Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

4XU

ÃQDQG-HUXVDOHP
$XWKRU V 6XOLPDQ%DVKHDU
6RXUFH%XOOHWLQRIWKH6FKRRORI2ULHQWDODQG$IULFDQ6WXGLHV8QLYHUVLW\RI/RQGRQ9RO
1R  SS
3XEOLVKHGE\Cambridge University PressRQEHKDOIRISchool of Oriental and African Studies
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/617216 .
$FFHVVHG

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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM
By SULIMANBASHEAR

1. Qur'an 2:114 ' describes those who prevent God's name being uttered in His
mosques (man mana'a masdjida 'llihi an yukhdarafith 'smuhu)as' most unjust'
(azlamu). If further states that' they shall not be allowed to enter them except in
fear; they shall endure the curse of chastisement in this world and great torture
in the aftermath'.2
Modern scholars who translated the Qur'an into European languages have
briefly noted the existence of two opposite directions of interpretation in the
traditional Muslim commentaries: one which proposes a Jerusalem/Byzantine
context for the verse's revelation and meaning, and another, which brings to
bear a Meccan/Qurashi one. Beyond such passing notice, however, no serious
attempt was made to examine the issue thoroughly.3
A. Rippin has recently paid closer attention to this verse.4 However, in
drawing 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 haggadic
interpretations given to the verse by pre-classical exegesis therefore seems
justified.
My initial interest in this verse was aroused by a unique commentary in
Shams al-Din Suyiiti's (d. 880 A.H.) work on the merits (fadi'il) of the Jerusalem
sanctuary.6 ' It was revealed', he says, 'concerning the barring of Muslims by
the Byzantines from the Jerusalem sanctuary'.7
Such 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 standard Egyptian edition of 1342/1923 = 2/108 of Fliigel's edition:
ConcordantiaeCoraniArabicae, Lipsiae, 1842, 118-19. In J. M. Rodwell's translation-edition it was
given 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 of
J. Arberry, The Koran interpreted, London, 1964. The literal wording of the verse in Arabic is:
wa-man azlamu mamman mana'a masdjida allahi 'an yudhkarafiha ismuhu wa-sa'a fi khardbihd;
'uld'ika ma kana lahum an yad-khuliuhdilla Khd'ifin, lahumfi al-dunyd Khizyun wa-fi al- 'dkhirati
'adhdbun'azTm.
3e.g., C. Sale, The Koran, New York & London, 1984 repr. of the original 1734 ed., p. 15, n. (b).
See also the notes of E. M. Wherry on Sale's translation entitled: A comprehensivecommentaryon
the Quran, London, 1896, I, 331-2. J. M. Rodwell says that if the Meccans are those meant by this
verse 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
unpublished Ph.D. thesis,' The Quranic Asbdb al-Nuzul material: an analysis of its use
and development in exegesis', McGill University, 1981, 180-7. I am grateful to Professor Rippin for
making the relevant chapter available to me and for the valuable comments he gave on several issues
dealt with in this paper.
5 As developed in his Quranic studies, Oxford, 1977, to which further references will be made
below.
6 thdf al-Akhis.d, Cairo, 1982. This work was translated into English by J. Reynolds as The
history of the Templeof Jerusalem, 1836. However, it was wrongly attributed to Jalal al-Din Suyuiii,
and the translation is outdated. Extracts were translated also by G. Le Strange and published in the
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 19, 1887, 247-305. Reference to a manuscript copy of the work
in the Hebrew University (no. 64/2) and some use of it were made by M. J. Kister and A. El'ad in
their' Haddithu ...' and ' Moslem Holy Places ...', respectively, to which further reference will be
made below. Recently M. Ibrahim published selected extracts in his edition of Fadd'il, Kuwait,
1985. Though he mentions the existence of more manuscripts of this work, the editor does not seem
to be aware of the published Cairo 1982 edition.
7
Ithdf al-Akhissd I, 100. Lit.: nazalat ftman' al-ram al-muslimTnmin bayt al-maqdis.
216 SULIMAN BASHEAR

referring to the abrogation of the Jerusalem qibla and the argument surround-
ing the nature of the relation between God and Christ.8
Considered together the two notions present, in the form of a Qur'anic
sequence, an important problematic: is there a scriptural basis for supposing an
early Muslim-Christian conflict in Jerusalem which forced the former to
abandon its sanctuary? In other words, did the verse indeed refer to the barring
of Muslims from Jerusalem? If yes, when and where was it revealed to
Muhammad? If no, who were those intended by it as the persecuters and the
victims? Was there a general need to achieve harmony between exegesis and sTra
materials?If so, when was this need felt and how was such harmony sought after
by the exegetes, commentators, historians and traditionists who dealt with the
question of the ' occasion of revelation ' (sabab al-nuzul)of this verse?And what
can such an investigation teach us about the development of traditional exegesis
in relation to other forms of Islamic literary activity?
Such an enquiry cannot, of course, be limited to the scrutiny of the variant
contents and isnddsof the different traditions concerning the historical occasion
of revelation. Examination will also need to be made of the possible effect of
different readings and meanings, based on analogies from other, parallel
Qur'anic occurrences, on the key phrases and terms in the verse. Likewise, the
effect of certain legal and theological elements inherent in the verse, or presented
as such, on its overall interpretation must also be distinguished. The effect of the
metaphorical understanding of the verse and its general applicability, together
with other factors in the way it was interpreted along non-historical lines will
also be assessed. Finally, the relation between these technical and conceptual
factors and the question of canonical composition will also be commented
upon.
Some limitations, however, must be stated at the outset. First, the present
paper is basically an inquiry into what historical processes can be discerned in
exegetical tradition, and does not claim to be anything more. Certain of the
attempts of recent date to provide completely detached, ahistorical, meta-
physical or suificommentaries on the verse will be excluded.9 Second, the legal
and theological aspects of early Muslim concepts, attitudes or rulings, will be
dealt with only as they are reflected in traditional exegesis and the later
commentaries with reference to the specific context of the verse under discus-
sion. And, therefore, only their intrusion into this material and the effect of such
intrusion on the interpretation of this verse will be examined. Third, the
questions of the position of the Jerusalem sanctuary and qibla in early Islam and
the Islamic views on the essence of God and the nature of Christ will not be
examined in detail. These are crucial issues for the emergence and development
of Islam and have been extensively dealt with elsewhere.10In fact, no thorough
review will be made of the interpretation of 2:115-16. The only question that
will 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-lilldhi al-mashriqu wa-'l-maghribu,fa-aynamd tuwallufa-thammata wajhu alldh. wa-
qdlu ittakhadha alldhu waladan, subhdnahu, bal lahu md ft al-samdwdti wa-'l-ardi Kullun lahu
qdnitun.
9 An example of such treatment is Qushayri Latd'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 be
made below.
'0 G. 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.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 217

history means only historiography. However, within the limits of this inquiry
and pending any further research it may stimulate, only the possible resonances
of whatever 'historical' picture is to be drawn from 2:114-16, will be brought
into consideration, insofar as they may be discerned in the historical, fadd'il,
apocalyptic and other traditional sources.
2. Revelation
Two main questions are tackled here concerning the occasion of revelation
of the verse: who are those it blames, and where and when was the act of barring
from, or destroying the mosques committed? The answers are split between four
notions current in exegetical traditions and commentaries:
(i) The Jerusalem-Christian/Byzantine context.
(ii) The Meccan-Qurashi context.
(iii) A general meaning without specific reference to any historical context (to
be followed up while considering the metaphorical and legal aspects of Khardb
and dukhul, below).
(iv) It was the Jews who tried to destroy the Ka'ba or the Prophet's mosque in
Medina in reaction to his change of qibla. (No further investigation of this
notion will be made here. Razi (d. 606 A.H.) admits that he originated it.1 It has
no basis in traditional exegesis and was ignored by later commentators.)

2.1 The Jerusalem-Christian/Byzantinecontext


Support for this notion, with different variants, comes from the traditions of
Ka'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 the
commentaries 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 the
traditionist Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 A.H.), as quoted by the two late commen-
tators, Suyiut (d. 911 A.H.) and Shawkani (d. 1250 A.H.) On the problem of the
authorities for Ibn 'Abbas's traditions, more will be said below. The authority
for Mujahid is Ibn Abi NajTi (d. 131 A.H.). From Qatada we hear through
Ma'mar b. Abi Rashid (d. 153 A.H.) and Sa'ld b. Abl 'Aruba (d. 157 A.H.). Asbat
is the authority for SuddT.And Hasan is cited without isndd, often being joined
with Qatada, or Qatada and Suddi in the form of a group tradition.
On the level of content, the following elements appear either separately or
within variant combinations:
1. These were the Christians/rim.
2. -, who used to throw dirt/harm and bar people from prayer in the
Jerusalem sanctuary;
3. , who aimed at its destruction;
4. , who attacked and destroyed it;
5. , who destroyed it so that it remained unattended until rebuilt by the
Muslims under 'Umar;
6. - , who were helped by Bukhtnassar, head of the Magians to destroy it
and to kill whoever was in it from 'the people of Islam ';
7. -, who attacked the people/Jews of Jerusalem, destroyed, burned the
Bible, threw corpses/dirt in it ...;
8. -, whose King attacked the sons of Israel, destroyed, burned the
Bible...;
9. -, whose Roman King, Titus attacked, destroyed ...;

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


218 SULIMAN BASHEAR

10. , who helped Bukhtnassar to destroy it for hatred of the Jews;


11. , who helped Bukhtnassar ... as a revenge against the Jews who killed
Yahya b. Zakariyya (John the Baptist).
Roughly speaking, these elements are associated with the above-mentioned
traditions 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
14
(c) 'from Ibn 'Abbas and others'
No. 2 is mostly associated with the names of
15
(a) Mujahid via his transmitter, Ibn Abi Najh
(b) with Ibn 'Abbas but cited without isnad or source 16

with 'Ibn 'Abbas and others' 17


(c)
No. 3 occurs only once in syntactically extremely distorted context, possibly
attributing it to Ibn 'Abbas but without isndd18
No. 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 reappears in a late commentary which, however, does
not give any traditional source for it.21
No. 5 (a)is a tradition of Ka'b, the quoted source for which is Ibn Abi
Hatim 22
(b) Other sources associate it with the names of Ibn 'Abbas and
Mujahid.23
No. 6 is a unique commentary of Maturidi (d. 333 A.H.).24
No. 7 is a view mentioned by Zamakhshari (d. 528 A.H.) without associating it
with any traditional authority.25

12Tabari, Jdmi', Cairo, 1954,498. This Ibn Sa'd, also known as al-'Awfi, should not be confused
with Ibn Sa'd al-Hashimi (d. 230 A.H.),the famous author of Tabaqdt.Al-'AwfiTsancestor, 'Atiyya
b. Sa'd, with whom the chain of isnad ends, is reported to have a tafsTrwork from al-KalbT.More
will be said about these two below. See E.I. (new ed.), s.v. 'Ibn Sa'd',VII, 922-3.
13Ibn Kathir 506, quoting TafsTral-'Awfi, clearly that
(d. 774 A.H.), TafsTr,Cairo 1977,
II,
mentioned in the preceding note. Cf. also Suyut,i Mufhimdt, Cairo, 1908, 5, who quotes al-'Afawi,
possibly a misspelling of the same 'Awfi. In another source of Suyuti, Durr, Cairo, n.d., I, 108, as in
Shawkani's Fath, Cairo, 1964, I, 132, the same form of tradition is quoted from both Tabari and Ibn
Abi Hatim.
4 As 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 unidentified Ghanawi/Ghaznawi, perhaps also a copyist's
distortion 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 by
Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkim, i, 33 who does not, however, attribute it to Mujahid.
16As 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. 541 A.H.), Muharrar, Cairo, 1947, i, 395 and Tha'alibi (d. 873-5 A.H.),
Jawdhir, Algiers, 1985, i, 125.
18Abu
19 Hayyan (d. 754 A.H.), Bahr, Cairo, 1328 A.H., i, 357.
Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,Beirut, 1958, 61.
20Jassas, Cairo 1347 A.H., i, 69.
21MahalliAhkdm,
and Suyuii, TafsTral-Jalalayn, Cairo, 1966, 21.
22Suyu.tl, II , 510.
Durr, i, 108; Shawkani, i, 132; and, without source, Ibn Kathir,
23
Tus1 (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, I, 179.
Kashshdf, Beirut, 1947,
QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEM 219

No. 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.27
No. 9 There are different traditional and commentary sources and authorities
for this notion:
(a) Two traditional transmissions from Ibn 'Abbas occurring in several
copies of the pseudo-Ibn 'AbbasTafstr.The first is on the authority of
Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 A.H.) from 'Ata' (probably al-Khurasani, d. 135).28
And 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 authority
of 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 of
detail.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 traditional
authority.33
(f) Another, and earlier, Bad' source cites it on the authority of Ibn
Jurayj-Ibn Mujahid-Mujahid.34
(g) It occurs in Muqatil's TafsTras his own commentary without citing
any traditional authority for it. Muqatil is distinguished for adding
the name of Antiochus to that of Titus.35
(h) It was reiterated in the TafsTrof Tha'labi (d. 282 A.H.).36
26
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 is
noteworthy: TafsTr al-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 presented at the
fourth International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987. On the problem
of the isndd' Ibn Jurayj-'Ata'' in tafsTrtraditions, see Ibn Hajar, TahdhTb,Haydarabad 1326 A.H.,
vii, 213-4.
29There are several published and manuscript versions of the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas source which
include 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, 1356 A.H., 15-16; TanwTral-Iqtibds, two lithog. eds., n.p., 1280 A.H. and 1302 A.H., 14-15.
Other editions are mentioned by A. Rippin, ' TafsTrIbn 'Abbas ', art. cit. Note must be taken of the
orthographic 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. Rippin confirms the existence of manuscript versions of such TafsTrby both
al-Kalbi and Dinawari (d. 310 A.H.)which are identical in content to the above-mentioned pseudo-
Ibn 'Abbas sources: 'TafsTr Ibn 'Abbas' art. cit.; idem, 'Al-Zuhri, Naskh al-Qur'n ', BSOAS,
XLVII, 1, 1984, 22-4. Note, however, the fact that al-Kalbi appears in all the chains of isnddof 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 transmitted his TafsTrfrom
al-Kalbi.
31
Qurtubi, 11, 77; Nawawl, i, 31; Naysaburi, i, 417; 'Imadi, i, 242.
32(Anonymous), Asbdb al-Nuzul, MS Princeton, Yehuda (5143), 4(b); Khazin (comp. 725 A.H.),
Lubdb, Cairo, n.d., i, 83; BaghawT(d. 516 A.H.), Ma'dlim, in the margin of Khazin, I, 84; Alusi,
(d. 1270 A.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.
35
Muqatil, 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 am
indebted to Dr. Uri Rubin of Tel-Aviv University for placing the relevant pages of his copy at my
disposal. Note, however, that a clearly different TafsTr,bearing the same title but attributed to
Tha'labi, who died in 427 A.H., does not have any commentary on this verse; MS Princeton, Yehuda
2(800), 123 (a-b).
220 SULIMAN BASHEAR

No. 10 is associated with the names of:


(a) Hasan and Qatada, Qatada and Suddi, or the three of them in the
form of group tradition;37
(b) only with the name of Qatada.38
No. 11 is exclusively associated with the name of Suddi.39
Before summing up, mention must be made of the results arrived at after
cross-checking with the information provided by some historical, Bad' and
other sources on the issue of the pre-Islamic occupation of Jerusalem by
Bukhtnassar, Titus, and possibly others.40 Except for Balkhi/Muqaddasi,
Musharraf and Mujir al-Din referred to above, none of these sources mention
2:114 in association with either Bukhtnassar or Titus. In fact Mas'udi connects
Bukhtnassar's occupation with Qur'an 21:12, Ibn al-Faqih and Majlisi connect
it with 2:259, while in Nuwayri it is connected with 17:4-5. Tha'labi, without
referring to Suddi, brings in the element of rumi 'complicity' as a revenge
against the Jews for killing Yahya b. Zakariyya. And so does Nuwayri, who
quotes a tradition of Ibn Ishaq via Tha'labi. However, the attacker of the Jews
this time is 'Khardus, King of Babylon' instead of Titus-and the name
reappears in the late work of Manini also. Of most importance is the fact that it
is 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 revenge for the killing of Yahya. Finally, no
mention of 2:114 is made when Nuwayri moves on to speak about the attack of
Titus either. As for Tabari, the silence in both his Athdr and Tdrfkhis even more
striking. In the former source he indeed quotes Suddi and contrasts him with a
tradition of Kalbi which does not mention Yahya; and in the latter he does
speak about Bukhtnassar and Titus but does not mention 2:114 in either
context. Finally, in both works of Ibn Kathir as well as in Ibn al-Athir's Kdmil,
the Qur'an connected with Bukhtnassar is also 17:2-8.
To return to the Tafsir sources, it becomes clear that the anti-Christian/
Byzantine sentiment is predominant in most traditions and forms their common
denominator. The initial simple form of the whole idea exists in the traditions of
Ka'b-Ibn 'Abbas-Mujahid which speak of the desecration of the Temple site by
the Christians/Byzantines and their barring of prayer there. However, around
the mid second century a narrative supplement is attached possibly as an
illustrative support, in the form of stories on earlier atrocities committed 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 an
upsurge in such narrative activity. 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'il
works of al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja, Fada/'ilBayt al-Maqdis wa-'l-Shdmwa-'l-KhalTl,MS Tiibingen
27, 16 (a) and Mujlr al-Din, al-Uns al-JalTl, 'Amman 1973,I, 151. The existence of such an
interpretation not only of 2:114 but of 9:29 too was briefly noted by 'Ofer Livne in a paper entitled,
'A note on some traditions of Fa.da'ilal-Quds', presented at the third International Colloquium, the
Hebrew 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, without
isndd. Compare also with Ibn Kathir,I, 506.
40 These are:
Dinawari, Akhbar Tiwdi,Cairo, 1960, 23; Tha'labl, Qasas- 'Ard'is,Cairo, 1297 A.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.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 221

Jurayj transmits the same narrative on Titus and 2:114 from both Ibn Mujahid-
Mujahid and 'Ata'-Ibn 'Abbas.
But the basic anti-Christian/Byzantine sentiment prevails in spite of the
historically confused narrative element.41 Added to this, the narrative sup-
plement, which is heavily connected with Qur'anic instances other than 2:114,
does not adhere well to the original core of this verse until the late third century.
Farra', 'AwfTand Ibn Qtayba have that core only, from Ibn 'Abbas. Tha'labi
has the narrative supplement on Titus but, like Muqatil before him, does not
quote 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 of
contextual adjacency between the acts of the Christians in Jerusalem, the
Muslims' defeat of them and the latters' rebuilding of its sanctuary. On the
whole, the least that can be gauged is the sense of Muslim identification with the
persecuted Jews in Jerusalem. The relatively early Maturidl, though speaking in
the context of the Christian/Bukhtnassar complicity, says explicitly that the
victims referred to in this verse were ' ahl al-isldm'. The latter are also seen as
the victims even when he presents the view that what was meant was the
destruction by ahl al-Kufr of the mosques of ahl al-Isldm in general.
Tabari's choosing to bring from Ibn 'Abbas's tradition only its initial core
does not call for comment. He also sticks to the view that the verse referred to
the Christians rather than Quraysh who were not reported to have destroyed the
Ka'ba but rather took pride in building it in the Jdhiliyya.42One also feels that
Tabari was under fire from some contemporary objection to the Jerusalem
context on the ground that prayer there was not ordained on the Muslims at the
time of revelation;43in other words, that such an understanding puts the
revelation 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 of
continuation and identification with certain suppressed Jewish beliefs and
practices in the Jerusalem sanctuary. As far as I know, the fourth century Jassas
(d. 370 A.H.) was the first commentator to note the absurdity of associating the
Christians with Bukhtnassar historically. In this he was followed by Razi whose
outlet, however, was to provide the Hijazi Jews as an alternative to the whole
context.44
Above all, it is striking that no trace of sira element could be found in all
these traditions as they do not carry any notion concerning the actual occasion
of revelation to Muhammad himself in the Meccan context. But Razi's late
attempt to bridge exegesis and slra was certainly not the first.

41Rippin notes that Bukhtnassar is 'normally connected with Qur'an 17:4', 'The Quranic
Asbdb', op. cit., p. 180, n. 9. The association of Bukhtnassar with the Christians is rejected by
commentators 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 was
strangely 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 the
Islamic 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 also
a tradition according to which Muhammad prophesied that as the end of the world approached, the
Mahdi 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 reverting to the
metaphorical understanding of Khardb.On such understanding more will be said below.
43Tabari, I, 500: 'fa-in zanna zannun ...', etc.
44See Jassas, I, 69; Razi, iv, 10; Abiu Hayyan, I, 357 and Naysaburi, I, 417.
222 SULIMAN BASHEAR

2.2. The Meccan-Qurash-context


Traditional authorities exist for connecting the revelation also with Muham-
mad and Mecca. One group of traditions spoke specifically of the persecution of
Muhammad by Quraysh affecting his hijra. Another connected the verse with
barring him from the sanctuary at Hudaybiyya.
Ibn 'Abbas was associated with the first notion by two traditions attributed
to him. The source and isndd of one of them is: Ibn Abi Hatim-Salama (b. al-
Fadl al-Razi d. 190 A.H.)-Ibn Ishaq (d. 150 A.H.)-Muhammad b. Abi Muham-
mad (almost unknown)-'Ikrima (d. 105 A.H.)' or' Sa'ld b. Jubayr (d. 102 A.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.46
However, the credibility of these traditions can be questioned because they
contradict the other traditions of Ibn 'Abbas concerning Jerusalem; they were
not mentioned at all by Muqatil, Farra', Ibn Qutayba, Tha'labi and Tabari, and
above all, they contradict the sfra traditions of Ibn Ishaq who does not bring
this verse into the context of Muhammad's persecution by Quraysh.47Note
must also be taken of the vagueness of important links in the isndd of the
traditions attributed to Ibn 'Abbas on the Meccan context.
Finally, without taking any position over the value of the material of
impugning and vindication (Jarh wa-ta'dTl)as a criterion for judging traditional
exegesis in general, note can still be made of the chain Ibn Abi Hatim-Salama in
the tradition under discussion. Since the former is the only quoted source on this
tradition, his unambiguous though restrained impugning of his compatriot
Salama necessarily reduces the reliability of both.48
The same connexion with the hijra is made by one supposedly early Shi'ite
source, the TafsTrHasan 'AskarT(d. 260 A.H.).49The tradition here is attributed
to 'AIT (Zayn al-'Abidin) b. al-Husayn (d. 94-5 A.H.). But another almost
contemporary commentator, Qummi (d. 329 A.H.)connects the verse rather with
IHudaybiyya.50A third Shi'ite source, TabarsT,attributes a tradition to that
effect to Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148 A.H.).51
The most serious Sunni source on 2:114 and Hudaybiyya seems to be the
tradition of Ibn Zayd ('Abd al-Rahman b. Aslam al-Madani, mawla to the clan
of 'Umar, d. 182 A.H.) adduced by a wide range of commentary sources from
late third century on.52However, this does not receive support from any sira or
maghdzl source on Hudaybiyya.53
45Nawawi, I, 30-1; Ibn Kathir, II, 507; Shawkani, I, 132; Suyiuti,Durr, I, 108. Cf. also Suyuti's
Mufhimat, 5; idem, Lubab, Tunis, 1981, 22.
4 Wahidi, Asbab, 34; Abu Hayyan, I, 357; Alius, I, 489. Cf. also the form of unspecified authority
or source adduced in Razi, iv, 10; Tusi, I, 416; Naysaburi, I, 417.
47For a
cross-checking of 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., 1248 A.H., 255-61. Cf. also al-
Kashi, al-Asfa, Teheran, 1353 A.H., 31.
50 Qummi, TafsTr, Najaf, 1386 A.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 the
anonymous 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 sources are unanimous on the point that Qur'an, 48:24-5 were the
verses revealed on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. The absence of any mention of 2:114 in this context
was noted by A. Rippin ' The Quranic Asbab', op. cit., p. 180, n. 1. A negative proof of absence and
silence can also be drawn from G. Hawting's 'Al-Hudaybiyya', JSAI, 8, 1986, 1-23.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 223

3. ZLM and DHKR


From the root ZLM can be derived nouns, verbs and adjectives denoting
both injustice and darkness.54Analogies from parallel Qur'anic occurrences
(ashbdh wa-nazd'ir) point also.to polytheism or the denial of divine signs or
scriptures as other possible meanings.55The information adduced from these
different sources and directions can be summarized as follows:
(a) The phrase 'man azlamu' of 2:114 is strikingly absent from the genre of
mutashdbihal-Qur'an.56
(b) On the other hand, it occurs at least twelve times in other Qur'anic parallels:
the context of some of them is a clear and sharp polemic against polytheism
and the notion of a sonship of God.57
(c) The traditional material adduced for interpreting 'zulm' as 'misplacement'
(lit.: wad' al-shay'fighayr mawdi'ih),is often the saying: ' whoever resembles
his father does not commit zulm' (lit.: man ashbaha abdhufa-md zalam).
And this traditional saying is used for interpreting 2:114 already by 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 Hebrew
Biblical cognate, tselem, which means a shadow or an image. Note must also
be taken of words derived from the Sabaic roots ZLM and SLM denoting
an image, a statue as well as injustice and darkness.59Such a note is justified
also because in Qur'an 31:13 it was explicitly stated that 'polytheism is a
great zulm' (lit.: inna al-shirka la-zulmun 'azTm).
(e) Abu Hanifa (d. 150 A.H.) used this latter verse as a warning against zulm
which 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 tradition which defines zulm as' the darkness
of the day of resurrection' (lit.: zulumdtyawm al-qiydma).6'
(f) Shafi'i, in his turn equates zulm with jawr and defines them as 'exceeding
one's limits'. Hence, he argued too, God cannot be considered zdlim.62
(g) This calls also for considering the possibility that zulm was a synonymous
forerunner of Jabr in Islamic theology. One must recall in this connexion the
traditional couplet: qaryat al-Jabbdarn/al-qaryaal-zalimu ahluha.
(h) Finally, a certain thematical connexion can be found also with the idea
present in some gnostic Christian writings concerning the Archons as
unjust/evil doing partners in the act of creation.63Comparison can be drawn,

4Ibn Manzur, Lisdn, Cairo repr. 1966, xv, 266-71; Zabidi, Tdj, Cairo, 1306 A.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. 189 A.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).
57 '
e.g.: wa-manazlamu mimman Katama' 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;'...
mimman dhakara, in Qur'an 32:22.
58
Sijistani, Tafsr GharTbal-Qur'dn,MS Princeton, Yehuda (4169), 74 (a); and the lexicographic
works cited above.
59A. F. L. et Sabaic dictionary, Louvain & Beirut, 1982, 143, 172.
60Al-'lim Beeston, al.,
61
wa-'l-Muta'allim, Halab, 1972, 65, 72-3.
Musnad, Halab, 1962, 210.
62Shafi'L, al-Fiqh al-Akbarfi al-Tawhld, in the margin of Abu HI.anifa,al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Cairo,
1324 A.H., 27.
63
e.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.
224 SULIMAN BASHEAR

on the Muslim side, with the condemnation of those who try to imitate
God's creation, and the branding of such act as zulm, which occurs in a quds7
tradition the very wording of which constitutes a parallel to 2:114: ' wa-man
azlamu mimman dhahabayakh luqu ka-khal ql.. .'. It is also striking to see
how the commentaries on this tradition connect it with the condemnation of
hanging pictures and images (tasawlr).64
All this warns of the complexity and variety of sources, elements and stages
to be sought in following the development of the meaning of zulm in early Islam.
As for 2:114, a few commentators equated ' alamu' with ' akfaru ', glossed it
with the phrase 'fi kufrihi', or added '.. wa-ajra'u 'ala allah '65
-atwa-a't
To complete the picture, one must add that one of the meanings given to
Qur'anic dhikr is monotheism-tawhid. Indeed, some exegetical sources inter-
preted ' 'an yudhkara' of 2:114 by adding: ' bi-'l-tawhld'.66
Given the Jerusalem/Christian context of revelation, then, verse 2:114
appears to be loaded with Judeo-Christian theological debate. Our conclusion is
of course far from being final. However, a further investigation is needed into
what seems to be a Mu'tazili formula inherent in this verse: i.e. ahl al-'adl (the
antonym of zulm/jabr)wa-'l tawhld(= dhikr) (the opposite of shirk), being one
of the names the Mu'tazila were known by.
Finally, note must also be made of the fact that in extreme Shi'ite
commentaries the victims of zulm (alladh[na zulimu) are understood to be the
people of Muhammed ('dl muhammad),without, however, any connexion with
2:114 or the Jerusalem context.67 In Isma'ili exegesis in particular, tawhld is
presented as the recognition of the right imam; thus, the denial of 'Ali's imima
and the zulm committed by Abu Bakr and 'Umar against the relatives of
Muhammad, equals shirk.68

4. Khardb,Dukhul and Khizy


Unlike later commentaries, almost all the earlier exegetical traditions
present the terms khardb and dukhulin their literal, straightforward and, so to
speak, historical senses of destruction and entrance, respectively. This is true
especially of the traditions of Ka'b, Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada, Suddi and
the commentaries of Muqatil and Ibn Qutayba, who present the verse in its
Jerusalem context.69In general, these traditions assert that the Christians were/
are to be punished by barring them from entrance to Jerusalem except in fear of
being killed, severely punished or being frightened off by payment ofjizya.
Applying the concept of Khardb to Mecca, on the other hand, was
problematic from the outset. In Tabari's words: ' It was not known of Quraysh
to have destroyed the Ka'ba; on the contrary, they took pride in building it in
the Jdhiliyya.' However, an initial basis for a metaphorical understanding of
Kharab (as ta't[l) was provided already in the tradition of Ibn Zayd (see above
under 2.2).70

64Nawawi, al-Ahadith al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1985, 239-40. See also Dhahabi, Kitdb al-Kaba'ir
Damascus & Beirut, n.d., 181, for the noting of which I am indebted to M. J. Kister.
65 The
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.
67
See, 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.
69 Pseudo-Ibn
'Abbas; Mujahid, I, 86; Muqatil, TafsTr,i, 62; Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,61, and cf. also
Tha'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, 1329 A.H., 28-9.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 225

Indeed, such a metaphorical understanding is adduced by Tha'labi in


conjunction with the tradition on Mecca of Ibn Zayd-'Ata. And the same is
done by Jassas who, however, does not name any exegetical authority and limits
himself to saying: 'and some people say that the verse refers to the polytheists
when they barred the Muslims from mentioning God in the Meccan mosque
and, that their striving at its destruction is their barring of its construction by
mentioning God and (practising) obedience to him.' 7
Thus all later commentators who preferredthe Meccan context of revelation
interpreted Khardb in this metaphorical sense; and they often did so without
differentiating between the earlier phase of Muhammad's life in Mecca and the
Hudaybiyya incident.72On the other hand, and, as noted implicitly by Jassas
and explicitly by Gharnati, Qurtubi, Abu Hayyan et al., those who chose the
Jerusalem 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 present elements of sira material on the alleged destruction by
Quraysh of a mosque of Abu Bakr before the hijra.73
Regarding the interpretation of dukhul, Ibn Zayd's tradition associates it
with the call, which the prophet made after the conquest of Mecca, barring
polytheists from pilgrimage to it.74But, in sira sources, this call is predominantly
associated 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 to
infiltrate 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 to
support the different views on this issue. But neither Abu Hanifa nor Malik, to
my knowledge, used verse 2:114 as a basis for their views. Shafi'i, who
reportedly differentiated between entrance to the Meccan mosque, as opposed
to other mosques, relied, like Shi'l legal sources, again on a verse from Bara'a
(Qur'an, 9:28) concerning the question of barring from Mecca. To verse 2:114
he is said by later sources to have referredonly secondarily and, even then, only
in the sense of barring from mosques in general.75Even if authentic, such
secondary reference loosens the connexion of 2:114 with Mecca. In fact none of
the writings of ShafTi'himself which I consulted attests even to such secondary
and general reference.76
The striking absence of any direct reference to 2:114 in the legal field before
the fourth century calls for a revisionist search in another direction. In order to
do this note must be made of the halakhic interpretation of the phrase ' illa
Khd'ifin' which strikingly enough can be attested only from the beginning of the
fourth century on. It is a fact that al-Jubba'i (d. 303 A.H.) is the oldest quoted
source to hold that the exclusive form of this phrase ('illa) meant that

71Jassas, i, 69-70.
72
e.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 is
cited 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 without
specifying 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, Kitdb al-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, Ahkam al 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.
VOL. LII. PART 2. 17
226 SULIMAN BASHEAR

unbelievers could enter certain mosques, but only in certain cases, e.g. for
arbitration (hukuima),etc.77
But fourth century halakhic interpretation had first to overcome a certain
problem of 'reading' which 2:114 seems to have posed in the period which
witnessed the stabilization of the text. Or, based on the variant readings of
Kha'ifin, one might even say that such halakhic interpretation was itself a kind
of 'reading' of it in that form. From late third century Tha'labi we learn,
however, that the word appeared in the Ubayy codex in the form of L.- . And
Jeffery records that this was the same form which appeared in the Codex of Ibn
Mas'ud too.78 Now, following Bergstrasser, Jeffery adds that Ibn Khalawayh
(d. 370 A.H.) read the text as hunafa and not khuyyafa!79He also notes how Ibn
Khalawayh was condemned for not knowing the difference between qird'dtand
tafslr. Given, however, that Ibn Khalawayh was active during the period of
hectic activity for the stabilizing of the canonic reading of the text in the first
half of the fourth century,80and given also the striking absence of any halakhic
interpretation of 2:114 in the sense of barring entrance' except in fear ', Jeffery's
rejection of Ibn Khalawayh is not at all justified.
Another source, of the early fourth century, Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.) is accredited
with the introduction of the element of 'divine promise' (wa'd-bishara)to the
interpretation of the phrase ' m kdna lahum'.81In fact, we find that in Tha'labi,
a generation earlier, lies probably the core of what later became a notion of that
divine promise. In Tha'labi, however, this notion is brought in conjunction with
the Meccan context of the fath.82However, the idea of bishdrawas favoured by
later commentators who, without mentioning Tha'labi or Zajjaj, connected
2:114 with the conquest of Mecca as it was 'foreseen' by this verse.83At the
same time it is also worth noting that already with Jassas (d. 370A.H.) the
halakhic activity has generated a tendency to favour the idea that the verse
spoke only in general terms, i.e. about all mosques; an idea which found its
support in the plural form of masdjid.84On the other hand, those later
commentators who continued to hold to the idea of specification and to resist
the historical detachment by general applicability could rely on masoretic and
Qur'anic parallels where plural forms are used to denote specific reference.85
To sum up, the metaphorical and Halakhic understanding of Khardb and
dukhul in this verse, which was facilitated by a certain exegetically oriented
reading of -- played an important role in detaching it from its association
with Jerusalem. In the words of some later commentators, the particularity of
the 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 Khalawaihs Sammlung, Stambul, 1934.
80A. Jeffery, 1, 10. It is accepted in Jeffery that what became the canonical reading of Ibn
Mujahid (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.
82 Tha'labl, 160: ' uld'ika md kdna lahum an yadkhuluhd ill Khd'ifin, ya'nTahl makka, yaqul:
aftahuhd 'alaykumhat td tadkhuluhdwa-takinuiawld bihd,fa-fatahahd alldhu ta'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 an
isolated tradition attributed to Zayd b. 'AITto that effect. However, the isnad of this tradition
confuses 'All b. al-Husayn and 'AIhb. Abi Talib. In the earlier source (Tusi) the isnddends with the
former, while in the later one (TabarsT)it is pushed back to the latter. Note also that this view is
placed by TabarsTwithin the context of the prophetical saying: ' the land was made a mosque and a
purifier for me'-i.e. all lands are my mosques, hence the general applicability. But in Tusi it is
expressly 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 referred specifically to 2:114.
85
e.g. RazT,iv, 11: ' hadhdKa-manyuqalu li-man ddhdsadlihan wahidan: wa-manazlamu mimman
ddhd al-salihn'.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 227

sense and applicability.86A. Rippin rightly noted how 'between Jassas and
Qurtubi, one witnesses an interesting shift (of) more neglect for history and the
final establishment of the status of the Qur'an as a law source in a way that
overrules any haggadic element in it.' 87
Finally, mention must be made of an isolated Shi'l tradition which interprets
' ld yadkhuluha illa Kha'ifin' as: 'they will accept belief only with the swords
over their heads'.88 This, however, like the mainstream Shi'ite interpretation in
general, was given in the context of Mecca.
Considering the last part of the verse, one notices the existence of an ijma' in
early 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).89
Concerning Khizy, almost all the early traditions put its interpretation in the
Jerusalem context. Here it corresponded to the notion of conquest and defeat of
al-rum. In Suddi's tradition in particular, and possibly those of others too,90
such defeat was expressed in an apocalyptic form, i.e. as a future punishment,
the conquest of Constantinople, Rome, 'Amurya and other cities to be effected
by the Mahdi.91However, some variants, as well as other traditions, present the
killing and conquest of al-rum as a historical event, i.e. carried out by the
Muslims.92
The tradition of Qatada is noteworthy for interpreting Khizv as payment of
Jizya ''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/conquest
on the one hand and payment of Jizya on the other, became combined from
early fourth century on in one formula: killing for the warrior (li-l-harbi) and
jizya for the dhimm.94The earliest quoted authority for such combination is
Zajjaj, though his name was dropped by most later commentators.95
As for Mecca and Quraysh, the Ibn Zayd tradition provides nothing on
khizy. Al-Jubba'i is the oldest authority quoted by Sunni sources to have
interpreted khizy as 'expulsion from mosques '.96In a few later commentaries,
however, khizy acquired the specific meaning of Quraysh's defeat and the
conquest of Mecca.97

5. Composition and 2:115-16


The problem of canonical composition in its broad sense will not be
investigated here. Attention to it will be given only as it emerges on the

86Zamakhshari, I, 179; NawawT I, 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. in
disagreement 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, who
specifies the conquest of Jerusalem itself; 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 which
interprets '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 the
Shiite side compare with Hasan Askari, 258.
228 SULIMAN BASHEAR

background of the sequential relation between 2:114 and the following two
verses on qibla and Christ. On these and related issues, however, traditional
exegesis concerning variant readings and analogical interpretation reveals
interesting structural problems of both composition and sequence; an issue
which is most crucial for the overall historical understanding of the three verses
taken as one scriptural complex.

5.1 With the issue of variant reading of 2:114 in relation to exegesis, we have
dealt above. Attention will be paid here to some serious problems raised by the
fragmentary nature of its traditional exegesis.
Actually, all the above-mentioned traditions on 2:114 were cited only in the
form of scattered comments on separate parts, phrases, or even selected terms of
the verse. In some of the second or even third century works, no commentary at
all was given on it.98 The initial fragmentary nature of traditional exegesis
persists in the structure of even Tabari's commentary; he simply amasses the
available, or selected, traditions dividing the verse into three separate
paragraphs, each of which he calls ' aya '. The fifth-century Tusi sticks to what
seems to be an early Basran view: that there were two separate verses involved in
2:114,99a view which is still held by the very late Suyuti.'1°
Against this background the method of analogical interpretation by com-
parison with other Qur'anic parallels becomes crucially suggestive. For, the
loose connexion between the different paragraphs, suggested by the fragmen-
tation in their traditional exegesis, corresponds to their association with
different scriptural, biographical, legal or other materials. Note especially the
frequent association of the paragraph on dukhul with Surat al-Bard'a and the
related Prophet's call concerning pilgrimage to Mecca. Different traditions
connect the conquest of Bukhtnassar to various verses other than 2:114.
Apocalyptic and futuh materials figure much in the traditions on khizy. But
Qatada'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 syntactical structure of the
different parts of 2:114: the first, (man azlamumimmanmana'a) speaks about the
past; present attitudes and practices towards the Christians are expressed in the
third part (lahum fi al-dunya Khizyun); and the second part, although
paraphrased in a past-participle form (md kana lahum), actually denotes later
imperatives and rulings recommended for the future.
5.2 Verse 2:115 has an acute problem of variant reading. One of its key verbs
could, and seems indeed to have been read tawallaw and not only tuwallu.°'0
Moreover, walla could, and seems, indeed, to have been understood as 'turn-
away', 'run-away' and not 'turn-towards'.102 Altogether, it is not
unanimously accepted that this verse speaks about qibla or even the ritual

98
See, e.g., Thawri (d. 161 A.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.
00 Durr, I, 108.
101This is repeatedly said by some of the commentaries cited above to have been the non-
canonical reading of 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 reading see 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 of
conveying two opposite meanings. From the insistence on giving it the meaning 'turn towards' in
this verse and the argument against interpreting it as 'to turn away', one can only surmise that the
latter meaning was also advocated, e.g. Tabari, i, 505, calls it shudhudh'irregularity'; in Alusi I, 502
it is considered gharrb'strange'.
QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEM 229

prayer in the first place.'03Note must be taken of the traditions of Mujahid,


Hasan and Dahhak which say that what was meant by tuwallu is supplication
(du'ad) and not prayer.'04 In some variants of Qatada's and Ibn 'Abbas's
traditions the verse was revealed when the prophet ordered his followers to pray
on the occasion of the Najashi's death and after some of them objected on the
grounds that he did not have the same qibla.'05At the same time those traditions
which connected it with the question of prayer in the qibla of Jerusalem closely
associate it with verses 2:142-5 and 2:150. Here it was presented as either an
abrogation of the Jerusalem qibla, a preparation for such abrogation, or else a
confirmation of it.106All in all, however, it is the no-qibla stage in the
development of Islam that figures as its central theme expressed in takhylr,
ishtibah wa-taharrl,etc.'07
All these questions become of crucial compositional importance when the
issues of analogical interpretation, other Qur'anic parallels, and contextual
sequence 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 the
context of Muhammad's strife with the Jews of Medina over his change of the
Jerusalem qibla. And this clearly seems to be the reason why 2:114 was
interpreted in that context too; i.e. simply by applying the traditional exegesis of
2:142 to it.'08 Probably more important, on the other hand, is the strong
thematic and even semantic connexion of 2:115 and 2:150, which is
unanimously considered as the verse that finally fixed Mecca as the Muslim
qibla and whose wording indeed testifies to that literally.' And from whatsoever
place you came forth (wa-min haythu kharajta)', it says, 'turn your face
towards the sacred mosque (fa-walli wajhaka shatra 'l-masjidi 'I-hardm)... so
that people shall have no accusation against you, except such of them as were
unjust (illa al-ladhmnazalamu)'.
Now, this thematic connexion between 2:114-115 and 2:150 is of course
historically incredible. However, support for it can be gauged from the curious
and isolated testimony of the Kufan Sha'bT (d. 103-110A.H.) who, on the
authority of Jabir al-Ju'fT,swore by God that Muhammad only turned away
from the qibla of Jerusalem because he was angered by that city or its people;'09
i.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 reading with the threat conveyed by the verse to the committers of
zulm, namely that wherever they may flee to, God's authority will still reach them. See Abu Hayyan,
i, 360; Alius, i, 502; and, less explicitly, also Naysabiur, i, 423. Other commentators base their
presentation of this tawallu, on the orthographic form tatawallu, so that it may still be taken to
convey 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 reading which is explicitly
stated as: ' tawallaw, bi-fath al-ta' wa-'l-ldm '. Gharnatl, i, 397; Abu Hayyan, i, 360 and even Qurtubi
himself, ii, 79. Naysabuir, i, 423, in his turn, insists that even tuwalluis addressing the runners away
in the second person.
104As noted
105
by Razi, iv, 23.
Compare 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, while
travelling on the back of a camel, a non-ordained (ndfila) prayer, etc. Further details with respective
traditional 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 side
compare 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; Qurtubi II/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 'ala bayti '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.
230 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Noting this tradition, Kister also called the attention to other indications in
Muslim sources of a clear disagreement as to why indeed Muhammad 'hated
the Jerusalem qibla and inclined towards the Ka'ba'.10 From the connexion
between 2:114-15 and 2:150 as supported by Sha'bi's tradition, it is clear that
the whole issue lies outside the Hijazi context. As for the Jews, it is plausible to
suggest that the change of qibla constituted a departure from their practices in a
way that would raise their objection. But from 2:114-115 it is not necessarily the
Jews that he was angered at. Rather a new line of reasoning suggested by the
contextual sequence of these two verses should at least be opened; i.e. that it was
the Christians/Byzantines with whom he had a conflict concerning Jerusalem.

5.3 The same method may be applied to 2:116. Here, the reading of the
' '
opening 'qalu instead of 'wa-qalu by Ibn 'Amir (d. 118 A.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 in
two opposite directions: either to an early disconnexion between 2:116 and the
two preceding verses, or, more likely, a later attempt at such disconnexion."2
In any case, 'atf and, even without waw, ittisal eventually emerged vic-
torious.113But, before that, precautions seem to have been taken to ensure the
connexion with the HijazT framework by means of clustering sTramaterial
around the exegesis of the verse. The striking fact is that such clustering was not
completed before the fourth century. However, from that period on the verse
was presented as referringto either the Christians (but of Najran!) who said that
Christ was the son of God, or to the Jews (but of Medina!) who said that 'Uzayr
was the son of God, or else to the Arab polytheists (implicitly of Mecca!) who
said that the female angels were the daughters of God."4
Now, the third view cannot be attested before the early fourth century as
Zajjaj is the earliest source named for it.15 As for the Jews of Medina (preferred
by Razl), the sTrasources mention them in connexion with verse 9:30 (again
from 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 Damascus
during 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; Ibn
Khalawayh, 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
qdlu to mana'a and sa'a, i.e., the Christians in 2:114. See also
Baydawi,I, 108. Note, however, that dropping the wdw could still imply conjunction (malhuzunfihi
ma'na al-'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 extreme case of isti'ndfby dropping the wdw, qdlu was presented by some
as referring to both the Jews and Christians in 2:113. 'ImadT,i, 244; Biqa'i,IV, 126-7; and cf.
GharnatT,
t4 I, 400-1.
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 following
note.
115 Note that Zajjaj, as quoted by Tusi and Abu Hayyan, ibid., says that the verse was revealed

concerning both the Christians and the Arab polytheists. Compare also with MajlisT,ix, 68 and
possibly 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'un and some
of the Arabs, who believed that the angels were the daughters of God, as well as to the Christian
belief in the sonship of Christ.
116
Razi, 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.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 231

polemics not only against the Jews but against the Christians and 'the
unbelievers before them' as well.17 As for the notion that 2:116 refers to the
delegation of Najrani Christians, it does indeed occur in Muqatil's Tafsir.
However, such notion is nowhere attested by any of the slra traditions of his
contemporary Ibn Ishaq. Moreover, most traditional exegesis on 2:116 speaks
about the Christians as being the ones referredto by it, but only in the indefinite
form, i.e. without mentioning the Najrani delegation."8 And, finally, a quick
glance at the narratives brought by some commentators on the Najrani
delegation shows that such narratives were connected with the revelation of at
least three different verses, and not specifically with 2:116.119
As for the occurrence of 'qdnitun 'in 2:116, a quick scrutiny of the analogies
and parallels mentioned by some traditions for its interpretation reveals another
fact of compositional importance: the second part of 2:116 (lahu ma ft al-
samdwdtiwa-'l-ardikullunlahu qdnitun)occurs en bloc also in surat al-rum(verse
30:26). There, as in 2:116 it was interpreted as 'admitting/worshipping in
servitude.120 Indeed, the very wording used for interpreting qdnitunin 2:116 in
this sense is worth noting. In the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas source it is 'admitting
servitude to and monotheistic belief' in God (muqirrunbi-'l-'ubudiyya wa-'l-
tawhld). In Muqatil's TafsTrit is: 'ya'nT 'Tsd(s) wa-ghayrahu 'abTdahuwa-fi
mulkih'. In Abu 'Ubayda's (d. 210 A.H.) words: 'Kullun muqirrun bi-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 which
interprets qdnitun as 'witnessing servitude to Him'.123 Tabarsi also quotes a
similar interpretation by the fourth-century Jubba'i and the fifth-century Abu
Muslim al-Nahawi (d. 459 A.H.).124
On the other hand, there exists a strong current interpreting this word as
' obedient' (mutl'un),relying mainly on a tradition by Mujahid with occasional
attribution of similar views to Suddi and even Ibn 'Abbas.125Some commen-
tators bring the two views as alternative interpretations and a few tried to
harmonize them.126From the analogical interpretation in this sense by parallels
brought from other Qur'anic occurrences it is possible to detect the source of
confusion. 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'an
2:238.127

Against this background the possibility that the source of confusion lies
actually in traditional reference to originally different Qur'anic occurrences
must not be ruled out. Indeed, more meanings of Qur'anic and traditional qunut
117'
wa-qalat al-yahudu 'uzayrun ibnu allah, wa-qdlat al-nasdrd al-masThuibnu allah yudadhtna
qawla al-ladhTnaKafaru min qablu ..'.
118 See
e.g. Tius, I, 426; Tabarsi, I, 382; Tha'alibi, I, 127; WahidT,Asbdb, 36; Maturidi, I, 101; Abu
H.ayyan, I, 362.
'19e.g., the traditions 'by the exegetes' (al-mufassirun) Hasan, Sha'bi, Dahhak and Muqatil
himself, 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.
122
Maturidi, i, 266.
123
Tabarsi, 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, 1350 A.H., III,
307; Ibn Hajar, Lisdn, Haydarabad, 1331 A.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.
232 SULIMAN BASHEAR

were noted by scholars, among which mention must be made of 'condemna-


tion' (la'n) and 'ridding oneself from' (tabarru).'2
Regrettably, this is not the right place for conducting a full investigation into
qunutas it occurs in the Qur'an and other Muslim sources. Attention, however,
is called to considering the possibility that the cardinal difficulty facing a
comprehensive interpretation of the term in fact lies in the existence of more
than one linguistic origin for it. There is the Arabic QNT, QNH (I, T) meaning
respectively 'to anger' and 'to own' with cognate semitic roots conveying the
same meanings, as well as others, e.g. the second stem of the Hebrew QNA
denoting zealousness. Needless to say, the possibility of a simple underlying
scribal or pronunciation error may explain some of the confusion. As for the
occurrence in 2:116, I suggest accepting the meaning of servitude-property
given by pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas, Muqatil and other relatively early sources. In
itself, the assertion of servitude to God as a form of absolute monetheism and in
contrast to the idea of sonship to Him fits well within the framework of
controversy with mainstream Christianity in early Islam as revealed by the
complex 2:114-16. The new feature of this assertion, however, is that such
controversy is here put in the Jerusalem context.
6. Conclusionsand a Historical Note.
The present inquiry, initially stimulated by the absolutely unique, though
late comment of Shams al-Din Suyu.t, has yielded several results in the field of
the study of Qur'anic exegesis, specifically in relation to historiography, sira,
legal tradition and other forms of Muslim literary activity. Indirectly, it has also
touched 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 a
clear anti-Christian/Byzantine sentiment prevailed in the exegesis of 2:114
which overwhelmingly presented it as referring to the Jerusalem sanctuary-
temple. We have also seen that no trace of sira material could be detected in
such exegesis and that the first authentic attempt to present the occasion of its
revelation within the framework of Muhammad's slra in Mecca is primarily
associated with the name of Ibn Zayd who circulated a tradition to that effect in
the second half of the second century. Other attempts to produce earlier
traditional authorities for this notion could easily be exposed as a later
infiltration of sTramaterial simply by conducting a cross-examination of sTra
sources on the occasions of both Quraysh's persecution of Muhammed before
the hijra and their barring of him at Hudaybiyya. As for Shi'l traditional
exegesis, our conclusions cannot be final because of the problem of the
transmission of Shi'i traditions and, hence, of dating them. We note, however,
the heavy association of the Hudaybiyya notion with the name of the sixth
imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. In any case, the notion of an early Meccan framework
cannot be attested before the first half of the second century.
All in all, the case of verse 2:114 gives support to Wansbrough's main thesis
since it shows that from the mid second century on Qur'anic exegesis underwent
a consistent change, the main 'impulse' behind which was to assert the Hijazi
origins of Islam.129In that process, the appearance and circulation of a tradition
by 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. also
Schacht, Origins, Oxford repr., 1975, 267-8.
'29 Wansbrough, Quranic studies, Oxford 1977, 58, 179.
30
Again, without getting involved with the debate over the value of the material of Jarh wa-
Ta'd-l, the fact remains that an unimportant tradition of Ibn Zayd, who was generally discounted as
' weak' and whose work has not survived in the original, gradually and consistently gathers power
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 233

Simultaneously, other ingenuous attempts were made to find earlier authorities


precisely bearing Ibn 'Abbas's name for the same notion while the more genuine
core of the original tradition of Ibn 'Abbas was gradually watered down
because it was no longer recognized after the 'legend of Muhammed' was
established.'13
But watering down did not affect a complete disappearance. And although
we 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 case
under discussion shows how such ijmd' was still far from unanimous.'33
However, the persistence of the Jerusalem/Christian notion in mainstream
commentaries of Farra', Ibn Qutayba and down to fourth-century Tabari and
Maturidi and even later can be explained only by the perpetuation of hostility
towards the Byzantines, leaders of the Christian world.
From the fourth century on, other factors came to the forefront and acted in
favour of undermining not only that notion but the narrative element of
exegesis as a whole. Again, Rippin is right in noting that the final emergence of
the Qur'an as a source of law affected the eventual sacrifice of narrative exegesis.
To this must also be added the factor of the metaphorical understanding and
general applicability of key terms like khardb and dukhuilin this verse which
helped to detach it from the specific, immediate and, so to speak, historical
context of Jerusalem.
But Wansbrough's implied though not explicitly stated view that the text of
the Qur'an was stabilized around the year 200 134 must, to say the least, be
elaborated at least as far as the complex 2:114-16 is concerned. The reading of
hunafa' instead of khuyyafd, the fact that 2:114 does not figure at all in the
ahkdm genre before the fourth century and, above all, the textual overlaps with
other Qur'anic occurrences, mainly from Bard'a (ix, 28-30), 2:142 and other
instances corresponding to pre-Islamic 'prophetologia', clearly indicates that
'juxtaposition' of elements from different genres could still be done in the first
half of the fourth century. Jeffery has rightly noted that the canonization of the
Qur'an did not become complete until the reading of its text was stabilized
during that period.'35However, awareness of the overlap between the variant
Qur'anic parallels as exposed by the fragmentation in early traditional exegesis
of 2:114-16, shows how it is not only true to say that reading is a question of
exegesis,136but that both are questions of composition too.
Viewed as such, the composition of 2:114 and the contextual sequence
between it and 2:115-16 acquire a clear though problematic historical dimen-
sion. As long as the first paragraph of 2:114 (wa-man azlamu ... ismuhu)stood
alone, and indeed it was interpreted as such, it could not raise any problem of
and predominance in later Qur'anic commentaries from the fourth century on. 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, 1322 A.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, 1326 A.H., VI, 177.
131 See H. Birkeland's comments on the implications of Goldziher's study of had7thin Old Muslim
opposition, Oslo, 1955, 32-4; idem, The Lord guideth, Oslo, 1956, 6-12. In both places, Birkland
expresses the opinion that the original core of Ibn 'Abbas's traditions could still be found in the
transmission through the 'family isnad' of Ibn Sa'd cited above. While accepting this opinion in
'
principle, we should note Schacht's legal caution that' family isnads' are generally an indication of
the spurious character of the traditions in question,' see Origins, 170, 177.
132
Birkeland, The Lord guideth, loc. cit., accepted in principle by Wansbrough.
133 Schacht
put forward the same view from the standpoint offiqh, Origins, 2. In at least one other
field, that of 'proofs' (dala'il) of Muhammad's prophecy, Ibn Rabban (wrote 232-247 A.H.)
explicitly says that ijma' is not enough. Kitdb al-Din wa-'l-Dawla, Tunis 1973, 19.
34Wansbrough, Quranic studies, 225-6.
135A. Jeffery, 1.
'36
Wansbrough, op. cit., 226.
234 SULIMAN BASHEAR

historiography because it could easily be taken as a reference to atrocities


committed in the Jerusalem sanctuary in pre-Islam-i.e. as belonging to the
prophetologia genre, to use Wansbrough's terminology. One cannot, however,
ignore the strong anti-Christian sentiment which predominates in the early
Muslim exegesis of the verse, to the extent of presenting Bukhtnassar and Titus
as accomplices of the Christians.
The syntactical form of the second paragraph, in its turn, whether read
hunafa' or khuyyafd/khd'ifin betrays a recommendation addressed to the
Muslims or even an imperative to be followed by them. And this is corroborated
by the way 2:115 was presented as addressing the Muslims in the second person
and, even more explicitly, by the contextual and logical sequence between the
two verses. In Tabari's words:
who is more unjust/polytheistic than the Christians who forbade the release
of God's name (alone) in his mosques and sought to destroy them? To God
belong east and west; thus, wherever you turn your faces, mention him ...
and the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary by those who did so and
barred the mentioning of Him (alone) in it, should not hinder you from
mentioning God (= being monotheists, S.B.) wherever you might be in his
land, 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 defend
himself, clearly against an objection current in his time, that such an under-
standing is ' historically' impossible since prayer in Jerusalem was not ordained
on the Muslims at the time of revelation-in other words, such an understand-
ing is incompatible with the HiijazisTra framework. At this stage, he sacrifices
history or, more accurately, prefers a historically confused narrative of
harmonization in the form of the Christian/Bukhtnassar complicity: an idea
which 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 accredited
with presenting 2:115 as addressing the Muslims in the second person. He does
so, however, with the crucial change of dropping the Jerusalem/Christian
framework.137And this amendment made the question of sequence acceptable
to many later commentators since it diffused the whole issue of its historical
problematics and presented it in a neutral light in the form of 'whether in
Jerusalem or in Mecca'.138 For Shawkani even this 'either-or' form was
considered too much of a specification. And Ibn Kathir rejected any idea
outside the Meccan context.
Actually, long before that, the Hijazi general framework of the revelation of
the canon was established. However, the material from' the formative period in
Islamic exegesis' on 2:114-15 during the second and third centuries 139reveals a
process of moulding two distinct layers of textual composites corresponding
probably to two separate genres. A quick review of the Qur'anic parallels to
different parts and paragraphs of the complex 2:114-16 shows on the one hand,
an anti-Christian polemic of clearly Jewish colouring concerning the sanctity of
the temple site in the late Byzantine period coupled with an early Muslim
theological polemic against mainstream Christianity on the question of the
essence of God and monotheism. But, while this textual layer prevails up to the
second half of the second century, it gradually becomes subject to the infiltra-
137cf.
138
Tusl;Ibn Jaziyy; Abu Hayyan; 'Alusi, loc. cit.
Zamakhshari; Nawawi; Nasafi; Baydawi; 'Imadi, loc. cit.
'39Wansbrough, 140.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 235

tion of another body of material originating in a Hijazi Muhammedan logia


which also acquires a textual position. A critical review of traditional exegesis
on parallels shows the moulding, albeit as confusion, between different con-
ceptual and thematic Judeo-Christian discourses of 2:114-16 belonging to the
Jerusalem context and an Arabian 9:28-30, 2:142-50 of Muhammedan Hijazi
traditional framework.
Detecting and separating these two layers is a prerequisite without which no
attempt can be made to reconstruct whatever historical process that lies behind
2:114-16. Admittedly, such a task of reconstruction is, to say the least,
hazardous and risky. However, more absurd than accepting the transparent
historiographical patching of literary sira to the tafsTr in 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 reconstruction
must cover at least the first century and a half of Islam during which no sTra
element could be attested to in that context.
The question of the development of Judeo-Christian controversies over the
position of Jerusalem in itself lies beyond the scope of this study. And recently,
more attention has been paid to the sanctity for the early Muslims of various
locations within it as the background of such a position.140
As for the concern in early Islam over what seemed to be the desecration of
the Temple site by the Byzantines, which figures centrally in 2:114, a tradition of
Ka'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 similar later works. 14 From this tradition
and the commentaries upon it we learn that after the conversion of Constantine
and his mother Helen's visit to Jerusalem, the Byzantines tried at first to
reconstruct 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 old
building to erect the Holy Sepulchre while burying the old location under
debris. Such a situation, we are told by Ka'b, prevailed until Muhammad was
sent, accomplished his nocturnal journey and extolled the merits of Jerusalem.
From yet another tradition we learn that the Byzantine destructive attitude
towards the Temple site was not always consistent. Qaysar, we are told, on his
receipt of Muhammad's letter, ordered the site to be cleaned; but only one-third
of the work had been accomplished on the advent of Muslim occupation under
Umar.'42More traditions of Ka'b give further details concerning early Muslim-
Christian controversies over other locations in Jerusalem.143But beyond that,
Muslim information concerning possible conflict with the Byzantines over
Jerusalem, let alone within it, is, indeed, scanty and highly obscure, not only in
relation to Muhammad's mission but even as regards the religious aspects of its
occupation and 'Umar's visit to the city. Yet there is abundant information
concerning several verses which are said to have been revealed to the Prophet,
and many traditions attributed to him, concerning Jerusalem, Palestine and

140
H. Busse, ' Omar's image ' JSAI, 8, Jerusalem, 1986, 164-8; idem ' The Tower of David .. .', an
unpublished 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 the
references 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 Mujlr al-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. 1191 A.H.), Husn al-Istiqsa,
MS Princeton Yehuda (515), 152 (a-b).
142 This tradition is
reported on the authority of the Damascene Sa'id b. 'Abd al-'Aziz
(d. 167 A.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 of
Muslim tradition', Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 17, 1951-2.
143WasitT(d. c. 410 A.H.), Fada'il al-Bayt
al-Muqaddas, Jerusalem, 1979, 21, 24, 44.
236 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Syria as a whole.'4 But only one verse (no. 43:45) is said to have been revealed
in Jerusalem itself and that, while he made his journey to heaven.
As one would expect, but still worth noting, the latter verse is polemical
directed at those who, on the alleged authority of the Apostles (clearly the
Christians), believed that other gods were appointed to be worshipped by
God-a strong reminder of the polemics in 2:116. And, in association with the
revelation of that verse (i.e. 43:45), a tradition is usually cited attributing to
Muhammad the saying that prophecy descended upon him in Syria as well as in
Mecca and Medina.'45
Beyond the slra and traditional limits, there occur only scattered and highly
obscure referenceswhich place Muhammad's mission and the Muslims' occupa-
tion of Jerusalem within the context of Judeo-Christian conflict in and
concerning it. One of these is the above-mentioned tradition related to the order
by Qaysar to clean the Temple site upon receiving Muhammad's letter in
Jerusalem.146
Tabari, in his turn, cites a unique tradition of Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112 A.H.)
and Rabi'a al-Shami (d. 123 A.H.) concerning the discussion between Ka'b and
'Umar when the latter visited Jerusalem. According to this tradition, the Jews
strove to preserve the Temple site but were unsuccessful because of the
consecutive Roman/Byzantine and Persian attacks. This situation, continues
the tradition,' prevailed until you ('Umar) reigned. Then God sent a prophet on
the (place of) assembly/garbage (lit.: Kundsa)who said: a good omen on you, O
Jerusalem, the fdruiqwill clean you from whatever (dirt) is in you .. .1.47
But early Muslim, late Judeo-Christian relations concerning Jerusalem, let
alone in the city itself, remain highly obscure throughout the period of early
Islam. The pilgrim Arculfus who visited it around the year A.D. 680 speaks
'
vaguely about a conflict in the city between Christian Jews' or 'believing' and
'unbelieving Jews' during Mu'awiya's reign, without, however, attributing any
role to the Muslims by name.'48
As for 'Abd al-Malik's time, we have a curious report on the appearance in
Jerusalem of a false prophet named al-Harith b. Sa'ld who was executed there in
79 A.H., not before attracting many followers from within the army of 'Abd al-
Malik.149From Baladhuri, Tabari and Ibn al-'Ibri we learn about a major
outbreak of conflict with the Byzantines in Syria in the year 70 A.H., in the
course of which 'Abd al-Malik was forced to pay the king of al-rum a weekly
ransom of one thousand dinars for opposing him over the Muslims in Syria.150
But these sources do not elaborate on the religious aspects of these
developments, let alone the religious position of Jerusalem in their context. On
the other hand, scholars are increasingly inclined to believe that the construc-
tions of 'Abd al-Malik and his son, Walid, on the Temple site are to be
considered against the background of the politico-religious conflict with the
Byzantines rather than the wish of 'Abd al-Malik to divert the hajj from
'44Besides the above-mentioned fadd'il works, see also Raba'i (d. 444 A.H.) Fadd'il, Damascus,
1950, 23, 26, 39, 61; Ibn 'Asakir, Tadrkh,Damascus, 1951, I, 135-95.
145Ibn al-Firkah
(d. 729 A.H.), Ba 'ith al-Nufis, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2336), 29 (a-b); Ibn
'Asakir, I, 154;H.asan b. Habib al-Naysaburi (d. 406 A.H.) as quoted by Ibn Hisham al-Ansar
761 A.H.), TahsTlal-Uns, in M. Ibrahim, op. cit.
(d.146
Biddya, Cairo, n.d., vii, 58, quoting Baha' al-Din, al-Mustaqsafi Fada'il al-Masjid al-Aqsd.
47Tabari, TarTkh,in, 106-7.
148The
pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land, transl. J. R. Macpherson, in Palestine Pilgrims'
Text Society, vol. 3, London 1895, 12-5.
149Shihab
al-Din, MuthTral-Ghardm,Jaffa, 1946, 42; J. van Ess,' Early development of Kalam',
in G. Juynboll (ed.), Studies, Carbondale, 1982, p. 120 and n. 59; cf. D. M. Dunlop, Studies in Islam,
New Delhi, 1964, I, 12; Y. Friedman, 'Finality of prophethood in Sunni Islam', JSAI, 7, 1986,
pp. 194-5, nn. 61-3 and the sources quoted therein.
150Baladhuri, Futuh, Cairo, 1956,I, 189-90; Tabari, TarTkh, nll, 1-2; Ibn al-'Ibri, TarTkh,Beirut,
1958, 112.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 237

Mecca.151The extensive stress in the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock on


the idea that Christ was a messenger and servant, rather than the son of God, is
often brought in to support this view.'52
On yet another level, literary criticism of the traditional material on the
position of Jerusalem in early Islam has clearly shown that the stress on its
priority was not necessarily a function of the attempt to undermine Mecca but
rather was independent of the position of the latter since Islam seems not to
have as yet developed one firmly established cultic centre.'53
On the historical circumstances for the final desertion of the Jerusalem
sanctuary in favour of Mecca, as vividly hinted upon in 2:114-16, the informa-
tion provided by Muslim sources is again scanty, obscure and, so to speak,
frustrating. The anxiety about its re-capture by the Byzantines and the ringing
of its church bells in it for forty days is expressed only in an apolcalyptic, albeit
traditional form.'54 Now, Goldziher made the initial note that apocalypses
(malihim and fitan) as a literary form appeared historically before that of
sunna.'55Later scholars have tried to tackle the question of the value of such
literature as a historical source.'56S. P. Brock pointed specifically to the end of
the seventh century A.D. as the time when Muslims believed in the capture of
Constantinople, and the Christians in the re-capture of Jerusalem, as signs of
the imminent approach of the end of the world.'57
Now, a clear apocalyptic element does indeed figure in some tafsTrtraditions
from the early second century with khizy of the rum in 2:114 presented as part of
the messianic events. And this, as noted, was earlier than the appearance of any
sTraelement concerning that verse. Moreover, further, though sporadic, infor-
mation re-appears in latefadd'il and sTraworks to the effect that it was precisely
around the turn of the century that the Umayyads started to play down the
religious and cultic importance of Jerusalem. Here note should be taken of a
unique tradition from Zuhri (d. 124 A.H.), transmitted by a Syrian authority and
quoted from an otherwise unknown work of Abu Dawud on the question of the
naskh (abrogation) of the Jerusalem qibla.'58 According to this tradition,
Sulayman b. 'Abd al-Malik did not exalt Jerusalem as the rest of his (Umayyad)
house used to do. Zuhri testified that one night, while in Jerusalem as a crown
prince, Sulayman expressed his doubts about the origin of the exaltation of
Jerusalem by Muslims and Christians in the presence of Khalid b. Yazid b.
Mu'awiya. The latter assured him that it was not mentioned in 'the book
revealed by God to the Jews' but that their prayer towards the Rock was
adopted by them only after God became angry with them and removed the Ark
of the Presence from Jerusalem.
Gradually, but consistently, this trend was strengthened by 'Umar II and
throughout the later Umayyad and early 'Abbasid periods. Numerous tradi-
151
See the extensive review of modern works on this subject in 'A. El'ad, ' Muslim holy places',
art. cit., 120-31.
'52cf. Corpus InscriptiorumArabicorum,I, 24.
153This theoretical possibility, vaguely implied by S. D. Goitein, op. cit., 139, was carried a step
further by M. J. Kister, 'On concessions', in G. Juynboll (ed.), Studies, op. cit., 104-5. Lately, G.
Hawting explicitly raised this issue again, Thefirst dynasty of Islam, London, 1986, 6-7.
'54Nu'aym b. Hammad, Kitdb al-Fitan, MS British Museum, Or. 9449, vI, 130, 135, 139-40.
'55J. Goldziher, Muslim studies, Eng. ed. S. M. Stern, New York, 1971, ii, 77.
156A. Vassiliev, ' Medieval ideas ', Byzantion, 16, 1942-3; P. Alexander,' Medieval apocalypses',
American Historical Review, 73, 1967-8.
157S. P. Brock,
'Syriac views', in Juynboll (ed.), Studies, op. cit.
158This tradition is reported on the authority of Yunus al-'Ayli, mawla of the clan of Mu'awiya
(d. 159 A.H.).On him, see Ibn Hajar, Tahdhrb,xi, 450-2. So far I have detected three late sources
which cite it from Kitdb al-Ndsikh wa-'l-Mansikh by Abi Dawud. In one of them (Suhayll, Rawd,
Cairo, 1971, Ii, 201) Abu Dawud is called al-Sinjarn,a possible warning that this was not the famous
traditionist. See also Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 'Uyuin, , 237 (noted by 'A. El'ad 'Muslim holy places',
art. cit., p. 24, n. 75) and Shams al-Din, Ithdf, op. cit., 189-90.
238 QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM

tions testify to such a trend in the form of controversies over the question as to
where this or that scholar prayed in Jerusalem. Several of these traditions were
noted by Goitein.159On the basis of these and other traditional testimonies,
Kister has shown that the position of Jerusalem was indeed placed in jeopardy
from the early second century on: a development which is made clear by the
growing attempts of Muslim scholars to resist the equation of its status as a
place of pilgrimage with that of Mecca and Medina.160
With this trend came a clear departure from the position of primacy given by
'Abd al-Malik and Walid I. To Goldziher, however, must be accredited the
observation that it was only during the early 'Abbasid period that consecration
of Islamic memorials in the Hijaz took place.6"'On the other hand, a tradition
circulated by the Jerusalem family of Mansur b. Thabit 162 testifies to the fact
that the early 'Abbasids finally removed certain holy items and state symbols
from the Rock of Jerusalem, where they had hung since the days of 'Abd al-
Malik, to the Ka'ba.'63From another tradition of this same source we also learn
that the doors of the Jerusalem mosque were made, during Abd al-Malik's
reign, of gold and silver. But, the mosque deteriorated under the 'Abbasids
Mansur and Mahdi, who refused to spend money on its reconstruction after it
was wrecked by two consecutive earthquakes.164
The present inquiry has shown how precisely around this period (mid second
century) elements of a Hijazi orientation made their presence felt in the
exegetical efforts to fit what became the canon of Muslim scripture into the new
historical framework of Arabian Islam. From the literary scrutiny of the
development of these efforts it becomes clear how such exegetical efforts
affected the textual composition of 2:114-16 in a way that fitted the general
orientation, attested from other literary fields, towards a Hijazi sira, sanctuary
and, with them, scriptural revelation. On the other hand, no sufficient basis was
provided by this material to prove the historicity of the otherwise vivid picture
behind the Jerusalem context of 2:114-16-i.e. to prove that the early Muslims
initially were, or considered themselves to be, a continuation of a Judeo-
Christian religious heresy which emerged as a reaction to the desecration of the
Temple site by late Byzantine mainstream Christianity, and as part of the
controversy over the essence of God and Christ's relation to him. Likewise any
idea as to what exactly were the historical (political and military) circumstances
which forced the abandonment of Jerusalem as a qibla and cultic centre and the
search for an alternative, one more national Arabian and secure, must remain,
for the time being, mere speculation pending further research which the present
inquiry may help to stimulate.

159S. D. Goitein, op. cit., 140-1.


160M. J. Kister, ' You shall only set ...', art. cit., 178-84, 194; followed by El'ad, ' Muslim holy
places', 117, 131-3.
161Muslim
studies, II, 279-81.
162On his
163
family see El'ad, art. cit., 9-11.
Wasiti, 75-6; Shams al-Din, 244.
64
Wasiti, 83-4.

Вам также может понравиться