Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Qur'ān 2:114 and Jerusalem

  • Suliman Bashear

Extract

Qur'ān 2:114 describes those who prevent God's name being uttered in His mosques (man mana'a masājida ‘llāhi an yukhdara fīā’smuhu) as ‘most unjust’ (aẓlamu). 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 ’.

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 According to the modern standard Egyptian edition of 1342/1923 = 2/108 of Flügel's edition:Concordantiae Corani Arabicae, 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 Arberry, J., The Koran interpreted, London, 1964. The literal wording of the verse in Arabic is: wa-man aẓlamu mamman mana'a masājida allāhi ‘an yudhkara fīnā ismuhu wa-sa'ā fī kharābihā; ‘ūlā'ikā mā kāna lahum an yad-khulūhā illā Khd'ifin, lahum fī al-dunyā Khizyun wa-fi al-'ākhirati ‘adhābun ‘aẓīm.

3 e.g., C., Sale, The Koran, New York & London, 1984 repr. of the original 1734 ed., p. 15, n. (b). See also the notes of Wherry, E. M. on Sale's translation entitled: A comprehensive commentary on 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 Watt's, M. words: ‘the reference is uncertain. It can hardly be the pagan Meccans in this Medinan context. Jerusalem has been suggested,’ Companion to the Quran, London, 1967, 27. Compare also with Blachere, R., Le Coran, Paris, 1951, in, 759–60.Rudi, Paret'sDer Koran (Stuttgart, 1982, 18) does not comment at all.

4 See his unpublished Ph.D. thesis,’The Quranic Asbāb al-Nuzūl material: an analysis of its use and development in exegesis’, McGill University, 1981, 180–7.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 Ithdf al-Akhissd, Cairo, 1982. This work was translated into English by Reynolds, J. as The history of the Temple of Jerusalem, 1836. However, it was wrongly attributed to Jalāl al-Dīn Suyutl, and the translation is outdated. Extracts were translated also by Le Strange, G. and published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 19, 1887, 247305. 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 Ithāf al-Akhişşā I, 100. Lit.: nazalat fī man al-rūm al-muslimīn min bayt al-maqdis.

8 Lit.: wa-lillāhi al-mashriqu wa-'l-maghribu, fa-aynamā tuwallū fa-thammata wajhu allāh. waqālū ittakhadha allāhu waladan, subhānahu, bal lahu mā fī al-samāwāti wa-'l-arḍi Kullun lahu qānitūn.

9 An example of such treatment is Qushayri Latd'if, Cairo, n.d., i, 127–9 and Muhyl, al-DIn b. ‘Arabī (d. 638 A.H.), TafsTr, Beirut, 1968, I, 7880. the latter work was possibly compiled by Ibn ‘Arabī’s student, Kashanl (d. 731 A.H.). In any case, it must not be confused with Abū Bakr, Ibn ‘Arabī's (d. 543 A.H.). Ahkdm al-Qur'dn, Beirut, 1972, i, 32–3, to which further reference will be made below.

10 G. D. Anawati, s.v. ‘ ‘Īsā ’, E.I. (new ed.), lv, 81–6; A. J. Wensink and D. A. King, s.v. ‘Kibla ’, E.I. Suppl., v, 82–8, and the references cited therein.

11 Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, Cairo, 1938, IV, 10: ‘wa-‘indī fīhī wajhun...’

12 Ṭabarī, , Jāmi’, Cairo, 1954, 498. This Ibn Sa'd, also known as al-‘Awfī, should not be confused with Ibn Sa'd al-Hāshimī (d. 230 A.H.), the famous author of Tabaqāt. Al-‘Awfīs ancestor, ‘Atiyya b. Sa'd, with whom the chain of isnād ends, is reported to have a tafsīr work from al-Kalbī. More will be said about these two below. See E.I. (new ed.), s.v. ‘ Ibn Sa'd’, vn, 922–3.

13 Ibn, Kathlr (d. 774 A.H), Tafsīr, Cairo 1977, II, 506, quoting Tafsīr al-‘Awfī, clearly that mentioned in the preceding note. Cf. also Suyūtī, Mufḥimāt, Cairo, 1908, 5, who quotes al-'Afawī, possibly a misspelling of the same ‘Awfī. In another source of Suyūṭī, Durr, Cairo, n.d., i, 108, as in Shawkārīs Falfi, Cairo, 1964,1, 132, the same form of tradition is quoted from both Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Hātim.

14 As in Qurṭubi, (d. 671 A.H.), Jāmi’, Cairo, 1967, II, 77, and Nawawī (d. 676 A.H.), Marah, Sirbaya, 1970,1, 31. These two quote the unidentified Ghanawī&Ghaznawī, perhaps also a copyist's distortion of ‘Afawī&‘Awfī.

15 See: Tafsīr Mujāhid, Beirut, n.d., I, 86; Ṭabarī, II, 498; Ibn Kathlr, II, 506; and Ibn Ḥumayd (d. 249 A.H.) as quoted by Suyūṭī, Durr, i, 108 and Shawkani, i, 132. Cf. also a similar notion cited by Ibn ‘Arabī, Aḥkām, I, 33 who does not, however, attribute it to Mujāhid.

16 As in Naysāb؛rī, (d. 728 A.H.), Gharā'ib, Cairo, 1962, i, 417 and ‘Imādī, (d. 982A.H.), Irshād, Riyadh, 1971, i, 242.

17 As in Gharnātī, (d. 541 A.H.), Muharrar, Cairo, 1947, i, 395 and Tha'ālibī, (d. 873–5 A.H.), Jawahir, Algiers, 1985,I, 125.

18 Abu, Hayyan (d. 754 A.H.), Bahr, Cairo, 1328 A.H., I, 357.

19 Ibn, Qutayba, Tafsir, Beirut, 1958, 61.

20 Jassas, , Ahkdm, Cairo 1347 A.H., I, 69.

21 Mahallī, and Suyuti, , Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Cairo, 1966, 21.

22 Suyuti, , Durr, i, 108; Shawkani, i, 132; and, without source, Ibn Kathlr, n, 510.

23 Tūsī, (d.460A.H.), al-Bavān, Najaf, 1957,Tabarsī, (d. 548 A.H.) MajmaCairo, 1958, I, 376;Majlisī, (d. 1111 A.H.) Bihar, Teheran, n.d., xx, 319.

24 Māturīdī, , Ta'wīlāt, Cairo, 1971,1, 261.

25 Zamakhsharī, , Kashshāf Beirut, 1947, I, 179.

26 Rāzī, , iv, 910;Naysaburi, , i, 417.

27 Tusi, , i, 416 and Tabarsī, , l, 376.

28 This chain of isnād occurs, as far as I know, only in one such source, the title of which is noteworthy: Tafsīr al-Zajjāj&al-Muzanī ‘Aiā Ra'y Ibn ‘Abbās, 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 ‘ Tafsir Ibn Abbas and criteria for dating early Tafsir texts’, an unpublished paper presented at the fourth International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987. On the problem of the isnād’ Ibn Jurayj—‘Atā’’ in tafsīr traditions, see Ibn, Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, Haydarabad 1326 A.H., VII, 213–1.

29 There are several published and manuscript versions of the pseudo-Ibn ’Abbās source which include this transmission; some of them appear to be compilations by Fayrūzabādī, (d. 718 A.H.), e.g., Tafsir, MS Princeton, Yehuda815, 12 (a-b);Tanwīr al-Miqbās, in the margin of Suyūṭīs Durr, op. cit.; another edition of the same by Fayruzabadi, Cairo, 1951, 13: idem, Tanwīr al-Miqyās, Cairo, 1356 A.H., 15–16; Tanwīr al-Iqtibās, two lithog. eds., n.p., 1280 A.H. and 1302 A.H., 14–15. Other editions are mentioned by Rippin, A., ‘Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbas ’, art. cit. Note must be taken of the orthographic proximity of miqbās and miyās, 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.

30 Wāhidī, , Asbāb, Cairo 1969, 33; but compare with idem, al-Wajīz, in the margin of Nawawī, op. cit., i, 30. Indeed, A. Rippin confirms the existence of manuscript versions of such Tafsīr by both al-Kalbī and Dīnawarī (d. 310 A.H.) which are identical in content to the above-mentioned pseudo- Ibn ‘Abbās sources: ‘ Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās’ art.cit.; idem, Al-Zuhrl, , Naskh al-Qur'dn’, BSOAS, XLVII, 1,1984, 22–4. Note, however, the fact that al-Kalbī appears in all the chains of isnād of Ibn al-Mubārak who was also known by his nisba ‘al-Dmawarā’. It must also be recalled that al-‘Awfī, who was cited for a similar notion of Ibn ‘Abbās, was reported to have transmitted his Tafsīr from al-Kalbl.

31 Qurtubī, , II, 77;Nawawī, , i, 31;Naysābūrī, , I, 417;Imadī, , I, 242.

32 (Anonymous, ), Asbdb al-Nuzul, MS, Princeton, Yehuda (5143), 4(b); Khazin, (comp. 725 A.H.), Lubdb, Cairo, n.d., l, 83;Baghawī, (d. 516 A.H.), Ma'dlim, in the margin of Khazin, I, 84;Ālūsī, , (d. 1270 A.H.), Ruh, Cairo, 1964, i, 498.

33 Balkhī, /Muqaddasī, (wrote 355 A.H.), Bad’, Paris, 1980, III, 114, 155.

34 Farisī-Fasawī, (d.289A.H.), Bad’, Wiesbaden, 1978, 296–7.

35 Muqātil, , Tafslr, Cairo n.d., I, 62–3.

36 Tha'labī, , al-Kashf wa-'l-Bayān ‘an Tafsīr al-Qur'ān, 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 Tafsīr, bearing the same title but attributed to Tha'labī, who died in 427 A.H., does not have any commentary on this verse; MS Princeton, Yehuda 2(800), 123 (a-b).

37 Compare: Anon, . Asbāb, 5 (a), Tha'labī, 159;Wāhidī, , 34;Tūsī, , i, 416;Gharnāṭī, , I, 395;Baghawī, , I, 83;Ṭabarsū, I, 376;Razī, , iv, 10;Abū, Ḥayyan, i, 357;Naysaburī, , i, 417;Suyūṭī, , Mufḥimāt, 5.

38 ‘Compare: Tabarī, , i, 489;Jassās, , i, 69;Qurtubī, , n, 77;Ibn, Kathīr, II, 506 and the two Fadā'il works of al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja, Fadā'il Baylal-Maqdis wa-'l-Shām wa-'l-Khalīl,MS, Tübingen 27, 16 (a) and Mujīr, al-Dīn, al-Uns ai-Jalīl, ‘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 Fadā'ilal-Quds’, presented at the third International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June-July 1985, pp. 8–9, nn. 46–51.

39 Tabarī, , I, 499 with isnād; Tha'labi, 159, Suyuti, , Durr, I, 108 and Shawkam, i, 132, without isndd. Compare also with Ibn, Kathir, II, 506.

40 These are: Dīnawarī, , Akhbār Ṭiwdī, Cairo, 1960, 23;Tha'labī, , Qaṣaṣ-'Arā'is, Cairo, 1297 A.H., 324;Ya'qūbī, , Tārīkh, Beirut, 1960, i, 65, 146;Tabarī, , Tārīkh, Cairo, 1939, i, 382–3, 435; v, 2; idem, Athdr, Cairo, n.d., 384–91; Mas'ūdī, , Murūj, Beirut, 1965–6, i, 68–72, II, 38;Ibn, al-Faqīh, Mukhtasar, Leiden, 1885, 98102;Balkhī, /Muqaddasī, , Bad’, op. cit.; Nuwayri, Nihdyah, Cairo, 1943, xiv, 153, 206–8;Ibn, Kathīr, Biddya, Cairo, n.d., n, 3643;idem, Qasas, Cairo, 1968, II, 309–20; Ibn, al-Athīr, Kdmil, Beirut, 1965, I, 261, 322–5;Majlisī, , Bihār, op. cit., xiv, 351–77;Manlnl, , al- I'lām, Jaffa, n.d., 90–1.

41 Rippin notes that Bukhtnassar is ‘normally connected with Qur'an 17:4’, ‘The Quranic Asbāb’, 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 Nuwayrī and Manīnī, the name of the ‘Babylonian King’ is Khardus and not Bukhtnassar. In some Fadā'il sources the latter was strangely said to have transferred holy items from Jerusalem to ‘ rūmya’. See e.g. Ibn, al-Jawzī (d. 597 A.H.), Faclā'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’, Graecolatine et 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 Mahdl 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.

42 Tabarī, , I, 499. Cf. Tusī, , i, 416 and Tabarsī, , i, 376 who reject this reasoning by reverting to the metaphorical understanding of Kharāb. On such understanding more will be said below.

43 Tabarī, , I, 500: ‘fa-in zanna zānnun...’, etc.

44 See Jaṣṣāṣ, , i, 69;Rāzī, , iv, 10;Abū, Ḥayyān, I, 357 and Naysaburi, , l, 417.

45 Nawawī, , i, 30–1;Ibn, Kathīr, II, 507;Shawkanī, , i, 132;Suyūṭī, , Durr, i, 108. Cf. also Suyūṭī's, Mufhimāt, 5;idem, Lubab, Tunis, 1981, 22.

46 Wāḥidī, , Asbāb, 34;Abū, Hayyan, i, 357;Ālūsī, , i, 489. Cf. also the form of unspecified authority or source adduced in Razī, , iv, 10;Tusī, , I, 416;Naysaburi, , I, 417.

47 For a cross-checking of the sīra traditions of Ibn Ishāq see: Ibn, Hisham, Sira, Cairo, 2nd ed., I, 262–72, 289–91, 317–21, 354–64, 480–91;Suhaylī, , Rawd, Cairo, 1971, II, 48, 51, 77–9, 127–8, 147–67;Ibn Sayyid, al-Nās, ‘Uyun, Beirut, 1974, i, 102–14;Ibn, Kathīr, Sīra, Cairo, 1964, I, 439–1, 460–86, 492508;Halabī, , Insan, Cairo, 1964, i, 486–518, II, 25–6.

48 Ibn Abī, Ḥātim, Jarh, Cairo, 1952, IV, 169.

49 Ibn, Babū'ya, Tafsīr imām Ḥasan ‘Askarī, Teheran, , lithog, . ed., 1248 A.H., 255–61. Cf. also al-Kāshī, , al-Asfā, Teheran, 1353 A.H., 31.

50 Qumml, , Tafsīr, Najaf, 1386 A.H., I, 58–9.

51 Tabarsī, , i, 376.

52 Tha'labī, , 159;Tabarī, , I, 499;Tusī, , I, 416;Ibn, Kathīr, II, 507;Tha'ālibī, , i, 125;Suyītī, Durr, i, 08;idem, Lubāb, 22; Shawkānī, , i, 132. Cf. also other sources who cite the same notion in the anonymous form ‘ wa-qīl’ i.e. without mentioning Ibn Zayd: Māturīdī, , i, 260–1;Zamakhsharī, , i, 179;Qurtubī, , II, 77;Nasafī, , i, 66;Naysābūrī, , I, 417;Khāzin, , i, 84;Maḥallī, , 21;Majlisī, , xx, 317;Bayḍāwī, , Anwār, Cairo, n.d., i, 107, Ibn ‘Arabi, i, 33.

53 Besides the sīra sources mentioned above, Wāqidī's, (d. 207 A.H.) Maghāzī, Oxford, 1966, II, 622, was also consulted. All these sources are unanimous on the point that Qur'ān, 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 Rippin, A.The Quranic Ashab’, op. cit., p. 180, n. 1. A negative proof of absence and silence can also be drawn from Hawting's, G.Al-Hudaybiyya’, JSAI, 8, 1986, 123.

54 Ibn, Manẓūr, Lisān, Cairo repr. 1966, xv, 266–71;Zabldi, , Taj, Cairo, 1306 A.H., VIII, 383–5;Lane, E., Arabic-English lexicon, New York repr., 1956, v, 1920–1.

55 Ibn Manẓūr, Zabīdī, and Lane, ibids.; Muqātil, , Tafsir i, 62;idem, Ashbāh, Cairo, 1975, 118–21; idem, Tafsīr al-Khamsmi'at ‘Āya, Shfar'am, 1980, 40; Ibn, Qutayba, Ta'wīl, Cairo, 1973, 467–8;Fayrūzabādī, , Qāmus, Cairo, 1970, iv, 174;al-Rāghib, al-Isfahānī, Mufradāt, Cairo, 1970, II, 470–2,al-Damghānī, Islāh, Beirut, 1970, 308–11.

56 e.g., Kisā' (d. 189 A.H.), Mutashābih, MS Princeton, Yehuda (903), 50 (b), 63 (a)-64 (b); (Anonymous), MS Princeton, Yehuda (2248), 32 (a-b); al-Kirmānī, al-Burhān, MS Princeton, Yehuda (3999), 10 (b)-ll (a), 26 (a), 41 (a), 72 (b).

57 e.g.:‘wa-man azlamumimtnan Katama’ in Qur'an 2:140; ‘... mimman iftarā’, in Qur'an 6:21, 144, 7:36, 10:17–18, 11:18, 18:15, 29:68, 61:7;‘... mimman Kadhdhaba‘ in Qur'an 6:157, 39:32; ‘... mimman dhakara, in Qur'ān 32:22.

58 Sijistānī, , Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur'ān, MS Princeton, Yehuda (4169), 74 (a); and the lexicographic works cited above.

59 Beeston, A. F. L.. el ai, Sabaic dictionary, Louvain & Beirut, 1982. 143. 172.

60 Al-'Ālim wa-'l-Muta'allim, Halab, 1972, 65, 72–3.

61 Musnad, Halab, 1962, 210.

62 Shāfi℈ī, al-Fiqh al-Akbar fī al-Tawḥīd, in the margin of Abū Hanīfa, 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.

64 Nawawī, , al-Aḥādīth al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1985, 239–40.See also Dhahabī, Kitāb al-Kabā'ir Damascus & Beirut, n.d., 181, for the noting of which I am indebted to M. J. Kister.

65 The pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās sources, cited above; Tha‘labī, 159; Baghawī, I, 83; Nawawī, I, 31; Khāzin I, 84.

66 Pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 62; Nawawī, i, 31.

67 See, e.g., Majlisī, xxiv, 221.

68 al-Yaman, Ja'far b. Mansur (d. 347 A.H.), Kitāb al-Kashf, Beirut, 1984, 45, 63, 88–9, 146, 150.

69 Pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās; Mujāhid, I, 86; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 62; Ibn Qutayba, Tafsīr, 61, and cf. also Tha‘labī, 159; Ṭabarī, i, 500; Jaṣṣaṣ, I, 69.

70 Ṭabari, I, 499; Ṭūsī, I, 417; Gharnāṭi, I, 396; Baghawī, i, 84; Zamakhsharī, i, 179; Tabarsī, I, 377; Nasafī, i, 65–6; Rāzī, iv, 11; Khān, I, 84; Tha'ālibī, i, 125; Baydāwī, i, 107; Shawkanī, I, 131; Ālūsī, I, 498; Kāshī, 31; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tanzīh al-Qur’ān, Cairo, 1329 A.H., 28–9

71 Jaṣṣāṣ, I, 69–70.

72 Baghawl, e.g., I, 84;Ṭabarsī, , I, 377;Abū, Hayyān, I, 358;Khāzin, , I, 84;Ibn, Kathīr, II, 508;Biqā'ī, Nazm al-Durar, Haydarabad, 1970, II, 118.

73 e.g., ‘Abd, al-Jabbār, Tanzīh, 29;Rāzī, , iv, 11.Note that, on the Shī'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 ‘Alī and his Shīa for Abū Bakr (as in Ḥasan ‘Askarī, 255–6), or without specifying any name (as in Kāshī, 31).

74 cf. Ṭabarī, , I, 500;Baghawī, , I, 84;Zamakhsharī, , I, 180;Ṭabarsī, , I, 377;Rāzī, , IV, 12; Qurṭubī, , II, 79; Naysābūrī, , I, 418–9; Ibn, Kathīr, II, 509;Ibn, Jaziyy, Kitāb al-Tashīl, Cairo, 1973, I, 101.

75 cf. Zamakhsharī, , I, 180; R၁zī, , IV, 19–20; Nawawī, I, 30; Naysābūrī, , I, 419; Ālūsī, , I, 500; Baydāwī, , I, 107, ‘Imādī, I, 243.

76 cf.: Shāfi‘ī, , Umm, Cairo, 1961,1, 54;idem, Ahkam al Qur'ān, comp. by Bayhaqī Beirut 1975,1, 83–4, II, 61; al-Nahhās, (d. 338 A.H.) Kitāb al-Nāsikh wa-'l-Mansūkh, Cairo, 1938, 59, 167;Abd, al-Razzāq, Musannaf, Beirut, 19701972; I, 412–4, VI, 52–3, X, 356.

77 Ṭūsī, , I, 419–20 and TabarsI, , I, 377.

78 Tha'labī, , 159;A., Jeffery, Materials, Leiden 1937, 27, 119.

79 ibid.; c.f. G. Bergstrasser, Ibn Khalawaihs Sammlung, Stambul, 1934.

80 A., Jeffery, 1, 10. It is accepted in Jeffery that what became the canonical reading of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324 A.H.) helped to stabilize and canonize the text of the Qur'ān.

81 Ṭūsī, , I, 419–29 and Ṭabarsī, , I, 377–8.

82 Tha‘labī, , 160: ‘ūld'ika mā kāna lahum an yadkhulūhā iliā Khā'ifīn, ya‘nī ahl makka, yaqūl: aftahuhā ‘alaykum hat tā tadkhulūhā wa-takūnū awlā bihā, fa-fatahahā allāhu ta‘āla ‘alayhim.’

83 GharnāṬī, , I, 396;Baghawī, , I, 84;R၁zī, , IV, 12;Khāzin, , I, 84;Abū, Hayyān, I, 358;Naysābūrī, , I, 418–9;Bayḍāwī, , I, 107.

84 In fact only the Shī'ite sources, Ṭūsī, , I, 417–8 and Ṭabarsī, , I, 377,cite in vague terms an isolated tradition attributed to Zayd b., ‘Alī to that effect. However, the isnād of this tradition confuses ‘Alī, b. al-Ḥusayn, and ‘Alī b, AM Ṭalib. In the earlier source (Ṭūsī) the isndd ends with the former, while in the later one (Ṭabarsī) it is pushed back to the latter. Note also that this view is placed by Ṭabarsī within 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 Ṭūsī it is expressly presented as a saying of ‘Alī Zayn al-'Ābidīn 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., R၁zī, IV, 11: ‘ādhā Ka-man yuqālu li-man ādhā ṣāliḥan wāḥidan: wa-man aẓlamu mimman ādhā al-ṣāliḥin’.

86 Zamakhsharī, , I, 179;Nawawī, I, 31;Nasafī, , I, 65–6;Naysaburī, , I, 418;Abū, Hayyān, I, 357;Baydāwī, , I, 107;Khāzin, , I, 84;Tha‘ālibī, , I, 125;Imādī, , I, 242;Shawkānī, , I, 131;Ālūsī, , I, 498.

87 ‘The Quranic Asbāb’, op. cit., 183.

88Ayyāshī, , Tafsīr, Qumm, n.d., I, 56–7; Kashī, 31.

89 Farrā’ l, 74; Abū Hayyān, I, 360. In Ṭūsī words: ‘wa-'l-nāsu ‘alā Khilāfihi’, i.e. in disagreement with Farrā’, Ṭūsī, I, 420–1.

90 Besides Suddī, Ibn Kathīr, II, 510, mentions ‘Ikrima and Wā'il b. Dawūd.

91 cf. Ṭabarsī, I, 501; Ibn Kathīr, II, 510; SuyūṭīDurr, I, 108; Qurṭubī, II, 79; Shawkāanī, I, 132; Ṭūsī, I, 420; Ṭabarsī, I, 378.

92 Muqātil, I, 63; Farrā’, I, 74; cf. also Baghawī, I, 84 who adds al-Kalbī to Muqātil; Gharnāṭī, I, 396–7, who adds Hiraqla to ‘Ammūrya; Zamakhshan, I, 180; Khāzin, I, 84; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101, who specifies the conquest of Jerusalem itself; Naysābūrī, I, 419.

93 cf. Ṭabarsī, , I, 500;Ibn, Kathīr, II, 510;Suyutī, , Durr, I, 108; Shawkānī, I, 132; Ṭūsī, I, 420.

94 cf. Ṭabarsī, , I, 378.

95 R၁zī, , IV, 12;Qurtubī, , II, 79;Baydawī, , I, 107;Imadī, , I, 243;Gharnātī, , I, 396;Zamakhsharī, , I, 180; Baghawī I, 84; Maturidī, I, 261; Khāzim, I, 84; Nasafī, I, 66; Wahidī, Wafiz, I, 31; Naysaburī, I, 419. Cf. also Ālūsī l, 500. Abū Hayyān, I, 359, cites an isolated view attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās which interprets ‘Khizy’ as ‘Jizya for the dhimmi’.

96 cf. Ṭūsī, , I, 420;Ṭabarsī, , I, 378.Cf. also R၁zī, , IV, 12 and Naysaburī, , I, 419.

97 Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101; Qurtubl, II, 79; Ibn Kathlr, II, 509–10; BaghawI, I, 84; GharnatI, 1,397, on the SUite side compare with Hasan AskarI, 258.

98 See, e.g., Thawrī, (d. 161 A.H.), Tafsīr, Rampur, 1965,on the Sunnī side, and Furat, Tafsīr, Najaf, n.d., on the Shī’ī one.

99 Ṭūsī, , I, 416.Cf. also Ṭabarsī, I, 375.

100 Durr, I, 108.

101 This is repeatedly said by some of the commentaries cited above to have been the noncanonical reading of Hasan al-Basrī. See, e.g., Gharnātī, i, 397; Zamakhsharī, i, 180; Qurtubī, II, 79; Rāzī, iv, 24; Alusi, I, 500 and Ibn, Khalawayh, Mukhtaṣar fī Shawādhdh al-Qur’ān, Cairo, 1934, 9.On the transmitters of this reading see also Qabāqibī, , Itḥāf, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2297), 5 (a), 122 (a).

102 It must be remembered that this verb belongs to the group of noqā’iḍ 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 a s ‘to turn away’, one can only surmise that the latter meaning was also advocated, e.g. Ṭabari, I, 505, calls it shudhūdh ‘irregularity’; in Ālūsī I, 502 it is considered gharīb ‘strange’.

103 Some 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 ẓulm, namely that wherever they may flee to, God's authority will still reach them. See Abū Hayyān, i, 360; Ālūsī, I, 502; and, less explicitly, also Naysābūrī, i, 423. Other commentators base their presentation of this tawallū, on the orthographic form tatawallū, so that it may still be taken to convey the meaning of ‘you turn towards’. See Zamakhsharī, i, 180; Qurtubī, ii, 79; Rāzī, iv, 24; Nawawī, i, 31. Such an ingenious exercise, however, contradicts Hasan's reading which is explicitly stated as: ‘tawallaw, bi-fatḥ al-tā’ wa- ’l-lām’. Gharnāṭī, , I, 397;Abu Hayyan, I, 360 and even Qurtubi himself, ii, 79. Naysābūrī, i, 423, in his turn, insists that even tuwallū is addressing the runners away in the second person.

104 As noted by Rāzī, iv, 23.

105 Compare Rāzī, iv, 22 with Wāhidī, Asbāb, 35–6, and see also Abū Hayyān, l, 361.

106 Compare: Wāhidī, Asbāb, 36; Ibn Jaziyy I, 101; Tabarsī I, 379; Rāzī, iv, 20; Baydāwī, I, 108; Naysābūrī, i, 422.

107 This 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 (nāfila) prayer, etc. Further details with respective traditional authorities in Muqātil, , Tafsīr, i, 63; Tabari, l, 502–3,; Ibn Kathīr, ii, 513–9; Māturīdī, i, 273; Waḥidī, , Asbāb, 35–6; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101; Abū Ḥayyān, i, 360; Biqā‘ī, ii, 123. On the Shrite side compare also with Qummī i/59; ‘Ayyāshī i/56–7; Ṭabarsī i/380.

108 Ṭabarī, i, 502–3; Gharnāṭī, I, 398; Tūsī, i 224; Rāī, iv, 20; Qurṭubī ii/82; Abū Hayyān i/360; Naysābūr i/422.

109 Lit: ‘aqsama bi-llāhi al-sha ‘biyyu mā rudda al-nabiyyu ‘an qiblati bayti ’l-maqdisi iliā lighaḍabihi ‘ala bayti ’l-maqdis/‘ala ahlihā’, Thawrī, 12. Kister, who notes this tradition, refers also to ‘Abd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf as another source for it. ‘You shall only set …’, Le Muséon, 82, Louvain, 1969, 183.

110 ibid., p. 183 n. 42, cf. Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, i, 329.

111 With the name of ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Āmir al-Yaḥṣubī is associated the Syrian variant reading of ‘Uthman's codex. He is sometimes called ‘al-shāmī’ and is said to have been qādī of Damascus during al-Walīd I's reign. See: al-Dānī (d. 444 A.H.), al-Taysīr, Istanbul, 1930, 56. A. Jeffery, Materials, p. 1, n. 1, notes that to Ibn ‘Āmir was attributed a work on Ikhtilāf al-Masāhif. On Ibn ȘĀmir's reading of 2:116 see: Ibn Abī Dawūd (d. 316 A.H.), Kitāb al-Masāhif in Jeffery, 44; Ibn Khalawayh, , al-Ḥujja, Beirut, 1971, 65; Muhammad b. Ja‘far al-Khuzā‘ī (d. 408 A.H.) al-Muntahā, MS Princeton, Yehuda (3558), 90(a); al-Dānī, , al-Muqni‘ Damascus, 1940, 1940, 102, 110; idem, al-Ta‘rīf, Muhammadiyya, 1982, 72–3; idem, al-Taysīr, op. cit., 76; idem, al-Mufradat, Cairo n.d., 189; Ibn, al-Jazarī (d. 833 A.H.), al-Nashr, Cairo, 1920, n, 220.See also Qabāqibī, 122(a); Biqā–ī, ii, 126–7; Ṭabarsī, i, 381; Gharnātī, i, 400–1; Bayḍāwī, I, 198; Nawawī, i, 31; Ṭūsī, I, 426; Nasafī, I, 66; Baghawā, i, 85. In Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362 and Ālūsī, I, 502, the name of Ibn ‘Abbās is also added to Ibn ‘Āmir.

112 In Ṭabarī, i, 506, the ‘w’ links qālū to mana‘a and sa’ā, i.e., the Christians in 2:114. See also Bayḍāwī, I, 108. Note, however, that dropping the wāw could still imply conjunction (malḥūzun fīhi ma‘nā al-’tf) in spite of the apparent resumption. Ālūsī, i, 502; Gharnāṭī, i, 400–1; Ṭabarsī, I, 308; and compare with Nasafī i, 66.

113 Note that even in the extreme case of isti’nāf by dropping the wāw, qālū was presented by some as referring to both the Jews and Christians in 2:113. ‘Imādī, I, 244; Biqā’ī, IV, 126–7; and cf. Gharnāṭī, i, 400–1.

114 Anonymous, Asbāb, 4 (b)–5 (a); Wā1E25;idī, Asbāb, 36; Bayḍāwī, i, 108; Biqā‘ī, II, 126; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101. Cf. Māturīdī, i, 266; Zajjāj apud Ṭūsī, i, 426 and Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362; and see the following note.

115 Note that Zajjāj, as quoted by Ṥūsī and Abū Ḥayyān, ibid., says that the verse was revealed concerning both the Christians and the Arab polytheists. Compare also with Majlisī, ix, 68 and possibly his source, Ṭabarsī, i, 382, neither of whom mentions Zajjāj by name. In only one source, Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101, is there the isolated notion that the verse could also refer to the ṣābi’ūn 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 Rāzi, iv, 25. For the sīra material on ix, 30, see Ibn Hishām, Cairo, 1955, I–II, 570; Suhaylī, Cairo, 1971, II, 116;Ḥalabī, I, 518, ii, 38–9.

117wa-qālat al-yahūdu ‘uzayrun ibnu allāh, wa-qālat al-naṣārā al-masīḥu ibnu allāh yuḍāhūna qawla al-ladhīna Kafarū min qablu …’.

118 See e.g. Ṭūsī, i, 426; Ṭabarsī, i, 382; Tha’ālibī, i, 127; Wāṭidī, Asbāb, 36; Māturīdī, i, 101; Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362.

119 e.g., the traditions ‘by the exegetes’ (al-mufassirūn) Ḥasan, , Sha‘bī, , ḌDaḥḥāk, and Muqātil, himself, cited by Wāḥidī, Asbāb, Beirut, n.d., 74–32.

120 Damghānī, , Iṣlāḥ, Beirut, 1970, 391; Ibn Qutayba Ta’wīl, Cairo, 1973, 452.

121 Abū, ‘Ubayda, Majāz al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1954, i, 51.

122 Māturīdī, i, 266.

123 Ṭabarsī, I, 382.

124 He is said to have compiled an important Tafsīr which, unfortunately, has not reached us. However, he could be the same person often quoted by Rāzī. For more on him, see Suyūṭī, , Bughyat, Beirut, 1964, i, 188; idem, Ṭabaqāt, Leiden, 1839, 32; Ibn, al-‘Imād, Shadharāt, Cairo, 1350 A.H., III, 307; Ḥajar, Ibn, Lisān, Haydarabad, 1331 A.H., V, 298; Dhahabī, , Mizān, Cairo, 1963, III, 655; Ṣafadī, , al-Wāfī, Istanbul, 1921, iv, 130.

125 See Tafsīr Mujāhid, l, 86; Farrā’, I, 74; Ṭabarsī, I, 382; Biqā‘ī, II, 127; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 102; Gharnātī, I, 401.

126 e.g.: Māturīdī, i, 266 and Bayḍāwī, i, 108.

127 Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl, 452 and Damghānī, 391, respectively.

128 Goldziher, and Kister, , cf. Kohlberg, E., ‘Barḥā'a …’, JSAI, 7, 1986, 141–2, p. 158, n. 68. Cf. also Schacht, , Origins, Oxford repr., 1975, 267–8.

129 Wansbrough, , Quranic studies, Oxford 1977, 58, 179.

130 Again, without getting involved with the debate over the value of the material of Jarḥ wa-Ta‘dīl, 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 and predominance in later Qur’ānic commentaries from the fourth century on. On Ibn Zayd see: J. Schacht, op. cit., 351; Khalīfa, , Tārīkh, Najaf, 1967, ii, 491; Dawūdī, , Ṭabaqāt al-Mufassirīn, Cairo, 1972, i, 265; Bukhārī, , Tārīkh, Haydarabad, 1970, III, 284; Khazraī, Khulāṣat, Cairo, 1322 A.H., 192; Dhahabī, , ‘Ibar, Kuwait, 1960,I, 282; idem, Mīzān, Cairo, 1963, II, 564; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, v, 233; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, Haydarabad, 1326 A.H., vi, 177.

131 See Birkeland's, H. comments on the implications of Goldziher's study of hadīth in 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 ‘Abbās's traditions could still be found in the transmission through the ‘family isnād’ of Ibn Sa’d cited above. While accepting this opinion in principle, we should note Schacht’s legal caution that ‘family isnāds’ 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 of fiqh, Origins, 2. In at least one other field, that of ‘proofs’ (dalā–il) of Muhammad's prophecy. Ibn Rabban (wrote 232–247 A.H.) explicitly says that ijmā' is not enough. Kitāb al-Din wa-'l-Dawla, Tunis 1973, 19.

134 Wansbrough, , Quranic studies, 225–6.

135 A. Jeffery, 1.

136 Wansbrough, op. cit., 226.

137 cf. Tūsī; Ibn Jaziyy; Abī Hayyān; ’Ālusī, loc. cit.

138 Zamakhshari; Nawawī; Nasafi; Baydāwī; ‘Imādī, loc. cit.

139 Wansbrough, 140.

140 Busse, H., ‘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.

141 Musharraf, 15 (b)–16 (a); and the later sources quoting him: Shihāb al-Dīn (d. 765 A.H.), Muthīr al-Gharām as, in its turn, quooted by Mujīr al-Dīn, Uns, I, 170–2 and Shams al-Dīn's Ithāf, I, 128–30. Cf. also Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo n.d., VII, 58 and Taflati (d. 1191 A.H.), Husn al-Istiạṣā, MS Princeton Yehuda (515), 152 (a–b).

142 This tradition is reported on the authority of the Damascene Sa’īd b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (d. 167A.H.), see Musharraf, 20 (b)–21 (a) and Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597) Faḍā'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, 19511952.

143 Wāsiṭī, (d. c. 410 A.H.), Fadā’il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, Jerusalem, 1979, 21, 24, 44.

144 Besides the above-mentioned faḍā’il works, see also Raba‘ī, (d. 444 A.H.) Faḍā‘il, Damascus, 1950, 23, 26, 39, 61; Ibn ‘Asākir, , Tārīkh, Damascus, 1951, I, 135–95.

145 Ibn al-Firkāh (d. 729 A.H.), Bā ‘ith al-Nufūs, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2336), 29 (a-b); Ibn ‘Asākir, I, 154; Hasan b. Habīb al-Naysībūrī (d. 406 A.H.) as quoted by Ibn Hishām al-Anṣārī (d. 761 A.H.), Taḥṣīl al-Uns, in M. Ibrahim, op. cit.

146 Bidāya, Cairo, n.d., VII, 58, quoting Bahā’ al-Dīn, al-Mustaqṣā fi Faḍā’il al-Masjid al-Aqṣā.

147 Ṭabarī, , Tārīkh, III, 106–7.

148 The pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land, transl. Macpherson, J. R., in Palestine PilgrimsText Society, vol. 3, London 1895, 12–5.

149 Shihāb al-Dīn, Muthīr al-Gharām, Jaffa, 1946, 42; Ess, J. van, ‘Early development of Kalām’, in G., Juynboll (ed.), Studies, Carbondale, 1982, p. 120 and n. 59; cf. Dunlop, D. M., Studies in Islam, New Delhi, 1964, i, 12; Friedman, Y., ‘Finality of prophethood in Sunni Islam’, JSAI, 7, 1986, pp. 194–5, nn. 61–3 and the sources quoted therein.

150 Balādhurī, Futūh, Cairo, 1956, I, 189–90; Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, iii, 12; Ibn al-‘Ibrī, Tārīkh, Beirut, 1958, 112.

151 See the extensive review of modern works on this subject in ‘A. El‘ad, ‘Muslim holy places’. art.cit., 120–31.

152 cf. Corpus Inscriptiorum Arabicorum, I, 24.

153 This theoretical possibility, vaguely implied by S. D. Goitein, op. cit., 139, was carried a step further by Kister, M. J., On concessions, in G., Juynboll (ed.), Studies, op. cit., 104–5.Lately, , Hawting, G. explicitly raised this issue again, The first dynasty of Islam, London, 1986, 67.

154 Nu‘aym b. Hammād, Kitāb al-Fitan, MS British Museum, Or. 9449, VI, 130, 135, 139–40.

155 Goldziher, J., Muslim studies, Eng. ed. S. M., Stern, New York, 1971, II, 77.

156 Vassiliev, A., ‘Medieval ideas’, Byzaniion, 16, 19421943; Alexander, P., ‘Medieval apocalypses’, American Historical Review, 73, 19671968.

157 Brock, S. P., ‘Syriac views’, in Juynboll, (ed.), Studies, op. cit.

158 This tradition is reported on the authority of Yūnus al-’Aylī, mawlā of the clan of Mu‘āwiya (d. 159 A.H.). On him, see Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb, xi, 450–2. So far I have detected three late sources which cite it from Kitāb al-Nāsikh wa- ’l-Mansūkh by Abū Dawūd. In one of them (Suhaylī, Rawḍ, Cairo, 1971, II, 201) Abu Dawūd is called al-Sinjarī, a possible warning that this was not the famous traditionist. See also Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, ‘Uyūn, i, 237 (noted by ‘A. El‘ad ‘Muslim holy places’, art. cit., p. 24, n. 75) and Shams al-Dīn, Itḥaf, op. cit., 189–90.

159 S.D. Goitein, op.cit., 140–1.

160 Kister, M. J., ‘You shall only set …’, art. cit., 178–84, 194;followed by El‘ad, ‘Muslim holy places’, 117, 131–3.

161 Muslim studies, II, 279–81.

162 On his family see El‘ad, art. cit., 911.

163 Wāsiṭī, 75–6; Shams al-Dīn, 244.

164 Wāsiṭī, 83–4.

Qur'ān 2:114 and Jerusalem

  • Suliman Bashear

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed