Qur'anic Musings: Qur'an and Biblical tradition

Showing posts with label Qur'an and Biblical tradition. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2018

Islam: The Legacy of Abraham (Part II)

2. Mecca as the Birthplace of Islam

Surat al-Baqara then goes on to narrate that God ordered Abraham and Ishmael to build the Ka‘ba as a “sanctuary” and “center for mankind.” Abraham in turn prays to God to make the land into a safe and prosperous city:

We made the House a center for mankind and sanctuary, saying, “Take the spot where Abraham stood as your place of prayer.” We commanded Abraham and Ishmael: “Purify My House for those who walk round it, those who stay there, and those who bow and prostrate themselves in worship.” Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this a secure city and provide with produce those of its people who believe in God and the Last Day.” (2:125-126)[1]

Thus, the Ka‘ba became the earthly symbol of islām, and Mecca became its spiritual capital.

Moreover, it was here, upon completing the building of the Ka‘ba, that Abraham prayed to God to elect from his descendants a muslim nation:

As Abraham and Ishmael built up the foundations of the House [they prayed], “Our Lord, accept [this] from us. You are the All Hearing, the All Knowing. Our Lord, make us submitted to You (muslimayni la-ka), and make from our descendants a nation submitted to you (ummatan muslimatan la-ka)…Our Lord, make a messenger of their own rise up from among them, to recite Your revelations to them, teach them the Scripture and wisdom, and purify them: You are the Mighty, the Wise.” (2:127-129)

Hence, the Qur’an teaches us that the sending of Muhammad as a messenger (peace be upon him) and the Qur’anic revelation are both in fact part of the legacy of Abraham, stemming from the prayer he made upon building and consecrating the Ka‘ba.

3. Surat al-Baqara: The Establishment of the Muslim Nation

Surat al-Baqara, which was mostly revealed in the first and second years of the Hijra, is a historic sura, because this is the sura in which Allah declared the establishment of the Muslim umma or nation. It is meant to be “a middle nation,” balanced between the excesses of the Jewish and Christian communities, and to serve (like Abraham) as an example for the rest of mankind:

The foolish people will say, “What has turned them away from the prayer direction they used to face?” Say, “East and West belong to Allah. He guides whoever He will to the right way.” Thus We have made you into a middle nation (ummatan wasaṭan), so that you may bear witness [to the truth] before others and so that the Messenger may bear witness [to it] before you. (2:142-143)

With the Hijra, the Muslims had become socially and politically separate and independent from the Quraysh. Subsequently, when Allah announced the change of the prayer direction from the Temple of Jerusalem to the Ka‘ba—“the first house [of worship] established for mankind” (3:96)—He formally distinguished the religion of the Muslims from that of the Jews. Hence, the above passage marks the very foundation of the Muslims as an independent nation and religious community.

This is highlighted by the structure of Surat al-Baqara itself. The sura has the following overall structure, with the change of prayer direction being the central section of the sura:

A. Faith and Disbelief (vv. 1-39): Believers and disbelievers; God created and will resurrect.

B. Criticism of the Israelites (vv. 40-121): Moses delivers law to Children of Israel; Children of Israel fail to submit.

C. Abraham’s legacy (vv. 122-141): Abraham was tested; Ka‘ba built by Abraham and Ishmael; prayer that descendants will return to monotheism and submit to God.

D. The change of prayer direction to the Ka‘ba (vv. 142-152): the new Muslim community is established as a “middle nation” who believe and compete in doing good works.

C’. Restoring Abraham’s legacy (vv. 153-177): Muslims will be tested; instructions about pilgrimage to Mecca; warning not to take ancestors or their gods as rivals besides God.

B’. Laws for the new Muslim nation (vv. 178-242): Prophet delivers law to Muslims; Muslims exhorted to submit wholeheartedly.

A’. The struggle of the believers against the disbelievers (vv. 243-286): Believers in struggle against disbelievers; God’s power over creation and to resurrect; laws of financial dealings.

The sura therefore “revolves” around the Ka‘ba, much as believers circle around the Ka‘ba during the Hajj. Moreover, the statement “We have made you into a middle community,” occurs in the middle verse of the sura: the sura has 286 verses, and this declaration occurs in verse 143.[2] This serves to highlight the change of prayer direction towards the Ka‘ba built by Abraham, and the establishment of the Muslim community, as the central feature of this sura.

4. The Foundations of Islam

From the above, we see that the Hajj (and hence, ‘Eid al-Adha) is a commemoration of the tradition of islām—submission to the One God—that traces back to Abraham, and which was restored during the prophetic mission of Muhammad (peace be upon them). It is also a celebration of the prayer of Abraham as he built the Ka‘ba with Ishmael, which was fulfilled in the establishment of the Muslim nation, formalized by the change of prayer direction to the Sacred House. The Ka‘ba is the symbol of this nation—a “sanctuary” and “place of return for mankind”; Mecca is its spiritual capital; the Qur’an is its constitution; and the days of Hajj and ‘Eid al-Adha are among its holidays. In sum, during these these days, we commemorate the faith, sacrifice, and submission of Abraham; remember him as our spiritual forefather; recall how he revived monotheism and consecrated the Ka‘ba to the worship of God; and how that monotheism was again restored by Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur’an, in fulfillment of Abraham’s prayer.

As Islam is the “religion of Abraham,” the other four pillars of Islam also go back to him:

1. The first pillar is to testify that there is nothing to worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger. The connection with Abraham is obvious, since it is he who revived monotheism when the world was immersed in idol worship, and the role of Muhammad’s mission was to restore the legacy of Abraham (peace be upon them).

2. The ritual prayer, or ṣalāh, is rooted in Abraham’s supplication, “My Lord, make me an establisher of the prayer, and many from my descendants” (14:40). Moreover, during the prayer direct ourselves towards the Ka‘ba, the Sacred House built by Abraham.

3. The poor-due, or zakāh, harks back to Abraham through his son Ishmael: “And mention in the scripture Ishmael. He was true to his promise and was a prophet-messenger; and he used to enjoin prayer and the poor-due, and he was pleasing to His Lord” (19:54-55).

4. The obligation to fast during Ramadan was revealed in Surat al-Baqara, following the formal establishment of the Muslim umma. According to this passage, the purpose of Ramadan is to commemorate the Qur’an:

It was in the month of Ramadan that the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for mankind, clear messages giving guidance and distinguishing between right and wrong. So any one of you who is present that month should fast…He wants you to complete the prescribed period and to glorify Him for having guided you, so that you may be thankful (2:185).

The revelation of the Qur’an, as we have seen before, was the fulfillment of Abraham’s prayer. Hence, all five pillars of Islam go back to Abraham.

5. The Hajj as a Divine Miracle

We saw above that Allah says in Surat al-Baqara,

We made the House a center for mankind. (2:125)

The word for center, mathāba, denotes “a place that is much frequented and serves as a point of congregation for people.”[3] The Qur’an is filled with divine promises that Muhammad and his followers would conquer Mecca, liberate the Ka‘ba from idolatry, and restore it as a center for the worship of One God. It also contains indications that the Prophet’s message would be a universal one. The majority of these prophecies were revealed in the Meccan period, while the Muslims were still a small, persecuted minority, without any tangible hope of accomplishing such lofty aspirations.

Today, millions of men and women around the world travel each year to Mecca for Hajj. When visiting the Ka‘ba, they recall the legacy of Abraham and the fulfilled prophecy of the success of the mission of the Prophet and his companions. By participating in the rites of Hajj with millions of other believers, they are also reminded of the spread of the Abrahamic message from a small, persecuted religious group in Mecca, to now every corner of the globe. This message is that God is One and that all human beings are equally His creatures and servants. The Hajj is the largest gathering of people from all races, nationalities, languages, and social classes in the world. As they pray together and circle around the Ka‘ba in harmony, they are united in the worship of God and the acknowledgement of human equality, of which the Ka‘ba is a symbol. The Hajj is a veritable miracle of Islam—a living testimony to the fulfillment of the divine promises to Abraham reported in the Qur’an and the previous scriptures.

Islam: The Legacy of Abraham (Part I)

“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘…I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3)

“God said, ‘I will make you a leader for mankind.’” (Qur’an, 2:124)

In the season of Hajj, it is important to remember and reflect on what the Hajj is about. That is what I intend to do briefly here in these posts, focusing on a particular Qur’anic passage that explains this theme. This passage is Abraham’s prayer of consecration as he is building the Ka‘ba with his son Ishmael (peace be upon them), as it is recorded in Sura 2, The Cow (al-Baqara), in verses 124-129. This passage occupies a central place in the Qur’an as far as salvation history is concerned, and it is no accident that it occurs in the beginning of the Qur’an, in the very second sura. This sura, and in particular this passage, explains the very foundations of Islam as a religion. Before we dive into this passage, however, there is some background that is worth briefly examining.

1. Abraham: The Father of the Muslim Nation

In various places in the Qur’an, Allah specifically dubs Islam “the religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm). For example, in response to some members of the Jewish and Christian communities in Medina, who criticized the Muslims for not following their religions, the Muslims are repeatedly told to “Follow the religion of Abraham, ḥanīfan; and he was not one of those who associate partners with God” (2:135; 3:95; 4:125; 6:161; 16:123). At the conclusion of Surat al-Hajj, Allah even calls Islam “the religion of your father Abraham (millati abīkum ibrāhīm)”:

Strive hard for Allah as is His due: He has chosen you and has not placed on your religion any difficulty—the religion of your forefather Abraham. He named you muslims in the past and in this [message]. (22:78)

Thus, according to the Qur’an, Abraham (peace be upon him) is the spiritual father of the Muslim nation, and Islam is to be understood primarily as “the religion of Abraham.”

It is important to understand the background of this declaration. The Qur’an’s interlocutors consisted on the one hand of the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, and on the other hand of the Jewish and Christian communities in Medina and elsewhere. The Quraysh of Mecca claimed their status as the leaders of the holy city and the custodians of the Ka‘ba on the basis of their descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. Likewise, the Jewish community looked to Abraham, whom they called “our father Abraham,” as both their physical father and as the spiritual father of Judaism. Christians also claimed Abraham as their spiritual forefather: Paul claimed Abraham, who was justified by faith rather than by adherence to the Jewish law, as the archetype of Christian faith, and declared Christians to be the children of Abraham in faith apart from obedience to the revealed Law (Rom. 4; Gal. 3).[1] The Qur’an turns each of these claims on its head, asserting,

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but was a ḥanīf; and he was not one of those who associate partners with God (3:95).

The Qur’an thus responds to the claims of the pagan Quraysh by pointing out that “Abraham was a ḥanīf—and he was not one of those who associate partners with God.” The word ḥanīf, which I have abstained from translating, is generally understood to mean a follower of the natural, inborn monotheism that is innate to human nature. As a ḥanīf, Abraham’s faith differed too from that of Christians, as it was basic, unitarian monotheism, free from the complications of the Trinity and other later Christian dogmas. Nor was Abraham a Jew in his religious practice, because he preceded the revelation of the Torah. Rather, he was a muslim, one who surrendered himself unconditionally to God’s commands, without restricting them to what would later become Jewish law and tradition.[2] As the Qur’an also says, “People of the Scripture, why do you dispute about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Do you not reason?” (3:65).

The Qur’an pronounces Abraham to instead be the father of the Muslim nation, in both faith and practice. In terms of faith, it is Abraham who restored monotheism in an age when the world had become almost completely immersed in polytheism and idolatry. It would likewise be the role of the Muslims to restore this pristine monotheism to the world, starting with the city and house that Abraham had originally founded for the purpose of worshiping the One God. In terms of his practice, Abraham was a perfect model of islām, fully submitting himself to divine command, even though he received the most difficult commands out of any human being. For this reason, Surat al-Baqara states,

Abraham’s Lord tested him with instructions, and he fulfilled them completely. (2:124)

In the Arabic text of this verse, “Abraham,” who is the direct object, is muqaddam, meaning that it is shifted to the beginning of the sentence, against the normal order of a sentence in Arabic. This shift serves to highlight that Abraham was tested in a unique way, like no one else before or after him. Moreover, the word “instructions” (kalimāt, literally “words”) indicates that that the tests were several, rather than being restricted to a single one. Abraham was repeatedly tested with divine instructions that no one else was tested with, and in these tests, he demonstrated the highest level of islām, or submission to God.

Two of these unique tests occurred in association with what would subsequently become the city of Mecca. The first of these was God’s command to Abraham to leave his wife Hagar and his infant son Ishmael in the middle of the Arabian desert, without any food, water, shelter, or company. This was a test primarily of Abraham’s and Hagar’s faith and trust in God’s providence. The test resulted in miraculous origins of the well of Zamzam, marking the land that would later become Mecca. This story is narrated in the Bible, in Genesis 21:

When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Do not let me look on the death of the child.” And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make a great nation of him.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. She went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the boy a drink. (Gen. 21:15-19)

This test also resulted in the tradition of running seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa, which would become part of the Hajj, in commemoration of Hagar’s distraught search for water for Ishmael.

The second of these unique tests was that, years later, Abraham was given the command to sacrifice his son Ishmael:

He said, “I will go to my Lord: He is sure to guide me. Lord, grant me a righteous son,” so We gave him the good news that he would have a patient son. When the boy was old enough to work with his father, Abraham said, “My son, I have seen myself sacrificing you in a dream. What do you think?” He said, “Father, do as you are commanded and, God willing, you will find me steadfast.” When they had both submitted (aslamā) to God, and he had laid his son down on the side of his face, We called out to him, “Abraham, you have fulfilled the dream.” This is how We reward those who do good––it was a test to prove [their true characters]––We ransomed his son with a momentous sacrifice, and We let him be praised by succeeding generations: “Peace be upon Abraham!” This is how We reward those who do good: truly he was one of Our faithful servants. (37:99-111; cf. Gen 22:1-19)

This also was a test primarily of Abraham’s faith and trust in God, because God had previously promised Abraham that he would make him a great nation through his seed.[3] Surat al-Baqara continues to narrate that as a result of Abraham’s unwavering faith and obedience, God announced to him, “I will make you a leader for mankind” (2:124). Abraham thus became the spiritual role model for the rest of mankind, an example of unconditional trust in God and surrender (islām) to His command. During the Hajj season and ‘Eid al-Adha, it is his example that we remember and commemorate.

[1] See F.E. Peters, The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (Princeton University Press, 2010); Jon D. Levenson, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton University Press, 2012).

[2] In this article, I am using the term “islam” in two senses. When spelled “islām,” I will be referring to islam as the spiritual state of self-surrender to God, the religion that all of God’s messengers called to. When spelled “Islam,” I will be referring to the manifestation of this that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) through the Qur’an and in the form of the Islamic Shari‘a.

[3] According to some Biblical scholars, this test and the replacement of Abraham’s son with a ram had the further significance of abolishing child sacrifice, which was a widespread religious practice in the ancient Near East.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Excellent article series on Noah's Flood and the Qur'an

Up until now, the best treatment I have seen of the Flood and the Qur’an was in Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies by David Solomon Jalajel. I had come to the same conclusions as Jalajel before reading his chapter, but seeing that my interpretations were supported by some major Qur’anic commentaries was reassuring. Surveying and analyzing a number of classical commentaries, Jalajel argues that the Qur'an does not:

indicate that the Flood was global;
claim that Noah's people were the only human beings on the earth in his time;
state that the Flood was universal, affecting all of humanity, but only that it affected Noah's people;
claim that all human populations descended from Noah and those who boarded the ark.

Concerning that last point, the Qur’an only states that Abraham descended from Noah (cf. 3:33-34) and hence the Quraysh (36:41; 69:11), the Children of Israel (17:3), and the Biblical prophets named in the Qur’an (6:84).[1]

al-Alusi’s commentary is most instructive. Commenting on 71:26, in which Noah prays, “do not leave on the earth [or “the land,” ʿalā ’l-arḍ] an inhabitant from the disbelievers,” al-Alusi writes,

...the word ‘[e]arth’ is quite often used to refer to a portion thereof, and it is possible that this is how it is being used here. Likewise, if we were to concede that the intended meaning was all of the earth, nonetheless the supplication was invoked against the ‘unbelievers’ and these were the ones to whom he was sent and who did not respond.[2]

Similarly, al-Alusi comments in reference to 11:40, which states, “We said, ‘Load upon the ship of every set of mates a pair'":

What the heart tends to accept is that the flood—as some have opined—was not universal in scope and that Noah was not commanded to carry with him what generally subsists on unclean substances on the [e]arth, like mice and insects. Instead, he was commanded to carry with him what he would need when he and those with him were saved from drowning.[3]

Still, this treatment left one important question in my mind. The Qur'an says that Noah’s ship “came to rest upon Mount Judi (wa-’stawat ʿalā ’l-jūdiyy)” (11:44). Yet, for rainfall to cause flood waters to reach the elevation of a mountain and then to recede would entail all kinds of physical impossibilities and would multiply the earth’s atmospheric pressure to a degree that the earth would become uninhabitable. It would also require a global flood, which would clash with all of the evidence we have from geology.[4] Moreover, it seemed to me that Mount Judi, known in Turkish as Cudi Dagh (pronounced joo-dee daa'), is too far north to be affected by a flood in the Persian Gulf but too far south to be affected by a Black Sea flood.

Fortunately, I stumbled upon a brilliant series of articles by a Muslim researcher, examining the Qur’anic account of the Flood from the perspective of history, geology, archaeology, and anthropology. I was very surprised to find such a sophisticated treatment of the subject on an obscure blog that hasn’t been updated since 2007! The author explained the goal of his series as follows:

This is not an attempt to prove the validity of the Qur’anic and/or Biblical story of Noah and the Flood, but simply to look at various physical aspects of the event, and to relate it to what we can discover from geographical, historical, archaeological, and other sources – in short, relate it to what we know about the world in general.

The contents of this series are outlined as such:

This series is the best treatment of the subject I have seen. The author avoids the pitfalls of Christian fundamentalist interpretations of the Flood story, which immensely clash with the data of geology and other physical sciences. I was very pleased to find a satisfying answer to my above question in SF06b: Extent of the Flood. The author points out,

Now, when we read that the ship came to rest “‘alaa’l juwdiyyi”, we do not have to understand that to mean ‘on top of Judi” It could also be understood as “at Judi.” In Arabic, “‘alaa baabihi,” meaning “at his door,” is common usage.

Hence the Qur’anic statement could be translated as “it came to settle at Mount Judi.”

Using visuals, the author goes on to show how severe flooding of the Persian Gulf—a phenomenon that is now attested to by geological evidence—combined with a temporary sagging of the Arabian plate would be capable of inundating Mesopotamia without requiring a significant rise in sea level. The floodwaters would be able to reach into a valley that extends into the vicinity of Mount Judi. He observes that this

could be produced by means of a heating and partial melting of the continental crust from below. Effects of this could also involve volcanic eruptions, including massive eruptions of steam. In this respect some rather cryptic words used in the Holy Qur’an might be of significance. They appear to mean: “And the oven was heated.”

As for Qur’anic references to “waves like mountains” (11:42), this can be taken to suggest that Noah’s ship sailed temporarily into the ocean. It does not entail that the waves were literally the altitude of mountains (cf. 42:32; 55:24) or that this description applies to the floodwaters over Mesopotamia.

The author’s model of the Flood resembles that of Hugh Ross in his Navigating Genesis: A Scientist's Journey Through Genesis 1-11. Ross likewise proposes a regional flood that covered the Persian Gulf basins, Mesopotamia, and part of the Arabian Peninsula, though he places the Flood tens of thousands of years earlier. What is unique about this author’s treatment however is that he focuses on the details of the Qur’anic story, carefully considering the geological, archaeological, and anthropological implications of each detail.

The blog series contains many insights beyond the ones I have noted. The only disagreement I have that I would like to note is that the author assumes that the Flood wiped out all of humanity during Noah’s time and that all subsequent human populations descended from those who boarded the ship. As I noted above, even this assumption is unnecessary on the Qur’anic account.

The only significant thing lacking in this author’s treatment is a discussion of the transmission of the Flood story and the relationship between the Biblical (and hence, to some extent, Qur’anic) account and the more ancient Mesopotamian versions. These include the Ziusudra Epic in Sumerian, the Atrahasis Epic in Akkadian, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. A masterful study of this nature is Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic by Robert M. Best. Studies of the the Mesopotamian Flood accounts have led many Assyriologists to trace the origins of the Flood story to a local flood in southern Iraq c. 2900 BCE. Engagement with this evidence is generally missing from conservative Christian and Muslim discussions, which tend to focus more exclusively on exegesis and scientific data.

[1] This verse also mentions “Job.” The Bible only states that Job was from “the land of Uz,” which is not a known geographical location. Rabbinic authorities differed over whether Job was an Israelite, an Aramean, an Edomite, or some other ethnicity, and the question remains open as far as modern Biblical scholarship is concerned. Hence, this is moot for my argument.

[2] al-Alusi, Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, 29/126. Qtd. in Jalajel, 57.

[3] al-Alusi 12/353. Qtd. in Jalajel, 60-61.

[4] See Robert M. Best, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic (Fort Myers: Enlil Press, 1999), 39-40, for a summary and references for such studies.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Does the Qur'an "copy" or "plagiarize" the Bible?

A common accusation by polemicists against Islam is that the Qur’an “plagiarizes” or “copies” the Bible or other Jewish and Christian sources. To be candid, this continues to be one of the stupidest claims to come out of anti-Islamic polemics, and I notice even Muslims rarely realize the stupidity of this argument.

When movies like “The Ten Commandments” and “The Passion of the Christ” came out, no one claimed that they were plagiarizing the Bible, because everyone recognized that these are intentional retellings of the Biblical stories. Similarly, when someone writes a book containing Bible stories for children, nobody claims they are “plagiarizing” or “copying from” the Bible. This is adaptation or a retelling of a well-known traditional story. Likewise, when the Qur’an retells traditional stories about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, to claim that what it is doing is “plagiarism,” “copying,” or even “borrowing” shows a fundamental ignorance of what these terms mean, as well as how traditional stories have always been retold in news ways throughout history.

Hence such claims no longer remain credible in Western Qur'anic studies. Here are two representative quotes on this topic from important contemporary Western scholars of the Qur’an, both of whom incidentally are Catholic clergymen.

Sidney H. Griffith writes:

Hermeneutically speaking, one should approach the Qur’ān as an integral discourse in its own right; it proclaims, judges, praises, blames from its own narrative center. It addresses an audience which is already familiar with oral versions in Arabic of earlier scriptures and folklores. The Qur’ān does not borrow from, or often even quote from these earlier texts. Rather, it alludes to and evokes their stories, even sometimes their wording, for its own rhetorical purpose. The Arabic Qur’ān, from a literary perspective, is something new. It uses the idiom, and sometimes the forms and structures, of earlier narratives in the composition of its own distinctive discourse. It cannot be reduced to any presumed sources. Earlier discourses appear in it not only in a new setting, but shaped, trimmed and re-formulated for an essentially new narrative.[1]

Similarly, Michel Cuypers writes:

There is of course no question of criticizing 'borrowings,' 'imitations,' or 'influences' from apologetic or polemical intentions, as a certain Orientalism in bad taste has done, but rather recognizing that the Qur’an shares a phenomenon which is characteristic of Biblical writings—re-writing. The books of the Bible unceasingly re-appropriate earlier writings, reusing them and turning them to a new perspective which makes revelation advance. The Qur’an does no different, although it does so in a different way from the Bible…since it positions itself as the final revelation in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it has had to re-assume the earlier traditions while making its own mark on the texts it repeats in this way. Far from reducing the Qur’an to a pastiche of earlier writings, the intertextual or 'interscriptural' work we will undertake removes none of its originality, but on the contrary, better draws it out.[2]

I will have a chapter on this subject in an upcoming book I have been co-authoring—hence my prolonged absence on this blog (!)—which I will soon be giving details about, insha’a ’llah. Stay tuned!

[1] Sidney H. Griffith, “Christian Lore and the Arabic Qur’an: The ‘Companions of the Cave’ in Surat al-Kahf and in Syriac Christian tradition,” in The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context, ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds (London: Routledge, 2008), 116

[2] Michel Cuypers, The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an (Miami: Convivium, 2009), 31.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Demystifying "Gog and Magog" in Judeo-Christian Tradition, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths

Adeel, the author of the "Quran Answers" blog, has just published an excellent essay on the topic of Gog and Magog in the Qur'an and hadiths. I felt this was worth posting about, because the topic of Gog and Magog has become the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, wild conjecture, and bizarre interpretations. But, while it represents an apocalyptic motif shared by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic tradition, it is in fact grounded in a well-known historical phenomenon with historical, geographical, and ethnic identifiers. Before posting the link to the "Quran Answers" article, I thought it would be worth providing some historical context to this misunderstood tradition.

The basic historical understanding of "Gog and Magog"[1] across the Abrahamic traditions is summed up well by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in an appendix of his Qur'an translation and commentary:

It is practically agreed that they were the wild tribes of Central Asia which have made inroads on settled kingdoms and Empires at various stages of history. The Chinese Empires suffered from their incursions and built the Great Wall of China to keep out the Manchus and Mongols. The Persian Empire suffered from them at various times and at various points. Their incursions into Europe in large hordes caused migrations and displacements of populations on an enormous scale, and eventually broke up the Roman Empire. These tribes were known vaguely to the Greeks and Romans as "Scythians", but that term does not help us very much, either ethnically or geographically.[2]

A.R. Anderson catalogs some of the earliest recorded examples of these incursions:

From time immemorial the Caucasus—that mighty bulwark thrown across the isthmus between the Black and the Caspian Seas—has lain in the pathway of northern nomads descending into the fair lands of Hither Asia. What devastating waves of migration have burst against its barriers, some of them to clear its passes and to deal destruction to the civilizations of the south! Such may have been the course of the Kassites when about 1900 B.C. they came bringing with them the horse, but wrecking the empire founded by Hammurabi. Such too may have been the course of the Mitanni, when they about 1400 B.C. made themselves felt as far as Palestine. It was probably through the pass of Dariel that the Cimmerians, Gimirrae, who are to be identified with the biblical Gomer, invaded Assyria under Sargon (722-705 B.C.) and then later passed on to overrun Asia Minor, devastating it as far as the Aegean, and overthrowing the power of Phyrgia founded by Midas. A generation later under Esar-Haddon (681-668 B.C.), the Scythians followed by way of the pass of Derbend, destined before the century was past to join the Medes and Chaldeans in overthrowing Assyria (612 B.C.). East of the Caspian the Massagetae constituted a problem even to Cyrus the Great. Darius, recognized the Scythian peril, sought to strike them by way of the Balkan peninsula, crossing the Danube in an in an expedition in which he narrowly escaped utter ruin. [3]

Such incursions continued well into the Common Era. The term "Scythians," or later "Huns," became a generic designation for Central Asian nomadic tribes who occupied the northern parts of the Caucasus. The people of Asia Minor and the Caucasus would build defensive walls in the Caucasian mountains, such as the Pass of Dariel and the Gates of Derbend in modern-day Russia, to protect them from from invasions by these tribes from the north. The Huns, of course, ravaged Europe in the late fourth and fifth centuries, contributing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In the following centuries, the Sabirs, Kök Türks, and Khazars posed repeated threats to Byzantine and/or Persian territories in the Near East. In the climax of the centuries long Byzantine-Sassanian Wars, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius even opened the Gates of Derbend and summoned the Kök Türks and Khazars against his Sassanian Persian opponents.

The Gates of Derbend in modern-day Russia, also known in popular tradition as the Gates of Alexander.
(Courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Notwithstanding, the most devastating manifestation of this phenomenon occurred centuries later: the Mongol invasions and conquests of the thirteenth century.

The expansion of the Mongol Empire.

(Courtesy of Wikipedia, user Astrokey 44.)

In summary, Schmidt and Van Donzel write:

[Gog and Magog] were identified with different “impure peoples”: Scythians, Huns, Alans, Khazars, Turks, Kipchaks, or the Mongols. The common denomination of these peoples is that they all were accomplished horsemen who invaded the Roman Empire from the Eurasian steppes and whose civilisations were unknown to the citizens of the Roman Empire.[4]

Speaking more broadly, Anderson states:

The term Gog and Magog has therefore become synonymous with barbarian, especially with the type of barbarian that bursts through the northern frontier of civilization. This frontier extends the whole length of the Eurasian continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Spain to China, and includes such outstanding landmarks as the Alps, the Caucasus, and the Great Wall[5]…The legend of Alexander’s Gate and of the enclosed nations is in reality the story of the frontier in sublimated mythologized form^.[6]

The Gog/Magog tradition has evolved over the course of the Abrahamic traditions, from the mention of Magog as a descendent of Noah's son Japheth in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:2), to the proto-apocalyptic prophecy about the armies of "Gog of Magog" in Ezekiel 38-39, to further apocalyptic development in Second Temple Jewish texts and early Christian and Rabbinic writings, to their infusion with the Alexander legends in the Late Antique period, and in their presentation in the Qur'an (18:93-99; 21:95-96) and prophetic hadiths.

Adeel's essay provides a fairly straightforward reading of the Qur'anic verses and (frequently misunderstood) hadiths on the topic of Gog and Magog, along with helpful analysis from medieval and modern Muslim scholars. The essay clarifies:

What the hadiths say about the ethnic identity and geographical location of "Gog and Magog";
How the hadiths seem to have prophesied the Mongol invasions many centuries before they occurred;
That the fortification that restrained Gog and Magog (see Qur'an 18:93-99) may have already been breached, rather than being a future event;
That the invasions of Gog and Magog are not restricted to a single apocalyptic event, but are a transhistorical phenomenon, recurring across history, but culminating in their most catastrophic manifestation immediately before the Last Day;
How this catastrophic event fits into the ends times chronology presented in the hadiths;
What the hadiths about their enormous numbers mean.

It is also notable that the hadiths cited in the essay have many parallels with Ezekiel 38-39 and Rabbinic traditions. This is an enlightening read for anybody who has been confused about this topic:

http://qurananswers.me/2016/03/04/who-and-where-are-the-gog-and-magog/

[1] The etymology of these names is uncertain. For a summary of several theories, see J. Lust, “Magog” in Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Hoorst (eds.), Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2^nd ed, pp. 535-536. Magog occurs in the Table of Nations in Genesis 12 as a nation descending from Noah’s son Japheth, the progenitor of European and certain Asian peoples. “Gog” first occurs in the prophecy in Ezekiel 38-39, where he is the political and military head of the region of Magog. In the second century BCE, “Gog” occurs in place of “Magog” in the Book of Jubilees, and they subsequently occur as counterpart tribes in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles. In the Qur'an, the paired names are made to rhyme—Ya'juj and Ma'juj—as is a common literary feature of the scripture.

[2] Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with an English Translation and Commentary (Lahore: Shaykh Muhammad Ashraf, 1937), vol. 2, p. 761.

[3] Andrew Runni Anderson, “Alexander at the Caspian gates,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 59 (1928): 138–139.

[4] Andrea and Emeri Van Donzel (eds.), Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources: Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 45.

[5] Here Anderson is considering post-Qur’anic interpretations, such as that the Mongol invasions represented Gog and Magog. Nonetheless, it is an accurate characterization of Gog and Magog as a transhistorical typology.

[6] Andrew Runni Anderson, Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (Baltimore: The Waverly Press Inc., 1932), p. 8.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

The Exodus in the Qur’an, the Bible, and History (Part 10): "King" vs. "Pharaoh"

In English, “pharaoh” is used as a generic term for any king (or queen) of ancient Egypt, without distinguishing between different periods or dynasties. This is how the term is used in the Bible as well. In the stories of Abraham and Joseph, which are almost universally located in the Middle Kingdom period (c. 2055-1650 BCE), the ruler of Egypt is called “Pharaoh” over ninety times. Likewise, in the story of Moses, which is almost universally located in the New Kingdom period (c. 1550-1069 BCE) (see part 6, “The Identity of Pharaoh”), the Egyptian ruler is called “Pharaoh” 128 times.[1] The term “king of Egypt” is also used in both the stories of Joseph (Gen. 40:1; 41:46) and Moses (Exod. 6:13, 27; Deut. 11:3). Therefore, in the Bible, the terms, “Pharaoh” and “king of Egypt” are both used for both time periods without distinction.[2]

The Qur’an is therefore peculiar in that it does not follow the biblical pattern. It does use both terms, “Pharaoh” and “king,” but without mixing between them.

In the story of Joseph, the Qur’an consistently refers to the Egyptian ruler as al-malik (“the king”), and never as Fir‘awn (“Pharaoh”). For example,

The king (al-malik) said, ‘I dreamed about seven fat cows being eaten by seven lean ones; seven green ears of corn and [seven] others withered. Counselors, if you can interpret dreams, tell me the meaning of my dream.’ (12:43)

Further references to the ruler as “the king” occur in āyas 50, 54, 72, and 76.

On the other hand, in the various retellings of the story of Moses in the Qur’an, the Egyptian ruler is consistently referred to as Fir‘awn—over seventy times—and never as al-malik. For example,

And Moses said, ‘O Pharaoh, I am a messenger from the Lord of all peoples’ (7:104)

What is surprising about the Qur’an’s usage is that it accords precisely with the way the term “Pharaoh” was historically used in ancient Egyptian history. The term comes from the Egyptian pr-‘3, meaning “great house.” Prior to the New Kingdom period, the term was used to refer to the royal palace as a whole. It is only during the New Kingdom period, and specifically the eighteenth dynasty (16^th-14^th centuries BCE), that the term came to specially designate the Egyptian ruler. As we saw in part 6, this is exactly the time the Exodus is dated.

The Qur’an’s selective usage of the terms “Pharaoh” and “king” is therefore striking in its precision. The Qur’an could employed any of the following possibilities:

It could have used both terms for both times periods, just as in the Bible and even modern English, without any distinction.
It could have exclusively used the term “Pharaoh” for both time periods.
It could have exclusively used the term “king” for both time periods.
It could have used the term “Pharaoh” for the period of Joseph and “king” for the period of Moses.
Instead, the Qur’an uses the term “king” exclusively for the period of Joseph and the term “Pharaoh” exclusively for the period of Moses.

From the perspective of a seventh-century Arab, Jew, or Christian, any of these possibilities would be acceptable, and there would be little to favor one over the other. The historical distinction between the two epithets has only come to light with the advent of modern Egyptology following the translation of hieroglyphics in the nineteenth century. In light of these facts, the Qur’an’s usage is an impressive example of one of its most remarkable features, its stunningly precise word choice.

[1] “Pharaoh” in O. Odelain and R. Séguineau (Trans. M. J. O'Connell), Dictionary Of Proper Names And Places In The Bible, 1981, Robert Hale Ltd.: London, p. 301-302. Cited in David, Karim, and Saifullah.

[2] I have summarized this information from A. David, E. Karim, and M.S.M. Saifullah, “Qur’anic Accuracy Vs. Biblical Error: The Kings & Pharaohs Of Egypt.” Islamic-Awareness.org, 3 Mar. 2006. Accessed 2 Feb. 2015. (For the record, though the Qur’an’s precise and selective usage of these terms is remarkable, I do not personally regard the biblical usage as an “error.”) One may consult the essay for a more detailed explanation, with more extensive reference to the scholarly literature.