopic

=2,135 Lectionaries from 6th century

=32,000 quotes from Early Church Fathers’ letters; all N. Test. except for 11 verses (-325A.D.) Uthmanic recension. not Topkapi / Sammarkand

Islam

1. Ma’il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.

2. Mashq 7th century onwards.

3. Kufic 8th-11th century.

4. Naskh 11th century till today.

Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings, Safadi all date Topkapi / Sammarkand to 9th century.

Quraish = Mecca, Kufa = 636 A.D. = Persia.

Ma’il Qur’an in British Library, Lings=790 A.D.

Conclusion: no Uthmanic recension, Qur’an= 1,200 years old, 150 year gap!!!

Documentary Evidence

Christianity

Moses didn’t write?, yet Black Stele found = laws of Hammurabi 300 yrs. before Moses.

Daniel not 2nd but 6th BC, East India. Inscription=Dan.4:30=Nebuchadnezzar building.

Dead Sea Scrolls 100 BC = Massoretic MS=916 A.D.

Armana tablets (Egypt) Habiru=Hebrew, first given to Abraham (Gen.14:13)

Ebla tablets (Syria) 17,000=Tell Mardikh 2300 BC=Deuteronomy law code, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Zoar=Gen. 14:8

Mari tablets (Euphrates) Arriyuk=Arioch=Gen.14 Nahor, Harran=Gen.24:10, Benjamin

Nuzi tablets (Iraq) speaks of 6 Patriarchal customsJewssplit with Muh. 624 A.D. (S.2:144-150) – Doctrina Iacobi, 642A.D. Jews/Saracens allied.

Islam

Armenian Chronicler 660 A.D.= Jews & Ishmaelites together up to 640 A.D.

Mecca (S.3:96)=1st sanctuary, Adam=Kaaba 1st city, Abraham/Ishmael, Trade – no ancient reference till 724A.D. (“Makoraba” 1st?)

Sources Periplus (50A.D.), Pliny (79A.D.) vs. Cosmas, Procopius, Theodoretus

no overland trade post – 1st cent=maritime=Red Sea

no trade post-3rd cent, then Ethiopians (Adulis)

Mecca a valley, no water, unlike Taif 50 miles away

cheaper 1,250 miles by ship than 50 miles by camel

Archaeological Accuracy

Christianity

Abraham on Babylonian inscription

Field of Abram in Hebron = 918 BC by Shishak of Egypt, on walls of Karnak temple

Doors of Sodom 2200-1600 BC = heavy = Gen.19:9, 900-600BC = arch/curtains (security)

Beni Hasan Tomb Asiatics went to Egypt/famine

Joseph’s price (20 shekels) Gen.37:28=1,700 BC, earlier cheaper, later more

Joseph’s Tomb Josh.24:32 = in Shechem found mummy with Egyptian sword!

Jericho’s walls fell outwards = Joshua 6:20

David’s Water shafts found (II Sam.5:6-8; I Chron.11:6)Qibla (S.2:144-150) Jeru -> Mecca 624A.D.

Islam

Wasit, Baghdad & Kufa = West, Al As = East

Syrian Caliphal Palaces = Jerusalem

Jacob of Edessa 705 A.D. to Jerusalem

Dome of the Rock: by Abd al-Malik 691A.D., Mi’raj?

Inscriptions polemical & not = Qur’an!

Variant verbal forms, & extensive deviances

No Qibla, octagonal thus 1st sanctuary?

Nevo’s Inscriptions Arabic, religious after 661A.D., no Muh. formula until 690A.D.

then Tawhid, Muhammad rasul Allah, Jesus=man

on Protocols suddenly & only, until 724A.D.

Note: Compared to the Biblical archaeological evidence, there is no archaeological evidence for Adam, Abraham, or Ishmael in Arabia!

Luke’s Accuracy

Erastus = Corinth treasurer (Rom. 16:23), pavement found in 1929 with this name.

Meris = Philippia “district” of Macedonia doubted until inscriptions use it for district.

Politarchs = civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) 19 inscriptions use it, 5 in Thesselonica

Praetor = Philippian ruler instead of Duumuir, Romans used Praetor earlier.

Proconsul = title for Gallio (Acts 18:12) – corroborated by Delphi Inscription (52 A.D.) Gallio held this position for 1yr.

Quirinius = governor of Syria at Jesus’ birth = an inscription from Antioch.

---

• Next Part >

References Cited

Bonwetsch, N. (ed.), “Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati,” in Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.s., vol. xii, Berlin, 1910

Brock, S.P., “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam,” Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society,edited by G.H.A. Juynboll, Carbondale, So.Ill.Univ.Press, 1982

Bulliet, R.W., The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge, Mass., 1975

Cook, Michael, Muhammad, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983

Creswell, K.A.C., Early Muslim Architecture, vol.i, part one, Oxford, 1969

id. A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, (Revised by James W. Allan), Aldershot,Scolar Press, 1989

Crone, Patricia & Cook, Michael, Hagarism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977 Crone, Patricia, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980

id, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987

De Goeje, M. & P.de Jong (eds.), Fragmenta Historicorum Arabicorum, vol.i, Leyden, 1869

Elson, John, “Eyewitnesses Jesus?“, Time, April 8, 1996, pg.60

Fehervari, G., Development of the Mihrab down to the XIVth Century, London Ph.D. 1961 Feinburg, C.L., The New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Glubb, John, The Life and Times of Muhammad, New York, Stein and Day, 1971

Groom, N., Frankincense and Myrrh, a Study of the Arabian Incense Trade, London, 1981 Humphreys, R.S., Islamic History, a framework for Enquiry, Princeton, 1991

Jeffrey, A. (tr.), ‘Ghevond’s (Levond’s) text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III’, The Harvard Theological Review, 1944

Kister, M.J., Mecca and Tamim, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 8 (1965), 117-163

Lemonick, Michael D., “Are the Bible Stories True?“, Time, December 18, 1995, pgs. 50-58

Lings, M., & Safadi, Y.H., The Qur’an, (A catalogue of an exhibition of Qur’an manuscripts at the British Library, 3 April-15 August 1976), British Library, World of Islam Pub. Co., 1976 al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali, Kitab al-mawa’iz wa’l-i’tibar, Cairo, 1326

McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1991 id, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vols.I & II, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990 Muller, W.W., “Weibrauch…,” off-print: Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie, Supplement and 15, Munich, 1978

Nau, F., ‘Un colloque du Patriarche Jean avec l’emir des Agareens,’ Journal asiatique, 1915

Nevo, Yehuda D., “Towards a Prehistory of Islam,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994

Ostling, Richard N., “A Step Closer to Jesus”, Time, Jan.23, 1995, pg.57

Patkanean K.R. (ed.), Patmout’iun Sebeosi Episkoposi i Herakln, St. Petersburg, 1879

Pfander, C.G., The Mizanu’l Haqq ( Balance of Truth’), London, The Religious Tract Society, 1910 (& 1835)

Rippin, Andrew, “Literary Analysis of Qur’an, Tafsir, and Sira, the Methodologies of John Wansbrough”, Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Richard C. Martin (ed.), Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1985

id, Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, vol. 1, London, Routledge, 1990

Schacht, Joseph, “A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, Hertford, Stephen Austin, 1949

Schimmel, Annemarie, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, New York, New York University Press, 1984

Sebeos, Bishop, Histoire d’Heraclius, tr. F. Macler, Paris, 1904

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988

Sprenger, A., Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Berlin, 1869

Van Berchem, M., Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, part two, vol.ii, Cairo, 1927

Van Ess, J., Fruhe Mu’tazilitische Haresiographie, Beirut, 1971

Wansbrough, J., Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977

id, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

Conclusion

Now that we have carried out a cursory study of the historicity for both the Qur’an and the Bible, it is important that we make some conclusions. What can we say concerning the veracity of these two scriptures in light of the evidence produced by the manuscript, document and archeological data at our disposal?

Starting with the Qur’an, it is reasonable to conclude that these findings indeed give us reason for pause concerning its reliability. Manuscript, as well as documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that much of what the Qur’an maintains does not coincide with the historical data at our disposal which comes from that period. From the material amassed from external sources in the 7th-8th centuries, we now know:

1. that the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640 A.D.;

2. that Jerusalem and not Mecca was more-than-likely the city which contained the original sanctuary for Islam, as Mecca was not only unknown as a viable city until the end of the seventh century, but it was not even on the international trade route;

3. that the Qibla (direction of prayer) was not fixed towards Mecca until the eighth century, but to an area much further north, possibly Jerusalem;

4. that the Dome of the Rock situated in Jerusalem was possibly the original sanctuary;

5. that Muhammad was not known as the seal of prophets until the late seventh century;

6. that the earliest we even hear of any Qur’an is not until the mid-eighth century;

7. and that the earliest Qur’anic writings do not coincide with the current Qur’anic text. All of this data contradicts the Qur’an which is in our possession, and adds to the suspicion that the Qur’an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was supposedly collated and canonized in 650 A.D. under Uthman, as Muslims contend (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur’anic text. Consequently, the sole thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D. onwards) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written not 16 years after Muhammad’s death but 160 years later, and thus not 1,400 years ago, but only 1,200 years ago.

---

As for the Bible, with the abundance of existing manuscripts (handwritten copies) of the New Testament (more than 24,000), we know little has been lost through the transmission of the text. In fact there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press! This is indeed surprising, considering the early period in which the manuscripts were compiled, as well as the flimsy material on which they were written. The fact that we have such an abundance of manuscripts still in our possession points to the importance the scriptures have held for the church over the centuries. As far as we can know, the names, places, and events mentioned in the Bible have been recorded accurately so that what we have is the representation of what God said and did. Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed.

Even the Qur’an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures 1. We also know that, outside of the few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).

Therefore, the testimony of the historical evidence is that the Bible and not the Qur’an can be trusted as an accurate and reliable historical document. While we continue to unearth data which substantiates the Bible’s accuracy, we likewise unearth further data which erradicates the validity for the Qur’anic account. If a scripture claims to be a revelation from God, it must prove its claim by establishing its historical credentials, to the extent that even a third party can agree upon the evidence provided. This the Bible and not the Qur’an does adequately.

We must also know that the Bible is unique? Consider: Here is a book written over a 1,500 year span (about 40 generations), by more than 40 authors, among whose number were found: kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, a herdsman, a general, a cupbearer, a doctor, a tax collector, and a rabbi. It was written on three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics, yet from Genesis right on through to Revelation the authors all spoke with harmony and continuity on the theme of the unfolding story of “God’s redemption of humanity.”

If God truly created the world for His pleasure, He would have created it to work to a pattern. This pattern we would expect to find revealed in His Word; as indeed we do, not only in the life of Jesus, the incarnate Word, who came and dwelt among us, but in the truth of the Gospel which was found in His teaching and later written down by His apostles. It is therefore not surprising that many cultures and governments even today continue to follow its precepts, laws and institutions, even though they do not necessarily adhere to its authorship.

It should not surprise us then that the Bible continues to be the source of God’s revelation to His creation, for families and communities around the world, and that, according to the latest statistics, the Bible and not the Qu’ran is uncontested as the most popular book ever written. The statistics prove that it is read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in the history of humanity, so that even now “one copy of the Bible is published every three seconds day and night; or 22 copies every minute day and night; or 1,369 copies every hour day and night; and 32,876 copies every day in the year, and so on…”.

It is logical, then, that Christianity, because it holds the repository of Biblical principles and thinking, is the fastest conversion-growing religion in the world today. What better testimony could one ask to demonstrate the Bible’s claim to be the truly revealed and inspired Word of God.

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52,68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46[]

The Bible’s Archaeological Evidence

(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David):

What has become evident over the last few decades is that unlike the difficulties found with the Qur’anic evidence, the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the Bible’s reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then.

Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia.

1. Abraham’s name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2. The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3. The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’.

There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:

1. The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

2. Joseph’s price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.

3. Joseph’s Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem,as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?

4. Jericho’s excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

5. David’s capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Joseph’s original tomb and home. There remain many ‘tells’ yet to uncover.

Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error.

1. Paul’s reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.

It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:

1. Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.

2. Luke’s mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.

3. Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.

4. Luke’s usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.

5. Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”

In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been historical data which has validated his accounts, we can rest assured that the New Testament can be held in high regard as a reliable historical document.

We have no reason to fear archaeology. In fact it is this very science which has done more to authenticate our scriptures than any other. Thus we encourage the secular archaeologists to dig, for as they dig we know they will only come closer to that which our scriptures have long considered to be the truth, and give us reason to claim that indeed our Bible has the right to claim true authority as the only historically verified Word of God. This is why so many eminent archaeologists are standing resolutely behind the Biblical accounts. Listen to what they say (taken from McDowell’s Evidences 1972:65-67):

G.E. Wright states,”We shall probably never prove that Abram really existed…but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period.”

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, “The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting.”

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, “The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”

Millar Burrows of Yale states, “On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.”

Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, “To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement.”

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

The Qur’an’s Archaeological Evidence

[III] THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

If we are to take the Qur’anic and Biblical records seriously, we will need to inquire further as to whether there are other sources which we can turn to for a corroboration of their accounts. Since we are dealing with scriptures which often speak of history, probably the best and easiest way to confirm that history is to go to the areas where the history took place because history never takes place in a vacuum. It always leaves behind its forgotten fingerprints, waiting dormant in the ground to be discovered, dug up and deciphered. It is therefore, important that we also get our digets dirty and take a look at the treasures which our archaeologist friends are discovering, to ascertain if they have been able to reward us with any clues as to the authenticity of both the Qur’anic and Biblical accounts. Let’s see what archaeology tells us concerning the Qur’an.

[A] THE QUR’AN’S ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:

As with the manuscript and documentary evidence, there is not much archaeological data to which we can turn for corroboration of the Qur’an. What we can do, however, is look at the claims the Qur’an makes and ascertain whether they can be backed up by archaeology. Let’s start with the Qibla, or direction of prayer.

(1) The Qibla:

According to the Qur’an, the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. 1.

Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca, in fact somewhere in north-west Arabia 2. Consider the archaeological evidence which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the seventh century:

According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit(noted by Creswell as, “the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us” – Creswell 1989:41), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north 3. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees 4.

This agrees with Baladhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. 5, also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south 6.

The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik 7. Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south 8.

If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?

We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveller Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 A.D. was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the Mahgraye’ (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka’ba 9. His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 A.D. the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.

Note: The mention of a Ka’ba does not necessarily infer Mecca (as so many Muslims have been quick to point out), since there were other Ka’bas in existence during that time, usually in market-towns 10. It was profitable to build a Ka’ba in these market towns so that the people coming to market could also do their pilgrimage or penitence to the idols contained within. The Ka’ba Jacob of Edessa was referring to was situated at “the patriarchal places of their races,” which he also maintains was not in the south. Both the Jews and Arabs ( Mahgraye’) maintained a common descent from Abraham who was known to have lived and died in Palestine, as has been corroborated by recent archaeological discoveries 11. This common descent from Abraham is also corroborated by the Armenian Chronicler, Sebeos, as early as 660 A.D. 12.

According to Dr. Hawting, who teaches on the sources of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, a part of the University of London), new archaeological discoveries of mosques in Egypt from the early 700s also show that up till that time the Muslims (or Haggarenes) were indeed praying, not towards Mecca, but towards the north, and possibly Jerusalem. In fact, Dr. Hawting maintains, no mosques have been found from this period (the seventh century) which face towards Mecca (noted from his class lectures in 1995). Hawting cautions, however, that not all of the Qiblas face towards Jerusalem. Some Jordanian mosques have been uncovered which face north, while there are certain North African mosques which face south, implying that there was some confusion as to where the early sanctuary was placed. Yet, the Qur’an tells us (in sura 2) that the direction of the Qibla was fixed towards Mecca by approximately two years after the Hijra, or around 624 A.D., and has remained in that direction until the present!

Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary [and thus direction of prayer] not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century 13.

What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur’an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?

Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca. Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! Their livelihood was dependant on travelling the desert, which has few landmarks, and, because of the sandstorms, no roads. They, above all, knew how to follow the stars. Their lives depended on it. Certainly they knew the difference between the north and the south.

Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built in civilized urban areas, amongst a sophisticated people who were well adept at finding directions. It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which we are told was also canonized at this time? And why are so many of the mosques facing in the direction of northern Arabia, or possibly Jerusalem? A possible answer may be found by looking at archaeology once again; this time in Jerusalem itself.

(2) The Dome of the Rock:

In the centre of Jerusalem sits an imposing structure (even today) called the Dome of the Rock, built by Abd al-Malik in 691 A.D. One will note, however, that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, as it has no Qibla (no direction for prayer). It is built as an octagon with eight pillars 14, suggesting it was used for circumambulation (to walk around). Thus, it seems to have been built as a sanctuary (Glasse 1991:102). Today it is considered to be the third most holy site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. Muslims contend that it was built to commemorate the night when Muhammad went up to heaven to speak with Moses and Allah concerning the number of prayers required of the believers (known as the Mi’raj in Arabic) 15.

Yet, according to the research carried out on the inscriptions on the walls of the building by Van Berchem and Nevo, they say nothing of the Mi’raj, but state mere polemical quotations which are Qur’anic, though they are aimed primarily at Christians. The inscriptions attest the messianic status of Jesus, the acceptance of the prophets, Muhammad’s receipt of revelation, and the use of the terms “islam” and “muslim” 16. Why, if the Dome of the Rock were built to commemorate that momentous event, does it saying nothing about it? Perhaps this building was built for other purposes than that of commemorating the Mi’raj. The fact that such an imposing structure was built so early suggests that this and not Mecca became the sanctuary and the centre of a nascent Islam up until at least the late seventh century, 17!

From what we read earlier of Muhammad’s intention to fulfill his and the Hagarene’s birthright, by taking back the land of Abraham, or Palestine, it makes sense that the caliph Abd al-Malik would build this structure as the centre-piece of that fulfilment. Is it no wonder then, that when Abd al-Malik built the dome in which he proclaimed the prophetic mission of Muhammad, he placed it over the temple rock itself 18.

According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note: not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad’s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ‘Kitab al-‘uyun wa’l-hada’iq,’ edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur’an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier 19.

And that is not all, for we have other archaeological and inscripted evidence which point up differences with that which we read in the Qur’an. Let’s look at the reliability of Muhammad’s prophethood, using the data at our disposal.

(3) Nevo’s Rock inscriptions:

In order to know who Muhammad was, and what he did, we must go back to the time when he lived, and look at the evidence which existed then, and still exists, to see what it can tell us about this very important figure. Dr. Wansbrough, who has done so much research on the early traditions and the Qur’an believes that, because the Islamic sources are all very late, from 150 years for the Sira-Maghazi documents, as well as the earliest Qur’an, it behoves us not to consider them authoritative 20. It is when we look at the non-Muslim sources that we find some rather interesting observances as to who this man Muhammad was.

The best non-Muslim sources on this period which we have are those provided by the Arabic rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Peninsula, and especially the Negev desert 21. The man who has done the greatest research on these rock inscriptions is the late Yehuda Nevo, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is to his research, which is titled Towards a Prehistory of Islam, published in 1994, that I will refer.

Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule (seventh to eighth century A.D.), a monotheistic creed. However, he contends that this creed “is demonstrably not Islam, but [a creed] from which Islam could have developed.” 22

Nevo also found that “in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period [661-684 A.D.] there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad.” 23 In fact neither the name Muhammad itself nor any Muhammadan formulae (that he is the prophet of God) appears in any inscription dated before the year 691 A.D.. This is true whether the main purpose of the inscription is religious, such as in supplications, or whether it was used as a commemorative inscription, though including a religious emphasis, such as the inscription at the dam near the town of Ta’if, built by the Caliph Mu’awiya in the 660s A.D. 24.

The fact that Muhammad’s name is absent on all of the early inscriptions, especially the religious ones is significant. Many of the later traditions (i.e. the Sira and the Hadith, which are the earliest Muslim literature that we possess) are made up almost entirely of narratives on the prophet’s life. He is the example which all Muslims are to follow. Why then do we not find this same emphasis in these much earlier Arabic inscriptions which are closer to the time he lived? Even more troubling, why is there no mention of him at all? His name is only found on the Arab inscriptions after 690 A.D. 25.

And what’s more, the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God) is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus 26.

Of greater significance, the first occurrence of what Nevo calls the “Triple Confession of Faith,” including the Tawhid (that God is one), the phrase, Muhammad rasul Allah (that Muhammad is his prophet), and the human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa- abduhu), is found in Abd al-Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated 691 A.D. 27! Before this inscription the Muslim confession of faith cannot be attested at all.

As a rule, after 691 A.D. and on through the Marwanid dynasty (until 750 A.D.), Muhammad’s name usually occurs whenever religious formulae are used, such as on coins, milestones, and papyrus “protocols” 28. One could probably argue that perhaps these late dates are due to the fact that any religious notions took time to penetrate the Arabic inscriptions. Yet, according to Nevo, the first Arabic papyrus, an Egyptian entaqion, which was a receipt for taxes paid, dated 642 A.D. and written in both Greek and Arabic is headed by the “Basmala,” yet it is neither Christian nor Muslim in character 29.

The religious content within the rock inscriptions do not become pronounced until after 661 A.D. However, though they bear religious texts, they never mention the prophet or the Muhammadan formulae 30. “This means,” Nevo says, “that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formulae in its repertoire of set phrases at this time,” a full 30-60 years and more after the death of Muhammad 31. What they did contain was a monotheistic form of belief, belonging to a certain body of sectarian literature with developed Judaeo-Christian conceptions in a particular literary style, but one which contained no features specific to any known monotheistic religion 32.

Of even greater significance, these inscriptions show that when the Muhammadan formulae is introduced, during the Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), it is carried out “almost overnight” 33.

Yet even after the Muhammadan texts became official, they were not accepted by the public quite so promptly. For years after their appearance in state declarations, people continued to include non-Muhammadan legends in personal inscriptions, as well as routine chancery writings 34. Thus, for instance, Nevo has found a certain scribe who does not use the Muhammadan formulae in his Arabic and Greek correspondence, though he does on papyrus “protocols” bearing his name and title 35.

In fact, according to Nevo, Muhammadan formulae only began to be used in the popular rock inscriptions of the central Negev around 30 years (or one generation) after its introduction by Abd al-Malik, sometime during the reign of Caliph Hisham (between 724-743 A.D.). And even these, according to Nevo, though they are Muhammadan, are not Muslim. The Muslim texts, he believes, only begin to appear at the beginning of the ninth century (around 822 A.D.), coinciding with the first written Qur’ans, as well as the first written traditional Muslim accounts 36.

Thus, it seems from these inscriptions that it was during the later Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), and not during the life of Muhammad that he was elevated to the position of a universal prophet, and that even then, the Muhammadan formula which was introduced was still not equivalent with that which we have today.

(4) The Qur’an:

We now come to the Qur’an itself. It seems evident that the Qur’an underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the prophet’s death. We have now uncovered coins with supposed Qur’anic writings on them which date from 685 A.D., coined during the reign of Abd al-Malik 37. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock sanctuary built by Abd al-Malik in Jerusalem in 691 A.D. “does attest to the existence, at the end of the seventh century, of materials immediately recognizable as Koranic.” 38 Yet, the quotations from the Qur’an on both the coins and the Dome of the Rock differ in details from that which we find in the Qur’an today 39. Van Berchem and Grohmann, two etymologists who have done extensive research on the Dome of the Rock inscriptions, maintain that the inscriptions contain “variant verbal forms, extensive deviances, as well as omissions from the text which we have today.” 40.

If these inscriptions had been derived from the Qur’an, with the variants which they contain, then how could the Qur’an have been canonized prior to this time (late seventh century)? One can only conclude that there must have been an evolution in the transmission of the Qur’an through the years (if indeed they were originally taken from the Qur’an).

The sources also seem to suggest that the Qur’an was put together rather hurriedly. This is underlined by Dr. John Wansbrough who maintains that, “the book is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.” 41 Thus Crone and Cook believe that because of the imperfection of the editing, the emergence of the Qur’an must have been a sudden and late event 42.

As to when that event took place we are not altogether sure, but we can make an educated guess. From the earlier discussion concerning the dating of the earliest manuscripts we can conclude that there was no Qur’anic documentation in existence in the mid-late seventh century. The earliest reference from outside Islamic literary traditions to the book called the “Qur’an” occurs in the mid-eighth century between an Arab and a monk of Bet Hale 43, but no-one knows whether it may have differed considerably in content from the Qur’an which we have today. Both Crone and Cook conclude that except for this small reference there is no indication of the existence of the Qur’an before the end of the seventh century 44.

Crone and Cook in their research go on to maintain that it was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the “Qur’an” (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Qur’an) could have been compiled as Muhammad’s scripture 45. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others “according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation.” 46 A reasonable conclusion is that it was during this period that the Qur’an began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Qur’an which we now know.

From this brief survey we can conclude that the archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Qur’an proves to be the most damaging. Not only do the seventh and eighth century ruins and inscriptions from the area seem to contradict the notion that Muhammad canonized a direction of prayer during his lifetime, or that he had formulated a scripture known as the Qur’an, but the idea of his universal prophethood, that he was the final “seal” of all prophets is brought into question. This indeed is significant and troublesome.

The question we must now pose is whether there is any archaeological evidence to corroborate the authenticity for the Bible? Do the same problems exist with the Bible that we find with the Qur’an?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. see Sura 2:144, 149-150[]

2. Crone-Cook 1977:23[]

3. Creswell 1969:137ff & 1989:40; Fehervari 1961:89; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173[]

4. Creswell 1969:137ff; Fehervari 1961:89[]

5. Creswell 1989:41[]

6. al-Baladhuri’s Futuh, ed. by de Goeje 1866:276; Crone 1980:12; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173[]

7. Creswell 1969:37,150[]

8. al-Maqrizi 1326:6; Crone-Cook 1977:24,173[]

9. Crone-Cook 1977:24[]

10. Crone-Cook 1977:25,175[]

11. see the earlier discussion on the Ebla, Mari and Nuzi tablets, as well as extra-Biblical 10th century references to Abraham in McDowell 1991:98-104[]

12. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:8; Cook 1983:75[]

13. Crone-Cook 1977:24[]

14. Nevo 1994:113[]

15. Glasse 1991:102[]

16. Van Berchem 1927:nos.215,217; Nevo 1994:113[]

17. Van Bercham 1927:217[]

18. Van Berchem 1927:217[]

19. see Sura 2:144-150[]

20. Wansbrough 1977:160-163; Rippin 1985:154-155[]

21. Nevo 1994:109[]

22. Nevo 1994:109[]

23. Nevo 1994:109[]

24. Nevo 1994:109[]

25. Nevo 1994:109-110[]

26. Nevo 1994:110[]

27. Nevo 1994:110[]

28. Nevo 1994:110[]

29. Nevo 1994:110[]

30. Nevo 1994:110[]

31. Nevo 1994:110[]

32. Nevo 1994:110,112[]

33. Nevo 1994:110). Suddenly it became the state’s only form of official religious declaration, and was used exclusively in formal documents and inscriptions, such as the papyrus “protocols” ((Nevo 1994:110[]

34. Nevo 1994:114[]

35. Nevo 1994:114[]

36. Nevo 1994:115[]

37. Nevo 1994:110[]

38. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

39. Cook 1983:74[]

40. Cook 1983:74; Crone-Cook 1977:167-168; see Van Berchem part two, vol.ii, nos.1927:215-217 and Grohmann’s Arabic Papyri from Hirbet el-Mird, no.72 to delineate where these variances are[]

41. quoted in Hagarism, Crone-Cook 1977:18,167[]

42. Crone-Cook 1977:18,167[]

43. Nau 1915:6f[]

44. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

45. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

46. Jeffrey 1944:298[]

The Bible’s Documentary Evidence

(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David)

The documentary evidence for the reliability of the Bible has been an area of research which has been increasing rapidly over the last few decades. But this hasn’t always been so. The assumption by many former archaeologists was that the Old Testament was written not in the tenth to fourteenth centuries B.C. by the authors described within its text, but by later Jewish historians during the much later second to sixth century B.C., and that the stories were then redacted back onto the great prophets such as Moses and David, etc… Yet, with the enormous quantity of data which has been uncovered and is continuing to be uncovered, as well as the new forensic research methods being employed to study them, what we are now finding is that many of these preconceived notions of authorship are simply no longer valid. For instance:

(1) The skeptics contended that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses, because there was no evidence of any writing that early. Then the Black Stele was found with the detailed laws of Hammurabi which were written 300 years before Moses, and in the same region.

(2) There was much doubt as to the reliability of the Old Testament documents, since the oldest manuscript in our possession was the Massoretic Text, written in 916 A.D. How, the skeptics asked, can we depend on a set of writings whose earliest manuscripts are so recent? Then came the amazing discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls written around 125 B.C. These scrolls show us that outside of minute copying errors it is identical to the Massoretic Text and yet it predates it by over 1,000 years! We have further corroboration in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, translated around 150-200 B.C.

Yet to please the skeptics, the best documentary evidence for the reliability of the Biblical text must come from documents external to the Biblical text themselves. There has always been doubt concerning the stories of Abraham and the Patriarchs found in the books attributed to Moses, the Pentateuch. The skeptics maintained that there is no method of ascertaining their reliability since we have no corroboration from external secular accounts. This has all changed; for instance:

(3) Discoveries from excavations at Nuzu, Mari and Assyrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Eshunna Codes point out that Hebrew poetry, Mosaic legislation as well as the Hebrew social customs all fit the period and region of the patriarchs.

(4) According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period.

(5) Historians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period.

(6) The account of Daniel, according to the sceptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century’s East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar’s building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye-witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.

The strongest case for extra-Biblical corroboration of the Patriarchal period is found in four sets of tablets which have been and are continuing to be uncovered from that area of the world. They demonstrate that the Biblical account is indeed historically reliable. Let’s briefly look at all four sets of tablets.

(7) *Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13.

(8) *Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.

(9) *Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru.

(10) *Nuzi tablets: (from Iraq) speaks about a number of customs which we find in the Pentateuch, such as:

1. a barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar)

2. a bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah)

3. a dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob)

4. work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob)

5. the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac)

6. a father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel)

7. the sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob).

Because of these extra-Biblical discoveries many of the historians are now changing their position. Thus Joseph Free states: “New discoveries now show us that a host of supposed [Biblical] errors and contradictions are not errors at all: such as, that Sargon existed and lived in a palatial dwelling 12 miles north of Ninevah, that the Hittites were a significant people, that the concept of a sevenfold lamp existed in the early Iron Age, that a significant city given in the record of David’s empire lies far to the north, and that Belshazzar existed and ruled over Babylon.”

While documentary evidence for the Bible in the form of secular inscriptions and tablets not only corroborates the existence of some of the oldest Biblical traditions, similar and more recent documentary evidence (such as the Doctrina Iacobi, and the Armenian Chronicler) eradicates some of the more cherished Islamic traditions, that Islam was a uniquely Arab creation, and that Mecca, the supposed centre for Islam, has little historicity whatsoever before or during the time of Muhammad.

We look forward to further documentary discoveries coming to light, as they continue to substantiate and underline the Biblical record, while simultaneously putting doubt to the record of the Qur’an. Let’s now look at the archaeological evidence for both the Bible and the Qur’an:

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

The Qur’an’s Documentary Evidence

[II] DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

[A] THE QUR’AN’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence for the Qur’an has always been difficult, due to the paucity of primary documents at our disposal (as was mentioned in the previous section).

The oldest Muslim documents available are the Muslim Traditions, which were initially compiled as late as 765 A.D. (i.e. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq). Yet the earliest documents which we can refer to today are those compiled by Ibn Hisham (the Sira of the prophet), and the large Hadith compilations of al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, all written in the ninth century, and thus 200 to 250 years after the fact. They are much too late to be useful for our study here. Therefore we must go back to the seventh century itself and ascertain what documents are available with which we can corroborate the reliability of the Qur’an.

(1) Doctrina Iacobi and 661 Chronicler:

Two seventh century documents at our disposal are helpful here: a) the Doctrina Iacobi, the earliest testimony of Muhammad and of his “movement” available to us outside Islamic tradition; a Greek anti-Jewish tract which was written in Palestine between 634 and 640 A.D. 1, and b) a chronicle supposedly written by Sebeos in 660 A.D. Both of these documents deal with the relationship between the Arabs and Jews in the seventh century.

The Qur’an implies that Muhammad severed his relationship with the Jews in 624 A.D. (or soon after the Hijra in 622 A.D.), and thus moved the direction of prayer, the Qibla at that time from Jerusalem to Mecca 2. The early non-Muslim sources, however, depict a good relationship between the Muslims and Jews at the time of the first conquests (late 620s A.D.), and even later. Yet the Doctrina Iacobi warns of the Jews who mix with the Saracens,’ and the danger to life and limb of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens’ 3. In fact, this relationship seems to carry right on into the conquest as an early Armenian source mentions that the governor of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the conquest was a Jew 4.

What is significant here is the possibility that Jews and Arabs (Saracens) seem to be allied together during the time of the conquest of Palestine and even for a short time after 5.

If these witnesses are correct than one must ask how it is that the Jews and Saracens (Arabs) are allies as late as 640 A.D., when, according to the Qur’an, Muhammad severed his ties with the Jews as early as 624 A.D., more than 15 years earlier?

To answer that we need to refer to the earliest connected account of the career of the prophet,’ that given in an Armenian chronicle from around 660 A.D., which is ascribed by some to Bishop Sebeos 6. The chronicler describes how Muhammad established a community which comprised both Ishmaelites (i.e. Arabs) and Jews, and that their common platform was their common descent from Abraham; the Arabs via Ishmael, and the Jews via Isaac 7. The chronicler believed Muhammad had endowed both communities with a birthright to the Holy Land, while simultaneously providing them with a monotheist genealogy 8. This is not without precedent as the idea of an Ishmaelite birthright to the Holy Land was discussed and rejected earlier in the Genesis Rabbah (61:7), in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Book of Jubilees 9.

Here we find a number of non-Muslim documentary sources contradicting the Qur’an, maintaining that there was a good relationship between the Arabs and Jews for at least a further 15 years beyond that which the Qur’an asserts.

If Palestine was the focus for the Arabs, then the city of Mecca comes into question, and further documentary data concerning Mecca may prove to be the most damaging evidence against the reliability of the Qur’an which we have to date.

(2) Mecca:

To begin with we must ask what we know about Mecca? Muslims maintain that “Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the centre of history.” According to the Qur’an, “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (or Mecca), a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples.” 10 In Sura 6:92 and 42:5 we find that Mecca is described as the “mother of all settlements.” According to Muslim tradition, Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka’ba there, while according to the Qur’an 11 it was Abraham and Ishmael who rebuilt the Meccan Ka’ba many years later. Thus, by implication, Mecca is considered by Muslims to be the first and most important city in the world! In fact much of the story of Muhammad revolves around Mecca, as his formative years were spent there, and it was to Mecca that he sought to return while in exile in Medina.

Apart from the obvious difficulty in finding any documentary or archaeological evidence that Abraham ever went to or lived in Mecca, the overriding problem rests in finding any reference to the city before the creation of Islam. From research carried out by both Crone and Cook, except for an inference to a city called “Makoraba” by the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy in the mid-2nd century A.D. (though we are not even sure whether this allusion by Ptolemy referred to Mecca, as he only mentioned the name in passing), there is absolutely no other report of Mecca or its Ka’ba in any authenticated ancient document; that is until the early eighth century 12. As Crone and Cook maintain the earliest substantiated reference to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, which is a source dating from early in the reign of the caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 A.D. 13.

Therefore, the earliest corroborative evidence we have for the existence of Mecca is fully 100 years after the date when Islamic tradition and the Qur’an place it. Why? Certainly, if it was so important a city, someone, somewhere would have mentioned it; yet we find nothing outside of the small inference by Ptolemy 500 years earlier, and these initial statements in the early eighth century.

Yet even more troubling historically is the claim by Muslims that Mecca was not only an ancient and great city, but it was also the centre of the trading routes for Arabia in the seventh century and before 14. It is this belief which is the easiest to examine, since we have ample documentation from that part of the world with which to check out its veracity.

According to extensive research by Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle-East, these claims by Muslims are quite wrong, as Mecca simply was not on any major trading routes. The reason for this, he contends, is that, “Mecca is tucked away at the edge of the peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads between a north-south route and an east-west one.” 15

This is corroborated by further research carried out by Groom and Muller, who contend that Mecca simply could not have been on the trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural route along the western ridge. In fact, they maintain the trade route must have bypassed Mecca by some one-hundred miles 16.

Patricia Crone, in her work on Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam adds a practical reason which is too often overlooked by earlier historians. She points out that, “Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts, and least of all when they are found at a short distance from famously green environments. Why should caravans have made a steep descent to the barren valley of Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if. Mecca did, of course, have both a well and a sanctuary, but so did Ta’if, which had food supplies, too” 17.

Furthermore, Patricia Crone asks, “what commodity was available in Arabia that could be transported such a distance, through such an inhospitable environment, and still be sold at a profit large enough to support the growth of a city in a peripheral site bereft of natural resources?” 18 It wasn’t incense, spices, and other exotic goods, as many notoriously unreliable earlier writers have intimated 19. According to the latest and much more reliable research by Kister and Sprenger, the Arabs engaged in a trade of a considerably humbler kind, that of leather and clothing; hardly items which could have founded a commercial empire of international dimensions 20.

The real problem with Mecca, however, is that there simply was no international trade taking place in Arabia, let alone in Mecca in the centuries immediately prior to Muhammad’s birth. It seems that much of our data in this area has been spurious from the outset, due to sloppy research of the original sources, carried out by Lammens, “an unreliable scholar,” and repeated by the great orientalists such as Watts, Shaban, Rodinson, Hitti, Lewis and Shahid 21. Lammens, using first century sources (such as Periplus and Pliny) should have used the later Greek historians who were closer to the events (such as Cosmas, Procopius and Theodoretus) 22.

Had he referred to the later historians he would have found that the Greek trade between India and the Mediterranean was entirely maritime after the first century A.D. 23. One need only look at a map to understand why. It made little sense to ship goods across such distances by land when a water-way was available close by. Patricia Crone points out that in Diocletian’s Rome it was cheaper to ship wheat 1,250 miles by sea than to transport it fifty miles by land 24. The distance from Najran, Yemen in the south, to Gaza in the north was roughly 1,250 miles. Why would the traders ship their goods from India by sea, and unload it at Aden where it would be put on the backs of much slower and more expensive camels to trudge 1,250 miles across the inhospitable Arabian desert to Gaza, when they could simply have left it on the ships and followed the Red Sea route up the west coast of Arabia?

There were other problems as well. Had Lammens researched his sources correctly he would have also found that the Greco-Roman trade with India collapsed by the third century A.D., so that by Muhammad’s time there was not only no overland route, but no Roman market to which the trade was destined 25. He would have similarly found that what trade remained, was controlled by the Ethiopians and not the Arabs, and that Adulis, the port city on the Ethiopian coast of the Red Sea, and not Mecca was the trading centre of that region 26.

Of even more significance, had Lammens taken the time to study the early Greek sources, he would have discovered that the Greeks to whom the trade went had never even heard of a place called Mecca 27. If, according to the Muslim traditions, and recent orientalists, Mecca was so important, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, we find nothing. Crone in her work points out that the Greek trading documents refer to the towns of Ta’if(which is south-east and close to present-day Mecca), and to Yathrib (later Medina), as well as Kaybar in the north, but no mention is made of Mecca 28. That indeed is troubling for the historicity of a city whose importance lies at the centre of the nascent Islam.

Had the later orientalists bothered to check out Lammens’ sources, they too would have realized that since the overland route was not used after the first century A.D., it certainly was not in use in the fifth or sixth centuries 29, and much of what has been written concerning Mecca would have been corrected long before now.

Finally, the problem of locating Mecca in the early secular sources is not unique, for there is even some confusion within Islamic tradition as to where exactly Mecca was initially situated 30. According to research carried out by J.van Ess, in both the first and second civil wars, there are accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca 31. Yet Mecca is south-west of Medina, and Iraq is north-east. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today!

We are left in a quandary. If, according to documentary evidence, in this case the ancient Greek historical and trading documents, Mecca was not the great commercial centre the later Muslim traditions would have us believe, if it was not known by the people who lived and wrote from that period, and if it could not even qualify as a viable city during the time of Muhammad, it certainly could not have been the centre of the Muslim world at that time. How then can we believe that the Qur’an is reliable? The documentary evidence not only contradicts its dating on the split between the Arabs and the Jews, but the city it identifies as the birthplace and cornerstone for the nascent Islam cannot even be identified with any historical accuracy until at least a full century later? Do these same problems exist with the Bible?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. Brock 1982:9; Crone-Cook 1977:3[]

2. Sura 2:144, 149-150[]

3. Bonwetsch 1910:88; Cook 1983:75[]

4. Patkanean 1879:111; Sebeos 1904:103[]

5. Crone-Cook 1977:6[]

6. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:6[]

7. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:8; Cook 1983:75[]

8. Crone-Cook 1977:8[]

9. Crone-Cook 1977:159[]

10. Sura 3:96[]

11. Sura 2:125-127[]

12. Cook 1983:74; Crone-Cook 1977:22[]

13. Crone-Cook 1977:22,171[]

14. Cook 1983:74; Crone 1987:3-6[]

15. Bulliet 1975:105[]

16. Groom 1981:193; Muller 1978:723[]

17. Crone 1987:6-7; Crone-Cook 1977:22[]

18. Crone 1987:7[]

19. see Crone’s discussion on the problem of historical accuracy, particularly between Lammens, Watts and Kister, in Meccan Trade 1987:3[]

20. Kister 1965:116; Sprenger 1869:94[]

21. Crone 1987:3,6[]

22. Crone 1987:3,19-22,44[]

23. Crone 1987:29[]

24. Crone 1987:7[]

25. Crone 1987:29[]

26. Crone 1987:11,41-42[]

27. Crone 1987:11,41-42[]

28. Crone 1987:11[]

29. Crone 1987:42[]

30. see the discussion on the evolution of the Meccan site in Crone & Cook’s Hagarism 1977:23,173[]

31. van Ess 1971:16; see also Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi 1369:343[]

The Bible’s Manuscript Evidence

Unlike the Qur’an, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslims contend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliability of the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?

(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one’s possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness’s agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus’s historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle’s writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today 1. These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! 2. Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What’s more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur’an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament 3.

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur’an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ 4. Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

(2) Available Manuscripts:

A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let’s then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let’s compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides’ work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts 5.

Secular Manuscripts:

---

AuthorDate WrittenEarliest CopyTime SpanCopies (extent)Herodotus (History)480 – 425 BC900 AD1,300 years8Thucydides (History)460 – 400 BC900 AD1,300 years?Aristotle (Philosopher)384 – 322 BC1,100 AD1,400 years5Caesar (History)100 – 44 BC900 AD1,000 years10Pliny (History)61 – 113 AD850 AD750 years7Suetonius (Roman History)70 – 140 AD950 AD800 years?Tacitus (Greek History)100 AD1,100 AD1,000 years20 Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)1st century50-60 ADco-existant (?) John Rylands (John)90 AD130 AD40 years Bodmer Papyrus II (John)90 AD150-200 AD60-110 years Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)1st century200 AD150 years Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)1st century200 AD150 years Codex Vaticanus (Bible)1st century325-350 AD275-300 years Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)1st century350 AD300 years Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)1st century400 AD350 years 

---

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)

(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD 6. Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years 7. But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew’s Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive “IS” for Jesus and “KE” for Kurie or Lord 8. This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the “Jesus Seminar”) that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ’s divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:

(3) Versions or Translations:

Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) 9.

Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century) 10. The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.

(4) Lectionaries:

The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period 11. If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.

(5) Early Church Father’s Letters:

But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers.

Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers 12. In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 13. J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses 14! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are 15:

• Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.

• Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.

• Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.

Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

---

So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Qur’an and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Qur’anic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence 16, most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) 17, Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century 18. If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Qur’an, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur’an was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur’an.

Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliest letters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we have in our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been unduly added to or tampered with, the Qur’anic material which we have in our possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to second century Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some cases who wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they were written; and that none of them were from a divine source, as they were written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the intervening centuries after the Bible had been canonized.

We now turn our attention to the documentary evidence for both the Qur’an and the Bible.

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. McDowell 1972:42[]

2. taken from McDowell’s Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57[]

3. Aland 1987:82-83[]

4. Robinson 1976:79[]

5. taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17[]

6. Time April 26, 1996, pg.8[]

7. Time April 26, 1996, pg.8[]

8. The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994[]

9. McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47[]

10. McDowell 1972:48-50[]

11. McDowell 1972:52[]

12. McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52[]

13. Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52[]

14. McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48[]

15. from McDowell’s Evidence…, 1972 pg. 51[]

16. McDowell 1990:43-55[]

17. McDowell 1972:39-49[]

18. Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6[]

The Qur’an’s Manuscript Evidence

[I] MANUSCRIPT ANALYSIS:

Let’s then begin by looking at the area of manuscript evidence. What manuscripts do we have in Islam which can corroborate the authenticity of the Qur’an that we have in our hands today, and likewise, what Christian manuscripts are available to validate the Bible?

[A] THE QUR’AN’S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE:

A manuscript analysis of the Qur’an does present us with unique problems not encountered with the Bible. While we can find multiple manuscripts for the Bible written 700-900 years earlier, at a time when durable paper was not even used, the manuscripts for the Qur’an within the century in which it was purported to have been compiled, the seventh century, simply do not exist. Prior to 750 A.D. (thus for 100 years after Muhammad’s death) we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us a window into this formative period of Islam 1. In fact the primary sources which we possess are from 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events 2. For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists. We simply do not have any “account from the Islamic’ community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [the early 7th century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature” [the late 8th century] 3.

We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing 4. The documentary evidence at our disposal, prior to 750 A.D. “consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations” 5. Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the later Muslim traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur’an 6. In fact we have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text 7. Nor do we have any of the alleged four copies which were made of this recension and sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus 8.

Even if these copies had somehow disintegrated with age (as some Muslims now allege), there would surely be some fragments of the documents which we could refer to. By the end of the seventh century Islam had expanded from Spain in the west to India in the east. The Qur’an (according to tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there would be some Qur’anic documents or manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing anywhere from that period at all.

With the enormous number of manuscripts available for the Christian scriptures, all compiled long before the time Muhammad was born, it is incredible that Islam cannot provide a single corroborated manuscript of their most holy book from even within a century of their founder’s birth.

(1) Sammarkand and Topkapi MSS; Kufic and Ma’il Scripts:

In response, Muslims contend that they do have a number of these “Uthmanic recensions,” these original copies from the seventh century, still in their possession. There are two documents which do hold some credibility, and to which many Muslims refer. These are the Samarkand Manuscript, which is located in the Tashkent library, Uzbekistan (in the southern part of the former Soviet Union), and the Topkapi Manuscript, which can be found in the Topkapi Museum, in Istanbul, Turkey.

These two documents are indeed old, and there has been ample etymological analysis done on them by scriptologists, as well as experts in Arabic calligraphy to warrant their discussion. What most Muslims do not realize is that these two manuscripts are written in the Kufic Script, a script which according to modern Qur’anic manuscript experts, such as Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the eighth century, and was not in use at all in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century 9.

The reasons for this are quite simple. Consider: The Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi, derives its name from the city of Kufa in Iraq 10. It would be rather odd for this script to have been adopted as the official script for the “mother of all books” as it is a script which had its origins in a city that had only been conquered by the Arabs a mere 10-14 years earlier.

It is important to note that the city of Kufa, which is in present day Iraq, was a city which would have been Sassanid or Persian before that time (637-8 A.D.). Thus, while Arabic would have been known there, it would not have been the predominant language, let alone the predominant script until much later.

We know in fact, that the Kufic script reached its perfection during the late eighth century (up to one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death) and thereafter it became widely used throughout the Muslim world 11. This makes sense, since after 750 A.D. the Abbasids controlled Islam, and due to their Persian background were headquartered in the Kufa and Baghdad areas. They would thus have wanted their script to dominate. Having been themselves dominated by the Umayyads (who were based in Damascus) for around 100 years, it would now be quite understandable that an Arabic script which originated in their area of influence, such as the Kufic script would evolve into that which we find in these two documents mentioned here.

Therefore, it stands to reason that both the Topkapi and Samarkand Manuscripts, because they are written in the Kuficscript, could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the Uthmanic Recension was supposedly compiled; at the earliest the late 700s or early 800s 12.

We do know that there were two earlier Arabic scripts which most modern Muslims are not familiar with. These are the al-Ma’il Script, developed in the Hijaz, particularly in Mecca and Medina, and the Mashq Script, also developed in Medina 13. The al-Ma’il Script came into use in the seventh century and is easily identified, as it was written at a slight angle 14. In fact the word al-Ma’il means “slanting.” This script survived for about two centuries before falling into disuse.

The Mashq Script also began in the seventh century, but continued to be used for many centuries. It is more horizontal in form and can be distinguished by its somewhat cursive and leisurely style 15. There are those who believe that the Mashq script was a forerunner to the later Kufic script, as there are similarities between the two.

If the Qur’an had been compiled at this time in the seventh century, then one would expect it to have been written in either the Ma’il or Mashq script.

Interestingly, we do have a Qur’an written in the Ma’il script, and considered to be the earliest Qur’an in our possession today. Yet it is not found in either Istanbul or Tashkent, but, ironically, it resides in the British Museum in London 16. It has been dated towards the end of the eighth century (790 A.D.) by Martin Lings, the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, who is himself, a practising Muslim.

Therefore, with the help of script analysis, we are quite certain that there is no known manuscript of the Qur’an which we possess today which can be dated from the seventh century 17.

Furthermore, virtually all the earliest Qur’anic manuscript fragments which we do possess cannot be dated earlier than 100 years after the time of Muhammad. In her book Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel underlines this point when she states that apart from the recently discovered [Korans] in Sanaa, “the earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century.” 18

From the evidence we possess, therefore, it would seem improbable that any portions of the Qur’an supposedly copied out at Uthman’s direction have survived. What we are left with is the intervening 150 years for which we cannot account.

(2) Talmudic Sources in the Qur’an:

Another problem with manuscript evidence for the Qur’an is that of the heretical Talmudic accounts found within its passages. Possibly the greatest puzzlement for Christians who pick up the Qur’an and read it are the numerous seemingly Biblical stories which bear little similarity to the Biblical accounts. The Qur’anic stories include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to the familiar stories we have known and learned. So, we ask, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature (some of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century A.D. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales of the later Jewish and Christian communities, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an (note:Talmudic material taken from Feinburg 1993:1162-1163).

The Jewish Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century A.D., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions were created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Most Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but they read them nonetheless with interest for the light they cast on the times in which they were written.

Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those among the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book 19.

Some orientalist scholars believe that when later Islamic compilers came onto the scene, in the eighth to ninth centuries A.D., they merely added this body of literature to the nascent Qur’anic material. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by later redactors, and incorporated into the holy writings’ of Islam.

There are quite a few stories which have their root in second century (A.D.) Jewish apocryphal literature; stories such as the murder of Abel by Cain in sura 5:31-32, borrowed from the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah and the Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; or the story of Abraham, the idols and the fiery furnace in sura 21:51-71, taken from the Midrash Rabbah; or the amusing story found in sura 27:17-44, of Solomon, his talking Hoopoo bird, and the queen of Sheba who lifts her skirt when mistaking a mirrored floor for water, taken from the 2nd Targum of Esther.

There are other instances where we find both apocryphal Jewish and Christian literatures within the Qur’anic text. The account of Mt. Sinai being lifted up and held over the heads of the Jews as a threat for rejecting the law (sura 7:171) comes from the second century Jewish apocryphal book, The Abodah Sarah. The odd accounts of the early childhood of Jesus in the Qur’an can be traced to a number of Christian apocryphal writings: the Palm tree which provides for the anguish of Mary after Jesus’s birth (sura 19:22-26) comes from The Lost Books of the Bible; while the account of the infant Jesus creating birds from clay (sura 3:49) comes from Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ. The story of the baby Jesus talking (sura 19:29-33) can be traced to Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.

In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque.’ From later traditions we find this aya refers to Muhammad ascending up to the seventh heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “winged-horse” called Buraq. More detail is furnished us in the Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic. Another analogous account is that of The Secrets of Enoch ( chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1), which predates the Qur’an by four centuries. Yet a further similar account is largely modelled on the story contained in the old Persian book entitled Arta-i Viraf Namak, telling how a pious young Zoroastrian ascended to the skies, and, on his return, related what he had seen, or professed to have seen 20.

The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century 21.

The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9 possibly utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

It is important to remember that the Talmudic accounts were not considered by the orthodox Jews of that period as authentic for one very good reason: they were not in existence at the council of Jamnia in 80 A.D. when the Old Testament was canonized. Neither were the Christian apocryphal material considered canonical, as they were not attested as authoritative both prior to and after the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Thus these accounts have always been considered as heretical by both the Jewish and Christian orthodox believers, and the literate ever since. It is for this reason that we find it deeply suspicious that the apocryphal accounts should have made their way into a book claiming to be the final revelation from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Let’s now look at the manuscript evidence for the Bible and ascertain whether the scripture which we read today is historically accurate?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. Wansbrough 1978:58-59[]

2. Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204[]

3. Wansbrough 1978:119[]

4. Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8[]

5. Humphreys 1991:80[]

6. Schacht 1949:143-154[]

7. Schimmel 1984:4[]

8. see Gilchrist’s arguments in his book Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989, pp. 140-154, as well as Ling’s & Safadi’s The Qur’an 1976, pp. 11-17[]

9. Lings & Safadi 1976:12-13,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146; 152-153[]

10. Lings & Safadi 1976:17[]

11. Lings & Safadi 1976:12,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146[]

12. Gilchrist 1989:144-147[]

13. Lings & Safadi 1976:11; Gilchrist 1989:144-145[]

14. see the example on page 16 of Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989[]

15. Gilchrist 1989:144[]

16. Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144[]

17. Gilchrist 1989:147-148,153[]

18. Schimmels 1984:4[]

19. Feinburg 1993:1163[]

20. Pfander 1835:295-296[]

21. Glubb 1971:36[]