quran and jerusalem suliman bashear

8/7/2019 Quran and Jerusalem Suliman Bashear

1/25

Cambridge University PressSchool of Oriental and African Studieshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/617216 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University ofLondon.

http://www.jstor.org


2/25

QUR'AN 2:114AND JERUSALEMBy SULIMANBASHEAR

1. Qur'an2:114 ' describes those who preventGod's name being utteredin Hismosques (manmana'amasdjida'llihi anyukhdarafith 'smuhu)as' most unjust'(azlamu).If further states that' they shall not be allowed to enter themexcept infear; they shall endure the curse of chastisement in this world and great torturein the aftermath'.2Modern scholars who translated the Qur'an into European languages havebriefly noted the existence of two opposite directions of interpretation in thetraditional Muslim commentaries: one which proposes a Jerusalem/Byzantinecontext for the verse's revelation and meaning, and another, which brings tobear a Meccan/Qurashi one. Beyond such passing notice, however, no seriousattempt was made to examine the issue thoroughly.3A. Rippin has recently paid closer attention to this verse.4 However, indrawing on Wansbrough's scheme5 for examining the relation between' halakhic' and' haggadic ' elements in the, mainly later, Muslim commentaries,Rippin centres attention on the former;a further examination of the haggadicinterpretations given to the verse by pre-classical exegesis therefore seemsjustified.My initial interest in this verse was aroused by a unique commentary inShams al-Din Suyiiti's (d. 880 A.H.)work on the merits (fadi'il) of the Jerusalemsanctuary.6' It was revealed', he says, 'concerning the barring of Muslims bythe Byzantines from the Jerusalem sanctuary'.7Such a remarkable commentary in itself justifies further investigation.Moreover, 2:114 is followed by two verses (2:115-16) which could be taken as

'According to the modern standardEgyptianedition of 1342/1923 = 2/108 of Fliigel's edition:ConcordantiaeCoraniArabicae, Lipsiae, 1842, 118-19. In J. M. Rodwell's translation-edition it wasgiven no. 19/108. See his: The Koran translated,London & New York repr. 1913, 350.2 Unless otherwise stated, the English renderings given in this paper are based upon those ofJ. Arberry, The Koran interpreted, London, 1964. The literal wording of the verse in Arabic is:wa-man azlamu mamman mana'a masdjidaallahi 'an yudhkarafiha ismuhuwa-sa'afi khardbihd;'uld'ikama kana lahum an yad-khuliuhdilla Khd'ifin,lahumfi al-dunyd Khizyun wa-fi al- 'dkhirati'adhdbun'azTm.3e.g., C. Sale, TheKoran,New York & London, 1984 repr.of the original 1734ed., p. 15,n. (b).See also the notes of E. M. Wherry on Sale's translation entitled:A comprehensivecommentaryonthe Quran, London, 1896, I, 331-2. J. M. Rodwell says that if the Meccans are those meant by thisverse then it is misplaced here, op. cit., p. 350, n. 2. In M. Watt's words:' the reference is uncertain.It can hardly be the pagan Meccans in this Medinan context. Jerusalem has been suggested,'Companionto the Quran, London, 1967,27. Compare also with R. Blachere, Le Coran,Paris, 1951,II, 759-60. Rudi Paret's Der Koran (Stuttgart, 1982, 18) does not comment at all.4 See his unpublishedPh.D. thesis,' The QuranicAsbdbal-Nuzulmaterial: an analysis of its useand development in exegesis', McGill University, 1981, 180-7. I am grateful to Professor Rippin formaking the relevantchapteravailable to me and for the valuable comments he gave on several issuesdealt with in this paper.5 As developed in his Quranicstudies, Oxford, 1977, to which further references will be madebelow.6 thdf al-Akhis.d, Cairo, 1982. This work was translated into English by J. Reynolds as Thehistoryof the Templeof Jerusalem, 1836. However, it was wrongly attributedto Jalalal-Din Suyuiii,and the translationis outdated. Extracts were translated also by G. Le Strangeand published in theJournalof the Royal Asiatic Society, 19, 1887, 247-305. Reference to a manuscript copy of the workin the Hebrew University (no. 64/2) and some use of it were made by M. J. Kister and A. El'ad intheir' Haddithu ...' and ' Moslem Holy Places ...', respectively, to which further reference will bemade below. Recently M. Ibrahim published selected extracts in his edition of Fadd'il, Kuwait,1985.Though he mentions the existence of more manuscriptsof this work, the editor does not seemto be aware of the published Cairo 1982 edition.7 Ithdf al-AkhissdI, 100. Lit.: nazalatftman' al-ram al-muslimTnmin bayt al-maqdis.


3/25

SULIMANBASHEARreferringto the abrogation of the Jerusalemqibla and the argument surround-ing the nature of the relation between God and Christ.8Considered together the two notions present, in the form of a Qur'anicsequence, an important problematic: is there a scripturalbasis for supposing anearly Muslim-Christian conflict in Jerusalem which forced the former toabandon its sanctuary?In other words, did the verse indeed refer to the barringof Muslims from Jerusalem? If yes, when and where was it revealed toMuhammad? If no, who were those intended by it as the persecutersand thevictims?Was there a generalneed to achieve harmony betweenexegesis and sTramaterials?If so, when was this need felt and how was such harmonysought afterby the exegetes, commentators, historians and traditionists who dealt with thequestion of the ' occasion of revelation ' (sababal-nuzul)of this verse?And whatcan such an investigation teach us about the development of traditional exegesisin relation to other forms of Islamic literary activity?Such an enquiry cannot, of course, be limited to the scrutiny of the variantcontents and isnddsof the different traditionsconcerning the historical occasionof revelation. Examination will also need to be made of the possible effect ofdifferent readings and meanings, based on analogies from other, parallelQur'anic occurrences, on the key phrases and terms in the verse. Likewise, theeffect of certain legal and theological elements inherent in the verse, or presentedas such, on its overall interpretationmust also be distinguished.The effect of themetaphorical understanding of the verse and its general applicability, togetherwith other factors in the way it was interpreted along non-historical lines willalso be assessed. Finally, the relation between these technical and conceptualfactors and the question of canonical composition will also be commentedupon.Some limitations, however, must be stated at the outset. First, the presentpaper is basically an inquiry into what historical processes can be discerned inexegetical tradition, and does not claim to be anything more. Certain of theattempts of recent date to provide completely detached, ahistorical, meta-physical or suificommentaries on the verse will be excluded.9Second, the legaland theological aspects of early Muslim concepts, attitudes or rulings, will bedealt with only as they are reflected in traditional exegesis and the latercommentaries with reference to the specific context of the verse under discus-sion. And, therefore,only theirintrusion into this materialand the effect of suchintrusion on the interpretation of this verse will be examined. Third, thequestions of the position of the Jerusalemsanctuaryand qiblain early Islam andthe Islamic views on the essence of God and the nature of Christ will not beexamined in detail. These are crucial issues for the emergenceand developmentof Islam and have been extensively dealt with elsewhere.10In fact, no thoroughreview will be made of the interpretationof 2:115-16. The only question thatwill be tackled concerns the relation of contextual sequence (nazm, irtibdt,ittisdl) between these verses and verse 2:114 as viewed by the commentators.Finally, early Islamic history as such is beyond the scope of the present paper.Speculation, it is true, is no longer anything to be ashamed of in a field where

8 Lit.: wa-lilldhial-mashriquwa-'l-maghribu,fa-aynamd tuwallufa-thammata wajhualldh. wa-qdlu ittakhadha alldhu waladan, subhdnahu,bal lahu md ft al-samdwdti wa-'l-ardi Kullun lahuqdnitun.9An example of such treatmentis QushayriLatd'if, Cairo, n.d., I, 127-9 and Muhyl al-Din b.'Arabi (d. 638 A.H.), TafsTr,Beirut, 1968, i, 78-80. The latter work was possibly compiled by Ibn'Arabi's student, Kashani (d. 731 A.H.). In any case, it must not be confused with Abu Bakr Ibn'Arab 's (d. 543 A.H.). Ahkam al-Qur'dn,Beirut, 1972, i, 32-3, to which further reference will bemade below.'0G. D. Anawati, s.v. ''Isd ', E.I. (new ed.), iv, 81-6; A. J. Wensink and D. A. King, s.v. 'Kibla ',E.I. Suppl., v, 82-8, and the references cited therein.

216


4/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEMhistory means only historiography. However, within the limits of this inquiryand pending any further research it may stimulate, only the possible resonancesof whatever 'historical' picture is to be drawn from 2:114-16, will be broughtinto consideration, insofar as they may be discerned in the historical,fadd'il,apocalyptic and other traditional sources.2. RevelationTwo main questions are tackled here concerning the occasion of revelationof the verse: who are those it blames, and where and when was the act of barringfrom, or destroying the mosques committed?The answersare split between fournotions current in exegetical traditions and commentaries:(i) The Jerusalem-Christian/Byzantinecontext.(ii) The Meccan-Qurashi context.(iii) A general meaning without specific referenceto any historical context (tobe followed up while considering the metaphorical and legal aspects of Khardband dukhul,below).(iv) It was the Jews who tried to destroy the Ka'ba or the Prophet's mosque inMedina in reaction to his change of qibla. (No further investigation of thisnotion will be made here. Razi (d. 606 A.H.) admits that he originated it.1 It hasno basis in traditional exegesis and was ignored by later commentators.)2.1 The Jerusalem-Christian/ByzantinecontextSupport for this notion, with differentvariants,comes from the traditions ofKa'b al-Ahbar (d. 40 + ?A.H.), Ibn 'Abbas (d. 68 A.H.), Mujahid (d. 102-3 A.H.),Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 A.H.), Qatada (d. 117 A.H.), Suddi (d. 127 A.H.) and thecommentaries of Muqatil (d. 150A.H.), Farra' (d. 207A.H.), Ibn Qutayba(d. 276 A.H.), Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), etc.No authority is adduced for Ka'b's tradition. The source, however, is thetraditionist Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 A.H.), as quoted by the two late commen-tators, Suyiut (d. 911 A.H.) and Shawkani (d. 1250A.H.) On the problem of theauthorities for Ibn 'Abbas's traditions, more will be said below. The authorityfor Mujahid is Ibn Abi NajTi (d. 131A.H.). From Qatada we hear throughMa'marb. Abi Rashid (d. 153A.H.) and Sa'ld b. Abl 'Aruba (d. 157A.H.). Asbatis the authority for SuddT.And Hasan is cited without isndd,often beingjoinedwith Qatada, or Qatada and Suddi in the form of a group tradition.On the level of content, the following elements appear either separately orwithin variant combinations:1. These were the Christians/rim.2. -, who used to throw dirt/harm and bar people from prayer in theJerusalemsanctuary;3. , who aimed at its destruction;4. , who attacked and destroyed it;5. , who destroyed it so that it remained unattended until rebuilt by theMuslims under 'Umar;6. - , who were helped by Bukhtnassar, head of the Magians to destroy itand to kill whoever was in it from 'the people of Islam ';7. -, who attacked the people/Jews of Jerusalem, destroyed, burned theBible, threw corpses/dirt in it ...;8. -, whose King attacked the sons of Israel, destroyed, burned theBible...;9. -, whose Roman King, Titus attacked, destroyed ...;

" Razi, al-TafsTral-KabTr,Cairo, 1938, iv, 10: 'wa-'indTfihiwajhun...

217


5/25

SULIMAN BASHEAR10. , who helped Bukhtnassar to destroy it for hatred of the Jews;11. , who helped Bukhtnassar ... as a revenge against the Jews who killedYahya b. Zakariyya (John the Baptist).Roughly speaking, these elements are associated with the above-mentionedtraditions and sources as follows:No. 1 is associated with the name of Ibn 'Abbas:

(a) through a 'family isndd' from Ibn Sa'd (d. 276 A.H.) 12(b) without isnid, in the form of' an' or ' ruwiya 'an' 13(c) 'from Ibn 'Abbas and others' 14No. 2 is mostly associated with the names of(a) Mujahid via his transmitter, Ibn Abi Najh 15(b) with Ibn 'Abbas but cited without isnad or source 16(c) with 'Ibn 'Abbas and others' 17No. 3 occurs only once in syntactically extremely distorted context, possibly

attributing it to Ibn 'Abbas but without isndd18No. 4 (a) is the commentary of Ibn Qutayba 19(b) is a tradition of Mujahid via Ibn Abi Najih as cited by Jassas(d. 370 A.H.) 20(c) A similar view reappearsin a late commentarywhich, however, doesnot give any traditional source for it.21No. 5 (a)is a tradition of Ka'b, the quoted source for which is Ibn AbiHatim 22

(b) Other sources associate it with the names of Ibn 'Abbas andMujahid.23No. 6 is a unique commentary of Maturidi (d. 333 A.H.).24No. 7 is a view mentioned by Zamakhshari(d. 528 A.H.) without associating it

with any traditional authority.2512Tabari, Jdmi', Cairo, 1954,498. This Ibn Sa'd, also known as al-'Awfi, should not be confusedwith Ibn Sa'd al-Hashimi (d. 230 A.H.),the famous author of Tabaqdt.Al-'AwfiTsancestor, 'Atiyyab. Sa'd, with whom the chain of isnadends, is reported to have a tafsTrwork from al-KalbT.Morewill be said about these two below. See E.I. (new ed.), s.v. 'Ibn Sa'd',VII, 922-3.13Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.), TafsTr,Cairo 1977,II, 506, quoting TafsTral-'Awfi, clearly thatmentioned in the precedingnote. Cf. also Suyut,i Mufhimdt, Cairo, 1908, 5, who quotes al-'Afawi,possibly a misspellingof the same 'Awfi. In another source of Suyuti, Durr, Cairo, n.d., I, 108,as inShawkani'sFath, Cairo, 1964,I, 132, the same form of tradition is quoted from both Tabariand IbnAbi Hatim.4As in Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.), Jami', Cairo, 1967, ii, 77, and Nawawl (d. 676 A.H.), Marah,Sirbaya, 1970, i, 31. These two quote the unidentifiedGhanawi/Ghaznawi, perhaps also a copyist'sdistortion of 'Afawi/'Awfl.15See: TafsFrMujdhid,Beirut, n.d.,I, 86; Tabari, i, 498; Ibn Kathir,n, 506; and Ibn Humayd(d. 249 A.H.)as quoted by Suyiuti,Durr,I, 108 and Shawkani, i, 132. Cf. also a similar notion cited byIbn 'Arabi, Ahkim, i, 33 who does not, however, attribute it to Mujahid.16

As in Naysaburi (d. 728 A.H.), Ghara'ib, Cairo, 1962, i, 417 and 'Imadi (d. 982 A.H.), Irshdd,Riyadh, 1971, i, 242.17As in Gharnati (d. 541A.H.), Muharrar, Cairo, 1947, i, 395 and Tha'alibi (d. 873-5 A.H.),Jawdhir,Algiers, 1985, i, 125.18Abu Hayyan (d. 754 A.H.), Bahr, Cairo, 1328 A.H., i, 357.19Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,Beirut, 1958, 61.20Jassas, Ahkdm, Cairo 1347 A.H., i, 69.21Mahalli and Suyuii, TafsTral-Jalalayn, Cairo, 1966, 21.22Suyu.tl,Durr, i, 108; Shawkani, i, 132; and, without source, Ibn Kathir,II , 510.23Tus1 (d. 460 A.H.), al-Baydn, Najaf, 1957, Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H.) Majma', Cairo, 1958,I, 376;Majlis (d. 11 A.H.) Bihir, Teheran, n.d., xx, 319.24Maturidi, Ta'w7ldt,Cairo, 1971, i, 261.25Zamakhshari,Kashshdf,Beirut, 1947,I, 179.

218


6/25

QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEMNo. 8 (a) is attributed to Ibn 'Abbas but without isnad26

(b) is the commentary of Farra' and was referred to as the latter's'choice' from Ibn 'Abbas and Mujahid.27No. 9 There are differenttraditional and commentary sources and authoritiesfor this notion:

(a) Two traditional transmissions from Ibn 'Abbas occurringin severalcopies of thepseudo-Ibn'AbbasTafstr.The first is on the authority ofIbn Jurayj (d. 150 A.H.) from 'Ata' (probably al-Khurasani, d. 135).28And the second is brought via Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.)29(b) The same notion is cited by Wahidi (d. 468 A.H.)but on the authorityof al-Kalbi (d. 146 A.H.).30(c) It was attributed to Ibn 'Abbas also by later commentators who,however, adduced it without isndd and with different degrees ofdetail.3'(d) Elements of it were referred to without attributing them to Ibn

'Abbas.32(e) It also occurs in a source on Bad' which does not cite any traditionalauthority.33(f) Another, and earlier, Bad' source cites it on the authority of IbnJurayj-Ibn Mujahid-Mujahid.34(g) It occurs in Muqatil's TafsTras his own commentary without citingany traditional authority for it. Muqatil is distinguished for addingthe name of Antiochus to that of Titus.35

(h) It was reiteratedin the TafsTrof Tha'labi (d. 282 A.H.).3626 Razi, iv, 9-10; Naysaburi, I, 417.27Tus, I, 416 and Tabarsi, i, 376.28This chain of isnad occurs, as far as I know, only in one such source, the title of which isnoteworthy: TafsTral-Zajjdj/al-MuzanT'Ald Ray Ibn 'Abbds, MS Princeton, Yehuda 24111,12(a-b). The content of this work, however, is identical to the other versions of the pseudo-Ibn'Abbas source (see following note). Recently, A. Rippin has made a thorough investigation, in

' TafsTrIbn Abbas and criteria for dating early TafsTrtexts ', an unpublished paper presentedat thefourth International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987. On the problemof the isndd' Ibn Jurayj-'Ata'' in tafsTrtraditions, see Ibn Hajar, TahdhTb,Haydarabad 1326 A.H.,vii, 213-4.29There are several published and manuscriptversions of the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas source whichinclude this transmission;some of them appear to be compilations by Fayruzabadl (d. 718 A.H.),e.g., TafsTr,MS Princeton, Yehuda 815, 12(a-b); TanwTral-Miqbds,in the margin of Suyu.ti'sDurr,op. cit.; another edition of the same by FayruzabadT,Cairo, 1951, 13: idem, TanwTral-Miqyds,Cairo, 1356A.H., 15-16; TanwTral-Iqtibds, two lithog. eds., n.p., 1280A.H. and 1302A.H., 14-15.Other editions arementioned by A. Rippin, ' TafsTrIbn 'Abbas ', art. cit. Note must be taken of theorthographic proximity of miqbdsand miyas, etc., and of the idea that this work represents a 'ra'y 'approach in exegesis in spite of the ma'thur(traditional) form of its transmission.30Wahidi, Asbdb, Cairo 1969, 33; but compare with idem, al-Wajlz, in the margin of Nawawi,op. cit., i, 30. Indeed,A. Rippinconfirms the existence of manuscriptversions of such TafsTrby bothal-Kalbi and Dinawari (d. 310 A.H.)which are identical in content to the above-mentioned pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas sources: 'TafsTrIbn 'Abbas' art. cit.; idem, 'Al-Zuhri, Naskh al-Qur'n ', BSOAS,XLVII, 1, 1984, 22-4. Note, however, the fact that al-Kalbi appearsin all the chains of isndd of Ibn al-Mubarak who was also known by his nisba 'al-Dinawari'. It must also be recalled that al-'Awfi,who was cited for a similar notion of Ibn 'Abbas, was reported to have transmittedhis TafsTrfromal-Kalbi.31Qurtubi, 11,77; Nawawl, i, 31; Naysaburi, i, 417; 'Imadi, i, 242.32(Anonymous), Asbdbal-Nuzul, MS Princeton, Yehuda (5143), 4(b); Khazin (comp. 725 A.H.),Lubdb, Cairo, n.d., i, 83; BaghawT(d. 516A.H.),Ma'dlim, in the margin of Khazin, I, 84; Alusi,(d. 1270A.H.),Ruh, Cairo, 1964, i, 498.33Balkhi/Muqaddasi (wrote 355 A.H.),Bad', Paris, 1980, III, 114, 155.34Frisi-Fasawi (d. 289 A.H.),Bad', Wiesbaden, 1978, 296-7.35Muqatil, TafsTr,Cairo n.d., i, 62-3.36Tha'labi,al-Kashf wa-'l-Bayan 'an TafsTral-Qur'an,MS Berlin, Sprenger 409, 159-61. I amindebted to Dr. Uri Rubin of Tel-Aviv University for placing the relevant pages of his copy at mydisposal. Note, however, that a clearly different TafsTr,bearing the same title but attributed toTha'labi, who died in 427 A.H., does not have any commentary on this verse; MS Princeton, Yehuda2(800), 123 (a-b).

219


7/25

SULIMAN BASHEARNo. 10 is associated with the names of:

(a) Hasan and Qatada, Qatada and Suddi, or the three of them in theform of group tradition;37(b) only with the name of Qatada.38No. 11 is exclusively associated with the name of Suddi.39

Before summing up, mention must be made of the results arrived at aftercross-checking with the information provided by some historical, Bad' andother sources on the issue of the pre-Islamic occupation of Jerusalem byBukhtnassar, Titus, and possibly others.40 Except for Balkhi/Muqaddasi,Musharraf and Mujir al-Din referred to above, none of these sources mention2:114 in association with either Bukhtnassar or Titus. In fact Mas'udi connectsBukhtnassar'soccupation with Qur'an 21:12, Ibn al-Faqih and Majlisi connectit with 2:259, while in Nuwayri it is connected with 17:4-5. Tha'labi, withoutreferring to Suddi, brings in the element of rumi 'complicity' as a revengeagainst the Jews for killing Yahya b. Zakariyya. And so does Nuwayri, whoquotes a tradition of Ibn Ishaq via Tha'labi. However, the attacker of the Jewsthis time is 'Khardus, King of Babylon' instead of Titus-and the namereappearsin the late work of Manini also. Of most importance is the fact that itis Qur'an 17:4-5 which is mentioned in this context and not 2:114. Nevertheless,the attack is said to have come as a revengefor the killing of Yahya. Finally, nomention of 2:114 is made when Nuwayri moves on to speak about the attack ofTitus either. As for Tabari, the silence in both his Athdr and Tdrfkhis even morestriking. In the former source he indeed quotes Suddi and contrasts him with atradition of Kalbi which does not mention Yahya; and in the latter he doesspeak about Bukhtnassar and Titus but does not mention 2:114 in eithercontext. Finally, in both works of Ibn Kathir as well as in Ibn al-Athir'sKdmil,the Qur'an connected with Bukhtnassar is also 17:2-8.To return to the Tafsir sources, it becomes clear that the anti-Christian/Byzantinesentiment is predominant in most traditions and formstheircommondenominator. The initial simpleform of the whole idea exists in the traditions ofKa'b-Ibn 'Abbas-Mujahid which speak of the desecration of the Temple site bythe Christians/Byzantinesand their barring of prayer there. However, aroundthe mid second century a narrative supplement is attached possibly as anillustrativesupport, in the form of stories on earlier atrocitiescommitted in pre-Islam. This was done by the generation of Muqatil, Ibn Jurayj,KalbT,Ma'mar,Sa'ld b. Abi 'Aruba, Asbat and possibly 'Ata' too, which clearly witnessed anupsurge in such narrativeactivity. Special note must be paid to the fact that Ibn

37Compare: Anon. Asbdb, 5 (a), Tha'labl, 159; Wahidi, 34; Tius,I, 416; Gharnati,I, 395;Baghawi, i, 83; TabarsT,I, 376; Razl, iv, 10; Abu Hayyan, i, 357; Naysaburi,I, 417; Suyu.ti,Mufhimdt,5.38Compare: Tabari,I, 489; Jassas,I, 69; Qurtubl,II, 77; Ibn Kathir,II, 506 and the two Fada'ilworks of al-Musharrafb. al-Murajja,Fada/'ilBayt al-Maqdiswa-'l-Shdmwa-'l-KhalTl,MS Tiibingen27, 16 (a) and Mujlr al-Din, al-Uns al-JalTl,'Amman 1973,I, 151. The existence of such aninterpretation not only of 2:114 but of 9:29 too was brieflynoted by 'Ofer Livne in a paperentitled,'A note on some traditions of Fa.da'ilal-Quds', presentedat the third InternationalColloquium, theHebrew University of Jerusalem, June-July 1985, pp. 8-9, nn. 46-51.39Tabari,I, 499 with isnad; Tha'labi, 159, Suyu.ti,Durr,I, 108 and Shawkani,I, 132, withoutisndd.Compare also with Ibn Kathir,I, 506.40These are:Dinawari, AkhbarTiwdi,Cairo, 1960,23;Tha'labl, Qasas-'Ard'is,Cairo, 1297A.H.,324; Ya'quibi,Trirkh, Beirut, 1960,I, 65, 146;Tabari, TdrTkh,Cairo, 1939,I, 382-3, 435; v, 2; idem,Athdr, Cairo, n.d., 384-91; Mas'iud, Murij, Beirut, 1965-6, I, 68-72,II, 38; Ibn al-Faqih,Mukhtasar, Leiden, 1885, 98-102; Balkhi/Muqaddasi, Bad', op. cit.; Nuwayri, Nihayah, Cairo,1943, xiv, 153,206-8; Ibn Kathir, Biddya,Cairo, n.d.,II, 36-43; idem,Qasas, Cairo, 1968,II, 309-20;Ibn al-Athir, Kdmil, Beirut, 1965,I, 261, 322-5; MajlisT,Bihdr, op. cit., xiv, 351-77; Manini, al-Ilam, Jaffa, n.d., 90-1.

220


8/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM

Jurayjtransmits the same narrativeon Titus and 2:114 from both Ibn Mujahid-Mujahid and 'Ata'-Ibn 'Abbas.But the basic anti-Christian/Byzantine sentiment prevails in spite of thehistorically confused narrative element.41Added to this, the narrative sup-plement, which is heavily connected with Qur'anic instances other than 2:114,does not adherewell to the original core of this verse until the late thirdcentury.Farra', 'AwfTand Ibn Qtayba have that core only, from Ibn 'Abbas. Tha'labihas the narrative supplement on Titus but, like Muqatil before him, does notquote any traditional source for it. On the other hand, his contemporary, Farisi-Fasawi, brings the same narrative in the traditional form: Ibn Jurayj-Mujahid,though not only in connexion with 2:114 but with 17:8 too.Moreover, in Farra''s commentary, as in Ka'b's tradition, there is a sense ofcontextual adjacency between the acts of the Christians in Jerusalem, theMuslims' defeat of them and the latters' rebuilding of its sanctuary. On thewhole, the least that can be gauged is the sense of Muslim identification with thepersecutedJews in Jerusalem. The relatively early Maturidl, though speaking inthe context of the Christian/Bukhtnassar complicity, says explicitly that thevictims referred to in this verse were ' ahl al-isldm'. The latter are also seen asthe victims even when he presents the view that what was meant was thedestruction by ahl al-Kufrof the mosques of ahl al-Isldm in general.Tabari's choosing to bring from Ibn 'Abbas's tradition only its initial coredoes not call for comment. He also sticks to the view that the verse referred tothe Christians rather thanQurayshwho were not reportedto have destroyed theKa'ba but rather took pride in building it in the Jdhiliyya.42One also feels thatTabari was under fire from some contemporary objection to the Jerusalemcontext on the ground that prayertherewas not ordained on the Muslims at thetime of revelation;43in other words, that such an understanding puts therevelation of the verse outside the historical context of Hijazi Islam.Against this, Tabari apologetically says that the victims of such zulm were'the believers from among the sons of Israel ', a reminder,again, of the sense ofcontinuation and identification with certain suppressed Jewish beliefs andpracticesin the Jerusalemsanctuary.As far as I know, the fourth centuryJassas(d. 370 A.H.) was the first commentator to note the absurdity of associating theChristians with Bukhtnassarhistorically. In this he was followed by Razi whoseoutlet, however, was to provide the Hijazi Jews as an alternative to the wholecontext.44Above all, it is striking that no trace of sira element could be found in allthese traditions as they do not carry any notion concerning the actual occasionof revelation to Muhammad himself in the Meccan context. But Razi's lateattempt to bridge exegesis and slra was certainly not the first.

41Rippin notes that Bukhtnassar is 'normally connected with Qur'an 17:4', 'The QuranicAsbdb', op. cit., p. 180, n. 9. The association of Bukhtnassar with the Christians is rejected bycommentators from the fourth century on (see below). In Nuwayri and ManTni,the name of the'Babylonian King' is Khardus and not Bukhtnassar. In some Fadd'il sources the latter wasstrangely said to have transferred holy items from Jerusalem to ' rumya'. See e.g. Ibn al-Jawzi(d. 597 A.H.), Fada'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980, 77-8. On the confusion of his role as presented in theIslamic sources in general, see further details in J. Pauling,' Islamische Legende uber Bukhtnassar',Graecolatineet Orientalia,4 (1972), 168-70 and 'Ofer Livne, op. cit., pp. 8-9, n. 47. Livne notes alsoa traditionaccordingto which Muhammad prophesiedthat as the end of the world approached,theMahdi would recover the booty carried by Titus to Rome and return it to Jerusalem, ibid., n. 51;Musharraf, 14 (a-b); Ibn al-Jawzi, 107-8.42Tabari, I, 499. Cf. Tusi, I, 416 and Tabarsl, I, 376 who reject this reasoning by revertingto themetaphorical understandingof Khardb. On such understandingmore will be said below.43Tabari, I, 500: 'fa-in zanna zannun...', etc.44See Jassas, I, 69; Razi, iv, 10;AbiuHayyan, I, 357 and Naysaburi, I, 417.

221


9/25

SULIMANBASHEAR2.2. The Meccan-Qurash-contextTraditional authorities exist for connecting the revelation also with Muham-mad and Mecca. One group of traditionsspoke specificallyof the persecutionofMuhammad by Quraysh affecting his hijra. Another connected the verse withbarring him from the sanctuary at Hudaybiyya.Ibn 'Abbas was associated with the first notion by two traditions attributedto him. The source and isndd of one of them is: Ibn Abi Hatim-Salama (b. al-Fadl al-Razi d. 190A.H.)-Ibn Ishaq (d. 150A.H.)-Muhammadb. Abi Muham-mad (almost unknown)-'Ikrima (d. 105A.H.)' or' Sa'ld b. Jubayr(d. 102A.H.)-Ibn 'Abbas.45The second is attributed to Ibn 'Abbas via 'Ata' (or Ibn 'Ata')without sufficient detail. Indeed in Tha'labi's Tafsir, 'Ata' and not Ibn 'Abbas,is given as one of two traditional authorities for this notion.46However, the credibilityof these traditions can be questioned because theycontradict the other traditions of Ibn 'Abbas concerning Jerusalem;they werenot mentioned at all by Muqatil, Farra', Ibn Qutayba, Tha'labi and Tabari, andabove all, they contradict the sfra traditions of Ibn Ishaq who does not bringthis verse into the context of Muhammad's persecution by Quraysh.47Notemust also be taken of the vagueness of important links in the isndd of thetraditions attributed to Ibn 'Abbas on the Meccan context.

Finally, without taking any position over the value of the material ofimpugning and vindication (Jarhwa-ta'dTl)as a criterion forjudging traditionalexegesis in general,note can still be made of the chain Ibn Abi Hatim-Salama inthe tradition underdiscussion. Since the former is the only quoted source on thistradition, his unambiguous though restrained impugning of his compatriotSalama necessarily reduces the reliabilityof both.48The same connexion with the hijrais made by one supposedly early Shi'itesource, the TafsTrHasan 'AskarT(d. 260 A.H.).49The tradition here is attributedto 'AIT(Zayn al-'Abidin) b. al-Husayn (d. 94-5 A.H.). But another almostcontemporarycommentator, Qummi(d. 329 A.H.)connects the verse rather withIHudaybiyya.50A third Shi'ite source, TabarsT,attributes a tradition to thateffect to Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148A.H.).51The most serious Sunni source on 2:114 and Hudaybiyya seems to be thetradition of Ibn Zayd ('Abd al-Rahman b. Aslam al-Madani, mawlato the clanof 'Umar, d. 182A.H.)adduced by a wide range of commentary sources fromlate third century on.52However, this does not receivesupport from any sira ormaghdzlsource on Hudaybiyya.5345Nawawi, I, 30-1; Ibn Kathir, II, 507; Shawkani, I, 132; Suyiuti,Durr, I, 108. Cf. also Suyuti'sMufhimat, 5; idem, Lubab, Tunis, 1981, 22.4 Wahidi, Asbab, 34;Abu Hayyan, I, 357;Alius, I,489. Cf. also the form of unspecifiedauthorityor source adduced in Razi, iv, 10;Tusi, I, 416; Naysaburi, I, 417.47For a cross-checkingof the s7ratraditions of Ibn Ishaq see: Ibn Hisham, Slra, Cairo, 2nd ed., I,262-72, 289-91, 317-21, 354-64, 480-91; SuhaylT,Rawd, Cairo, 1971, II,48, 51, 77-9, 127-8, 147-67; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 'Uyuin,Beirut, 1974, I, 102-14; Ibn Kathlr, STra,Cairo, 1964, I,439-41, 460-86, 492-508; Halabl, Insan, Cairo, 1964, I, 486-518, II, 25-6.48Ibn Abi Hatim, Jarh, Cairo, 1952, iv, 169.49Ibn Babuya, TafsTrImam Hasan 'AskarT,Teheran, lithog. ed., 1248A.H., 255-61. Cf. also al-

Kashi, al-Asfa, Teheran, 1353A.H., 31.50Qummi, TafsTr, Najaf, 1386A.H., I, 58-9.51Tabarsi, I, 376.52Tha'labi, 159;Tabari, I, 499; Tusl, I,416; Ibn Kathir, II, 507; Tha'alibi, I, 125;Suyiut.Durr, I,08; idem, Lubdb, 22; Shawkani, I, 132. Cf. also other sources who cite the same notion in theanonymous form ' wa-qTl',i.e. without mentioning Ibn Zayd: Maturidi, I, 260-1; Zamakhshari, I,179; Qurtubi, II, 77; Nasafi, I, 66; Naysaburi, I, 417; Khazin, I, 84; MahallT,21; Majlisl, xx, 317;BaydawT,Anwdr, Cairo, n.d., I, 107, Ibn 'Arabi, I, 33.53 Besides the sTrasources mentioned above, Waqidis (d. 207 A.H.) MaghdzT,Oxford, 1966, II,622, was also consulted. All these sourcesareunanimous on the point that Qur'an, 48:24-5 were theverses revealedon the occasion of Hudaybiyya. The absence of any mention of 2:114 in this contextwas noted by A. Rippin ' The Quranic Asbab', op. cit., p. 180,n. 1. A negative proof of absence andsilence can also be drawn from G. Hawting's 'Al-Hudaybiyya', JSAI, 8, 1986, 1-23.

222


10/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM3. ZLM and DHKRFrom the root ZLM can be derived nouns, verbs and adjectives denotingboth injustice and darkness.54Analogies from parallel Qur'anic occurrences(ashbdh wa-nazd'ir)point also.to polytheism or the denial of divine signs orscriptures as other possible meanings.55The information adduced from thesedifferentsources and directions can be summarized as follows:(a) The phrase 'man azlamu' of 2:114 is strikingly absent from the genre ofmutashdbihal-Qur'an.56(b) On the other hand, it occurs at least twelve times in other Qur'anicparallels:the context of some of them is a clear and sharp polemic against polytheismand the notion of a sonship of God.57(c) The traditional materialadduced for interpreting'zulm' as 'misplacement'(lit.: wad'al-shay'fighayr mawdi'ih),is often the saying:' whoever resembleshis father does not commit zulm' (lit.: man ashbaha abdhufa-md zalam).And this traditional saying is used for interpreting2:114 alreadyby Sijistani

(d. 330 A.H.) and reiterated for interpreting zulm in general by most lexi-cographers.58(d) This constitutes a sufficient basis for calling the attention to the HebrewBiblicalcognate, tselem,which means a shadow or an image. Note must alsobe taken of words derived from the Sabaic roots ZLM and SLM denotingan image, a statue as well as injusticeand darkness.59Such a note is justifiedalso because in Qur'an 31:13 it was explicitly stated that 'polytheism is agreat zulm' (lit.: inna al-shirka la-zulmun'azTm).(e) Abu Hanifa (d. 150A.H.) used this latter verse as a warning against zulmwhich he equates with 'bad deeds' (al-a'mdl al-sayyi'a). Hence, he argued,God cannot be zdlim since he gave us our rights fully.60In another place,Abu Hanifa cites a prophetical traditionwhich defineszulm as' the darknessof the day of resurrection' (lit.: zulumdtyawm al-qiydma).6'(f) Shafi'i, in his turn equates zulm with jawr and defines them as 'exceedingone's limits'. Hence, he argued too, God cannot be considered zdlim.62(g) This calls also for considering the possibility that zulm was a synonymousforerunnerof Jabrin Islamic theology. One must recall in this connexion thetraditional couplet: qaryat al-Jabbdarn/al-qaryaal-zalimuahluha.(h) Finally, a certain thematical connexion can be found also with the ideapresent in some gnostic Christian writings concerning the Archons asunjust/evildoing partnersin the act of creation.63Comparison can be drawn,4Ibn Manzur, Lisdn, Cairo repr. 1966, xv, 266-71; Zabidi, Tdj,Cairo, 1306A.H., VIII, 383-5;E. Lane, Arabic-Englishlexicon, New York repr., 1956, v, 1920-1.5Ibn Manzur, Zabidi, and Lane, ibids.; Muqatil, Tafslr I,62; idem, Ashbdh,Cairo, 1975, 118-21; idem, TafsTral-Khamsmi'at'Aya,Shfar'am, 1980, 40; Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wTl,Cairo, 1973,467-8;Fayruzabadi, Qdmus,Cairo, 1970, Iv, 174;al-Raghib al-Isfahamn,Mufraddt, Cairo, 1970, II, 470-2,al-Damghanl-Isidh, Beirut, 1970, 308-11.56e.g., Kisa'i (d. 189A.H.), Mutashabih, MS Princeton, Yehuda (903), 50 (b), 63 (a)-64 (b);(Anonymous), MS Princeton, Yehuda (2248), 32 (a-b); al-Kirmani, al-Burhdn, MS Princeton,

Yehuda (3999), 10 (b)-l 1 (a), 26 (a), 41 (a), 72 (b).57e.g.: ' wa-manazlamumimmanKatama' in Qur'an 2:140; ' .. mimmaniftar ', in Qur'an 6:21,144, 7:36, 10:17-18, 11:18, i8:15, 29:68, 61:7;'... mimmanKadhdhaba' in Qur'an 6:157, 39:32;'...mimmandhakara,in Qur'an 32:22.58Sijistani, Tafsr GharTbal-Qur'dn,MS Princeton, Yehuda (4169), 74 (a); and the lexicographicworks cited above.59A. F. L. Beeston, et al., Sabaic dictionary,Louvain & Beirut, 1982, 143, 172.60Al-'lim wa-'l-Muta'allim,Halab, 1972, 65, 72-3.61 Musnad, Halab, 1962, 210.62Shafi'L, al-Fiqhal-Akbarfi al-Tawhld, in the margin of Abu HI.anifa,al-Fiqhal-Akbar,Cairo,1324A.H.,27.63e.g.: 'The hypostasis of the Archous' and 'On the origin of the world', in J. M. Robinson,The Nag Hammadi Library, Leiden, 1978, 155, 157, 166, 170-3.

223


11/25

SULIMAN BASHEARon the Muslim side, with the condemnation of those who try to imitateGod's creation, and the brandingof such act as zulm,which occurs in a quds7tradition the very wording of which constitutes a parallel to 2:114: ' wa-manazlamu mimmandhahabayakh luquka-khal ql.. .'. It is also striking to seehow the commentarieson this traditionconnect it with the condemnation ofhanging pictures and images (tasawlr).64All this warns of the complexity and variety of sources, elements and stagesto be sought in following the development of the meaning of zulmin earlyIslam.As for 2:114, a few commentators equated ' alamu' with ' akfaru', glossed itwith the phrase 'fi kufrihi', or added '.. -atwa-a'twa-ajra'u 'ala allah '65To complete the picture, one must add that one of the meanings given toQur'anic dhikr is monotheism-tawhid. Indeed, some exegetical sources inter-preted ' 'anyudhkara' of 2:114 by adding: ' bi-'l-tawhld'.66Given the Jerusalem/Christian context of revelation, then, verse 2:114appearsto be loaded with Judeo-Christiantheological debate. Our conclusion is

of course far from being final. However, a furtherinvestigation is needed intowhat seems to be a Mu'tazili formula inherent in this verse: i.e. ahl al-'adl (theantonym of zulm/jabr)wa-'l tawhld(= dhikr) (the opposite of shirk),being oneof the names the Mu'tazila were known by.Finally, note must also be made of the fact that in extreme Shi'itecommentaries the victims of zulm (alladh[na zulimu) are understood to be thepeople of Muhammed ('dl muhammad),without, however, any connexion with2:114 or the Jerusalem context.67In Isma'ili exegesis in particular, tawhld ispresented as the recognition of the right imam;thus, the denial of 'Ali's imimaand the zulm committed by Abu Bakr and 'Umar against the relatives ofMuhammad, equals shirk.684. Khardb,Dukhul and KhizyUnlike later commentaries, almost all the earlier exegetical traditionspresent the terms khardb and dukhulin their literal, straightforwardand, so tospeak, historical senses of destruction and entrance, respectively. This is trueespecially of the traditions of Ka'b, Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada, Suddi andthe commentaries of Muqatil and Ibn Qutayba, who present the verse in itsJerusalem context.69In general, these traditions assert that the Christianswere/are to be punished by barringthem from entranceto Jerusalemexcept in fear ofbeing killed, severely punished or being frightened off by payment ofjizya.Applying the concept of Khardb to Mecca, on the other hand, wasproblematic from the outset. In Tabari's words: ' It was not known of Qurayshto have destroyed the Ka'ba; on the contrary, they took pride in building it inthe Jdhiliyya.' However, an initial basis for a metaphorical understanding ofKharab(as ta't[l) was provided already in the tradition of Ibn Zayd (see aboveunder 2.2).70

64Nawawi, al-Ahadith al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1985, 239-40. See also Dhahabi, Kitdb al-Kaba'irDamascus & Beirut, n.d., 181, for the noting of which I am indebted to M. J. Kister.65The pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas sources, cited above; Tha'labi, 159; Baghawi, I, 83; Nawawi, I, 31;Khazin I, 84.66Pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas; Muqatil, TafsTr,I, 62; Nawawi, I, 31.67See, e.g., Majlisi, xxiv, 221.68Ja'far b. Mansur al-Yaman (d. 347 A.H.), Kitab al-Kashf, Beirut, 1984, 45, 63, 88-9, 146, 150.69Pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas;Mujahid, I,86; Muqatil, TafsTr,i, 62; Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,61, and cf. alsoTha'labl, 159;Tabari, I, 500; Jassas, I, 69.70Tabari, I, 499; Tius, I, 417; GharnatT,I, 396; Baghawi, I, 84; Zamakhshari, I, 179;Tabarsi, I,377; Nasafi, I, 65-6; RazT,IV, 11;Khazin, I, 84; Tha'alibi, i, 125;Baydawi, i, 107;Shawkani, I, 131;Alisi, I, 498; Kashl, 31; 'Abd al-Jabbar, TanzThal-Qur'an,Cairo, 1329A.H., 28-9.

224


12/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEMIndeed, such a metaphorical understanding is adduced by Tha'labi inconjunction with the tradition on Mecca of Ibn Zayd-'Ata. And the same is

done by Jassaswho, however, does not name any exegetical authority and limitshimself to saying: 'and some people say that the verse refers to the polytheistswhen they barred the Muslims from mentioning God in the Meccan mosqueand, that their striving at its destruction is their barring of its construction bymentioning God and (practising)obedience to him.' 7Thus all latercommentators who preferredthe Meccan context of revelationinterpreted Khardbin this metaphorical sense; and they often did so withoutdifferentiatingbetween the earlierphase of Muhammad's life in Mecca and theHudaybiyya incident.72On the other hand, and, as noted implicitly by Jassasand explicitly by Gharnati, Qurtubi, Abu Hayyan et al., those who chose theJerusalem context spoke in terms of a real (haqTqi,mawjud, i.e. historical)Khardb. Nevertheless, some attempt was made by a few of the first (pro-Meccan) group to presentelementsof sira materialon the allegeddestructionbyQuraysh of a mosque of Abu Bakr before the hijra.73Regarding the interpretation of dukhul, Ibn Zayd's tradition associates itwith the call, which the prophet made after the conquest of Mecca, barringpolytheists from pilgrimageto it.74But, in sira sources, this call is predominantlyassociated with the revelation of Surat al-Bard'a (sura no. 9).However, after the fourth century, halakhic elements of legal rulings(ahkam) concerning the entrance of infidels to mosques in general, start toinfiltrate the commentaries on verse 2:114. Citations from Abu Hanifa

(d. 150 A.H.), Malik (d. 179 A.H.) and Shafi'i (d. 204 A.H.) were brought in tosupport the different views on this issue. But neither Abu Hanifa nor Malik, tomy knowledge, used verse 2:114 as a basis for their views. Shafi'i, whoreportedly differentiatedbetween entrance to the Meccan mosque, as opposedto other mosques, relied, like Shi'l legal sources, again on a verse from Bara'a(Qur'an, 9:28) concerning the question of barringfrom Mecca. To verse 2:114he is said by later sources to have referredonly secondarily and, even then, onlyin the sense of barring from mosques in general.75Even if authentic, suchsecondary reference loosens the connexion of 2:114 with Mecca. In fact none ofthe writings of ShafTi'himself which I consulted attests even to such secondaryand general reference.76The strikingabsence of any direct referenceto 2:114 in the legal field beforethe fourth century calls for a revisionist search in another direction. In order todo this note must be made of the halakhic interpretation of the phrase ' illaKhd'ifin'which strikingly enough can be attested only from the beginningof thefourth century on. It is a fact that al-Jubba'i (d. 303 A.H.) is the oldest quotedsource to hold that the exclusive form of this phrase ('illa) meant that

71Jassas, i, 69-70.72e.g. Baghawi, i, 84; Tabarsl, i, 377; Abu H.ayyan, I, 358; Khazin, I, 84; Ibn Kathir, II, 508;Biqa'i, Nazm al-Durar,Haydarabad, 1970, II, 118.73e.g.,'Abd al-Jabbar, TanzTh,29; RazL,iv, 11. Note that, on the Shi'ite side, a similar notion iscited concerning the destruction of' the mosques of the best believers', but, as one would expect,only by substituting 'All and his Sh'a for Abu Bakr (as in Hasan 'AskarT,255-6), or withoutspecifying any name (as in Kashi, 31).74cf. Tabari,I, 500; Baghawl, I, 84; Zamakhshari, I, 180;Tabarsi, I, 377; Razi, iv, 12;Qurtubi,II,79; Naysabiur, I, 418-9; Ibn Kathir, II, 509; Ibn Jaziyy, Kitdbal-TashTl,Cairo, 1973, I, 101.75cf. Zamakhshari, I, 180; Razi, iv, 19-20; Nawawi, I, 30; Naysaburi, I, 419; Alusi, I, 500;Baydawi, I, 107, 'Imadi, I, 243.76cf.: Shafi'l, Umm, Cairo, 1961, I, 54; idem,Ahkamal Qur'dn,comp. by Bayhaql, Beirut 1975, I,83-, II, 61; al-Nahhas (d. 338 A.H.) Kitab al-Nasikh wa-'l-Mansukh, Cairo, 1938, 59, 167; 'Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf, Beirut, 1970-2; I, 412-4, vI, 52-3, x, 356.

225

VOL.LII. PART 2. 17


13/25

SULIMANBASHEARunbelievers could enter certain mosques, but only in certain cases, e.g. forarbitration (hukuima),etc.77But fourth century halakhic interpretation had first to overcome a certainproblem of 'reading' which 2:114 seems to have posed in the period whichwitnessed the stabilization of the text. Or, based on the variant readings ofKha'ifin,one might even say that such halakhic interpretationwas itself a kindof 'reading' of it in that form. From late third century Tha'labi we learn,however, that the word appearedin the Ubayy codex in the form of L.- . AndJefferyrecords that this was the same form which appearedin the Codex of IbnMas'ud too.78Now, following Bergstrasser,Jefferyadds that Ibn Khalawayh(d. 370 A.H.) read the text as hunafaand not khuyyafa!79He also notes how IbnKhalawayh was condemned for not knowing the differencebetweenqird'dtandtafslr. Given, however, that Ibn Khalawayh was active during the period ofhectic activity for the stabilizing of the canonic reading of the text in the firsthalf of the fourth century,80and given also the strikingabsence of any halakhicinterpretationof 2:114 in the sense of barringentrance' except in fear ', Jeffery'srejection of Ibn Khalawayh is not at all justified.Another source, of the early fourth century, Zajjaj(d. 311 A.H.) is accreditedwith the introduction of the element of 'divine promise' (wa'd-bishara)to theinterpretationof the phrase ' m kdna lahum '.81In fact, we find that in Tha'labi,a generationearlier,lies probably the core of what laterbecame a notion of thatdivine promise. In Tha'labi, however, this notion is brought in conjunction withthe Meccan context of thefath.82However, the idea of bishdrawas favoured bylater commentators who, without mentioning Tha'labi or Zajjaj, connected2:114 with the conquest of Mecca as it was 'foreseen' by this verse.83At thesame time it is also worth noting that already with Jassas (d. 370A.H.) thehalakhic activity has generated a tendency to favour the idea that the versespoke only in general terms, i.e. about all mosques; an idea which found itssupport in the plural form of masdjid.84On the other hand, those latercommentators who continued to hold to the idea of specification and to resistthe historical detachment by general applicabilitycould rely on masoretic andQur'anic parallels where plural forms are used to denote specific reference.85To sum up, the metaphorical and Halakhic understanding of Khardb anddukhul in this verse, which was facilitated by a certain exegetically orientedreading of -- played an important role in detaching it from its associationwith Jerusalem. In the words of some later commentators, the particularityofthe cause of revelation (Khusus al-sabab) does not hinder the generality of its

77Tusl, i, 419-20 and Tabarsi, I, 377.78Tha'labT,159;A. Jeffery, Materials, Leiden 1937, 27, 119.79ibid.; c.f. G. Bergstrasser, Ibn KhalawaihsSammlung,Stambul, 1934.80A. Jeffery, 1, 10. It is accepted in Jeffery that what became the canonical reading of IbnMujahid (d. 324 A.H.) helped to stabilize and canonize the text of the Qur'an.8'Tius, I, 419-29 and Tabarsl, i, 377-8.82Tha'labl, 160: ' uld'ika md kdna lahum an yadkhuluhdill Khd'ifin, ya'nTahl makka, yaqul:aftahuhd 'alaykumhat td tadkhuluhdwa-takinuiawld bihd,fa-fatahahd alldhuta'ala 'alayhim.'83Gharnati, i, 396; Baghawi, i, 84; Razi, iv, 12;Khazin, i, 84; AbiuHayyan, i, 358; Naysaburi,1,418-9; Baydawl, i, 107.84In fact only the ShT'itesources, TusT, i, 417-8 and Tabarsi, I, 377, cite in vague terms anisolated tradition attributed to Zayd b. 'AITto that effect. However, the isnad of this traditionconfuses 'All b. al-Husayn and 'AIhb. Abi Talib. In the earlier source (Tusi) the isnddends with theformer, while in the later one (TabarsT)it is pushed back to the latter. Note also that this view isplaced by TabarsTwithin the context of the propheticalsaying:' the land was made a mosque and apurifier for me'-i.e. all lands are my mosques, hence the general applicability. But in Tusi it isexpressly presented as a saying of 'All Zayn al-'Abidin b. al-Husayn and not of the Prophet.However, in neither case is it made explicit that such a saying referredspecifically to 2:114.85e.g. RazT,iv, 11: ' hadhdKa-manyuqaluli-manddhdsadlihan wahidan: wa-manazlamumimmanddhd al-salihn'.

226


14/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEMsense and applicability.86A. Rippin rightly noted how 'between Jassas andQurtubi, one witnesses an interestingshift (of) more neglect for history and thefinal establishment of the status of the Qur'an as a law source in a way thatoverrules any haggadic element in it.' 87Finally, mention must be made of an isolated Shi'l tradition which interprets' ld yadkhuluhailla Kha'ifin' as: 'they will accept belief only with the swordsover their heads'.88This, however, like the mainstream Shi'ite interpretationingeneral, was given in the context of Mecca.Consideringthe last part of the verse, one notices the existence of an ijma'inearly third century to interpret 'adhdb as hell-fire. Only Farra' (d. 207 A.H.)understood it as God's promise for the defeat and conquest of the Byzantines(fath al-rum),and in doing so, he was described as standing alone (infarada).89Concerning Khizy,almost all the early traditions put its interpretationin theJerusalem context. Here it corresponded to the notion of conquest and defeat ofal-rum. In Suddi's tradition in particular, and possibly those of others too,90such defeat was expressed in an apocalyptic form, i.e. as a future punishment,the conquest of Constantinople, Rome, 'Amurya and other cities to be effectedby the Mahdi.91However, some variants, as well as other traditions, present thekilling and conquest of al-rum as a historical event, i.e. carried out by theMuslims.92The tradition of Qatada is noteworthy for interpretingKhizvas payment ofJizya ''an yadin wa-humsaghirun'-i.e. associating it en bloc with Qur'an 9:29(sulraBard'a,again!).93Note, however, that the two elements of killing/conqueston the one hand and payment of Jizya on the other, became combined fromearly fourth century on in one formula: killing for the warrior (li-l-harbi)andjizya for the dhimm.94The earliest quoted authority for such combination isZajjaj,though his name was dropped by most later commentators.95As for Mecca and Quraysh, the Ibn Zayd tradition provides nothing onkhizy. Al-Jubba'i is the oldest authority quoted by Sunni sources to haveinterpretedkhizy as 'expulsion from mosques '.96In a few later commentaries,however, khizy acquired the specific meaning of Quraysh's defeat and theconquest of Mecca.975. Compositionand 2:115-16The problem of canonical composition in its broad sense will not beinvestigated here. Attention to it will be given only as it emerges on the

86Zamakhshari, I, 179; NawawTI, 31; Nasafi, I, 65-6; Naysabuir, I, 418; Abu Hayyan, I, 357;BaydawT,I, 107;Khazin, i, 84; Tha'alibT,I, 125; 'Imadl, I, 242; ShawkanT,i, 131; Aiius, I, 498.87'The Quranic Asbb ', op. cit., 183.88'Ayyashi, Tafsir,Qumm, n.d., i, 56-7; Kashi, 31.89Farra' i, 74; Abu Hayyan, I, 360. In Tus's words: 'wa-'l-ndsu 'ald Khildfihi', i.e. indisagreement with Farra', TusT,i, 420-1.90Besides Suddi, Ibn KathTr,ii, 510, mentions 'Ikrima and Wa'il b. Dawud.91cf. Tabari, i, 501;Ibn Kathir, ii, 510;Suyiut Durr,I, 108;Qurtubi, ii, 79;ShawkanT,i, 132;Tius,I, 420; TabarsT,i, 378.92Muqatil, I, 63; Farra', I, 74; cf. also Baghawi, I, 84 who adds al-Kalbi to Muqatil; Gharnat, I,396-7, who adds Hiraqla to 'Ammurya; Zamakhsharl, i, 180;Khazin, i, 84; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101, whospecifies the conquest of Jerusalemitself; Naysaburi, I, 419.93cf. Tabarsl, I, 500; Ibn Kathir, 11,510; SuyutTi,Durr, I, 108; Shawkani, I, 132; Tius, I, 420.94cf. Tabarsi, i, 378.95Razi, iv, 12;Qurtubi, ii, 79; Baydawi, I, 107; 'Imadi, I, 243; Gharnati, I, 396; Zamakhshari, i,180;Baghaw I, 84; Maturidi, I, 261; Khazim, I, 84; Nasafi, I, 66; Wahidi, Wajiz,I, 31;Naysabuir, I,419. Cf. also AliusiI, 500. AbuiHayyan, I, 359, cites an isolated view attributed to Ibn 'Abbas whichinterprets 'Khizy 'as 'Jizya for the dhimmi'.96cf. Tuis, I, 420; Tabarsi, I, 378. Cf. also Razi, iv, 12 and Naysaburi, i, 419.97Ibn Jaziyy,I, 101;Qurtubi, 11,79;Ibn KathTr,ii, 509-10; Baghawl, i, 84; Gharnati, I, 397, on theShiite side compare with Hasan Askari, 258.

227


15/25

SULIMAN BASHEAR

background of the sequential relation between 2:114 and the following twoverses on qibla and Christ. On these and related issues, however, traditionalexegesis concerning variant readings and analogical interpretation revealsinteresting structural problems of both composition and sequence; an issuewhich is most crucial for the overall historical understandingof the three versestaken as one scripturalcomplex.5.1 With the issue of variant reading of 2:114 in relation to exegesis, we havedealt above. Attention will be paid here to some serious problems raisedby thefragmentarynature of its traditional exegesis.Actually, all the above-mentioned traditions on 2:114 were cited only in theform of scatteredcomments on separate parts, phrases,or even selected terms ofthe verse. In some of the second or even third centuryworks, no commentary atall was given on it.98 The initial fragmentary nature of traditional exegesispersists in the structure of even Tabari's commentary; he simply amasses theavailable, or selected, traditions dividing the verse into three separateparagraphs,each of which he calls 'aya '. The fifth-centuryTusi sticks to whatseemsto be an early Basran view:that thereweretwo separateverses involved in2:114,99a view which is still held by the very late Suyuti.'1Against this background the method of analogical interpretation by com-parison with other Qur'anic parallels becomes crucially suggestive. For, theloose connexion between the different paragraphs, suggested by the fragmen-tation in their traditional exegesis, corresponds to their association withdifferent scriptural, biographical, legal or other materials. Note especially thefrequent association of the paragraph on dukhulwith Surat al-Bard'a and therelated Prophet's call concerning pilgrimage to Mecca. Different traditionsconnect the conquest of Bukhtnassar to various verses other than 2:114.Apocalyptic and futuh materials figure much in the traditions on khizy. ButQatada's tradition equates this term with the verse on jizya, again from Bara'a(no. 9:29). Finally, attention must also be paid to the syntacticalstructureof thedifferentpartsof 2:114: the first,(manazlamumimmanmana'a) speaks about thepast; present attitudes and practices towards the Christiansare expressedin thethird part (lahum fi al-dunya Khizyun); and the second part, althoughparaphrased in a past-participle form (md kana lahum), actually denotes laterimperatives and rulings recommended for the future.5.2 Verse 2:115 has an acute problem of variant reading. One of its key verbscould, and seems indeed to have been read tawallaw and not only tuwallu.'0Moreover, walla could, and seems, indeed, to have been understood as 'turn-away', 'run-away' and not 'turn-towards'.102 Altogether, it is notunanimously accepted that this verse speaks about qibla or even the ritual

98See, e.g., Thawri (d. 161A.H.), TafsTr,Rampur, 1965, on the Sunni side, and Furat, TafsTr,Najaf, n.d., on the Shi'l one.99Tusi, i, 416. Cf. also Tabarsi i, 375.00Durr, I, 108.101This is repeatedly said by some of the commentaries cited above to have been the non-canonical readingof Hasan al-Basri.See, e.g., Gharnati, i, 397; Zamakhshari, i, 180;Qurtubi, 11,79;Razi, iv, 24; Alusi, I, 500 and Ibn Khalawayh, Mukhtasarfi Shawadhdhal-Qur'an,Cairo, 1934, 9.On the transmittersof this readingsee also Qabaqibi, Ithdf, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2297), 5(a), 122(a).102It must be remembered that this verb belongs to the group of naqa'id verbs capable ofconveying two opposite meanings. From the insistenceon giving it the meaning 'turn towards' inthis verse and the argument against interpreting it as 'to turn away', one can only surmise that thelattermeaning was also advocated, e.g. Tabari, i, 505, calls it shudhudh'irregularity'; in Alusi I, 502it is consideredgharrb'strange'.

228


16/25

QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEMprayer in the first place.'03Note must be taken of the traditions of Mujahid,Hasan and Dahhak which say that what was meant by tuwalluis supplication(du'ad)and not prayer.'04In some variants of Qatada's and Ibn 'Abbas'straditions the verse was revealedwhen the prophet ordered his followers to prayon the occasion of the Najashi's death and after some of them objected on thegrounds that he did not have the same qibla.'05At the same time those traditionswhich connected it with the question of prayerin the qiblaof Jerusalemcloselyassociate it with verses 2:142-5 and 2:150. Here it was presented as either anabrogation of the Jerusalemqibla, a preparation for such abrogation, or else aconfirmation of it.106All in all, however, it is the no-qibla stage in thedevelopment of Islam that figures as its central theme expressed in takhylr,ishtibahwa-taharrl,etc.'07All these questions become of crucial compositional importance when theissues of analogical interpretation, other Qur'anic parallels, and contextualsequence are considered. To begin with, the phrase 'li-llahi 'l-mashriquwa-'l-maghrib' occurs also in 2:142 which in sira sources was interpreted in thecontext of Muhammad's strife with the Jews of Medina over his change of theJerusalem qibla. And this clearly seems to be the reason why 2:114 wasinterpretedin that context too; i.e. simply by applying the traditional exegesis of2:142 to it.'08 Probably more important, on the other hand, is the strongthematic and even semantic connexion of 2:115 and 2:150, which isunanimously considered as the verse that finally fixed Mecca as the Muslimqiblaand whose wording indeed testifies to that literally.' And from whatsoeverplace you came forth (wa-min haythu kharajta)', it says, 'turn your facetowards the sacred mosque (fa-walli wajhakashatra 'l-masjidi'I-hardm)... sothat people shall have no accusation against you, except such of them as wereunjust (illa al-ladhmnazalamu)'.Now, this thematic connexion between 2:114-115 and 2:150 is of coursehistorically incredible. However, support for it can be gauged from the curiousand isolated testimony of the Kufan Sha'bT(d. 103-110A.H.) who, on theauthority of Jabir al-Ju'fT,swore by God that Muhammad only turned awayfrom the qiblaof Jerusalembecause he was angered by that city or its people;'09i.e. not because of his conflict with the Jews of Medina.

103Some commentators make a point of mentioning that Hasan's reading was originally'tawallaw 'and associate such a readingwith the threat conveyed by the verse to the committers ofzulm,namely that whereverthey may flee to, God's authoritywill still reach them. See Abu Hayyan,i, 360; Alius, i, 502; and, less explicitly, also Naysabiur, i, 423. Other commentators base theirpresentation of this tawallu, on the orthographic form tatawallu, so that it may still be taken toconvey the meaning of 'you turn towards'. See Zamakhshari, i, 180;Qurtubi, II, 79; Razi, IV, 24;Nawawi, i, 31. Such an ingenious exercise, however, contradicts Hasan's readingwhich is explicitlystated as: 'tawallaw,bi-fathal-ta' wa-'l-ldm'.Gharnatl, i, 397;Abu Hayyan, i, 360 and even Qurtubihimself, ii, 79. Naysabuir, i, 423, in his turn, insists that even tuwalluis addressingthe runnersawayin the second person.104As noted by Razi, iv, 23.105Compare Razi, iv, 22 with Wahidi, Asbdb, 35-6, and see also Abu Hayyan, i, 361.106Compare: Wahidi, Asbab, 36; Ibn Jaziyy I, 101;Tabarsi i, 379; Razi, IV,20; Baydawi, I, 108;Naysabuir, I, 422.107This is narratively expressed by referring to instances of prayer in the dark, at war, whiletravelling on the back of a camel, a non-ordained (ndfila) prayer,etc. Further details with respectivetraditional authorities in Muqatil, TafsTr,i, 63; Tabari, i, 502-3; Ibn Kathir, 11,513-9; Maturidi, i,273; Wahidi, Asbdb, 35-6; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101;Abu HIayyan,i, 360; Biqa'l, ii, 123. On the Shl'ite sidecompare also with Qummi i/59; 'Ayyashi 1/56-7; Tabarsi 1/380.0 Tabari, i, 502-3; Gharnati, i, 398; Tusi, i, 224; RazL,iv, 20; QurtubiII/82;Abu Hayyan 1/360;Naysaburi 1/422.109Lit: 'aqsama bi-llahi al-sha'biyyu md rudda al-nabiyyu 'an qiblati bayti 'l-maqdisi ill li-ghadabihi 'alabayti 'l-maqdis/'alaahlihd',Thawri, 12. Kister, who notes this tradition,refers also to'Abd al-Razzaq's Musannaf as another source for it. 'You shall only set ...', Le Museon, 82,Louvain, 1969, 183.

229


17/25

SULIMAN BASHEARNoting this tradition, Kister also called the attention to other indications inMuslim sources of a clear disagreement as to why indeed Muhammad 'hatedthe Jerusalem qibla and inclined towards the Ka'ba'.10 From the connexionbetween 2:114-15 and 2:150 as supported by Sha'bi's tradition, it is clear thatthe whole issue lies outside the Hijazi context. As for the Jews, it is plausible tosuggest that the change of qiblaconstituted a departurefrom their practicesin away that would raise their objection. But from 2:114-115 it is not necessarilytheJews that he was angered at. Rather a new line of reasoning suggested by thecontextual sequenceof these two versesshould at least be opened; i.e. that it wasthe Christians/Byzantineswith whom he had a conflict concerning Jerusalem.

5.3 The same method may be applied to 2:116. Here, the reading of theopening 'qalu ' instead of 'wa-qalu' by Ibn 'Amir (d. 118A.H.) is often men-tioned as part of the problem of sequential conjunction vs. resumption ('atf,isti'ndJ).1"But the way this issue was treated by commentators could point intwo opposite directions: either to an early disconnexion between 2:116 and thetwo preceding verses, or, more likely, a later attempt at such disconnexion."2In any case, 'atf and, even without waw, ittisal eventually emerged vic-torious.113But, before that, precautions seem to have been taken to ensure theconnexion with the HijazTframework by means of clustering sTra materialaround the exegesis of the verse. The strikingfact is that such clusteringwas notcompleted before the fourth century. However, from that period on the versewas presentedas referringto either the Christians(but of Najran!)who said thatChrist was the son of God, or to the Jews (but of Medina!)who said that 'Uzayrwas the son of God, or else to the Arab polytheists (implicitly of Mecca!) whosaid that the female angels were the daughters of God."4Now, the third view cannot be attested before the early fourth century asZajjajis the earliest source named for it.15 As for the Jews of Medina (preferredby Razl), the sTrasources mention them in connexion with verse 9:30 (againfrom Bara'a)rather than 2:116.116It must also be noted that verse 9:30 contains"libid., p. 183 n. 42, cf. Nuwayri, Nihdyat,I, 329.Il With the name of 'Abdullah b. 'Amir al-Yahsubi is associated the Syrian variant reading of'Uthman's codex. He is sometimes called 'al-shdmT' and is said to have been qd.d of Damascusduring al-Walid I's reign. See: al-Dani (d. 444A.H.), al-Taysir, Istanbul, 1930, 5-6. A. Jeffery,Materials, p. 1, n. 1, notes that to Ibn 'Amir was attributed a work on Ikhtilafal-Masahif. On Ibn'Amir's reading of 2:116 see: Ibn Abi Dawud (d. 316 A.H.), Kitdb al-Masdhif in Jeffery, 44; IbnKhalawayh, al-Hujja, Beirut, 1971, 65; Muhammad b. Ja'far al-Khuza'T(d. 408 A.H.) al-Muntahd,MS Princeton, Yehuda (3558), 90(a); al-Dani, al-Muqni',Damascus, 1940, 1940, 102, 110; idem,al-Ta'rTf,Muhammadiyya, 1982, 72-3; idem,al-TaysTr,op. cit., 76; idem,al-Mufradat,Cairo n.d., 189;Ibn al-Jazari(d. 833 A.H.), al-Nashr, Cairo, 1920, ii, 220. See also Qabaqibi, 122(a); Biqa'i, ii, 126-7;Tabarsi,I, 381; GharnatT,I, 400-1; Baydawi,I, 198; Nawawi,I, 31; Tius, I, 426; NasafT,I, 66;Baghawl,I, 85. In Abu Hayyan,I, 362 and Alius,I, 502, the name of Ibn 'Abbas is also added to Ibn'Amir.112In Tabarl,I, 506, the' wdw' links qdluto mana'a andsa'a, i.e., the Christians in 2:114. See alsoBaydawi,I, 108. Note, however, that dropping the wdwcould still imply conjunction (malhuzunfihima'naal-'tf) in spite of the apparent resumption.Alusi,I, 502; Gharnat, I, 400-1; Tabarsi, I, 308;and compare with Nasafi i, 66.113Note that even in the extremecase of isti'ndfby dropping the wdw,qdluwas presentedby some

as referring to both the Jews and Christians in 2:113. 'ImadT,i, 244; Biqa'i,IV, 126-7; and cf.GharnatT,I, 400-1.t4 Anonymous, Asbdb,4 (b)-5 (a); Wahidi,Asbdb, 36; Baydawi,I, 108;Biqa'i,II, 126;Ibn Jaziyy,I, 101. Cf. Maturidi,I, 266; Zajjaj apud Tuis,I, 426 and Abi Hayyan,I, 362; and see the followingnote.115Note that Zajjaj,as quoted by Tusi and Abu Hayyan, ibid., says that the verse was revealedconcerning both the Christians and the Arab polytheists. Compare also with MajlisT,ix, 68 andpossibly his source, Tabarsi, i, 382, neither of whom mentions Zajjaj by name. In only one source,Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101, is there the isolated notion that the verse could also refer to the sdbi'unand someof the Arabs, who believed that the angels were the daughters of God, as well as to the Christianbelief in the sonship of Christ.116Razi, iv, 25. For the stra material on ix, 30, see Ibn Hisham, Cairo, 1955,I-II, 570; Suhayli,Cairo, 1971,II, 116;Halab, I, 518,II, 38-9.

230


18/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM

polemics not only against the Jews but against the Christians and 'theunbelievers before them' as well.17 As for the notion that 2:116 refers to thedelegation of Najrani Christians, it does indeed occur in Muqatil's Tafsir.However, such notion is nowhere attested by any of the slra traditions of hiscontemporary Ibn Ishaq. Moreover, most traditional exegesis on 2:116 speaksabout the Christiansas being the ones referredto by it, but only in the indefiniteform, i.e. without mentioning the Najrani delegation."8 And, finally, a quickglance at the narratives brought by some commentators on the Najranidelegation shows that such narrativeswere connected with the revelation of atleast three differentverses, and not specificallywith 2:116.119As for the occurrenceof 'qdnitun'in 2:116, a quick scrutinyof the analogiesand parallelsmentioned by some traditions for its interpretationrevealsanotherfact of compositional importance: the second part of 2:116 (lahu ma ft al-samdwdtiwa-'l-ardikullun lahuqdnitun)occurs en bloc also in surat al-rum(verse30:26). There, as in 2:116 it was interpreted as 'admitting/worshipping inservitude.120 Indeed, the very wording used for interpreting qdnitunin 2:116 inthis sense is worth noting. In the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas source it is 'admittingservitude to and monotheistic belief' in God (muqirrunbi-'l-'ubudiyyawa-'l-tawhld). In Muqatil's TafsTrit is: 'ya'nT 'Tsd(s) wa-ghayrahu 'abTdahuwa-fimulkih'. In Abu 'Ubayda's (d. 210 A.H.) words: 'Kullun muqirrunbi-annahu'abdun lahu '.121 In Maturidl's 'muqirrun bi-'l-rububiyya lahu wa-'l-'ubudiyya li-anfusihim'122 Finally, Tabarsi cites a tradition by Hasan al-Basri whichinterprets qdnitunas 'witnessing servitude to Him'.123 Tabarsi also quotes asimilar interpretation by the fourth-century Jubba'i and the fifth-centuryAbuMuslim al-Nahawi (d. 459 A.H.).124On the other hand, there exists a strong current interpreting this word as'obedient' (mutl'un),relying mainly on a tradition by Mujahid with occasionalattribution of similar views to Suddi and even Ibn 'Abbas.125Some commen-tators bring the two views as alternative interpretations and a few tried toharmonize them.126From the analogical interpretationin this sense by parallelsbrought from other Qur'anic occurrences it is possible to detect the source ofconfusion. The meaning of 'obedient' was projected from the phrase 'wa-'l-qdnitin wa-'l-qdnitt ' of Qur'an 33:35 and 'qumuilillhi qdnitin' of Qur'an2:238.127

Against this background the possibility that the source of confusion liesactually in traditional reference to originally different Qur'anic occurrencesmust not be ruled out. Indeed, more meanings of Qur'anicand traditionalqunut117' wa-qalat al-yahudu 'uzayrunibnu allah, wa-qdlat al-nasdrd al-masThuibnu allah yudadhtnaqawlaal-ladhTnaKafarumin qablu ..'.118 See e.g. Tius, I, 426; Tabarsi, I, 382;Tha'alibi, I, 127; WahidT,Asbdb,36; Maturidi, I, 101;AbuH.ayyan, I, 362.'19e.g., the traditions 'by the exegetes' (al-mufassirun)Hasan, Sha'bi, Dahhak and Muqatilhimself, cited by Wahidi, Asbdb, Beirut, n.d., 74-32.120 Damghani, Islah, Beirut, 1970, 391; Ibn Qutayba Ta'wl, Cairo, 1973, 452.121Abu 'Ubayda, Majdz al-Qur'dn,Cairo, 1954, i, 51.122Maturidi, i, 266.123Tabarsi, i, 382.124 He is said to have compiled an important TafsTrwhich, unfortunately, has not reached us.However, he could be the same person often quoted by Razi. For more on him, see Suyiut, Bughyat,Beirut, 1964, I, 188; idem, Tabaqdt,Leiden, 1839, 32; Ibn al-'Imad, Shadhardt, Cairo, 1350A.H., III,307;Ibn Hajar, Lisdn,Haydarabad, 1331A.H., V, 298; Dhahabi, Mizan, Cairo, 1963, III,655; Safadi,al-Wdfi, Istanbul, 1921, iv, 130.'25See TafsTrMujahid, i, 86; Farra', I, 74; Tabarsi, I, 382; Biqa'i, ii, 127; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 102;Gharnati, I, 401.26e.g.: Maturidi, I, 266 and Baydawl, I, 108.127 Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wTl,452 and Damghani, 391, respectively.

231


19/25

SULIMAN BASHEARwere noted by scholars, among which mention must be made of 'condemna-tion' (la'n) and 'ridding oneself from' (tabarru).'2Regrettably,this is not the right place for conducting a full investigation intoqunutas it occurs in the Qur'anand other Muslim sources. Attention, however,is called to considering the possibility that the cardinal difficulty facing acomprehensive interpretation of the term in fact lies in the existence of morethan one linguistic origin for it. There is the Arabic QNT, QNH (I, T) meaningrespectively 'to anger' and 'to own' with cognate semitic roots conveying thesame meanings, as well as others, e.g. the second stem of the Hebrew QNAdenoting zealousness. Needless to say, the possibility of a simple underlyingscribal or pronunciation error may explain some of the confusion. As for theoccurrence in 2:116, I suggest accepting the meaning of servitude-propertygiven by pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas, Muqatil and other relatively early sources. Initself, the assertion of servitudeto God as a form of absolute monetheism and incontrast to the idea of sonship to Him fits well within the framework ofcontroversy with mainstream Christianity in early Islam as revealed by thecomplex 2:114-16. The new feature of this assertion, however, is that suchcontroversy is here put in the Jerusalem context.6. Conclusions and a Historical Note.The present inquiry, initially stimulated by the absolutely unique, thoughlate comment of Shams al-Din Suyu.t, has yielded several results in the field ofthe study of Qur'anic exegesis, specifically in relation to historiography, sira,legal tradition and other forms of Muslim literary activity. Indirectly,it has alsotouched upon the issues of the position of Jerusalemin early Islam and Muslim-Christian controversies over central theological issues.Above all, it has been demonstrated how up to the mid second century aclear anti-Christian/Byzantine sentiment prevailed in the exegesis of 2:114which overwhelmingly presented it as referring to the Jerusalem sanctuary-temple. We have also seen that no trace of sira material could be detected insuch exegesis and that the first authentic attempt to present the occasion of itsrevelation within the framework of Muhammad's slra in Mecca is primarilyassociated with the name of Ibn Zayd who circulated a tradition to that effect inthe second half of the second century. Other attempts to produce earliertraditional authorities for this notion could easily be exposed as a laterinfiltration of sTramaterial simply by conducting a cross-examination of sTrasources on the occasions of both Quraysh's persecution of Muhammed beforethe hijra and their barring of him at Hudaybiyya. As for Shi'l traditionalexegesis, our conclusions cannot be final because of the problem of thetransmission of Shi'i traditions and, hence, of dating them. We note, however,the heavy association of the Hudaybiyya notion with the name of the sixthimam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. In any case, the notion of an early Meccan frameworkcannot be attested before the first half of the second century.All in all, the case of verse 2:114 gives support to Wansbrough'smain thesissince it shows that from the mid second centuryon Qur'anicexegesis underwenta consistent change, the main 'impulse' behind which was to assert the Hijaziorigins of Islam.129In that process, the appearanceand circulation of a traditionby the otherwise unimportant Ibn Zayd 130 slowly gathered prominence.

128Goldziher and Kister, cf. E. Kohlberg,' Bara'a .. .', JSAI, 7, 1986, 141-2, p. 158,n. 68. Cf. alsoSchacht, Origins, Oxford repr., 1975, 267-8.'29Wansbrough, Quranic studies, Oxford 1977, 58, 179.30Again, without getting involved with the debate over the value of the material of Jarh wa-Ta'd-l,the fact remains that an unimportanttradition of Ibn Zayd, who was generallydiscounted as' weak' and whose work has not survived in the original, gradually and consistently gathers power

232


20/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEMSimultaneously, other ingenuous attempts were made to find earlier authoritiespreciselybearingIbn 'Abbas's name for the same notion while the more genuinecore of the original tradition of Ibn 'Abbas was gradually watered downbecause it was no longer recognized after the 'legend of Muhammed' wasestablished.'13But watering down did not affect a complete disappearance. And althoughwe accept in principle that there was a gradual development towards ijmd'around the year 200 in the field of exegesis 132as well as in other fields, the caseunder discussion shows how such ijmd' was still far from unanimous.'33However, the persistence of the Jerusalem/Christian notion in mainstreamcommentaries of Farra', Ibn Qutayba and down to fourth-centuryTabari andMaturidi and even later can be explained only by the perpetuation of hostilitytowards the Byzantines, leaders of the Christian world.From the fourth century on, other factors came to the forefront and acted infavour of undermining not only that notion but the narrative element ofexegesis as a whole. Again, Rippin is right in noting that the final emergenceofthe Qur'anas a source of law affected the eventual sacrificeof narrativeexegesis.To this must also be added the factor of the metaphorical understanding andgeneral applicability of key terms like khardb and dukhuilin this verse whichhelped to detach it from the specific, immediate and, so to speak, historicalcontext of Jerusalem.But Wansbrough's implied though not explicitly stated view that the text ofthe Qur'an was stabilized around the year 200 134must, to say the least, beelaborated at least as far as the complex 2:114-16 is concerned. The reading ofhunafa' instead of khuyyafd, the fact that 2:114 does not figure at all in theahkdmgenre before the fourth century and, above all, the textual overlaps withother Qur'anic occurrences, mainly from Bard'a (ix, 28-30), 2:142 and otherinstances corresponding to pre-Islamic 'prophetologia', clearly indicates that'juxtaposition' of elements from differentgenres could still be done in the firsthalf of the fourth century. Jefferyhas rightlynoted that the canonization of theQur'an did not become complete until the reading of its text was stabilizedduring that period.'35However, awareness of the overlap between the variantQur'anicparallelsas exposed by the fragmentation in early traditional exegesisof 2:114-16, shows how it is not only true to say that reading is a question ofexegesis,136but that both are questions of composition too.Viewed as such, the composition of 2:114 and the contextual sequencebetween it and 2:115-16 acquire a clear though problematic historical dimen-sion. As long as the first paragraphof 2:114 (wa-manazlamu ... ismuhu)stoodalone, and indeed it was interpretedas such, it could not raise any problem ofand predominance in later Qur'anic commentaries from the fourth centuryon. On Ibn Zayd see: J.Schacht, op. cit., 351; Khalifa, Tdrlkh,Najaf, 1967,11, 491; Dawfud, Tabaqat al-MufassirTn,Cairo,1972,I, 265; Bukhari, Tar[kh,Haydarabad, 1970, in, 284; Khazraji, Khulasat,Cairo, 1322A.H., 192;Dhahabi, 'Ibar,Kuwait, 1960, I, 282; idem,MTzan,Cairo, 1963, n, 564; Ibn Abi Hatim, Jarh,v, 233;Ibn Hajar, Tahdh[b,Haydarabad, 1326A.H., VI, 177.

131 See H. Birkeland'scomments on the implications of Goldziher's study of had7thin Old Muslimopposition,Oslo, 1955, 32-4; idem, The Lordguideth, Oslo, 1956, 6-12. In both places, Birklandexpresses the opinion that the original core of Ibn 'Abbas's traditions could still be found in thetransmission through the 'family isnad' of Ibn Sa'd cited above. While accepting this opinion inprinciple, we should note Schacht'slegal caution that' family isnads' are ' generally an indication ofthe spurious character of the traditions in question,' see Origins, 170, 177.132 Birkeland, The Lord guideth, loc. cit., accepted in principleby Wansbrough.133 Schachtput forward the same view from the standpoint offiqh, Origins,2. In at least one otherfield, that of 'proofs' (dala'il) of Muhammad's prophecy, Ibn Rabban (wrote 232-247 A.H.)explicitly says that ijma'is not enough. Kitdbal-Din wa-'l-Dawla, Tunis 1973, 19.34Wansbrough, Quranicstudies, 225-6.135A. Jeffery, 1.'36 Wansbrough, op. cit., 226.

233


21/25

SULIMANBASHEARhistoriography because it could easily be taken as a reference to atrocitiescommitted in the Jerusalem sanctuary in pre-Islam-i.e. as belonging to theprophetologia genre, to use Wansbrough's terminology. One cannot, however,ignore the strong anti-Christian sentiment which predominates in the earlyMuslim exegesis of the verse, to the extent of presentingBukhtnassarand Titusas accomplices of the Christians.The syntactical form of the second paragraph, in its turn, whether readhunafa' or khuyyafd/khd'ifin betrays a recommendation addressed to theMuslims or even an imperativeto be followed by them. And this is corroboratedby the way 2:115 was presentedas addressingthe Muslims in the second personand, even more explicitly, by the contextual and logical sequence between thetwo verses. In Tabari's words:

who is more unjust/polytheistic than the Christianswho forbade the releaseof God's name (alone) in his mosques and sought to destroy them?To Godbelong east and west; thus, whereveryou turn your faces, mention him ...and the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary by those who did so andbarred the mentioning of Him (alone) in it, should not hinder you frommentioning God (= being monotheists, S.B.) whereveryou might be in hisland, seeking by that his grace.But Tabari the exegete has the problem of Tabari the traditional historio-grapher;for, adhering to the Jerusalem/Christiancontext forced him to defendhimself, clearly against an objection current in his time, that such an under-standing is ' historically' impossible since prayerin Jerusalemwas not ordainedon the Muslims at the time of revelation-in other words, such an understand-ing is incompatible with the HiijazisTraframework. At this stage, he sacrificeshistory or, more accurately, prefers a historically confused narrative ofharmonization in the form of the Christian/Bukhtnassarcomplicity: an ideawhich he does not repeat in his TdrTkhand which Jassas, who was not a

historian, notes for its absurdity.Another fourth-century source, 'All b. 'Isa al-Rummani is also accreditedwith presenting2:115 as addressingthe Muslims in the second person. He doesso, however, with the crucial change of dropping the Jerusalem/Christianframework.137And this amendment made the question of sequence acceptableto many later commentators since it diffused the whole issue of its historicalproblematics and presented it in a neutral light in the form of 'whether inJerusalem or in Mecca'.138 For Shawkani even this 'either-or' form wasconsidered too much of a specification. And Ibn Kathir rejected any ideaoutside the Meccan context.Actually, long before that, the Hijazi general frameworkof the revelationofthe canon was established. However, the material from' the formativeperiod inIslamicexegesis' on 2:114-15 during the second and third centuries139revealsaprocess of moulding two distinct layers of textual composites corresponding

probably to two separate genres. A quick review of the Qur'anic parallels todifferentparts and paragraphsof the complex 2:1 14-16 shows on the one hand,an anti-Christianpolemic of clearlyJewishcolouring concerning the sanctity ofthe temple site in the late Byzantine period coupled with an early Muslimtheological polemic against mainstream Christianity on the question of theessence of God and monotheism. But, while this textual layer prevails up to thesecond half of the second century, it gradually becomes subject to the infiltra-137cf. Tusl;Ibn Jaziyy;Abu Hayyan; 'Alusi, loc. cit.138 Zamakhshari;Nawawi; Nasafi; Baydawi; 'Imadi, loc. cit.'39Wansbrough,140.

234


22/25

QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEMtion of another body of material originating in a Hijazi Muhammedan logiawhich also acquires a textual position. A critical review of traditional exegesison parallels shows the moulding, albeit as confusion, between different con-ceptual and thematic Judeo-Christian discourses of 2:114-16 belonging to theJerusalemcontext and an Arabian 9:28-30, 2:142-50 of Muhammedan Hijazitraditional framework.

Detecting and separatingthese two layers is a prerequisitewithout which noattempt can be made to reconstruct whatever historical process that lies behind2:114-16. Admittedly, such a task of reconstruction is, to say the least,hazardous and risky. However, more absurd than accepting the transparenthistoriographical patching of literary sira to the tafsTrin the Jerusalem/Christian context it cannot be. Above all, the present inquiry has shown that,inasmuch as the case under discussion is concerned, the task of reconstructionmust cover at least the first century and a half of Islam during which no sTraelement could be attested to in that context.The question of the development of Judeo-Christiancontroversies over theposition of Jerusalemin itself lies beyond the scope of this study. And recently,more attention has been paid to the sanctity for the early Muslims of variouslocations within it as the background of such a position.140As for the concern in early Islam over what seemed to be the desecration ofthe Temple site by the Byzantines,which figurescentrallyin 2:114, a tradition ofKa'b, gives some clues. It occurs in the work of Fa.da'ilby al-Musharraf (432-492 A.H.), from which it was quoted by similarlater works.14 From this traditionand the commentariesupon it we learn that after the conversion of Constantineand his mother Helen's visit to Jerusalem, the Byzantines tried at first toreconstruct the Temple site. Later, however, they consistently strove to under-mine its sanctity. They cut the Rock, used its stones and the columns of the oldbuilding to erect the Holy Sepulchre while burying the old location underdebris. Such a situation, we are told by Ka'b, prevailed until Muhammad wassent, accomplished his nocturnaljourney and extolled the merits of Jerusalem.From yet another tradition we learn that the Byzantine destructive attitudetowards the Temple site was not always consistent. Qaysar, we are told, on hisreceiptof Muhammad's letter,ordered the site to be cleaned;but only one-thirdof the work had been accomplished on the advent of Muslim occupation underUmar.'42More traditions of Ka'b give furtherdetails concerning early Muslim-Christian controversies over other locations in Jerusalem.143But beyond that,Muslim information concerning possible conflict with the Byzantines overJerusalem,let alone within it, is, indeed, scanty and highly obscure, not only inrelation to Muhammad's mission but even as regardsthe religious aspects of itsoccupation and 'Umar's visit to the city. Yet there is abundant informationconcerning several verses which are said to have been revealed to the Prophet,and many traditions attributed to him, concerning Jerusalem, Palestine and140

H. Busse, ' Omar's image'JSAI, 8, Jerusalem, 1986, 164-8; idem' The Tower of David .. .', anunpublished paper presented at the fourth International Colloquium: 'From Jahiliyya to Islam',The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987;'A. El'ad, ' Muslim holy places', art. cit., and thereferences cited therein.

14' Musharraf, 15 (b)-16 (a); and the later sources quoting him: Shihab al-Din (d. 765 A.H.),Muthfral-Gharamas, in its turn, quoted by Mujlral-Din, Uns, I, 170-2 and Shams al-Din's Ithaf, I,128-30. Cf. also Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo n.d., vIn,58 and Taflati (d. 1191A.H.), Husn al-Istiqsa,MS Princeton Yehuda (515), 152 (a-b).142This tradition is reported on the authority of the Damascene Sa'id b. 'Abd al-'Aziz(d. 167A.H.), see Musharraf, 20 (b)-21 (a) and Ibn al-Jawzl (d. 597) Fada'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980,108-9. On the position of Jerusalem under the late Byzantines, see Hirschberg, 'The sources ofMuslim tradition', Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 17, 1951-2.143WasitT(d. c. 410 A.H.), Fada'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas,Jerusalem, 1979, 21, 24, 44.

235


23/25

SULIMANBASHEARSyria as a whole.'4 But only one verse (no. 43:45) is said to have been revealedin Jerusalem itself and that, while he made his journey to heaven.As one would expect, but still worth noting, the latter verse is polemicaldirected at those who, on the alleged authority of the Apostles (clearly theChristians), believed that other gods were appointed to be worshipped byGod-a strong reminderof the polemics in 2:116. And, in association with therevelation of that verse (i.e. 43:45), a tradition is usually cited attributing toMuhammad the saying that prophecy descended upon him in Syriaas well as inMecca and Medina.'45

Beyond the slra and traditional limits, there occur only scatteredand highlyobscure referenceswhich place Muhammad'smission and the Muslims' occupa-tion of Jerusalem within the context of Judeo-Christian conflict in andconcerning it. One of these is the above-mentioned tradition related to the orderby Qaysar to clean the Temple site upon receiving Muhammad's letter inJerusalem.146

Tabari, in his turn, cites a unique tradition of Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112 A.H.)and Rabi'a al-Shami (d. 123A.H.) concerning the discussion between Ka'b and'Umar when the latter visited Jerusalem. According to this tradition, the Jewsstrove to preserve the Temple site but were unsuccessful because of theconsecutive Roman/Byzantine and Persian attacks. This situation, continuesthe tradition,' prevaileduntil you ('Umar) reigned.Then God sent a prophet onthe (place of) assembly/garbage(lit.: Kundsa)who said: a good omen on you, OJerusalem, thefdruiqwill clean you from whatever (dirt) is in you .. .1.47But early Muslim, late Judeo-Christian relations concerning Jerusalem, letalone in the city itself, remain highly obscure throughout the period of earlyIslam. The pilgrim Arculfus who visited it around the year A.D. 680 speaksvaguely about a confl

quran and jerusalem suliman bashear

Documents