. _--_._ ..._...

_--,,~--

•
, ~:). t _: l ,~: 1J ;'~1
."
,.
,"

\
" L
, ~7
t

l'
"

•
'u' J

"

The Crucifixion of Jesus in' the.

Qur' an and OUranic commentary::
, An aistorical Surv~y ,

1 -
\'
by
, 1•

@~ 'sell!lâlrln T. LaWBon
'.. ~....
\
f
,/
J '

. ".
, A' thesis submi tted 1te) the Facul ty of
Graduate Studies apd Research in \
partiwal fulfilment of the
r~qu1temen.t8 )for ". the, ~ Degree
of Master of Arts
. "

., .
~ ,

, 1

Institute of I:slamic Studies " ,

MciGill
. University
- 'August, 1980
.. f. ~, .• ,
\ "
,",,' !

, ,
! ' ..
 -1
,L
, .l' \

/1

,J
! . .
,~ Titie: The Crucifixion of Jesus 'in the Qur f an and
Quranic Commentary:' An Historical Survey
:1
- Author:. Benjamin Todd Lawson
Degree: M.A. "

" DepartItle~t: Institute of Islamic Studiès

,
;J
,-,
AB STRACT

\
,, M~ny scholars, partioularly Western, charge the
Q ri an wi
,
th, denying tjle crucifixion of Jesus. There ie
o ly one reference to this event in the ~ur'an, and this
r ~$~ence is ambiguous. Western scholars have tended to
i nore Muslim exegesis of this verse and have therefore
emained largely unaware of the alternate interpretations
, ~ J ' \ '

/ ~hich may be found there: These i'nterpretations range from

1
.,1 a denial of the crucifixion to an acceptance of Its histori-
, ,
city. This thesis exploits the se exegetioal worka in o~der \

to put forth the view that Islam denies Christian theories

of sote~iolo~ but not the historical fact of Jesus'
cX'ucif ixion .--
"

~ \ , \

"

. ,

, , .
,J' .~
, ,
,

e' \
l,', l"
"

"

1
, "
,
"
 l'
c , ..~~ ~ . . .;.."' ,~ .." .... ~" ,............--- - , -I--:.....~ .. _ _ _ ~

.!~"~_-w;--_""' __r-._'_' _ _- - - - A . O- ---------.---

( 1
," 1
i

,~

•
Titre: The cru9if~xion of Jesus in the Our' and
Quranic Conunentary: . An Historieal Survey
an

",
'1

ABSTRAIT
(
~

,
Plusieurs êrudits, particuli~rement
"
les occidentaux,
.
~,

\
~
~I perçoivent le Coran comme 'd~mentissant la cruci.fixlpn de

1
~: J~sus. Il n 'y a seulement qu'une â'llusion ! cet ~v~nement

tlans le Coran et cette seule r'f'rence est a~igüe.

f.
~, ,
Les
~r\1di ts occidentaux ont tel1tê dt ignorer 1 ,'ex~'g~se Musulmane
(
~
~

.',
de ce verset et 1\' ont par consêquent pas .port~ attention!
r
h

~
l'interpr~tation alternative qui.peut s'y trouver~ Ces'inter-
~
1 "
pr~tations s' ~chelonnent d 'une d~n~qa'tion d~ la crucifixion
t,,.'

A l' accep~a tion de son historic,i t~. r La pr~ sente thè,s'e utilise
" , ,
ces recherches ex~gêtiques dans le but- de mettre de f' avant \ '

l' id~é q~e l' Islam r~fuse les -ihêories", chrétiennes ~e' la _

sot~riolo9ie mai~ n~n pas le fait hi~torique de la crucif~xion

'.
de J'sus.

'",

,.

.' e
.
" ".
1 1 \ , ,
'"
"
 '
'::-'t ,,- ,: ':, ) "
/
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .... _~..,.~... ~
_ J ,~

.... , ',;''-- ... ... ":. ... .. f .. "'t .. .. _ \ \

"

-----.----------- -,- ·:·--:.-T-;..:.,'----------.. . .-----....-----r---- " ,

\,

f «
TABLE OF, CONTENTS
(

~,'"

~
~
Ackpowl~dgements o • .Jo o • •
· . .. o • .. . . .. '.ii
,• prefa tory Note • • • • #. ,. • • • • • • iv
Abbreviations .. . . . . . •. o • ..
·. . • 0 • v
... · . . .. . ..
\'
i
:
Introduction ~ .. o • .. 1

...
Chapter 1. The our'an " . . . . · .. . . . .. . . .. 12
. ... .-;

. Chapter II .. " Pre-Tabar! TafsIr: Exeqetical

\ . Tradi tions . . . . . . .. . .. . .. 38

; .
,
Chapter I!,J:. Classical and Mediaeval TafsIr
~(923/1505): The Uses of Tra~"J.tion .. • • 68

Chapter ·IV. ModeJ!n Developments . .. . .. . .. 98 \

\

i j
I-~ ,;
. !
Conclusion . .. . . ..... . .'. 133 •' t~

Bibliography • .. . • • . , .• • • 0, • . . .. . . lAS

n
'"
/

l
i
r

,',
,i
"
1
i ,
" 1

-
"
" ,
j ~
é_
...'
i
,l'
i
0'

.
" ,
'/
~,

" "
1 ,L ,
" -
. i
,' ,
, "
f·'-:
~~ :
~,,\
.
\

l' ' " ~:.)...,

1
4
'i'i..
\.
 l ,\ ' -f

- - --.l . -----,-----'-_-J. .'

\\ 1

,
(
, l'
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
,
, -
,',
,My g;ateful thanks are d~, to Charles, J. Adams,
Director of the Insti tu te of Islaitnic Studies, for 'his care-
fuI reading'of the final draft , Of\\
"
thiS thesis and for hi:S
Il •

many helpful suggestions; a1so to 'professor Wadi c Haddad

for his encouragement, his important suggestions in 1;11e
, ..,
early stages, and his conunents and corre~tions fÇ>r chapters
-/
II and III. l would l~ke'-toçéXpress my appreciation to
Profes'ilors C.J. Adams and M. Ayoub for furnfshing me with
1
, !
copies o.f their tinpubIis~ed studies; to Professor H. Landolt i
"1
, "
i
for making available to me a copy of the Chester Beatty MS (
. 1

,t·
j

5253. P~ofessors Ayoub, Haddad and L~ndo.lt were' also kin4 enough
i,
f
to read ''1ith~e sorne of the more difficult <Ar~ic passages.
1 would, Iike to thank tl}e Insti tu te of,.. Islamic Studies
,/

, .' for the fun~s provided during the preparation of this thesis;
Joan Naylor and the other members of the staff of the Institute
and i ts library, especia~ly Sal~a Ferahian for her generous
~ .
assistance; and, my fellow stu~ents at the 'Institute, with
speci~l gratitude to Nicholas BanD. An additional note 'of thanks
-
is due to Andrew !tippin for supplying me with material and valuable

discussion. '1'0 C~ristille K9rah fqr ~er painstaking typing of the

. ,
G'
finished product,- 1 am very grateful.

ii J ....

f
, .
!
,
'1
.' .
, -
j
~j~--'.
1
1
,.
r
1
j ,

1-

l am
/
\l

bound, t~ my parents and ch ldren for their support

\ \
and unders tandinq throuqhou t this Durinq all stages of
the work, my wife Barbara offered cri ticism;; This,

1
1 •
toqether with her enduring support, co ~ debt which ia
~ilitY
1
beyond my
repay.
!
!-
!

, ,
/

,
11,

/ .

'""- ,

"

/,

o .,' '.

",,'

;';'...., ,-

•
~~"".'
"' .'.'
~=,"k~ï~"
}~-4"
,v.~,
 PREPATOR)!' NOTE

..
Because bf i ts wide acceptance, by Muslims, the Qur' an
,
translation of Pickthall has been relied upon in most cases~
. "
two exceptions are the replacement of "Allah" with "God"
and th~ tailoring of' the quranic material as it appears in
exegesis in order t2 express more accurately what is perceived
to be the intent of the commentator. Our1an quotations are
usûally set off from other material by t ,.- All translations
are the responsibility of the author unless otherwise indicated
\
in a footnot~. The system of transliteration is that \Of the
\
Libra~y of Congress as adapted by the Insti tute of Isl~mic !,
, 1
:
two dates are separated by / the first ia A.H.
and the second ià A. D. ,
\
\
\
\

, \
/

/
1
1 _

,
, .
~ -" 'f
,r
,-,
.~}~!<
,..;
.,..
,~

~
.'",-..
" 1 l "1\ ~

/ ".
l~~~r. ~~
 __ .........--..... __ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..:.'--!-I _ _ _ __
--...,....,.--
_~

'fI .

;ti' ABBREVIATlONS
(, c c

~ ."
El 1 EnÇYclopedia of 'Islam, lst edition
El2 Enclclopedia of Islam, ~nd'edition
\

GAS Geschiehte des Arabischen Schr1fttums (Sezgin)

lC Islamie Cul ture
IS Islande Studies
IQ "Islamie Quarterly
MIDEO Mélanges de l'In titut Dominicaine d"tudes
orientales dû Ca re t
-
MW Muslim Wor~d

Revue des études iSlamiqf~s

~
SALP II Studies/in Arabie Literary Papyri II, our'anie
Commentary and Tradition
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deubschen Morqanlandisehen
Gessellsehaft

, \

v .

/, \

_:~.·i
 _.-' - --~-'----_.

",
l

~' , INTRODUCTION •

,
Islam extols Jesus. There is no longer a need to prove
this. But, depending upon which tran~lation of the Ç)ur'an
!' an interested Westerner reads, he will come away with an
understanding (if there be any clear understanding at aU)
of the Islamic teaching on the...death of. ·JESUS wh.ieh ..may-or may
not be justifiable. The prirnary reason fpr this is undoubted~y
)

ascribable to the conspicuous pauei ty of quranic data on this

,
very specifi'C sUbject. While Jesus himself is mentioned or
referred to in almost a hundred separate verses, his cruci-
1

fixion is treated in only one, representing an overall ratio

of verses of less than l to 6,0'00. This alone should be enough
to indicate to the intelligent observer that while the Qur'an
does indeed coneern i~self with Jesus, it May emphpsize aspects
of his ministry which may or May not be of immediate relevance
to traditional Christianity. It is obvious that the book de-
ernphasizes what lS generally considered to he the single most
important event in Christian saI vat ion h:istory. Our thesis
is that this de"emphasis cannot he jus,tifiably interpreted
as a deniai of the I:listoricity of the crucifixion, and it i8 '"
hoped that the following four chapters will make this clear.
Another reason why t.J::anslations have been misleading 18
"

due to the difficulty of the Arabie involved. For convenience,

.

o
"':,(\
< •

?-ri\'li,..]_.,.__
J

,
e'll_""'UlU."..,.,'_.....
 1• (~
.,
2 '

\ the fami1iar ·crucifixion" verse (4:157) ia transli ..

here.
, . "

wa gawlihim inna qatalna al-masIh c-isa

- ibn maryam

rasül allah wa ma qatalühu wa ma ,alabuhu wà-Iakin

. .
shubbiha lahum wa inna al-ladhIn~ ikhti].afü fIhi lafI
shakin minhu ma: 1ahum bihi min cilminn i118 itbaCa . .
al-~anni wa ma qatalühu yagInann,
)

The lÔl-""'italic.iaed portion iso1ates what. is considerèd ta

be the most elusive phrase in the verse. Chapter 1 will deal
(

wi th the sèmantics invol ved here" as well as wi th the possible

meanings of the otheX" re'lated quranic materia1. But a few
~xarnples of i ts Eng1ish rendering are nc;>w offered in arder to
draw attention ta the general confusion which surrounds this
,\
verse. ,A sampl~ ai Mus11.m translations' are:
1

'-/

Maulvi Muhammad Ali: ...·but (the matteifwas made dubiouS'

to them"
Yusuf Ali: "but so it was made to appear to
them"
Plckthall:
1

A few western or Christian translations are;

Sal~: "but;. he was represented hy one in
his likeness"
Bell: "but he was countérfeited for them"

J At~erry: ·only a likeness of that wes shawn

to them Il '.
1
o • ,/
1
i'
0' 1
"
1
i /

.1.-
 - --,-,-.------ ------------- _____0·,

3 ..

\"

Arberry is hefe seen to be closer to Musllm translations

Ir

th an his fellowi, and it is a translation which ~ be con- , ,.~

sidered to reflect the intent of the Arabiè. Thé translations "
, 1

of Sale and Be1:l, àlong with others which are met with in
Chapter l, will be seen to reflect certainlthemes of the
exegesis of the verse, rather than the verse-'itsel'f. " It' ls
significant that those who would be expecteâ to be most familiar
~d/or most ~~und b, the e~egesis, i.e. Muslims, appear here
- ,
':to have made a conscious effort to put the'exegesis aside in
~heir translations. The ~adiyyah t~pnslation ~f.Maulvi

i~Muhamma'd Ali dOlaS, of cour'se, offer a further explanation,

\
"
as does the translation of Yusuf Alii but thése explanations
;
are co~signed to footnotes. Thus the Qur'an is allowed to ! 1
,
speak for itself. Sale and Bell. however, have allowed the
scriptures to become "contaminated" by extraneous ideas, as
will bècorne mor~ clear in the Qody of this study •
.The problem'in understanding the verse is that the student
who is unaware of the varied exegesis of this verse will not.
readily appreciate the wide range pf ±~erpretations wh~ch

have heen assigned to iti nor ~il~ he ~~reciate to what

e~tent sorne ~f ,these translations have -'b~en conditioneA by
onlyone of the severa! accepted-type$ of this exegesis.
, '1 "
Therefore, when he turns te modern studies Df the quranic Jesus,
."
he is Apt ta accept at face value a consi~~rabîe body of
, '
>

!
1 ,
o • '''"-j .'
, r" ,
> • "
('
' ..

.. ~)
;.. '.
,
,
.'

l ' ,
, "
, ->r
,
Ir' , , \-'",

" -

. '
 .~_ ....... - .~----

.... _._------------------
4

,"

, scholarly opinion which assefts. that the ~'an categorically

denies the crucifixion of .J.e$us. To.- be sure, the allegation
l '
varies from author to authQr, bqth in-force a~d degree of dis-
tortion. The major purpos~ of this the sis is to claim that ~
l I ."
' \ .

,assertions, no matter how f'th~y aré presented,;'are completely

/

unfounded on the evidence of the Qur,an. The evidence for

\
.
'
such an assertion is found principally in exegesis,
,
arid the
bulk of this.study is a comparative analysis of selected
tafsir works dating from the eariiest Islamic times to the r

present. 1

" j'
This analysis will bring to light t\'IO important facts
which have either been completely neglected or minimizèd in
previous studies. The first is that the exegesis itself is
by no ~eans unanimous on any given interpretations of the verse,
and that-these interpretations range from an outright denial
of the crucifixion of Jesus to a simple affirmation of the
historicity of the event. The tirst type i5 by far the nfbs,t
frequent', "and this explains why it has had such influe~é~~'
It i8 this interpretation which says that somedne eise wàs':"-:
. J'

substituted for Jesus, and that Jesus was rescued from his'
-,
fate by God in a~miraculo~s·manner. T~is ~XPl~:ation is based
on various t~aditi~ns which must be con~ered !ntrusive to F

the Isiamic tradition and which are general1Y considered to

-C'l"
fali into the category of Isra 11iyyat. It will be seen in

o ,
.,,', .
 {
/
1
-________..::.----------1----- ----_-::.
\
"

,1
/
i

Chapter II that at a relatively late date a trend deve~oped

in tafsIr which so~ght to free the verse from such extra-

Islamic influences. This tende~cy was abruptly abandoned
\
\

shortly after it had begun, and f~om the fourteenth to the

<>0--,
twentieth centuries, the exegesiJ:of this verse has generally
reflected a need to deny the crucifi~ion of Jesus.
The second fact which will ernerge is that mostWestern
~tudies have ignored the exegetical tradition wh~le at the
l,
sarne time they have been, perhaps unconsciously, influenced
by it. In sorne cases where a Western scholar has claimed to 1
have studied the tafsIr of the verse, he has done so only
1
partialiy. The effect of this irnperfect treatrnent has been 1

to misrepresent sorne Qur'an commentato~s whp are seen to

have ~hought far more creatively and extensively about the
problern than one would have otherwise been led to believe.
It would be unfair to say that all Western scholars have
,1

made RUch of th~ so-called quranic denial. But they have d'one
little to advance the study of the Qur'ân o~.this very specifie
L ,
1 point beyond the position held by John of Darnascus (d. ca. ,
750 A.D.)'. A few nam~s of those\who, in light of the results
of this research, may be considered modern disciples of the

'.

~l~chère,
,
,Syrian Church Fathe~rè:
-
~,

Addison, Anaw.ati, Anderson, Bell,

Cra99, W.C~ Smith, Sweetman, and Zwemer. \Fo~ these
,

'\authors the ~enial has becÇ)me a fact of" the Muslim/Christian

-.: -~ ... ~.-...- ~-----_.-,---_._--_._--

 --+-.--

,. 6
t
F
~
~'
~

j
(

(j
e~counter. Others have devoted a great deal of la~tention \.
to the problem and have made valuable contributfon5 to our
1 understanding of the Qur'an. This t~esis i5 irdebted, to
f the works of EIder, parrinder, Michaud and wa~t, aIl of
/
1
1
1
te
~.
whom have gone to sorne length_ in def:si~9 thj! c,Ontroversy.

't
' '
The attitude of Seale, that the Qur'an simply does not say .1
• 1
ï
enough on the subject to either confirm or deny the event,
~

~1.,: is the one which cornes closest to the posit/ion presented in

<
,:
!
l'
'. this study.l But none, for reasons which are only tangential
r
{';
to our subject, has succeeded in emphasizing sufficiently the
l;; neutrality of the Qur'an on the subject of the crucifixion
î{
of Jesus. Thus as late, as 1973 the third edition of Anderson's
t. The World Religions 2 teaches us that in ,thé Qur'an(!), Mu~arnmad
~
taught that Jesus was not crucified, but that someone èlse
took his place on the cross (p.• 62). The importan:t distinction
betwèen scripture and the interpretation of scripture is blurred,
and the result is nonsense because these tw~ separat~,sources
have been unwittingly"mixed. '-
The\ point is that tafsir, not
the our'an, denies the crucifi~ion. The Qur'an's assertion that
the Jews did not cruc;ify Jesus is obviously di'fferent from say,:""
\

ing that Jesus was not crucified. Therefore, a need'for

,
further discussion exists.
Daniel Sabas' stud~ of John of Damascus 3 confirms this
need. ~mmenting on the latter's assertion that the Qurtan
--.
~
..
~

o ..
 !

_.
.
' . . . . . . . ~ . ." ..... _~ . . . . . _A~ __
~
" -- . - .......
~--_ ...._~
,-- ~
,
. _..--
- -- . ....
~ ,--------- ,-'------,--_.\._----
7

"
'denies the crucifixion of 'Jesus (p. 78), the author says:

This passage i8 one of the most convincing

evidences of the accuracy of John of Damascus'
knowledge of the teaching and the wo~dihg of
the Our'an! The references t~ the Qur'an which
we have given show that each of these points
which John mentions has a Qur'anic origin and
that he transmits ta the Ch~istians a most 1
~

accurate account of the Muslim point of view 1.1

with regard, especially, to the most delicate '1

1
,
•
topic in a MuslimjChristian dialogue. (p. 79)

Further, on the achievement of the Church Father:

He presents the facts about Islam in an

'"
orderly and systematic way, although not
"

at aIl complimentarYi ~--~~--~~~~p

he demonstrates an f,-
accurate knowledge of the religion, perhaps'
.higher than the one an average Muslim c~uld

possess • •• (p. 95, italiès added)

In the following
;i
study, this view of John of Damascus
will be seriously questioned, and Sahas' claim will be shown
", to be extravagant and insuppo~table. This cJrrection' of
Sabas' ciaim coul~be considered a contribution-to the
important, but, in the terms pf this thesis,'incidental con~rns

.\ fl

\ ,
,,
"
~,

", "
;t"~' 1.,~ .. :;i~.
'C,
,,"-',,,,,
~
\
 , \

/'
.... , \

, ,
of Musli~/Christian diafogue. Thk primary concern here i8
\
,f
. not dialogue but the Qur~n and Jts interpretation by Muslims.
"
The maj9rity of previous studies'have approached the question'
from other angles an~ with other motives. One motive has b~n
described i by welch to be the interpretation of the Qur 'an or .
the Bible "for the pu;rpose. ~f establishing harmony between
the, two S criptures. " i.a'Ud~~i.~,:~~~
., .
this purpose is, Welch 1 s
,
further observation thqt such,harmonization of the two
Scriptures has oft~n been atternpted "at points where none
exists" (p. 19) is one fact behi:n:l the perpetuation of the mutual
misundetstanding between Muslims and Christians~.~'1

At~ernpts to study ±he quranic cruci#~xi~n. have often

been conditioned by religious dispute, proselytization or
apologetics. These attempts fall into two major categories.
One ma,y be described a'.s a~ effort to define the type OD
Christianity which is reflected in the text. The purpose
of such efforts is usually to present Mu~arnmad as well-m~aning
but ill-informèd. The other strives to determine the actual
circumstances in which the utterance was first heard. Often,
the purpose here is to describe t~e Prophet's "politics"
by identify~ng the audience which Mu~ammad, in a given inst~~ce,

fii
was trY 9 to, appease'. The first rnethod has heen ;he most
, '.

popular, and the two sometimes overlap. This study should

not he classified as either.

, ,
.'
G
",

"
~ ~
-,~\.
 9

1"

Tne reader will noti~_lacX of r~ference to works

<=~i~ on the chronology of~thejQur'an. Aside from the fact that
,
t, our verse is never mentioned in ashah al-nuzül warks, tbis .'
~

,ft. writer helieves that thè question. of chr~no109Y' while inter-

1
., esting to a po.i.nt, has heen addressed by t\'e!tern scho1ars
t" to a degreeéthat inhibi(s or deflectf an interest ·in the
~,
.,.
~,
, f:" discrete text. Such discussions ofien replace interest in
f~~ ,
'the"text a1together and what is actually said in the Qur'an
~ ~
i,
,
& '" is ~s~a consequence simp1y ignored~ The question of chrono1ogy
:-
~\r i5 not basic to the subject at h~nd which is a' study of the
"
1 ideas found tirst in the Qur 1 an.' ,then e1aborated in tafs!r.
.'
i'~
.t A semantic approach to the former is offered in Chapter l,
t~ while an extensive review of.the l~tter comprises the'next
f three chapters. Such a cencern with the exegesis ls thought
,,.f-
to he nothing more than a leng-neglected ceurteous preliminary ,
t'i te th~ expositidn; by t\Testerners, of Muslim scripture.
t ~ J

i\ As stated above, the bulk of this study is concerned with

/.t>I_,

tafsIr in w9ich the history of the interpretation of 4:157-8

71 •

i8 outlined. The forrn of this study is adapted from Jane

1

Smith's study of the terrn "Islam",5 and:like that worx i8

! , .
repetitious, a1most beyond the point of justification. But
tafslr has reen ~adly neglectéd by Western studen~s, and the
tedium that accompanies sllch a study i~ tlietice we pay for 1
this neglect. Unlike Smith' s work, which perceived a "great
 1
_ ... -f...-
1
------~-~~ . . ---~-- -_..• ~-~-----~... --__--"---,-------_._-----
.....
10
r-------

\
unity" in the Muslim u~derstanding of "Islam", th,e fol,lowing \
\

study will present a great divergence regarding the understand\-

\

ing of the crucifixion in the'Qur'an. A certai~ unit y is

nonetheless perceived, but the perception is by inference
only. The unity perceived ia the fundamental unit y of'Islam
which was described by Gibb: 6

50 far ftem prOfe!in g to bring a new revelation

Mohammed insisted hat the Soripture given him was
but a restatement f the faith"delivered to the
\

"".
Prophets confirming their scriptures and itself
confirmed by them.
.1
Yet the ori~inGlity of Islam
,.~.

is nonethel'ess real,J in that it represents a further

~ \' ~

step in the ~ogicàl (if not philosophical) evolution

r \'

of monotheistic
.
rel.t'gion.
. 1 Its
--'
monotheism,
,.
like that
\
of the Hebrew Prop~ets, is absolute and ùnconditioned,
/ ... but with this it combines the 'uriiversalism of ,
..... ... ,

Christianity. On the one hand, it reject~1 the

1
~
nationalist taint from which Judaism as'a religion
~

did not succeed ~n freeing itself; for Islam neVer

1

'identified itself with the Arabs~ although at times

Arabs have identified r\emSelVes with it. On the
othe]:' hand 1 it\ ia' distinguished from Christian'i ty,
not so much (in spite of aIl outward appearances)
by its repudiation of the trinitarian concept~of

! f \\ \
-/ 0
1
"1
.
,-.
-"
..
l~
. -'
G

1
., .
/,
 " ,

Il
/
r
the unit y of God, as by its rejection of the
soteriology of the Christian doctrine and the
relies of the old nature cults \'tbich survived
\,k'

in the rites and practices\of the Christian

churèh. (p. 59)

~
"

The results of the following four chapters will be

l,
restated in the conclusion where rnany of the problems usually
,
.'
"
l
associated with'an interpretation of 4:157-8 are seen to be
~.

the result of an Is1amic rejection of Christian soteriology.

~

In the conclusion there wi~l a1so ap~ear sorne tentative

remarks on the question of the genesis of the notorious sub-
sti tut ion legends which are the source of the denicil of the
,
"
" cruoifixion in tafsIr.

,
" FOOTNOTES

• IMorris Sea1e, ur'an and Bible: st~dies in Inter- "

pretation and Dialogue ,(London: Croorn Helm, 197 ) •
.",

2J • N• D• Anderson, The World's Religions (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: W.M.B. Eerdmans, 1972). T '

30aniel J~' Sahas, JOh~ of Damascus on Islam: ~he'

j "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" (Leiden: E. J. BriI1, 1912).

4A1ford,T. We1ch, "The Pneurnotology of the Qur'an:

Stuq,y in Phenomenology,lt Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University,
1910.-

SJane l. Smith, An H!storica1 and Semantic Study of the

Term "Islam" as seen in a Se uence of Qur'in Commentaries.
Harvard D1ssertat1ons 1n Re11g10n, Vol. l M ssoula: Scholars
Press, 1915).
6H•A•R• Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historica1 Survey (New
York: Mentor Books, 1968). '
,1
 - ~----~-----

\ -

"

~" CHAPTER l

,
The Qu1:/' an /'

-t; \

That the Qur'an itse1f is the first source of tafsir

needs nO argument. Therefore, it ls ~ith t~ al1 but
single undisputed canon of,exegesis that we begin our
treatment of the crucifixion in Islam. This study ia re-
stricted by the fact that the crucifixion of Jesus i8
mentioned only once in the book, a~d May be said to occupy
no more than t~o ve~~e~~ectlY (4:157); and the other
by inference (4:158). It is of the first importance to
determine the context of these otherwise isolated statements.
This smal1 portion of, the-Qur'an falls into the major \
category of non-lega1 or non-prescriptive materia1 which,
in this instance, has as its main objective the general
edification of its audience on matters pertaining to ~qe
~ ~~~

l
nature of~. ~n,this case, the Jews are being sing1ed •
'-
- i out as an example ~nd are being condemned for various -
•
transgreSsions: idol worship (4:153}i br~~king' their covenant,
disbel~eving revelation, slaying prophets,.for saying
"Our hearts are hardened." (4:155); general disbelief{kufr,
, -
and ca1umniat!ng Mary (4:156), for saying, "We ki11ep the
messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God," (4:157)1

~ \

o \

.'
,~~, .
 13

general wrongdoing/ , hindering others from God's way

[sabil] (4: 160): ta ing usury, "devouring peoples-' wealth

[akIihlm amwai a1-n sl by faise pretenses" (4: 161) •
Immediately list of transgressions ,cornes
the promise of an 1 fJIÙnense reward" to those who avoid such
behavi~ur (4:162).
Thus the "crucifixion verse" is located in a conte:lCt
" ,
which does not have any aspec± of Christian be1ief or doctrine
as its theme. The information about the cruaifixion itself,
"they did not ki'll him and they did not crueify him, but it
/
•
appeared s6 unto them;" must be seen as parenthetic and
.. 1

gratuitous. In this context it 1s no more than an apostrophe

meant to underscore the vanity and futility of" kufr. As we
shall see, this is the way the mufassirun read it, and it is
also the way it is understood by a few W'estern students of
'- 2
the Qur'an.
~
j
l The context of 4:157-8 thus fixed, we are in a position

\ to examine these verses more closely. They are seen to eon-

•
!1 -.'
: tain a few Key words or phrases which forro the nue lei of much
)
~~nsuin9 exegesis. Foremost among the se is undoubtedly
shubbiha lahum, but there are others of equal or at least
determinate value. l am net aware of any serious argument
against the c'"
!!!- of the Gur'an
- being synonymous with the
~, 1 \

- 3
Jesus of t~e gospel., This, then, is thé on1y lexical itèm

"

o
\
 _"'_i" ..... ________ -1
\
j ....... ~

"
_
~
J
_ ....

_
_
-
~.-----". _.----.17------------
r'

~
~
J
~
î 14
""-

i,
!
\
" \ \ \

\
,
;
Ct in the passage whi~h has escaped controversy. Because~of
, \ D'

! . fheir tangentia1 peJ;"~inence to thé" s~bject, the words masI~.

a~d rasu1 will not be\~ealt with here'.
w6rds will be treated i~ the following pages in the light of
AU of the other major

.
1

Y
\

l
} their general quranic usage.
1:-
f
i The first major idea in the two verses is introduced
t
\ by the verb g-t-l "to kil!". Thus our first task is to
i de termine what ie meant in the Qur'an by "death". As
\ ,1
rf O'Sbaughnessy discovered, this is not a simple matter. In

.
~'

his effort to prove t'hat Mu1;ammad 1 s ministry was "not an un-

.' ,
""ê}êpected explosion but an office assumed after careful prepar-
J
~
ation and m~ch reflection with the close collaboration of his
t
best friends, .. 4he discovere'd that the concept is a' rich one
wh;ch defies any attempt at categorization. Nevertheless,
one of his chapters is of special .imp~rtance in a discussion
of the death of Jesus.

!
,iI'It should be pointed out first, that the death of Jesus
. \, iS~directlY mentioned in threé other vers~s (19:33; 3:55;
\
1
5:120), and' indirectly in one (5:19). 4:159 ia also read te
,
indicate the death of Jesus, but this verse i8 also the centre
of àn exe<;Jetical d'ebate, the details of vhich are 'too involved
to discuss here. 5 The usual quranic word for death i5 ~,
and it oaeurs in 19: 33: trPeace on me the day l was born, and
\
the d,ay l die, and the day'I shal1 he rdised alive! , Here
,/
,/
,\

/
 /
1

r
-. ------ - ... -------,----------_./---
!, 15
(,
f
j
'1

Jesus is miraculously speaking' from the "cradle", as it were.

(,1
" The exegetes have usual1y se en this as referring to Jesus'
! r death in the Last Days when he will have returned/to earth,
~1
)
1
kiiled the anti-christ, lived 'for a while and then died a
t1 natura1 Then he will be buried next to Muhammad,
dea~h.
1
1 with whom he shal1 rise on the Day. of Resurrection. 6 In
i
1
1
3:55 and S:117 another word is used, which in other contexts,
1 r
ls general1y construed as physical death. This is a derivatlon
, 1

1
1 of the root w-f-y. In the former verse, i~ appears as the
,,1 active participle of the Vth forro with the possessive 'écond 1
1,
t ,1
pêrson pronominal suffix = mutawaffika. In the latter, it

1 appears as the second persPh pe~!e~t verb of the sarne forro

with tne objective first person ligature = tawaffitani. In
both cases the originator of the action is G9d.
t (And remember) when God said: 0 Jesus! Lo!\r arn
l '
gathering thee and causing thee tp ascend unto Me,
and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve unti'l
the pay of Resurrection. (
Then unto Me ye (aIl) re-'
turn, and r shall judge between you as to that wherein
ye used to diffe~.' (3:55)
_'1-- t I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst,
me, (saying): Worship God, my Lord and your Lord. l
/

was a witness of them while l dwelt among the~, and

when Thou tookest me Thou wast the watcher over them.
Thou are witness over aIl things. ~,- (S:l17)

-
,
f

• l
: '-
 '1

------------- ---------"-""--- ---------_.......----:--

16
1 >
~ .. -
1

1
i
Each of these verses has its respe~tive prob1ems of
()
'interpretation, but they are both important because of,the

occurrence of w-f-y. Of the sixty-aix times which this root a~s

~ the Qur',an, twenty-five are in the vth fann {4:97; 6:61; 47:27;
5:17; 16:28; 16:32) 10:46; ,13:40; 40:77; 8:50; 39:42; 6:60;
\

10:104: 16:70: 32:11; 4:15; 7:37; 3:193; 7:126: 12:101; 22:5;

40:67~ 2:234; 2:240; 3:d5). Of theàe, the majority urtequi-

vocably convey physical death, including one instance where'

the death of Muhammad ia the issue (40:77). Those verses \

which are not quite sO"direct,appear -aiso to connote death,

e.g.47:27\

,J Then how (will it be with them) when the ange1s

'f~>~
gather them, smiting Pheir fa~es and their backs! ,
"

.r The lexIcal meaning of this form is lOto take" or "to

redeem" and' in" th~ verses .1isted above offers a paral1e1 to

f,r
. the English "to get"'what is coming to one" or the less fonpal

lOto cash in one' s cpips". As mentioned above, tne ,two verses

f ~ +, c •

in this group which -mention Jesus are fraught with their own
11 " .t' /
p exegetical proolems. Many of these art! a re~ul t of the
j

questions surrounding 4:157-8. It i8 hoped that many of

these questions will be satisfactorily, fi indirectly,

addressed during the course of this studY. The main poirtt

here i8 to emphasize that. accordi~9 to quranic usaCJe" it là

II> • •

quite permi~le to understand the se two ve~ses as indicatinq

'.
/.
 .", .,

---
~I

- _. - - --- -------.;;... ------.~.~--------~~--------------------------- ,

\ • li'
\',>

the dea th of Jesus. 7

!~
i, The other direct reférence is the negative one ,in
4: 157, but the, indirec·t statement in 5: 17 bears examination
/
here.

~ They indeed have disbelieved who say: "Lo! God

"'-~
l '

[ is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who 'then can.do

1 aught aqainst,god, if He had willed te destroy the

,
~Me~siah, son of Mary, and his mother and everyone
on earth? God's is the Sovereiqnty of the heavens
and the earth and aIl that is between them. He
createth what He will. And God is able tpâo aIl
'things. ~

The italics mark the tr~nslation of yuhlika which ia

derived from the frequent (sixty-eiqht instances) quranic ~

root h-l-k. The IVth

.
forro
'.;.
here has the straightforward
- - -
meaning "to rUin, destroy", while the first forro means , "to
perish, die, be annihilated". The former is by far the most
frequent forro of ~hêCverb in the Qur' an. Obvious.ly, the
meaning of the' above verS'e is condi tional and cannot be con-
strued as indicating the fact of Jesus',destruction oz death.
'-1

Rather, the purpose ia to, assert the humanity of Jesus, in

opposition to'the belief in his divinitï. But the book here
\
. '.
i8 categorical: Jesus is, ~ike other men, susceptible of
"
physical death.

\
l
", ,
!A
\.}
, ,
"
l'
.';

,.
'.' .. "
..
,""
t~ -

".
...... , l'
J~,
-:

L~-,~I~
<t
 \
_ _ _ ._ _ •.-'
_ _ _ _...:...._·l'
........
\ _ _..A;'--_ _ ::..._~ _ _ _ _ __
~.~ .......- ....
18

1
The next rdflt which rnerits discussion is s-l-b "to
'.-
crueify". Beeause the verb is "denominative", Jeffrey
\

asserts its non-Arabie arigiri, c,~a!,ing ·that its source is

It occurs in the Qur' an .S~ht times (4: 157;
8
Iranian.
12:41: 7:124; 20:71: 26:49: 5:33; 86)1>: 4:23). Six of these
are as verbs wi th the accepted meaning- of' "ta cruci·fy",
. ~

1
the others are as nouns meaning "back" or "loins" (86:7;
1
·4: 23) . Aside from its negative usage in th~ first verse
\!
listed above, the five remaining positive uses refer ta
" 1
(respective1y): the fpte of one of Joseph's fellow prisoners;
Pharoah' s threat to llis. magicians . (three times); a prescription
of punishment for those who fight against God and his mes-
senger" There is no reason ta doubt that the verb indicates
the punishment.of crucifixion, as it is ,usual1y understaod. 9
\,

1\ l,L
Shubbiha lahum i's by far the most difficult ide a pre-

.Sented in this passage. Sorne forrn of the root sh-b-h appears

l ' twe1ve times in the Qur'an in nine separate verses (4:157;

!
2:70: 3:7 (twice).; 13:16; 2:118; 6:99 (twice); 6:141 (twice):
,\ ~~'
\ "~
~I ..~ 2: 25; 39: 23. The meaning of the root varies, of course,
""
according . to the six different forms it aSSumes in these
cd'ntexts. The most frequent meaning is a function of the _
IIIrd forro verbal usage;
\

't Lo~ Cows are much alike ta us J (2:70)

t Their' hlffrts are aIl alike ~ (2:118)

o·
..,
'

\
 . - --_.~--~------------------('\-----
19

~ Or assign they unto God partners who created

the like of His creation (which they made and His
creation) seemed alike to them' (13: 16) ~

~ But those in whose hearts i5 doubt, pursue,

il
forsooth, that which i8 allegorica1 J' (3: 7)

It also appears as an adverbi~l VIth form act~ve

particip~e :

~ And it i8 given te them in resernblance,. (2:25),

~ He i t la Who produceth gardens trellised and un-

trellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers
flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like
--,
and un1ike.' (6: 141)
't God hath (now) revealed th"e fairest of state~ents,

..
a: Scripifure consistent, (wlierein promises of reward are)
~ "

paired (with threats of punishInent).' (39: 23)

'-- The active participle is used again, but this tirne in

a negative l:,Qafah:

,'t We'bring forth .' •• garaens of grapes, and the

o'live, and the pornegranate, alike apd unlike.' (6:99)

The VlIIth forrn active participle is also used in

this verse and i8 translated above "alike". This brings us

to the last usage which itself i8 of primary importance here~.

t But i t appearef1 so un~o them ,10 , (4:157) \

- (

'. ' .() ','

. "
~ \

1.. •

•
 ..

20

Th~s phrase represents the single quranic usage of'

this form of the root. As an example of hapax legomenon,
the phrase is among so,me of the rnost controversial locutions
in exegesis; U this distinction should not be forgotten in
the following chapters where lexical equivalents are rarely
offered for shubbiha. AU definitions of the verb are
'obtained by deducing a genera1 meaning of "substitution"
fro~he legends. An exception is the gloss huyyila offered 1
i
, 1
11
by a1-ZarnakhsharI and 1ater commentators. This hesitancy - 1
1

,:f to define by lexical rather than narrative means words of ~ 11

i 1
g
single instance12 in the Qur'an appears to be an old an'd accept~d l
-1
trad{tioni thus, Ibn cAbbas is reported to have refused to \,
!
offer a rneaning for .anfal which oceurs on1y ônce in surah , 1

, eight. This undoubted1y refiects a sincere impulse, as illus-

trated by the famous statement of the second caliph, to avoid
ascribing to the Book of God something which it does not
convey. 12
\ Why 4: 158 is not treated in the mutashabihat works may
indicate that use of shubbiha was quite idiomatic, and this
'----combined with the elaborate legends which embellished qurani.c
usage may have neutralized inci.pient controver~y over a verse
which did not, in any case, pertain g,i,r;ct1y to questions of
jurisprudence; ques\tions which, in the early days, tended to
, \
be the prime locus of ikhtilaf. The phrase shubbiha lah\ll1l,
r-

.,

()
 21

as was seen in n. 10, May be translated in a variety of

ways. In exegetical literature it is almost always e~lained
elliptiéally, Le., by some forro of the root sh-b-h •. That
this method ~es not enrich an understanding of semantics is
obvious, therefore the ~ollowing is a brief summaryof Lane's
lexical t~eatment:

Active: Shabbahahu bihi - He made it to be like

it or resemble it. ' He assimilated it, to it (8yn.
,1
of mathalahu). shabbahtu al~shay' bi-l-shay' = 1

l put' the thing in the place or in the predicament

,1
of the other thJng, by reason of anattribute con- !
necting them or common to them; which attribute
May be real or ideal • Sh~bbaha [apparently
for shabbaha shaya.n bi-shayin] ,- He, made a thing '1 i
- 1
equal to a thing, or like a thing. [ hence ]
c 0 .. .
;;;.s_h;.;;a;.;;;;b~b.;;.;.a;;.;;h;.;;a;........;;;a_l;.;;a;,o.Y..;;;h__
l. • He rendered ~t confused to him

[by making it to appear like $ome other thing].

He rendered i t ambiguous, dubious or obscure , to 1

'hO~m. 13

Lane tells us that the passive verb of this ~o~ ia

synonymous with the Vllth and the Vth giving the f011pwing
examples:
shubbiha Calayhi'al-'amr • The thing or affair
was rendeled confused or dubious to him. Tashabbaha

, "

"
•
~,

~, -.
• 'H f •

.
,'\
' '~~,~
~:~~..~
"

'"
~;
.' .~~- __..........._,,_......
,""'----...--.- ' ., - - ---
r: 22
50
"~~
i
f,

lahu 'annahu kadha. It bec~me imaged to ~im

î'
t Cl
b
i,
[in the mind, i. e., i t seemed to him] thâ t i t
~
"'" was so. Syno~ymous with liuyyila and Shubbiha. 1t
~

_J> This rather dreary inventory of definitions was

.
,~

1
1
") thought to be justified by the absence of any referéhce to
-,
1,
~
4
the idea.of substitution, although such an idea could pos-, 1
li
;.
fo sibly be implicated in the second definition of the active 1 1
f. 1
voice above. It is, therefore, interesting to note that !
this active'voice appea~s in a variant. l5 As in the case of
the exegetes, the only synçnym offeredwhich is not derived
from the same root is huyyila. If, however, the passive voice
may be synonymoùs with certain uses of the Vth and Vlllth
forms, then sorne indication of its semantic range may
. ,
be obtained by reference to extra-q~ranic usage. The terms
and mushtabih ~re frequent technical
terrns in exegesis and other religious discussions. The first
term can mean: comparison, allegory, siroile, metaphor, parable,
or anthropomorphization. The remaining words can mean:
\
obscure, suspicious, or doubtful. These latter are used
generally when speaking of unclear quranic passages which are
sometimes interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, or are
explained by reference to heretofo~e unsignalled or extra-
quranic events. 16 By this l am not prdp~sing a sernantic leap,o
It would be dtff~cult~ if not impossible, to argue from these
 _~ ____ ~_~ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. .f-~ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

23

~
facts that our phrase should be. trans1ated as "it was
allegorlzed to th,em n • But the fact is that quite e'!-rly
in the history of the .exegesis of this phrase, the meaning
of the phrase was in fact "anthropomorphized tt by way of
the substitution legends. The point o€. this excursus is
to draw attention to another fact: The Qur'an, neither
supports nor rejects the substitution .of another human being
17
for Jesus in this context.
The root f-n-n oceurs sixty-nine tirnes in the Qur' an,
~, /
but the main concern here ls with the noun ~ann which oècurs
fifteen times in the book. Plckthall has trans1ated it
variously as: ~though1:" (3:15;- 10:60; 48:6; 48:12); \
"conjecture" (4:157; 10:36; 10:66); "opinion" (6:116: 6:148:
38:27); "suspicion" (49:12, twice)i. "guess" (53:23; 53:28,
, twice) • In six of these instances ~al'm is that which ls
fo11owed [tubica] by representatives of that c1ass of quranic
character known as kifir~n, and sO it is _in the verse ,under
discussion. 'l'hus we are presented with a n6rmative quranic
usage. 0-

Although this is much preferable to the state of affairs

attendant upon shubbiha lahum, it ls by no means c1ear eut.
.' Izutsu classes ~ann as one 'of the "value words" in the Qur'an,
which i8 best understood in contrast to C ilm, another value
word. The overshadowing importance of thls term as descriptive

, .
,i

>~;J# ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r __ ._____ -

~-~...
 "
-- - _0..---
...\ _.__.----.-,-- .' --------_.
... -- -----......,._.-
~_ ~

.'
24

#1
of the Islamic theodicy is too invoi ved to trea t here.
(
Suffice it to say that i t represents a kind of knowledge
which is certain, and unchallengeable, denotative in i ts
way\of a kind of immutability usually ascribed to natural
Iaws (and may i tself represent the only immutable reali t\<) ,
and transcenœnt in that its source is divine'.IS ~ann,

therefore, in a general way,l represents everything anti-

;thetical to this knowledgè. lIt implies that which i9 at
1
1
odds with the revelation. In 4:157, while'itmay indeed , 1

mean "conjectur'e", it aiso connote~lindness to true

eth~ca ~pir~ tuaI
1
religion ,on aIl levers, whether , moral, 1.

or communal. 50 in our context it s those who' disagree

/
about the crucifixion, either among thernseives or with the
Qur'a.n, who are at the Mercy of rÉlligiously dysfuqctional
q
forces, which in the cOntext described above i5 surnrnarized
Thus -;ann
--'-
represents far .more than simple opinion,
thought or guess; and, thecomplex and sinister reverberations
of it well from a s~urce mudh deep~r tha!1 the intellect .•
Brief notice should be taken here of y-q-n which is another',
familiar (twenty-eight occurrences) quranic root. The noun
l9
form with which we are èoncerned is another antonym of ;ann.
Usually translated as "certainty" it i9 used in the book to
describe matters of Revelation, Faith~~ Prophets, God and -th
. Hereafter. It i8 a1so used to describe less lofty, or at

. \

o
,\ .
\ \
 " .~: ~- ~ .... --" -._----~

- -"'~"- -----~-.-:;:..----------
25

t~

\ least the more contingent ideas of Knowledge, Truth, Vision,

î f
(;
Tidings and- genera1 certainty about "what is right ll • In
l 1 *
l{' addition, it is used negative1y four times in speaking of
1

general awaineSSI Faith, The Hour,and the death of Jesus:

l 15:19 and 7 : 47 are particularly interesting in that while
Î'
"
! \ the applicat' on concerns the certainty of the Judgement I?ay,
; Al \

~ 'i
'" i t seems a1sd to imply .a primary correspondence- to "death".

"1 Indeed, one of the dictionary meanings of yaqIn in Persian

r, -
; is ndeath~". 20 The root appears in 4: 157 in unique fOrIn, and
'I.f

.r
a1though discussion of tt in ta-fsIr is always restricted ta
, J

1 f the question of what exac-tly was uncertain,21 it is suggested

I!..'
~
~
that further inquiry into Hs semantic value would revea1 a
1arger compass than that proscribed by the English "certainty",
particular1y in the light of i ts relatio~ to ~ann.

The 1ast root ta be dealt with is r-f- c . It appears

in the Our 1 an twenty-two times as a verb and six times as a
noun. The verbal uses are even1y divided into two genera1
" ~

meaning-groups.. The first carries the ide a of raisin~ as

in the lifting .of an abject frc;:>m a surface (12:100; 13:2; \ '

88:18; 79:28; 2:63; 2:93, 4:154, 55:7; 49:2; 2:127).' The

.
second means, or can, m~an, the axaltatiat of a thing or person
t in rank" or va~ue: (2:2531 "6:175; 4~:32; ~4:4; -7:176; 19::57;
1
4:158; 6:83; 12:76; 58:11; 35:10: 211:36). In addition, there
are various noun forms which ocour with a similar distribution

() /
 ...

_ H •• _"'~ _ _ __ ._ _
~ .. _ _ ... - .... -

~ 26
t..
t,
!I1
tj
it /'

of meaning: (56:3; 3:55~ 40:1,5; 52:5; 56:34; 80":14). It

1
! CI will be noticed that the familiar verse 3:55 is met with
f again. This intim~te lexical re1ationshi~ with 4: 157-8
~
t no doubt explains the exegetes' frequent reference to i t
1 ~, in their discussion of"tHe crucifixion. What i8 not clear,
,
! "
~
.t
" * though, i~ why this "reference is to the exclusion of almost
~ all other verses which have been seen to have a semantic •
t
"
~ !
relationship to the subject.
22
It 18 aiso worth mentioning
that inc1uded in this group i8 the verse (19: 57) which mentions
,
1
•<, the raising of ÏdrIs (Enoch), one of the four prophets in
!

~ tradition who,,:. were physically raised to heaven. It is also

[
/

significant ,that it is trans1ated in Qur edi tion as:

~
!
~ And We raised him to a high station'
l
f
Here any idea pf physica1 raising is 1eft pure1y to
l' the imagination, which imagination, considering the dominant
value of 'the Eng1ish thus chosen, must needs be inordinate1y
\ sensitive to derive such a meaning./ A1though the prepositional
\
/

phrase used with this verb ip 4: 158 does indicate a spatial

direction, it shou1d be remembered that GOd, as the object ot
this preposition, i8 placeless. That ear1y exegetes persisted
in interpreting the verse' anthropomorphically need not brand
,'them as primitives, but it required centuries of theological
and terminological refinement before such interpretations were
·cha'llenqed in tafsIr.
 ,." , ,, -, --- .-
l'
-_.'---~._---_I.. . . .-

........ _"' .. "". -----------------

.. __ .-------.--,............
27

..
1 Cl ~ndQubtedly
,
the major influence'on the early inter-

r pretation of_this verse, and probably 19:57 as weIl, was '

the result of ~he miCraj tradition as~a whole, and the
, 23
reality this tradition represented to the Muslims. What-
·ever the case may be, it is ~uite clear that the Qur'an does
- 1
not favour one meaning over the other.
.
W,i th the above ob'servations thus registered, we are 1

free to pursue the subject introduced earlier in this chapter.

l
1
ç
The death of those who are particularly favoured by God is
the type which has the most significance for this study.
0' Sha~ghnessy has singled out fourteen instances of sU~,h

deaths, four of which are quoted here for convenience:

~ Thos~ who ~led their homes for the cause of God

an~ then were slain, [ guSîlü ] or died [matü), God

will provide for them a good prévision., (22:58)' ~

/
t 0 ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are
favoured of God apart from (aIl) mankind, then
\ long for death ('al-mawtl if ye are truthful.' (62:6)
1
t (Pharoah) said: [to his magiciians J... "I will eut
off your hands and your feet alternately, a verily
·i will crucify you every, one. " They sa id : "Ii:. is no \
'hurt, for lo! unto our Lord we shall return. " (26:49-50)
~

()' fL'

.
~

;1I.J'>
.,

•
 -------_.
f 28
l.
,î
t,
\
~ t And caU not those who are slain r yuqtalû ] in the
C) way of God "de ad [ 'amwat)". Nay they are living,
1
t, only ye perce ive ~ot. ~ (2:154, similar to 3:~69)
~
l

~ Apart from these few verses, the idea of death i5 '

f-
f th~ obligato hearg thro~ghout the ~hifting themes and move-
•
f ments of the Qur,an. That this phenomenon does not impose
l an undifferentiated mood of melancholy and impotence upon 1
/ 1
the reader is due in part to the many contrasting motifs .~

which also' are present. But, it has been observed that one
1

t of the reasons that the general effect ~f the Qur1an is other

than saddening is bound up in the quranic\idea of death,
1
~ itself. 24 This idea lS best understood by contrasting it
with pre-Islamic notions. The Qur'an itself indicates as
much:

t And they say: There lS naught but our life of

the wqrldi we die and we live, and na,ught destroyeth

,l ----: 1: when they

us save time [dahr :.
have no knowl-edge what-
l,,1
soever of (all) that; they do but guess [~~unnüna].
i
And when ou~cléar rlvelations are recited unto the~
their only argument is t~at they say: B~ing (back) our
..
fathers then, if ye are truthful. Say (unto them, 0
\
MUQammad): God qiveth life to you, then causeth you
/. to die, then qathereth you unto the day of Resurrection'
"'-
whereof there la no doubt. But most of mankind know
\,. c-
not. [la ya lamunaJ.' (45:24-26) /

()
 '1-
.... _ ..., H". ~_~ .. ~I...-'.;'--.", .. _~ _ __

< -,
- ..... -~. _------"'-"--. -'-'--l'';~>'''''''''''------- .-~, .. - - . - - - - ' - - - - - - -

l
~~ - ~

.t, . 29
~

~l
\
1
!
•
, According ta Izutsu, the ideas.present in'this
f
f
1
C' series are a clear reflection of the semantic tensions of
. -"
,t
l!
the Qur 1 an which deri,ve from the tensions betwe'en ~ basic

~ a~ opposing worldviews. One, the pre-Islamic (jahilIJ

;,
"-
-/
~

which is strongly coloured by "the problem of khulüd

,r,
i 'the et.errial life, 1
the absolute unattainableness of wh'ich

il,
.;<
they were so painfully aware of (sic), and which drove them
to their characteristic philosophy of life, the pessimistic

,
,
,
~
nihilisme ,,25 The other, the Islamic, lS discussed as \,

fallows:
t
The inevi tabili ty of death in the form of aj-al,
however, does not lead, in the IsI~ic conception,
1
f
as it used to do in Jahiliyyah, ta a gloorny pessi-
mistic view of hurnan existence, because tne ajal
in this sense is not, in 'the new Weltanschauung, the
l
•
real terminal point of existence. It is, on the
contrary, the very th~eshold of \a néw a,nd entirely

,
~

~
different kind of life - the eternal life (khulüd).
In this sytem, the ajal, Le., death, of each in-
dividual man is but a middle stage in th~ whole·
length of his life, a turning-point i·n his life

,
t
\
1
history si tuated between the Dunya and the Hereafter.
Unlike the JahilI view of life which would see nothing
beyond the ajal, the Koraniq view sees precisely beyond
the i~ât the r~al life, real because it is "eternal"
1
1 (kha 1. ••• 6 .
i

Thus, ev en if our verse said that Je~us did not die,

we wauld be cornpellf7d ta ponder the more profound meaning
such a statem~t demands. That the verse states thàt the
Jews did not kill him surely need~ no further proof that
the semantic constitution of such a statement stronglY points

to a reading wh i,Ch, could go weIl beyond the "rnundane realms

()

--
, .
 'f
/.~
/
., ."--- .,._-._----
...... - ----------~-_._-
~ ,.

30

of mUrde~ ,nd physicai death. By e~~ension the sarne appilies

to the stat,ement tha,t they di:d not crucify him inasmuch as
\

the "him" can be understoJd, in light of the' above

,
quotation ~

as the reality (khalidr' of Jesus.

To the assertion that the denial of the crucifixion
is in "perfect agreement with the 10gic of the Kur'an,;' it
need hardI y be pointed out that while it may indeed be "'God' s
1 11
- 1
practice' • . . to make faith triU;Mph finally ovel'.' the forces
li

of evil and adversity,,,27 it is also obvious that. this 1

1
1
triumph~ rnay have a more rnystetious m~aning than JeSus'
. '
U
j
putati ve and chance escape from ,his misguided opponents •• t
, '.

After all, Jesus the prophet is arnong those in the Qur' an 1

!
;: .. r
. ,
who are vulnerable to physical death, e.g.: !o!uhanunad (7: 28) ;
Moses (7:155); Yal}ya (John the Baptlst) (19:15)~_ Moreover,
'.- . .
a distinctive' characteristic of quranic prophe'thood is the
unr~i tting opposi tion which gr,ets those upon whom i t la
• .J ....

bestowed; that this opposition .frequentIy c1imaxes in the

murder of a prophet is weIl known (e.g., 2:61; 2:87; 2:91;
3:21; 3:183; 4:15'5' (!)). Finally, it is quite c1ear that such
a death, though seeming1y the resu1t of humari perfiqy, ~s(l"
.
really a work of,less fal1ibie design.'
/

\
~ No soul can ever die except by God' s 1eave and
-'1

at ··a term appointed. Whoso' desirekb the reward of

.
the world" We bestow on him thereof; and whoso desireth

,- ,

/
, /
,J

_.',J.

" 'e
•• ~ ... f ....

, ,
 -..,. "-"-- ~

, ,
• ,,",L ,~-_.'"'\ f i""" \"'" _ ,~ .. 11 ~ ....... ~._ .... \.- ~,- .~ ........ r-40 ........ _ . -..--~
~"'f'o - ,

______ ~,.....:.__,, ___ -----.ro---.:.--------.-------.:...------

~~.
, ,. '

r 31

\ J
. l:>,1.
..,
.
'.
~

.....-
rewar~ o~
C" )
the
.the Hereatter,
'- , We sha-ll reward the thankful. -~
'
We bestow on him
<

thereof. , (3:145)

"

,
Summary

\
The conditional mood of many of the above statements
•
, \

shoula obviate charges of eiseqesis. It is hoped that the

~! pur~ose
-
'~
heie lS understood to ~e, noth1ng more than a soundinq
l' -
of the verses which are the subject of this thesis. Such
!
a procedure was thought indispensible for at least a primary
" 1 1
appreci~tion of the subject of the next thtee chqpters.
1
Th~
- ______ . _ ~.
i' 1

,.:,
main object of this chapter is to argue for the neutrality \
\

of the Qur'an on the issue of the historicity of the ev~nt

of the crucifixion of Jesus.
\

\ ,
"
','

-- l
~

r
(
/.~,
,
, .
-'
-.
t
". \

. '
,
1·

.... J .' 1;
~y. '
,,"''''1' ", ~ , ~ 1. ' ~ .'.
:~:t~~ ", "" 1.;<' 1 ....
 , . ,

-- ~--" ~._~"--""""""'-'----"'---"----"----.;----

32

,-
, -

FOOTNOTES
( .'
/'
...
- l~oshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts in
the Qu an, McGil~ Islami~Studies, l, ed: by Ch~rles
J. Ad s and John A. Williams (Montreal: McGill Uni-
versity Press, 1966), pp. 105-177 •

. 2"sein.e [Mul;lammad's] Aussagen über die" ~reuzigen,

'zeigen dernnach einen stark polemischen, antijudischen Akzent.",
Claus Schedl, Muhammad und Jesus: D!e christologisch rele-
vanten Texte des Koran, Neu ubersetz und erklart (Vienna:
gerder and Co., 1978), p. 470. But, if bi" "polemical" the
author intehds an actua1 dispute as the Sltz im Leben of
this verse, l would strongly d±sa~ree. That the Jews are
referred to throughout this series of verses indicat~s that
they merely represent an "historica1" example of that class
of peop'le ~nown in the Qur'!n as kafirün.
Giulio Basetti-Sani, The Koran in the Light of Christ:
A Christian Interpretation of the:Sacred Book of Islam
(Chicago: Franciscan Herald pres's, 1977) 1 p. 163. But,
the "first intention n of the context 1,s ta preach against .!
~I not ta "deprive the Jews of- the victqry .. they c1aimed
was theirs in Jesus' death. This latter function must be
Il
,
considered of secondary' importance, similar to the staûement
in 4:159 that ultimately aIl people of the Book will come ta
recogniz~ the station of Jesus.

Geoffrey Par~inder, Jesus in the Qur'~ (London: Faber

and Faber, 1965) 1 pp. 108-109.

3The staternent of al-Tabataba'i (infra, ch. IV) cannat

be ,considered an exception: .

4Tbomas O'Shaughnessy, Muhammad's Th9u~hts on Dea~:

A Them~ic Study of the Qur'anic Data (Le1den: E.J. Br1ll,
1969~ •

5The exegesis of the 'verse is complicated by the existen~e

of a variant reading (gira'ah) , The modern tafslr of 4:159
is examined in, Todd Lawsan, "Qur 'an 4: 159: MO,dern Inter- ,\
pretations" (unpublished paper, Montreal, 1980). \
6 ,,~ c
cAbd al-Rabmân $âCâtI, Minbat al-ma bùd fI-tartIb
musnad al-fa:tilisI AbI Da 1 Gd, Vol. l (CatJ:o: Ma~JjaCat
al-FiunIr'iyyaà". 1372/l952j, p. 335, no., 257,5. According to
'. ;

-_...
 .
~
, ,~_R,_"'____ ... ~,_ ~ ".... ~.~,-,...-,.-_......._ ......_ - - - - _ ••• - ... --~ ~----

33
!
1

Arent Jan Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muharnmadan Trpdition '

(Leiden: E.J. Bril1, 1927), and his la ter Concordance et
indices de la Tradition Mus'ulmane (5 vols., Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1936- ), this Qadith transmitted fram Mutammad àn
the -authority of Abü Hurayrah (d. 59/678-9) is the only
one available from any source which mentions, the death of
Jesus in any contexte The eschatological import of this
isolated instance tends tosupport the theory that the subject
of the crucifixion'was not one that ocoq,pied the early com-
munity. That it was of interest to al-rayalisI '(do 203/818)
is a possibility which has implications for a study of
the history of Islamic eschatology.
An extensive discussion of Jesus in 2adIth litera't!!re
is, william Paul McLean, tlJesus in the Qur'an and the ijadith
, Literature," (unpublished M.A. thesis, McGill University,
. 1,
1970).

73 : 55 has special significance for this subject.

Mutahhiruka, translated as "cleansing you 15 based on tl
,

thé root r-h-r; this root is found in the form tahrini

f
j' in a trad1tion which recounts the story of a repentant
adulterer who uttered it (tlpurify metl) to Mu};lammad with
the result that he was stoned to death. See, Ignaz Goldziher,
"Das Strafrecht irn Islam', \1 Zum al testen Strafrecht der Kul tur-
volker: Fra en zur Rechtsver leichun estel1t von Th. Mommsen,
beantwortet, von H. Brunner, v.a. (Le1pzig, 1905) c1te by
Th.W. Juynboll, "Crimes and Punishrnents . (Muhammadan) ,"
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed.· 'by James Hàstings,
Vol. IV, p. 290. The author uses th.i:s a's an example of the
ancient Arabian belief that crime was regarded as impurity
and Eunishment purification. This need not imply that the
Qur'an considers Jesus to have been guilty of some crime.
'On the contrary, the verse is specifie: God is "ç:leansing"
Jesus "of those who disbelieve". Cf. Izutsu, op. cit., p.
241; and further contrast with the findings of Jacob Neusner,
"History and Purity in First-Century Judaism," History of
Religions, XVIII, No. 1 (1978), pp. 1-17. \

8Arthur Jeffrey, The Foreign Vocabu1ary of the Qur'an

(saroda: Oriental Institute, 1938), p. 197.

\
 _____~~---____,_______'l~_
" "

34

9A 'cursory look at the history of crucifixion shows

that the procedure was adopted for ~wo distin~t, if some-
times combined, reasons: I} As a means of execution; 2)
To provide a forceful deterrent to future crime. In the
second case, t~e criminal was k{lled' by separate means
before his corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or _
cross. These grisly details are in 1ine with the Shafici
tuling for one convicted of.highway-robbery and murder, in
whicb, this second procedure was to be followed. The sequènc,e 1

of events - executiQn then crucifixion - may be reflected in 1

'\
the unchanging order of the two_disti.nct ideas of "killing" 1

and "crucifixion" in every tafsir consul ted for this study.

It is also possible that this reflects nothing more than the
quranic word-order in which case hyperbaton (taqdIm) could
be expected to bave been invoked by Muslim rhetoricians; but
which fact alone ~might lead th~ student'of the history of .
religion to investigate 7th century Arab methods of punish-
ment.

lOThe fOllowing few examples indi~~te the difficulties

facing the translator of this phrase. A more extensive study
of the way this verse has been translated wou~d inc1ude the
works l~sted in the introduction to Muhammad Hamidullah's
'Le Saint Coran, préface by Louis Massignon (Paris: Club
Français du Livre, ·1959), pp. xliii-lxvii.
i. "only a likeness of that was shown to them." - Arberry.
ii. "but he was counterfeited for them." - Bell.
iii. "but he was represented byone in his likeness." - Sale.
iVe "mais que son sosie a ,été substitué à leurs yeux."
- Blaehère.
v. "mais on leur a apporté quelque chose de ressemblant! Il
- Harnidullah.
vi. • "un homme qui lui ressarJblait fut mis à sa place."
, - Kasimirsky.
vii. "un cOGls fantastfque a trompé leur barbarie." - Savary.
viii. "vielmehr ersehien ihren (ein anderer) âhnlich '(50
dass sie ihn mit Jesus verwechsel ten und toteten}."
\, • ~ 1 - Paret.
ix. "vielmehr war er ihne~ (nur) ahnlich geworden. n - Schedl.
x. "bensi qualcuno fu reso ai loro occho simile a Lui. Il
- Bausani.

, IlJohn Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: 'Sources and Methods

of Scriptural InterpretatIon, London Oriental Series, Vol. '31
(Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1977), pp. 117-118.

()

,',
 35

12 E. 9 .: tafsIr; ilharn; khatami to name only three

of the 450-plus words 'of single occurrence in the Qur'an.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of these
hapax legomena have bec~me centres of controversy, not
forgetting that Scriptur~ in general classically endures
thorough word-by-word dissection at the hands of its
votaries. A study of the exegesis of these words might
disclose a general tendency, signalled by t~e refusaI of
Ibn cAbbas to discuss anfal r cited by Wansbrough, op. cit.,
p. 172.

13Abridgement of "Shabaha," in Edward William Lane,

An Arabic-English Lexicon, Bk. l, pt.4. (London: Williams
and Norgate, 1872), pp. 1499-150l.
\
14 Ibid ., p. 1500.

lSArthur Jeffrey, Materia1s for the History of the

Text of the Qur'an: The D1d codices, etc., De Goeje Fund,
No. Il (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1937), p. 38 and p. 127. The
first variant is sirnply shabbaha as opposed to shubbiha;
the second i5 more e1aborate: shubbiha lahum wa ma gatalahu
al-1adhina attuhimu bihi. In the fir5t variant we face the
problem of a subject: God or Jesus. ' The second is sufficiently
vague,- adding little to our knowledge of the identity~ of the
victim. ~
The whole subject of variants is'~dtoriously puzzling,
and while it may not be_possible to prove they represent
,, anything more than tafsir (~effrey, ,Materials, p." 10), the
,, hypothesis in John Burton, The COllection of the Qur'an
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) certainly could
be used to support such a claim. It rnay not be out of place
to draw attention to the variant for 4:159 (Jeffrey, Materials,.
p. l"27): liyu 'mininna, trans. - "will believe" (3rd ,person
si~g.) as opposed to liyu'minunna (pl.); likewise it is only
the nurnber which varies in t,he bther variant word of'this
verse: mawtihi changes to mawtihim. Thus, this var~nt cannot
be speaking of the death of Jesus, which death, in any case" ,
is interpreted eschatologica11y.

, 16wansbrough, op. cit., pp. 212-216, and index:

mushtabih mutashabih. An example of this' type of exegesis
s t at of Muqati1, Mutashabih fi-'l-Qur'ân, portions of which
are reproduced in: Abû al-~~sayn Muhammad b. ~d al-Mala~r,
•
('

,,, " n

J,
-'-
 . \

- .------- ---,----,_._--
36
,
)

a1-TanbIh wa-' l-radd (Çairo: Maktab W'askr al-Thaqafat al'!..

l Islamiyyah, 1363/1949), pp. 44-63
•
1 17 This explains the otherwise anomalous account of
1
î the Ikhwân al-~afa', infra, ch. III, no • 33. See also,
; Louis Massignon, "Le Christ dans les évangiles, sélon
L
Ghazali," REl, VI (1932), pp. 523 - 535,
especially pp. 533-535. Here Lt is pointed out that
IsmâcIlIs have not been the only Muslims to affirm the
death of Jesus on the cross.
l, 1
l8Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Qur'an: 1
Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschuauung, Studles in the 1
Humani ties and Soc ial Rela tions, 5 (Tokyo': Keio Insti tute l'
of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964), 'pp. 59-62.
1i Il
\
19 See the discussion of litotes in Wanbrough; op. cit.,' 1 ;
1
,
p. 230. ,
• !
1

20"YaqIn, l~ in F. Steingass, Persian-English Dictionê!ry, r

reprint (New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint corporation, 1973).

21But cf. the opinion of Abü ~atim al-RazI cited by

Massignon, 'op cit., p. 534.
22 Infra, chs. II, III, IV, where the usual practice ":
is 'ta cite 3: 55 ad 4: 158. The most common quranic reference
to 4:157 i9 26:2r-(or similar verses) ad (rasül allah) in
order to confirm that the Jews, not God; spoke these words
in.ridicule. A'notable e~6eption is Rashid Rida, infra,
ch • IV, P • 1 0 3 • •'

23 Geo Wid~ngren, Muhammad the Aeostle of God, and' His

Ascension (King and Sa vi our V), Uppsala Universltets
Ars~krift 1955: 1 (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1955),
" eva1uates the importance of this tradition for Islam a10ng
1 with a study of its pre-Is1amic history.: For direct corres-
pondence between this tradition and tafsir, see infra,
Muqati1, ch. II, p. 55, and Ri~!, ch. IV, p. 106.

24I~utsu, God and Man, pp. 123-130; idem, Ethico,

pp. 47-54. \,
 <. '0;" .. ~~'~'''~7\~'~~;-~ ,
"
"
\ ,- ... ' ;
i,
~
, ,,~ , \ Il \

", If'

," ---..:_-------'--_......~-----_........--:.:.;."-------_--.:_-_...:....._-------~"
'" ........'~-----., '

37

,-

25Idem , God and Man, p. 123,.

û
26~., p. 130.

27Georges C. Anawati, "cIsa;/I !I2 , Vol. IV, p. 84;

includes preceding quotation.

r -
.' .

"

: .
, :'
• li"
"é'
,'l~~ ~"
r ' , ,
., "
j
<
.J .~ ,
'<
,' Il;'''1 ~. .

,
"
Il

." ,,'" < • v ,~I : "', l

~ - "
. ~. , ':
,
 \
~ _.- - ..-._._. __ .~--- -\\ • _ _ _ ~_ _ _ _o:- .. . , _ _~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..... " _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

\
\

('\. .., CHAPTER II

L
Pre-TabarI TafsIr
\
Exegetical Traditions

Quranic exegesis is divided into two basic cate-

gories = l)·tafsIr bi'l-ma'thür, founded on received 1.
traditions (ahadith) which are traced to the prophet
-0 •

M~~ammad,h~s Companions (~~~~), or recognized\early

authori ti'es on scriptural exegesis '(mufassirün) l, and

2) tafsIr bi-'l-ra'y,'which allows the exegete to offer

1
1
opinions on a given verse not bound by the interpretations
found in the traditions. This chapter is primarly/con-
~
~,

cèrned with the first type of commentary, which also

F~
~ represents the earliest stages of exegesis. The second

t, type is a la ter development, and as such, will be treated

in subsequent cha'pters.
1
i
Much of this e~rly material
.-}
is taken from al-TabarI,2
! ,
1
1
J
'1 al'though sorne of i t has been found in independen t ecU tions
1 /

of the works of various authors. The following iS,a re-

'view in chronological order based upon the death dates of
the several commentators, of the thin*ing of the'mufassirün
of the first three centuries of Islam.
/""

o
~,
 f
.---- ~- -- ----""f----------.----.-----
',..." 39
"
"
i
1
'r
..

cAbd Allah ibn cAbbas (d. 68(687-)

,
C. The Tanwlr al-rnigbas is a short tafsIr ascribed to
i ~

t
\
Ibn cAbbas , and like works attributed ~o other early figures
in Islarnic history, carries mariy questions of authenticity.
,r

Indeed; the cu:rrent. debate 'on whether

\
or not it' is ,accurate
'
1· ,f< ta speak of tafsIr as an early activit~ casts a certain _
~
t
arnount of perplexity over any discu~sion of the sUbject. 3
f
\\
, For several reasons the traditions associated with Ibn cAbbas

;
are qeneraIIy thought to be untrustworthy. "One issue that
J
must be dealt with by anyone undertaking a specific study of
:
t this is why so little of the material
qu~stion . concerning
,

f i
- -
specific passages of the Qur'an attributed to this man by
t later writers of tafslr is not to he found, or is found in
r
\: different form, in his own [i. e. the work at hand] tafsIr.
/
~
t • . • one hopes that in the near future we rnay be able to
t
f discuss these questions arrned wtth fewer opinions and more

\ facts. n4 Fortunately, one tact has recentIy come to 1iqht:_

, the TanwIr a1-miqbas is an abridgement by al-DinawarI
1
l\ (d. 308/920) of perhaps an al-KaIbI tafsIr. 5 Therefore, it
\

i8 with a certain amount of abdication that the following

\ discussion of this work is re1ated to Ibn c Abbas;

- rather,
one should associate it with Mu~arnmad a1-~1bI Cd. 146/763)
who, nevertheless, cited much on the authority of Ibn cAbbas .6

'.
 40
f?
~
.,
\'
•,
.
t Becaus~ of pheir saying , because of their state~.
\

i
l'
( Î
ment t we kiÎled the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the
1 messenger af Gad ., Gad destroyed one of their [the
• Je~s'1 friends, Natyanüs t but they killed him not,
r" nor did they crucify him, but sa it was made ta appear
~
~
~ to them ., the likeness [ shibh ] of Jesus was cast upon
i Naty!nOs, so the y killéd him instead of Jesus t and
those who differ therein ., about his killing tare
~
1
full of doubts ., abaut his killing t they have nothing.
~
concerning it ., concerning his killing t of knowledge,
li'
~
only conjecture ., and not even conjecture t and they
l,
f.\ did not kill him ~ certainty ., i.e. certainly they did
(, not kill him t "rather, Gad raised him to himself ., ta
:~ he~ven t and 'Gad is'exa1ted in power" in revenging His
,
h
~
"
enemies t wise ., with support for His in_imate friends
[ Cawliya] and His prophet, and He destroyed their
friend Na~y!nOs.7

with this ~xample of the tafsIr of verses 4:157-8 we

(

"r have ~he essence of what may be terrned, for the purposes of
\
this study, the "substitution 1egend." Although this is by
no means the only device employed ta explain the verses, it
1 • _/

is by far the most, frequently encountered. As such, it is

(

undoubtedly responsible for the debate on ,the actuality of'

the crucifixion of Jesus. This legend will ~e met with many
times and in many farros in these pages. A brief enumeration
>:'""
of their points of exegetical dispute is therefore offere~
for future reference.
1. The meaning of "their saying" (gawlihim)1
whether it denotes a simple statement or a boast.
2. The identity of the speaker of the words "the
messenger af Gad" (rasül allah) - whether it ia
God or the Jews.
/

, ' t.
 ,1

41

3. "but so it was made to appear to them" (shubbiha

.
lahum) - this i6 the centr~l difficuity of this
'

verse, the explanation of which accounts\ for much

'J

of the variant interpretations, especially the

substitution legends~

4. "they did not kill him in certainty" (ma qatalühu

yaqInan) - whether the antecedent of the pronoun
1
1

(h.!!) is "himl! or "it" (Jesus of the event of the

crucifixion); and the meaning of yaqInan {in cer-

tainty).
5. "rather,- God raised him to Hirnself" (bal rafacah~

l allah ilayhi) - the meaning of IIraised" (rafa<::a),

the antecedent of the pronoun (hu), and the meaning /.----"
of "to himself" (ilayhi).
6. In addition, and with special reference to the
/ varrous substitution legends, the most changeable
element is the identity of the victim of the cru- ,1

l, cifixion.
.)

Another i6 the number of disciples

/ 't

(~awariyyün/a~Qab) with Jesus during th~ events

!
!
recounted in these legends. Other minor variations
will al,so be noticed.
'.
The above excerpt from the TanwIr al-miqbas displays
a con cern for many of the usual exegetical questions. Tc
point out the obvious, the tafsIr acknowledges that a

! '

()
,, ,

"
 , f
---. -.---~----- ----------------4-2- [ ~

crucifixion took place. Thus the question presents it-

self, "Why was it so important tQ grant this, but at the
sarne time deny that Jesus was crucified?" Whatever the
answer may be, it is obvious that th~ later exegetes went
tb great léngths to uphold the historicity of ~ crucifixion.
The most important issue here is the identity of the vic-
tim; in this rather short commentary, the name Naiyânûs 'is
~
mentioned three times. Other contemporaries of al-Kalbi
suggested a different identity: for example, Muqàtil, to
be dealt with at greater length below, clairned that the
victim was YahUdha, a Jew. It could be argued that even
at this early date, the ,Muslim community was in agreement
on the event of the crucifixion, but'not on who was cruci-
fied, except that it êaùd net have been Jesus. Why it could not
have been JesuS is a proble~ to be dealt w~th in the conclusion;
1

. we now turn to an examination of other early traditions.

As mentioned above, t~aditions are of various kin~s
J
depending on the ultirnate authority to which theY:are attri-
buted.· Research has been unable èo produce any ~QâdIth on
the crucifixion of Jesus which goe8 back to the Prophet
:'(QadIth nabawi), or of that category te~ed Qadlth 9udsI,
-
i.e., badith which transmit the direct speech ' of God. 8
The oldest authority for any tradition on the subject is
Ibn c Abbas • ,. the tafslr att~ibuted to him, later'
Aside from

o o .,

\, \
'1
 \., "

--- - - ---------"--"- --- _. - --. ---

43

.exegetes cite him as an a'uthority for traditions about this

?' - - 9
verse. None of these agrees with the Tanwir al-rniqbas; ,
this would seern to support, at least partially, Rippin's
~
analysis.
).

MUjahid/b. Jabr'al-MàkkI (d. 104/722)

Mujahid, an exponent of the Meccan "s'choOl"lO of

tafsIr which saw as its master Ibn c Abbas,
- is the accepted
authority for countless exegetica1,traditions. A volume

/ 1 of these, which have been collected and edited from va~ious

,
sources,
Il '
lias been used in this study. The cornrnentary
·1
1

1 on 4:157-8 is qui te brief: , " /

( t but 50 it was made to appear to thern ~ they "

t crucified a man,other than .Jesus while they
reCkoŒrl that he was Jesus because this other . \

man was made to look like Jesus to them

[ shubbiha lahum] .12
No further explanation is offered here_no attempt
to identify the victim Qf the crucifixion. Likewise, there
, ,
is no discussion of "the other key terms of the' sequence , .
(yaqInan, rafaca). ,j A note to the text .gives another example
of Muj ahid 's taf sIr f

They crucifïed a man whom they saw [ shabbaha ]

as Jesufj and God r'aised Jesus to Himself,
living. '
,
Bere the p~votal verb snubbiha is used in the active
voice in order to sp,ecify more clearly that, ,that which was
,/
" ,
() "

"
,,' ,\
"

, '
 ~ -~ --- - .~-

"" . . ' '0;:

. ,

,.
_ , .. ~ " '___ ... _ ... J. _ _ .... -....~_~

,
__ - _ _ _ . ._ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --.... _.!O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

Il
t 44

!
,
1,
l doubt~~l to the observers was the identity of the one
.,.., ~

crucified; also, rafaca is here given'a rneaning: that

Jesus'was raised to God. But the same root is used in the
1

\,cornmentary, Along with th~ adverb "living" (hayyan'), neither y

of which is specified further. As was the case in the

preceding exarnple,. the pbint to be made is that sameone
else died.

Wahb ibn Munnabih (d. 114/732)

, By far the Most popular version of the substitution

Iegend is related on the authority of Wahb. 'This authority
j is likewise the source of Many traditions dealing'with other

! biblical subjects.
sUbjeéts, Wahb acquired a reputation which
As the author of severai books'on various
v~ied :frorn trust-
worthy to' that of being an 'audacious liar" .14 The earliest
,.
known f0J:1t\ of this crucifixion legend cornes in two versions.
~rom
- 15 A surnmary ~of theae is preserited.
al-Tabari.

1. " with
I·t happened that Jesus was in a house
seven'disciples when the Jews surrounded them. .
When the Jews entered the hQuse God changed
aIl of the disciples to look like JeSUS. The
Jews, claiming they had been bewitched, demanded
that Jesus be pointed out to'thern, otherwise
they would kill aIl of them. Jesu~, then s~id
to his disciples, "Who would purchase for him-
self paradise today?" One of them volunteered,
announced to the Jews that he was Jesus, and
was killed and ; crucified by them.
~
Thus it appear~d to them; and they thought that
they had killed ~esus, and the Christians like-
wise thought that he was Je@üs, and God raised .
Jesus on that day Lwa ra fa a allihu cIsa min
" yawmihi dhalika J t 1'6. . '
",

, .
, .
"
 /
: "\ - -- -
'. ~'': ,. -~ ....
- -------.--..
--------'-----T~--- ,
_.) 1

2. When God revealed to him that he would soon

leave"'the world, Jesus became troubled. He
gathered his disciples for a Meal. Jesus served
them, washing their hands and drying [masaha ]
them with his garment. The disciples reëOlIed
at,this, thinking it to be beneath Jesus.
Jesus chided them for tAeir reaction, telling , '
them that they should follow his example, that
none should vaunt himself over another~ they should
sacrifice their selves for each other as Jesus
had sacrificed his self (nafs) for them. Then
he said: "Pray fervently tOGod that my death
}.
be postponed." " '---..
They began to pray but were unable to fend off
sleep, it being late. Jesus aroused them, scold-
ing them for sleeping. Then he said: "When the
shepherd disappears, the flock ..scatters. • • The
truth is, one of you will deny me before the cock
crows three times. And one of you will sell me
1
for a pal try price • • ." The disciples then
i dispersed.
t.
The Jews were looking for Jesus and encountered
Shamcün (Simon Peter). They accused him of being
a disciple, whieh he denied~ the y met another
disciple and 'the sarne thing happened. The coek
crew, reminding him of Jesus f warning, and he
1 was saddened. Then one of the disciples came to
the Jews and offered to lead them te Jesus for
a priee. At sorne point this di~ciple was changed
into the likenèss of Jesus[wa kana shubbiha alayhim
sabla âhalikal,so the Jews took him, sure that he
was Jesus. They bound him and led him around,
saying: "You have raised the dead, driven away
devils, and cured the insane~ why not therefore
free yourself from this rope?" The Jews -!}.pat
upon him and placed thorns\upon his head. When
·they carne to the post upon which they intended
to crucify him, God raised him [the antecedent
of, Ihim' is unclear, according to the text it
should be the disciple, but what follows indicates
that it is Jesus), and they crucified wh~t~appeared
to them. And he remained crucified seven hours.
Then JesU'~' _:,mother, ahd the woman he had treated
and whom God had freed from madness, came weeping
before the crucified one. Jesus appeared to them
1

o i
,-l' •
1
f"

\
 -->--- ~--_..:..-------- - ---'- ---'--- - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
46

and asked them why they' were weepïng. They

, (- ,,
1
. said, "For you", He said: "Ver ily, God has
raiseq me to h;i.mself, and nothing b'ut good
can befa11 me. This thing only appears so
to themi sa, send for the disciples that they
may meet me at such-and-such a place. fi
1 Eleven disciples' met him at the designated
place. Jesus discovered that· the one who
had betrayed him"was missing; upon inquiry
he was told that he had repented and hanged
himself. Jesus said: IIIf he repents ma'y Gad
fergive him. fi Then Jesus' inquire<r about a
youth who was following them. His name Wcil.S 1

Ytl:tlannll and Jesus appointed him p disciple

and instructed "them al! te" precil.<:=h ta the 17 1
people in their language and summon them.
, 1-
These twe accounts attributed to Wahb contain severai
s.ignificant elements which justify their inclusion here. Fore-
-
most is the 'tact that the first legend is the one chosen by
al-tabarI as the best explanation of 4: 157-; 18 his .influence

upon subsequent mufassitün requires no comment. The second

leg~nd, aside, from be!ng the lengthiesJ exegetical ~adlth on

the subj ect, seems also ta have been favoured by al-'-!'abari 1

though not his first choice. It m~y be helpful, the:tjefore,
,
to try to discern ju~t why these stories had sûch appeal-.

Contrary ta tradition, Wahb was most likely born a

Muslim, not a Jew,19 He is classed 'among the tabiCun, and was

of Persian origine He was the -author of several works, and

t
much of his" writing dealt with biblical tradition. nl:S' k-nowledge
of this subject is said ta corne from his as'sociations with

Ch:i:istians and Jews oi his native Dhimar. 20 His Kitab... al-mubtada'

" '
 .- _.__.__.---,._-------------
47

lS a sou-rce for later historians such as Thac'labi, and

C-;
-' al-MascüdI. The Kitab al-Isra'iliyyat is not extant,
although an attempt has been made to .reconstruct it. 2,.1
Earl.y exegetes sueh as al-!abarI and Ibn Qutaybah freely
quoted him. However, mueh of' this material is contr-adictory,
as is the material used by Ibn Hisham when eompared with
the Kitâb al-mubtada r .22, Al though Wahb was used by Ibn
\
,Ishaq for the latter r 5 history of the beginnings of
\
Christiani ty r he was completely avoided as a source for
the Prophet r s biography.23 As with sa many early\:!:radition-
, .
ists, W~hb'S reputation ls uneven. Nevertheless, his
~
(
...r, notoriety alone made his narne an attractive one for exegetes
~
Î(
r". deali.ng with bibl.ical subjeéts.
.
J},
t The above extracts illustrate perf~ctly the utility
--i·. of his traditions. In these two stories, no item of the
{ two verses is 1eft unexplained,. except the question of the
i: "'-
"l connotation' of' "gawlihirn" and of the "speaker" of "rasÛl allah"
,
~ (items 1 and 2, page 44). In addition to items 3,4,5 and 6, )

\
o
1
t the stories explain that part o\f the verse which is translated
',1
:
as:
\
~ And those ·who differ tQer~in are full of doubts,
wi th no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to
fol.low ".
This is éovered in the firet account where the text reads
"they . thoug'ht t.hat they had killed Jesus". Tne Arabie here
, \

,f"':
;.~ ,"
 t
~ "-~~ ~ ....- ~~- -------

48

-
is ?annu (they thoughtjconjectured) and shares the sarne root
with the quranic noun translated as "conjecture" above. Both
stories are also full of characters, which explains who "thosé"
who differed about. th~ crucifixion were:· e.g. the Jews, the
'1
disciples, "his mother and -the! 'woman" and finally yühannâ.
.
Thus the verse is completely explai!ledi moreover, the stories ~l
L t
~ themselves are entertaining. These two factors undoubtedly !
help to justify their popularit~.
!
The vocatiulary of thes,e "explanations" is, for the '\, 1
1
most part, identièal with the quranic language. The root
.
sh-b-h is repeatedly used in the stories, as is the root
\ 1
i,

~-n-n, without ever being more fully defined. Even the root

m-s-q (which forms masiJ:)' if used to describe Jesus' washing

.)
the disciples' hands. It lS to be questioned, as Elder ob':
served, whether this kind of elliptical commentary can be
24
considered an expl~nation at all. Nevertheless, the fact
remains tha t i t has been accepted by the Muslim .comrnuni ty and
so has exerted enormous influence in-t-hérôrmation of the
Islamic chistol~:;etorê î~~:ng this discussion of Wahb 1 s
accounts, it should be noted that the second story i8 quite
close to the Gospel accounts in many of its details. Aside
from display·in.9- e-xte.rnal"literary dependence, this also must
~/. ~

have commended it to the exe9~tes who were eager to a~t/tne

scriptures of previous communities, but who were at the sarne \ ,

wary of their corruption (taOr!f). 2S

 --~~ ----.-~--------_.... _--- ---------_._----
49
, ,

'j •
c-'
Qatadah ibn Di ama (d. 117-8/735/6)

AI-TabarI cites two traditions from this exegete who

was ~ for his powerful meJllory and dislike of writing. 26

Bath are quite brief:

1. Abou± His statement: t Verily, we killed the

1.
Messiah, Jesus son of Mary~ the messenger of
" God; and they didn't kil1 him and they didn't
crucify him ~ up to His statement: t And Gad
i9 mighty, wise ~. The Jews were the enemies
of God, and the y had decided ta kill Jesus son
of Mary, the mess~nger of Goq, and they claimed
to have killed him and crucified him. And it
was re1ated to us that the prophet of Gad, Jesus
son of Mary, said ta his disciples: "Who of
you will have my likeness [shibh] cast upon him
and thereby be killed?" One' of the dis'ciples said:
"I, 0 prophet of Gad!" Thus that man was killed
and God protected [ manaCa 1 His proplÏet as he
raised [ rafaCa] him ta Himself.

2. Concerning His statement: ~ And they didn' t kill

hirn and they didn't crucify hi~, but it appeared
sa to them. ~ Qatadah said: "The likeness of
Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he
was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and
said: 'Whoever of you will have my likeness cast
upon him will have paradisé.' And one saia,
'Upon me!'. 27 '

As was the case in the previous traditions, these two

from' Qatadap make no attempt to iden~ify or name the substitute.

They both agree wi th Wahb' s second account in that the y portray

Jesus as actively seeking ta avoid crucifixion. Why such a

portrayal would have been sa popular is slight1y puzzling.

There i9 Borne evidence to suggest that a1-!abarI himself thought

such a thing unlikely, perhaps because i t would have been

\'*
 , .

- ~- ~-~~ - _...... _----~--._- --~--.,,.......... - .--~----~y -------'=---------

50 \
J

beneath the dignity of a prophet'to flee~death.2B More-

over, the many quranic passages which laud death in the way
of God (fi sabIl allah) would also seem to argue that' su~h
~ction was unbecoming a true Muslim~ and Jesus, accord~ng

to Is~am, was a true Muslim. 29

al-Qasim ibn Abi Bazzah (d. 124/742) 1 1

He i9 saïd to have been the enly student of MUjahid 1 s '\ 1

who ~ade a complete copy of his teacher's tafgIr~30 The 1 1
;

.tradition .
in al-TabarI
,
is quite simi1ar to Mujahid's and'
L
! those just examined from Qatadah. As it etfers nothing --,l
1
. d"1n d
. W1. Il no t b e exam1ne
new, 1t e tal
' 1 • 31
~
~, '

lama-c-il ~ ibn cAbd ,a1-Ratunan,,'al-Suddi

- - (d. 127/74 ..• )

.\. \ ' /'

This'figure Is one of a handtul of early exegetes

cr,edited with actua11y writing his own tafsIr. His authority
l is ~idely used by al-1abàrI, but Muslim ~cholars classed him
1
,
1
among the'least reliable of.early commenta~ors.32 This
1
1
-! account i5 similar to the preceding, ·however, two points
dese,rve notice. The number of· disciples is specified as
~
nineteen, theugh no names are mentioned; and, an attempt is
made to defin~ rafaca. Rather. than merely 'repeat this verb,
al-Sudd! used the passive of ~acada te express God's raislnq
, 33
Jesus to heaven, which ls, in effect, no more than a synonyme \

o •

,,..
iL ,
T! .. ;~ •
 ...

-----._------~

51

, ,
In addition, the conunentator s~ys that the' Jews (banI
J

!
L
' isrâ 1 Il) "suspected" that the substitute was Jesus. Shakka

is the verb here which nicely echoes the quranic t full of

doubt [lafT shakkin minhu1'"

Jacfar ibn MUQarnrnad al-~adiq (d. 148/765)

-
Much is attribut\d to the sixth Imam of the Shi ah,
-c
34
little of which can be authenticated. His reputation as

'a scholar/mystic, in addition to the inf1uenèe of his position

as a divinely. cornmissioned spiritual leader, combined at an

ear1y stage ta give his name special authority. : SunnIs and

shIcrs alike honoured him for his learning. One of the chief

justices of Baghdad, during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid,

considered Jacfar one of the most reliable sources for questions

of jurisprudence. 35 Jacfar is said to have transmitted ,

.,
!,
i traditions from such divergent types as Abù HanIfah and Malik

ibn Anas;
- .
from' Hijazl and c1raqi schalars, Sunni or, Shici.

He lS credited with compil~ng a book of traditions, which

36
unfortunately is no longer extant.
-
Among other works attributed to Ja c far i9 a tafsIr,

a manuscript of which was consulted for?"th!s study.37 In

1968, Paul Nwyia published a critical edi tian of the tafsIr

c .
of Ja far as it appears in Su1am~'s Haqa' iq al-tafslr •
• -,'
Comparison of that wark with the manuscript at hand shows
.J
 -_.~------~---~.-_ .._------
il'
{
52
"
1"
i
~
<

the two have ~i ttle in common on the treatment of our sub-

i ( f
ject, reference to 4: 157 being absent in the former. 38 The'
,t 1"

1- , commentary itself is quite brief " but i t is interestincj in

1
(,
that « i s quite different from anythirig studied before.
~
~
Ji!
r
~
This might have been expested in light of what is known
,
about the nature 0 f h 1S . 1 exegesl.s,
· myst1ca . 39 as t he ta f Slr
-:
i
,~" 11
~ lS attributed to a contemporary of such e'xegetes as Jurayj,
1
1
Muqatil and Ibn Is~aq. Inasmuch as àll of these exegetes 1

l,·
,
11
will be found below to have taught sorne version of the sub- 1
i
1
sti tut ion explana tion, this work deserves to be mentioned, i€ i
, 1

f only as a devia tion from the norme

;
~
The most striking distinction here is that the author

restricts his comment to only a small phrase in the verse:

\-
~ Verily, we kil1ed the Messiah r. No attempt is made to

identify the subject, or indeed anyone else usually associated

with the verse. In fact, Jesus himself is not even mentioned
by name and is only referred to by a pronoun which identifies

him as one of the prophets (anonym~us) of GOd.', The main

business of the _t fl fslr\ is.'to discuss the implications of the
killing. Killing is described as being of three types: '

1) "killing of the world [gatl al-dunya J. by abandonning i t

to the enerniesllj 2) "killing of the sin.s of a lover"; 3) "kllling

of the passion of a knower J c~rif ] ft. The author then says

that he (Jesus?) gained a high rank [rifCah] by being killed,

\
'1

:..:... t
 ~ ~ -- -- -- ................... -- ........ --
~,- -~---~._~----_.--------~-------
/ 53

just as God raised his other prophets [wa lahu fi qatlihi

'- c
rifcah karna rafa a allah anbIyahu]. God seated him (Jesus?)
- and reunion
on the throne of intimacy [unsi] -
r liqe'] • 40
An attempt ta define s~uch terminology as "enemies",
41
"lover", or "knawer" would he beyond the scope of this study.
It seems that the author' s purpose is ta affirm that Jesus
died and was spiri tually exal ted, although it is impossible

ta conclude that, because of this, the author opposed the -idea ,

l ,
1 1
of' substitution. It is obvious that it was not an issue wh'ich lî
concerned him here, as there i5 no mention of any crucifixion,
anly "his killing". It may be that the substitution legend
.,
was thought to be 50 familiar as not requiring mention, or
more likely, that it was simply irrelevant. 42 Nenetheles~,
that early exegetes such as Jacfar are thought te have read

the verse in such a way 1 i9, in the context of th~s study,

\
significant.

\ c Abd al-Malik b. ~Abd al-cAziz b. Jurayj (d. 149-50/766-7)

1
,1 This transmi tter of Mu~ahid's tafslr giVes .•o J:for-
mation Ilot found in the la tter 's cammentary. The tlad th lS ~

quite short and it simply says that Jesus asked a disciple

to take his likeness, which the disciple did and was killed.
p
43
Jesus was raised ta. Gad.
/

\
 54

(J Muqatil b. Sulayrnan a1-BalkhI (d. 150-1/767)

Scholars have recently studied his tafsIr but i t is

still not possible to certify the provenance of works attri-
44
buted to him. A manuscript of such a tafsir was consulted.
1 and found to contain sorne interes,ting variations on the sub-
45
stitution legend. In this account aIl of the items mentioned

o,n pages 44-45 (supra) are dea1t with, beginning with the
/'
author' s insistence that the Jews did not say \lImessenger: of

God", ra ther i t was Gad who speke here. The eventua1 substitute
was the guard the Jews had placed over Jesus, who was give,n
the likeness of Jesu~ as punishment for assaul~ing him physical~y

and accusing Jesus of blasphemy by claiming ta he a messenger

of God. This guard' s name i8 Yiihùdha, but i t is, clear that
he is not the disciple Y~\idha (Judas), who ether exegetes 46
/ reported was subsÙtuted for Jesus .
.' Muqatil makes .it qui te definite that ~ those who dis-
\
agree ~ about the crucifixion are the Chris~ians, "sorne of
them say the Jews killed ,him, while sorne of them say he was
not killed, but they are in doubt about his killing. Il It was

pointed out earlier, however, that the Jews were aiso unsure
of the true identity of the one they were killing. This is
nicely related to the commentary on t they did not kill him/
it in certainty, which, acco+ding to Muqatil, means "that
the Jews did not kill the victirn in absolute certainty.

()
 /
\ "
"

(J Alternate interpretatiôns, Ibn cAbbas , supra, held that

the Jews certainly did not kill Jesus.
The author says that Jesus was raised to heaven,
ali ve l "dur,ing, the mon th of Ramadan on the nigh t of Power,
. ' .
1
1 and he was thirty-three years old when he was raise~ from
; t
the Mount of Jerusa'lem:" The exegesis ends by saying that
\
, God is mighty, wise ~ "more mighty in forbidding Jesus'
1
1

1 killing, and wise when he decreed raising him." That Muqatil

chose the Most auspicioûs date on the Muslim calendar as i
'1

the time for these events suggests that Jesus was to be "!
,'4'egarded as the spiritual kin of Mul}ammadi this date wit-
t:~
nesses such significant events as the first revelation:S-land
the famous miCraj of Muhammad. Whether'or not Jesus'
prophethood was doubted by Hugatil's contemp<?raries is im-
possible to say. Certainly, there is no'ground for such doubts
in the Qur'an. Why al-!abarI ignored this version'is also
\ puzzling, inasmuch as it differs 50 little in intent from
others cited by him. Perhaps the,lack of gospel, allusions
, 1
in it was a factor; or, perhaps he was simply unaware of it.
None of the later mufassirün mentions this 'account ,47 but
inclusion of it here was thought unavoidable.
'0

MUQammad ibn Is~aq (d. 150-1/767-8)

His 1e~gthy tafsIr 48 of 4:157-8 is actually éomposed

 /

56 1
CJ ./'
of three "separate !Qadlth; the sanadayn of the first two
,

t
ç \
.
are identical; Ibn Humayd, Salamah, Ibn Is9aq. The third

,, '" isnad differs only in that the final authority is ah un-

• named Christian convert to Islam. In the first tradition'
,
Ibn Is~aq says that the p~rson responsible for issuing the
\ order to kill Jesus was Da'üd, king of the ban! isra'!l •
...J
We are told' that none of the servants
, of God could- have done
such a thing,. and that this action did not bother the king,
nor did he pray God to keep him from it. When the Jews
entered,,}:he house where Jesus and thfrteen {!) of his
: " - 1
,disciples were, they were sure (yaqin) t?at they ~ad found
Jesus. 49 / .
The second tladIth says that one lof these thirteen
was a man named Serjes, whom the Christians do not recognize.
It was Serjes who was substituted for Jesus, and they (not
(J

\ .
specified) repudiate what the prophet Muhammad brought cOn- 1

cerning this incident. This last item is quite interesting

in that no ôadIth about the crucifixion has been found.to go
aIl the way back to Mu~ammad. It is possible that'this simply
1

refers to the quranic verses. H~: the utilization of

the ward khabr makes this seem unlikely~'
The third ~adIth, on the authority of a Christian,
says that when God told
,
Jesus He would raise him (3:55). he
appealed ta his ! disciples to save him by accepting ~is
 '. )'

57

j - -
likeness (surati - "my image"). 'l'he sarne Serjes valunteered,
~
f took Jesus' seat and Jesus was raised up. When tne Jews
f·
entered the y took Serjes, crucified him and killed him. '
In aH three atladIth, much is made of the' nwnber of the
disciples. This ie seen to be the point' whiéh corresponds
to the quranic t And those who differ therein ,. So the
" text here ,says: "And. their number, when they entered wi th
Jesus, was certain; they had seen them and counted them." l' 1

j
But when the Jews actually went in after Jesus they discovered
t 1

.!
~
one of them missing (Jesus having already bèen raised up) •
Moreover, the Jews did not really know what Jesus looked

1 . ~
"
.
lik~, so they offered YÜdas Zakaria Yuta (Le. Judas) thirty

i1 dirhams to lead them to Jesus .. Yüdas did so by kissing the

one whom he thought was Jesus, but in reality was Serjes.
,
Then the latter was crucified. Yüdas then repented and '.
v

hanged hil1'lself. We are told that the Christians cursed ~irn,

and that sorne of them even believe that it was Yüdas who was
!f
crucified. The commentary ends judiciously with: "And God
k
knows how i t was .. ft 50
"1' 51
It is curious that none of this appears in the Slra.
In that passage which portrays Mul,.lammad as trying ta resolve
,\

differences between Christians and Jews by pointing out their

respective doctrinal errors and calling bath commuriities to
1. Islam, there is extensive tafsIr on' much of sürah three. At

o.
. 1
 -.'O .. ,. ~~-._-- \ -- ---." "" -.---:-.----"~-- --- _____________......._ - . r ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- f
1 ~
58
!'
;>

3: 54-5 the following appears:

Then God referred to his taking up of Jesus to H.imself
when the Jews decided ta kill' him, He said: lAnd the y
plotted and God plotted, anti Gad i8 the best of plotters ,.
,Then He told them - refuting what the y assert of the ,
Jews in regard to his Jesus 1 crucifix!2n - how He took ,
hirn up and purified him from thern. • • ,
j
One might have thought that this would have provided an lV
excellent opportunity to present the accaunt faund in al-tabar!,
\ -- ~
l'
particular 1y sinêè 4: 157 is mentioned nowhe~e in the SIra. l
L

However, most af fhe exegetical passages in the SIra âre ehem-

selves re1ative1y short~ the traditions studied .above may have
, 1 ~

been thouqht inappropriate becaus~ of their 1ength.

Neverthe-
r
less, it is odd that an a subject of such doctrinal importance
for the audience no mention of, ail actual substitute ,Pis made.
It is clear that the purpose here is to "refute" 'Christian
notions about the Jews, just ·as the "abject throughout the
context in which the above passag,e appears h to assert ta
the Jews the prophethoad of Jesus, the Messiah. 53

Abu Muhammad c Abd Atlah> b. Muslim b. Qutaybah al-DInawarI

(d. 276/aa9.)

An attempt was made to gain material 'from such exegetes t

as Abü cUba;dah {do 209/824) and SUfY~ThawrI (d. 161/778)
'- ,

to close the more than one hundred-year gap which separates

Ion Qutaybah fram Ibn :rs~aq.
Unfortl.lnately, the works available
54
contained nothing of direct pertinence. It should also be

.. , 1
 ",

. , '"
é'
----------------:"" ,-----'

59 1
(
mentioned that the tafsIr of 5ahl al-'l\Jst:arl (d. 283/896) i5
'1' . i 55
. Il y ,s~ ent o~ the verse 1n quest on •.
equa Consequently,
this auth~r is the last to bé studied in this chapter.
\

Ibn Outaybah's K. taf~Ir gharIb al-Our'an deals

J(as t~e name implies) with the difficult passages in the
book. 56 \ Given the varied \interpretat:ions of 4 :157 which'
1
were undoubtedly circu1ating dU,ring the time of this author, i
" -' 1
it cornes as no surprise that the vérse is~treated in this 1

work. What is surprising is that t~e "strange ll ward whiéh'

.
is chosen fbr comment is not shubbina or rafaca, but yagInan .
1
f
1
1
1!
The entire expli ion runs as fo1lows:
f
!t t ma atalühu a inan [they did not kill him/it
certainly }, hat is: the 'knowledge [ Çilm] , that "
they killed the knowleçlge of him [ JesUs-= the man
'~ and his message'} . _ Th~ saying [ tagawwu1 ] "1 killed
him ce~tainly [yaginan ] and I killed him.in knowledge l'

[ cHmant ia a simi1ar metaphor [ istiCara } ~sed

in connection [with dist=ussions 1 of opinion [ ra 'y] ,
and Dad!th, and kalam., Thus God says: t ~hey did
.\ not kilI him/it 'certainly " that is, they were
neither sure nor certain about it. The reason for
1
t that is that the ki11ing of -'a thing i9 by 'way of
1· vanquishing J qahr}, and, superiority [ i&ticla'], and
total victory [ithalabah}. Thus God i8 saying; "They"
1
·i did not know about the ki1ling of the Messiah with
1(
true knowledge, thoroughly comprehending the matter;
rather it was conjecture." 57 ,
A thorough exarnination of Ibn Qutaybah's work would
\
unaoubtedly shed more light on this verse. The concern in
this study, howeve,r, 15 wi.th those works formally cla5sed as
f ~
,;

5B
tàfslr. ~his' brief cornmentary has made it clear that the
author considera it proper" to under!;tand J:hat the Jews were -

J , '
 "'I,. _ _ _ ....
_
~
I
-
_M
_._-- _,____ ___.__ ~ ~____'_ ____'_____ ~~-----:o---------:.
....,..
\ i
i
1

î.

l ,
)
~.
,
60

,
1·
() r 4 -

1 , not sure of what the~had done. This is contrary to trans-

f )
i
!
../ lations which r~hd 't They certainly did not kill him" and
-h,
.l.
l, should be considered an important development in the inter-

1
1
pretati~n "è-f. the verse. ,.' .

1·i Summary
1
i
t
Examination of the early traditions yiel~~ the fol1ow-
r , . 1
!
ing facts. AlI agree' that someone was crucifïe<h but few
}
1 ,1
agree on the victim, except that it was not Jesus. The
1 \ 1
c le~ends themseives faii ~nto/two major categories: l)volunteer
f

substitution and 2) punishment substitution. The first

type appears to have been preferred.
- Thas~

employing traditions did not find it necessary to reJect, the

exegetes'not

, ; c
c~ucif~xion of Je~us. One -of them, Ja far, commented only
on the nature of "killing", while Ibn Qutaybah was concerned
with the meaning of 'yaqlnano, 'None of the exegetes' dippIayed
any concern for the grammatical problems surrounding shubbiha
1

lahum; rath~r, the ambiguity of the phrase (a~t~sted by la~er

....
ex~getes b~low) was explained by na~rati~e 'embellishment.
, v

\ ~ ..

..
 --,--~-- --_.--_.~-~---,-". ~-'--"~-----~'--",'

, 1
61

(
'FOOTNOTES

lRashid Ahmad Ju11andri, "Qur'anie Exegesis and

Classiea1 TafsI,r," IQ, XII, No. 1 (1968), p. 81,. In
addition to this artIcle, see the fo1lowing on early
tafsIr in general: Hartwig Hirsehfeld, New Researches
into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran, Asiatie
Monographsr, III (London: Royal Asiatie Society, 1902);
Ignaz Goldziher, Die Riehtungen der Islamisehen Koran-
auslegung, 2nd ed. (Leiàen: E.J. Bril1, 1952), pp. 1-98;
Harris Birkeland, "Old Muslim Opposition'against Interpre-
t;ation of the Koran," AVhandlinger utgitt av det Norske
Videnskaps-Aeademie: Oslo, II, Hist.-Filos. Klasse., 1955,
No. 1 (Uppsala:jAlmqvist and Wikse1ls, 1956); Nabia Abbot,
Studies' in Arabie Literary Papyri: II, Qur'anie Commentary .
and Tradition, The uniyersity of Chicago Oriental Institute
" Publications, Vol. LXXVI (Chicago: University of Chicago
f Press, 1967); Jane 1. Smith, An Historical and Semantic
\. Study of the Term J'Islam" cas seeR in a Sequence of Qur'an
Commentaries, Harvard Dissertations in Religion, l (Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 35-56; Helmut Gat je, The Qur'an
and its Exegesis: Selected Texts with Classical and,Modern
" ' Mus1im Interpretations·, transe and ed. by A1fcrd T. We1ch
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976); M.O.A. Abdul,
"The Historical Deve10pment of TafsIr, " IC, L (1976),
pp. 141-153; John Wansbrough, Quranic Stüdies: Sources and
101et?ods of Scriptural Interpretation, London Oriental
Ser1es, Velo 31 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1977);
Mujahid Muttammad al-Sawwaf, "Early Tafsir'- A Survey of
.
" Qur'anic ,Commentary up to 150 A.H.," in Is1amic ,Perspectives:
ptudies in Honour of Mawlan~ Sayyid Abü Ael a lo1awdtldi, eq.,. bY
Kurshid Ahmad ~nd Zafar Ishaq Ansari (London: The Is1amic .
Foundation, U.K. 7 1979),. , pp. 135-145 •
2
- c' ,- 10--c
Abu Ja far Muhammad b'. Jarir a1-Tabar~, J.:::.mi al-bayan
Can ta'wïl ~yat al-Qur'an, ed. by Mattmud·Mu~ammad Shakir and
~ad Mubammad Sh!kir (Cairo: Dar al-M~carif, 1374-/1954-),'
severa! vols. are avai1ab1e.

r 3Thât is, tafsIr as a discipline distinct from the ~

ge~eral study of Qur'ân and badIth, see Jullandri, op. èit., p.
78; a1-Sawwaf, op. cit. In addition, Abbott's discussion
of the theories of Goldziher and Birke1and, SAL) II, 106-13
and Wansbrough's criticism of this, op. cit., pp. 157-158,·
are impo;'tant. 1. ~ \
,)

.',
 62
J
(
/4smith, op. eit. ,1 p. 42.

e 5Andrew Rippin, "Thé Exegetieal Works Aseribed to

Ibn Abba~: An Examination" (paper presented at the American
Aeademy of Religion Meeting, New York, Novernber, 1979).
My thanks to the author for permission to eite this study~
1·
'~) 6As is evidenced in the work at band: Abü TahIr
\, Mu~arnrnadibn YaCqüb al-Firüzabadi, Tanwïr al-miqbas'min
tafslr ibn cAbbas (2nd ed.; Cairo: al-Babi al-HalabI,
-1370/1951). •

7TanwIr al-rniqbas, p. 68.

80n the subjeet of ~adIth qUdsI see: William A. Graham,

Divine Word and Pro hetic ord in Earl Islam: A Reconsider-
at~on of the-Sources w~th Special Re erenceoto the D~v~ne
Saying or aadith Qud'si (The Hague: 1-1outon, 1977)'. The
standard analysis of the general question ot Qad!th is, of
course,: Ignaz GOldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. II, transI
by C.R. Barber and S:M. Stern, ed. by S.M. Stern (London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 197~, pp. 17-251. A response
to non-Mus1im scho1arshtp-on-the'suoject is: Moharnrnad
Mustafa Azmi., Studies in Early Hadith Li,terature: With a
Critical Edition of sorne Early Texts (Beirut: al-Maktab
al~Is1am!, 1968). See also: Leonard T. Librande, "Three
Western Scholars and Islamic Tradition: Opinions on its
Early Development" (unpub1ished M.A. thesis, McGill Univer-
sity, 1972). For'the specifie tapie of Jesus in ~adith see~
William P. McLean, "Jesus in the Qur'an and the fjadlth
Literature" (unpublished M.A. thesis, McGill University,
1970); and Arent Jan Wensinck,_- A Handbook of Early Muhammadan
Tradition: Alphabetically Arranged (Leiden: E.J. B~ill, 1960). .
,
!'
9For-example, see the discussion of al-MaturIdf infra,
chapter III, p.'73 and, al-Suyü1:-~ infra, P.I 89. /, .

'lO~l-sawwaf, op. cit., p. 141. . b~hers were: i) the

Clraqi SChOj' headed by Ibn Mascüd; 2) the Medinan sChool,
its most pro in~nt leader was 'Ub~yy b. Racb.
o • ~ •

llMujahid b.' Jabr, TafsIr Mujahid, ed. Dy cAbd al-Rahman

a~-Tahi~ b. Muhammad"al-SurtI (Qatar: Matabi c al-Dawhat al:
uadithah, 1976).

-,' ..
 • r

.
'1 '
~- - -----.-_..-----_._-_.--

63
1
12 b'~ 1 .,
p. 18 O.:t
h '~sna-d'1S: c Abd a l -Rahm-an~
IbrahIm; d ; 'iaraqa'; Il) Abi Najlh, Mujahid. The matn
here is sim' ar to that co ected with al-TabarI's variant
isnad, 0787, IX, p. 373.
13 MUJah~d,
,-. ~ h
Tafs~r, p. 180, no. 2 where the ot er two
traditions of Muj~hid used by al-TabarI are mentioned, (i.e.
nos. 10788 and 10789). Neither of these agrees with'the
isnad here. See: Heribert Horst, "Zur Uberlieferung im
Koran-kornrnentor at-tabaris," ZDMG, CIlI (19531, pp. 290-
307 for an analysis of the asanïd in al-Tabari; of special
relevance here aie pp. 295 and 296. •
14 . , - c -
_A~~d b. Mu~~mmad ~bn Khall~kan, Wafayat al-a lan
wa-anba ' abna ' al-zaman, trans. by William M. DeSlane (
vols.; Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain
. (
and Ireland, 1257-1258/1843-1861), Vol.' III. P. 673. Cited
by Earl E. EIder, "The Crucifixion in the Koran," MW, XIII
(1923), pp. 242-258, ref. ~s to p. 246. . --
15 -
al-~abari, IX, pp. 368-370.

16'Itù.s translation differs slighUy fran Elder, pp. 246-247.

17This is an abridged trapslationi for a complete

translation see EIder, pp. 247-248. (Note error on p. 248:
IIFear you" should read "For you!" Cf. aIso: Mahrnoud Ayoub,
"Towards an Is1amic Christology: II: The Death.of Jesus.
Rea1ity or Delusion? (A Study of the Death of Jesus in Tafsir
Literature), MW, (in press). Ref. is to typescript, pp. 7-9.
Grateful acknowledgement to the author for permission to use
this article. For the relationship between this second.account
and Docetism, ~e parrinder, op. cit., pp. 109-111.
18' -
, al-~abari, IX, p. 374.

19Josef Horovitz, "Wahb b. l-lunabbih, El 1 " IV, p. 1084.

'. See also: Raif Georges Khoury, Wahb b. MunabbIh, Codices
Arabici Antiqui, l (2 pts,; Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1972), pt. l, p. 215.
20Horovitz, "Wahb," EI l , IV, p. 1084 •
.~

,
21 vl.n
-
t Chauvin, La récension egYPtiènne des(rhille
et une nuit , russels, 1899, discussed in Khoury (n~ 19),
pp. 224- '5 See also Horovitz, op. cit., p. +084.

~----------~-_. -- .' -,~---------

 ,
, , , ................. ' ..... .-"' .... "..--_._---~

l '." 64
! .
.---

.(\ \
'-_/ "-

22 Ibid •
1 "

f
23 Ibid ." p. 1085.
..
24 E1der,
" op. cit., p. 250.
\
/
25
Fran:ls Buhl, "TahrIf ' " -EI 1 -1 IV, pp. 618-619.
.
J
/",

26He was a student of Sacrd ibn a1-Musayyib ld. 94/712) 1 1

who was disturbed by Qatadah's re1uctanee to write down dic-

tation. SALP II, P.o 198. ~
1· 1

27 ' .,. q
a1-Tabar~, IX, p. 370. The isnad nos. pre 10781
1
1
and 10782. See Horst,oe. cit., pp. 301 and 296 respectively. \ 1
1
,
1
28al-TabarI, IX, p. 314. His choice of Wahb's first
account rnight be thought to support this. ,1

1 29see the quranic citati9ns in : 'Thornas'O'Shaughnessy,

-)
1
1

t Muhammad's Thou hts on Death: A'Thematic Stud of the Qur'anic

~ (Lei en: E •.J. Bril1, 1969), pp. 61-66. For Jesus as a
1 Mus1im, see, for example, Claus Schedl', MUhammad und Jesus "
p. 33.
f

!
1
30SALP II, p. 98.

~la1-Taba~ IXI~ p. 3711 Horst, op. cit., p. 298.

.!
1
32Ju11andri, op. cit., p. 80. j "'.

33A popular device in tafsIr discussed at 1ength'in

Wansbrough, op. cit., pp, 130-131 and 145.

34GAS l, pp. 529-530. The tafslr MSS 1isted are:

1) Bankipm XVIII,2,143, no. 1460; 2) Buhar 13; ,3) Nafiz
65; 4) Ch. Beatty 5253; 5) A1igarh ... 2976 rtl/28 ..

35Hi~ narne was Ab't Fil-BakhtarI Wahb ibn Wahb (d'. 200/1
815-6). For a d~scussion of his use of tradition see: ~ II,
pp. - 2 24 and' 229" . '
\
o 36 Ibid ., p. -229.
 ·~'-------"--'-~~~~'--.'----~-~- r
65 ,

(
37 Ch. Beatty 5253'.

38 '
. Paul Nwyia, ilLe tafsIr mystique attribu" ~ Gacfar
~~diq/n Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph, XLIII,
Fasc. 4 (19GB), pp. 182-230.

39paul Nwyia, Exégèse coranique et langage mystique:

nouvel essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans,
Récherches publiées sous la direction de l'institut de let-
tres orientales de Beyrouth, Série 1: Pensée arabe et musulmane,
XLIX (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1970), pp. 156-188. For a dis-
cussion of methodological differences between Jacf~r and Muqatil
see esp. pp. l~0-164. Nwyia points out Jacfar's use of four
levels of ïnterpretation: l} l'expression; 2) l'allusion;
3) les touches de la gracei 4) les realites, (p. 167). His
method has also been seen as the utilization of two main
approaches to the quranic text, i.e., through 1) a combination
of literaI and allegorical (ibarah and isharah) exegesis,
and 2) a concern for mystical subtleties and spiritual
realities (lata'if and haqâ'iq). These two categories with
their four components are seen to correspond to Jacfar's division
of hurnanity into the common man, the mystlc man~ saints and
p~ophets; in Gerhard Bowering, The Mystical Vision of Existence
in Classical Islam: The Qur'ânic Hermeneutics of the $ûfi Sahl
at-T~star! (d. 283/896), Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und
Kultur des IslamÏschen Orients, IX (Berlin: Walter de Gruytert
1980), p. 141. See also p.l42 for c9mrnents on_the question of
Dhu'l-NŒn as the first editor of Jacfar's tafsir, first opened
by Louis Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique 1
, \
de la mystique musulmane (2nd ed., Paris: Vrin, 1954), pp. 201- 1
206.

40 Ch . Beatty 5253, fol. 33b. ff

41 \'tr / ~
An index of Jacfar's technical language is found in
Nwyia, Exégèse, pp. 1.88-21)7-

\ 42That Jesus was raised to heaven alive was considered

a plausible even~ by 1ater §üfI's is affirmed by the refèrence
to Ruzbihan Baq1i (d. 606/1209) in: Annemarie Schirnme1,
Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina·press, 1978), p. 202.

~ IX, p. 373, isnad

43 al-!abarl, - no. 1 078;
6 see Horst,
pp. cit., p. 295.
 ----------------------------
, .

44
SALP II, pp. 92-113; Nwyia, Ex~g~se , pp~ 25-108;
Wansbrough, op. cit., index.

45 Beyaz1t
. Umum1. 561 •
-,
\.
f 46
E.g., Ibn -
Is~aq, see infra.
)

47Beyazit Umumi 561, foll. 88b-a9a.

48 - /
From al-Tabari, IX, pp. 371-373, isnad No. 10785
subswnes aIl thre_e asanid. See Horst, op. cit., p. 303.

49Exp1i~ation of yaqIna in Ibn Ishaq is centered

on the question of the exact number of disêiples with Jesus.
This represents a variation in the exegesis of this word.

50a1-~abarI, IX, p. 373. This oft-repeated formula

deserves morE! respect than scholars, particu1arly "Western",-
have heretofore been willing to afford it. Assuming'that its
author here is sincere, and there is certainly no reason not
to, it connotes, if not denotes, a certain mistrust of the
accounts just cited.

_ 51Mu~amrnad ibn ISQaq, al-~Irat al-NabawIyyah li-ibn

Hisham, ego by Mu~~a!~ al-Shaqqa, IbrahIm al-Uby!rI,_a~d
cAbd al-~afi~ Sha1ab1 (3rd ed.; 2 vols.: Cairo: al-Bab1 /
.
a1-Halabï, 1370/1955) •

5~ibid., l, p. 582.

S3 Ibid ., pp. 573-584. Cf. Alfred Guillà~e, The Life

of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul ~llah
(Karachi: Oxford University Pres~, 1974), pp. 270-277~
54 Abu 'Ubaydah, Ma]az
.- al-Qur'an,
- .
ed. by Fuad Sezg1n
(2 Vols.: Cairo: Muhammad SamI Amin al-KhanjI, 1374-1381/
1954-1962). 2uf~an'al~Thawrr, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-KarIm
(Rarnpur: Hindustan Brintik WUrks, 1385/1965).

5SAbù ~ubammad Sah1 ibn cAbd Allah a1-Tustari, Tafsir

.
al-gur'an al- Azim (C~iro: al~Ha1abi, 1329/1911) •

", i
---- - ------------
 -~-~ ...
- - - - ~---..,,----------------~

~ ..... - -
...0<_ ..... _ _ _' - _ _ _ _ _

1 67
\i

56 In al-Qurtayn '1-iI:n ~târrlf al-~ 'aw kitab I1llSbki1

al- r!!n/wa harIb 1-ibn uta bah, ed. by GAbd al-cAziz
al-Khanab1 (2 pts. in 1 vol.; Ca ro: a1-Khinabi, 1355/1936).
See Gêrard Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba (mort en 276/889~: l'Homme
Son Oeuvre, Ses Idêes (Damascus: Institut França1s de Damas,
1965), p. 135 and p. 141. On Ibn Qutaybah's tafsIr -method,
pp. 275-301-

1
!
1 57
a1-Qurtayn, pt. 1, p. 133.
1

i 1 . 58Lec~rnte suggests that the entire body of bis work

constitutes "en quelque façon un' vast cOllUnetttair,e du Coran,"
(p. 275). l ~
1
1.

" .

! '

. , ,
" .
• >, :: ,f;;,
~!3"(\;_
"",~,~

! ... :~1'<.
 4 ..
i

-~~
1
- -"-,_. ~-, "-'-'1- ---.------

,. -~--------~-------------~~-/~~~~---------~~,_.-----------------
\

·1

CHAPTER III

Classical and Mediaeval TafsIr (923/1S0S}

The Uses of Tradition

,With this chapter we begin the study of the way in

which mufassirfin applied the mate~ial discussed in Chapter II.
Although the early traditions continue to carry withAthem
many difficult questions of authentlcity and historicity,
,
! ; the authors and works treated heré may be considered genuine.
Much of the fOllowing will be seen to support the sùbstitution
legends; however, there are exceptions to this, and it is'
the existence of these which warrants the following chronological
examination of the taf'sir of this periode

al-Tabar! (d. ~~O/923)

The periodization of the history of tafsir is a

problèm which confronts any student of the subject. It is
1
obvious, however, that with the present exegete we encounter

i\ a new development in the career of this science.

enduring legacy of exegetical traditions have exerted inesti-
al-Tabari's
l'

mable influence o~ late~-mufassirün down ta the present day.

Inasmuch as al-!abari'; method in this instance (ad
·f 1

4:157) is ,ta ~ist the various traditions and choose the most '
acceptable, it may be preferable 'in this instance to spea~ of

.:r
 ---- - ---
-' \--
\
- ---------------.---------------
/
69

( )

his activity as super-commentary. This is aIl the mOfe true

in light of the complete absence of grammatical analy~is or
1"
\
i reference to poetry in any of t~e tradit,ions cited, or
i
! i
al-Tabari's discussion of these. l In Cnapter II a brief
'
Il f examination of his choice'of Wahb's account was offered,
we return to this issue now in the hope of gaining a more
complete understanding of the reasoning behind this choice.
In 1923,a provocative article on the crucifixion of
Jesus?-a~~reatment in IslaIR was published by Elder •.2
-The author's task was to probe the traditional literature !
, 1,
l
on the issue with the hope of finding that which would enable
Christians 'te win Muslims "to the gospel of Christ".3
. Although EIder makes numerous references to other sources,
the bulk of his article is concerned with al-TabarI's Tafslr.
1
~ .
It is pointed out that al-Tabar! treated the subject very,
i\ .............-.-- -~ -,
fully, seeing as his main task the sorting through of a "mass"
;
i of tradition and treating the problems of accuracy and credi-
1 4
bility attendant there. In fact, al-Tabari
,
1

cites only eleven .

traditions on this' subject before giving his appraisal. These
eleven, we have seen, varied mainly in length with aIl of them
upholding sorne forro of substitution. It is therefore remarkable
that even after this array of rather hemogenous commentary
al-!abarI's verdict is unclear. 1
1

AI-!abarI first states that the.most accurate of aIl

() \",
 ,,- ",- ...-. __ __.__._---_._.--'
.-.... ..

,
70

the reports ie the one fram Wahb in which the li~esslaf

Jesus was ca'st upon aIl of the disciples. 5 His possible
reason for this choice was qiven ahQve. However, al-TabarI's
. -,
final opinion i9 as follows:
J',

Or the affair was \according to what cAl;>d as-Samad [sic]

related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb
ibn Munabbah (sic] that is that the people who were
with cIsa in the house scattered from the house
before the Jews came upon hirn. cl sa remained, and -1
his likeness was c'ast upon one of his cornpanions,
1
who still remained with him in the house. And crsa
was raiséd up, and one who was changed into the like-
, ness of cIsa was killed. And his companion~ thought
that the one crucified was clsa, because of what the y
saw happen to one who was made to look like him. And,
1
~
the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because
his being raised up and the changing of the one who
was killed into his likeness happened after the
scattering of his friends. And they heard cIsa
that night announce his death, and mourn because he
1 thought that death was approaching him. And they
l told what happened as true, but the affair with Allah
was really quite different from what they related.
And those disciples who told this do not deserve to
be called liars. 6

\ \
Further evidence for al-TabàrI's preference for this
second tradition may be seen'in his inclusion of it to the
J-,
excluslon of ~ll other traditions 'on the 8ubject in his history.7
,

j
Be that as it may, aIl we can really be sur~
"
of is that

.
the great exegete preferred Wahb's accounts over others.
-
This is undoubtedly a functfon'''Pf Wahb' s reputation. as an "
expert on JeWis~;:nd Christian' ~arnin9~ thus thi~ second
" tradition is preferred because
8
0t
, /
its close~ proxirnity to the
gospel accounts. But, the first tradition i8 a1so attrac'tive

.,
 in that it does not present Jesus as aotively seeking to
1 avoid death, as was mentioned abOve. •
f
i Although EIder understandably wondered whether these
1
f
traditions may be considered proper explanations, i~ seems
fr
1 in light of what is known about early tafsIr, that they are
t not only proper but extremely thorough. In many cases the
object of the exegete was to1ink scriptüre to actual con- 1
\ .
çrete, if not dramatic, events as opposed to defining 1
i
.'
, individual words. 9 Thus, as we have seen, this second tradition 1
!
t ,i
co~ers admirably aIl of the recognized exegetical elements of
1
1 the verse. That this explanation be unsatisfactory for
.1
Christians is"quite obviously, neither here nor there. _ But
a measure of al-!abarI's greatness is to be found in his
attempt to absolve the Christians from propagating faise
beliefs. This may have bèe~ an answer to a specifie debate,
an attempt to promote tolerance, or simply a 10gica1 conclusion.
At any rate, this development is first found in al-!abari and
o

as such should be noted as another stage in the understanding

of our verse •

..! -.,.
al-Maturid1 (d. 320/933)

In contrast tO,what May be considered al-TabarI-s

irenie approach to .the problem, his younger contemporary,Abü
oManfur al-M!turidI, may b~ distinguished bath by his metho~
,.
j-- 1

..
~ r', •
.,.' ~,T,
•

'\
0","
' ..
~:~~
",'OC)
,
.
" "

--.-._... _-~_._--_._-----> -... --" --_._--_._-_.-......-------.----

o

€
and concerns. His tafslr lOcof ttiis verse offers no
Suppo!ting isnad for the three varying traditions offered.
The first of tnese appears to be a combination of the two
reports trom Wahb, but are not offered o~ anyone's authority.
"
The second relates that ft was, a Jew who was crucif-ied
.
instead of Jesus. NO name ls offered here, but the story
is similar to Muqatil.' s: when Jesus took refuge in. a 'house,
., . knowinq he was about to be killed, one of.the J~ went in
i

after him. 'Olt was this Jew who was made to look like Jesus
and then killed i al-Mâturidï does not ~ention Jesus 1 ral.sing.
1

When -the Jew came out of the house, bis companions thouqht 1
i
-1
-.i::. '1" '1"
h~ was Jesus and tney killed him. al-Ma~ur~d1 objects to 1

this story because it has not been a~tested by suffici~nt

~itnesses - it is khabar al-wâhid. He further su~gests that

j '"

j ust because th1S report is considered·

1
mutawatir
.5
ls not enougl):

l to prevent lt from being a lie.. He says __~hat the mistake

. ('

I
11
~ashbI~ in. ~ wa làkin shubbiha ,
about the eventorather than to the event itself,
refera to the reports
i.e~, the 'f-

Jews not wanting tQ admit that the y could not find Jesus,
claimed falsely to hav.e ki11e~ him." Il,
~ ! ~
Obviously, we would 'want to ~top ~ere and aâk the
cOmlnentator if this ,reading of the phrase could apply,'f te.
aIl reports·, mutawatir or otherwise, clail!lin9. to explain
,
the verse. It is uncertain .what his·respo~se miqht
"
have
ft been; but that he himself had serioys ques,tions.:.kbo~t the
/
, .

J.
 ~_ o. _______ "•• __ ~. __ ~ _ _ _ _ o_ •• 0 _ _ _ _ _ _• _ _

'r ~-

\,
.t ;
\
73
r
i

\
.
(
relationship between tafsIr and badith i9 undeniable. A
vturther study of his exegesis could shed more ~ht on this
,
12
signific~nt questiort.
,
~ To return to the text. al-MaturIdI goes- on to say
t
i
that i~ the matter were as the other exegetes. [ahl al-ta 'wII )
,.
said, i.e., .that Jesus lias raised up and someone else was
"
crucified, the~ it must be Acceptee as one of God's signs
,1
~ ~
: [ Oyat) • In ~losing the exegesis h~' says tha t they 0 •

(uns:ec~:fied) ~r~e in- dQUbi about the ~illing of Jesus,

'1... \. .. ~ J

'and in doubt they (presurnab1y Christians) said he was the

sen-o~ Ged. Here âl-MaturIdI is compelled te underline the
,
errors of poth Jews'and Christians. Finally, 'a new reading
, , .
of t ma ga~a1ühu yaginan , is offered when al-MaturIdI says
.
that th!s me~~ns that they :(unspecified, presumabli' Jews
"1 l '

-and Chrdstia'ns) did not ki~1 tbeir dç)Ubts about the affair.
(Compare this with Ibn Qu~aybah' s reading treated above.)
1 --l

Throughout this ,'whole commentary (wl 4:157) the only authority

.-
~ited is Ibn c Abbas for th~ °exeges±s of the final'words
t..
~.\ Mighty, Wise , of 4: 158.' God ia rrl1ghty and wise in pro-

tecting his .messengers. 13 ,. 1<

, ,
... .... ,.
. a!-î üsI (d. 460L:I068)
o' ,

, . With this exegete we begin a discussion o,f classical

1

shl e ! ta.fsIr. ~lthoughi, the

\
.oldest authent~c work of .this tfpe,

, .<

\
.: .
1
. "

,1

1
.r" l '
 ---------------- ...
_~-,_. - --" -,
74

J'
...
is that o~' al-QummI (d. 309/921)' i t affers no explanation
for our troublesome verse. al-OununI does mention the phrase
),

t wa lakin shubbiha lahurn ., but only in the context of his

i

c, eschatalogical concerns expressed in connection with 4 :159 .14 \

However, with al-lüs! there is considerable, though
rnostly original, cornmentary on our verse. ~ins by.
1
citinq Wahb, addinq that Oatad~h, i
a1-'SuddI, 'Ibn Is~aq, ujahid- and Ibn JU«'ayj aIl disaqree 1. 1
1
about the ..number 0 disciples; nor do they mention the

tradition related by Wahb, in which the likeness was cast

1 upon a l of the disciples, asserting that t~e likeness was
~'"
cast ACGor~ing to I15n Ist'laq, this was Serjes,
one .
al-Tus! goes on to say that one of
1 the les, Büdis Zakariya Büta (i. e. Judas), pointed
o the ~ewsj later he repented and hanged himself.
\ {
sorne Christians say that this Budis was
the likeness was cast and who was ul tim~tlly
1

repeats al-TabarI 1 s assessment f'f Wahb' s

the likeness was cast upon aU of t~e disciples
. \
the matter was obscured for ev~ryone involved. A

ne element is ,introduced to the t-afsir of this verse by

al-'füsI's citation of the famous MuCtazilI, al-Jubba'I. The

g.i.st of this view is: t.

, ,
, .

" ' 1
 '(
,
-----,,- ----_.. --~_._-------'.. _-----------'-- ___f .._.~

75
)
,
r
.
'"" ( ;'
,
The meaning of the error [ wajh al-tashbIh] is that
the lead'ers of the Jews took a man, killed hlm and
crucified him on a hill. They prevented anyone fram'
examining him until his boqy had decomposed beyond
recognition. Then they claimed they had killed Jesus;
thus they misled their people because they were afraid
that if the Jews knew that Jesus had been' raised by
God from the house which they 'had entered in order ta ~
rt ~
f
arrest him, that this divine intervention would cause
the Jews to believe in Jesus. Thase who crucified this
man were not the ones who disagreed about ït. 16 ' -
t,
; . The question is thÉm posed, whether by al-'!'üsi or
-i
~ àl-Jubba 1 i is difficult· to determine, if i t is possible for
'" ,. , '
~
, one' s likeness to be cast upon another 50 that the two be- 1

r
come indistinguishable. That such a question appears now
,1
1 is of obvlous signifièance in the study of the history of

!t the exegesis of this verse.

.
It represents a developrnent
whicb we will have occasion to refer' to in the examina:tion
of al-ZamakhsharI and al-Raz!. The answer h~re offere~
though less important than the question, is tl'lat such a thing
is possible according ta the MuCtazilah,but Qnly through a

\ 1
prophet or during his time (zaman), and then only by the,
r
17
aid of God.
Then follows the familiar accoünt that the disciples
had 1eft Jesus and one companion in the house, and 'Viere there-
1

fore deprived of positive knowledge 'of the events. This is

9.

seen to be responsible for the <:pristians' confusion about

\ the affair. al-+,üsi'

, then agrees with al-Tabari that the
Christians cannot be called liars on aCCollnt of this confusion;

"
 ---- ----------~--...,

.... - - - - - - - - - - - - .... _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------.--._---- r

76

o 1

1
( . 18
they can only be said to be simply deluded .

. Thus al-Tüsi propounds the tJraditiona1 substitutionist

theory. The differences in interpretation ~hiëh might ~ave
been expect~d' in view c
Qf his shI ism is found only in the use

of MuCtazilah dialectic. Like al-'!'abarI, he has employed no

grammatical analysis or reference to poetry. This examination

\ "
of his tafsIr confirms Smith 1 s finding that the great s~IcI

exegete was in general much of his

method and mated,al is

Sorne mention should be made here of the other
shlcI mufassir of this gener~l era. Abü cAlI
(d. between 548-52/1153-8) offers nothing new
.our -verse. The grammatical analysis one might have
"
.
~n h"1.S :\.ntroduct1.on
' t 20
ta the commentar2' on t h"~s verse 1.5 ab sen.

This longer section simply repeats, .in condensed form, the

tafsI~{)f al-Tùsi, ....incl.uding a quotation from al-Jubba'I who
'1'-. .
is, howe~er, positive1y ide.ntified as Abü cAli. al-'!'abarsI
does not repeat the '~rationalistic" questions found in his . . ..
. counte·rpart. The reports of Wahb are the accepted accounts.
.

al-QushayrI (d. 465/1074)

, ~
This As~carI my;;tic is credited with several boo~s:
2l
of interest here is his LaÇa' if al-isharat, a tafsIr.
He discusses 4:157 as pa'rt of an exegetical theme related to

o - J'
."
 .
'"
~ \

77
.\

( a section of the sürah whichqbeginswith 4:156 and ends

with 4: 158.

Exceeding the limi t [ hadd ] is error, just as lack

and belitt1ing the truth is error. They [Jews]
1, 1 arose speaking against Mary' and slandering her .
with the charge of fornication. And others exceeded
the limit in oppressing her - they said: "Her son
is the Son of God", and aU of the groups were in
error.
And i t is said that M~y was the intimate [wa1Iyat']
of God, and that He was troubled because of the
-two groups, the people of excess [ ifra,\:], and the Cl
people of neglect [tafrIt] who wronged her. Their
denial saddens by virtUé of a lack of respect. "
And those who fol1owed them did not have"..,~i~ __.'~
do so; ,they troub1ed her exceedingly in theu oppr.ess.i:on.
t And they all did this except a majority of elders.
'l'".-
~

f'"
.~ It is said tÎlat God substituted a calurnniator for
Jesus, so· he was killed and he was crucified in his

s~~
place. And it has been said: "He who digs a pit
for his brother is put in it." .. An~ it is sa~d that
Jesus said: "Whoever pleases may have my likeness
t ~ cast upon. him and be killed instead of me." One of"-

t\ the disciples pleased to do this. Jesus warned him,

saying: "Do not endure the suffering of pain without
faith :Ln the, God of creation!" . ije tl)en recited t Verily
~ . ~e will not suffer to perish the reward of any who do
1 , a·-righteous- deed. (18:30) t Since the man free1y
offered, Jesus befriended him. Since Jesus was raised
to _the plaC(e of zulfah, the spir~t of the one who was
1 sacrificed \\ras raised to theoplace of qurbah. 22
"

+
i\ Well-known Arab saying.

'·It is surPiising that al-Ql.lr!3.yshI, a follower of a1-Sulam

~ - c 23
cffers nothing here comparable to the exege$~s of Ja far.
What we have is simply the usual substitution legend painted
- '1'
in Suf~ colours.. The language is punctuated with such terms
.'"
as .!J!.h,~, zulfah, and' gurbah. In the absence o~ ,a study

\
 ,
~ . "'- ....... - ~ ~ ~ .. "- ----
_. . __ ". __ ___
~. ~ ,_u_~ . _______,_______ --------.. . . - . ----~-------- ~ .......
-.-.- . - - - - - - - - - -

7B

( -
of the author' use of these terms, it is difficult to guess
(,)
their SignifiCrnce beyond their Obv~oUS designat~ons as degrees .
,y

of spiritual attainment. 24 There is,however, an apparent -

1
desire here to justify Jesus' acceptance of a valunteer
, substitute; this is seen in the reference ta 18:30. This
i
/ -', fact tends to support the analysis of al-TabarI's choice of
"

l,'~'
1
1
\ tradi tians offered above.
: 1

a1-zamakhsharI (d'. 53à/1144)

!1 .
Widely recognized by aIl as one of the great exegetes
1
of his time, al-ZamakhsharI occupies a unique position in the 1

l.
science of tafslr. Goldziher, cognizant'of this prestige, 1
1

devoted one sixth of his pioneer study of tafsIr to this~ .,

scholar. 25 Muslims, whether sharers of his doctrines or not,
have generally held his work in high esteem. 26 ' An out standing
feature of his achievemerrt in'exegesis i6 al-ZamakhsharI's
ç
employment of grammatical and~lingu~~tic analysis in dealing
"., "

with the'h~ly ~ext; this is considered by sorne to be,his most

valuable contribution'to scholarship.27 ~
Ji ,J
;; This approach, combined with the author's rationalistic
t
and non-traditional tendencies, usually labelled MuCta~ilI"pro­
duces a ve'ry different commentary from those which we have so
é

far been studying'o_ ThlJ,s 'we find al-Zamakhshari going to greater

'0

lengths than anyone before him in grappling with the sort of

'.

. "
..' '
•
.-."..
J
,

" '
 "..----------~--'

79

questions introduced by al-Tüsi. Inasmuch as this represents

a new departure in exegesis, the following detailed examination

· \ is presented.
AlthQugh no asanid are used, al-ZamakhsharI does begin
his commentary of this -verse with a tradition. First, the
speakers of the phrase t rasül allah , are said to be the
Jews, wh~tere~ it in ridicule, in the sarne way that Pharaoh
, '
spoke of Moses (26:27). Then it is related that a group of
~ews cursed Jesus and hi~ ~other, whereupon Jesus cried out
1 ~
a.gainst them and asked God to damn the cavilers. The Jews
28
were then'changed in~~ mon~eys and swine. The Jews then
, ,,
_ agreed te kill Jesus, and God informed Jesus that He would
1
/' raise pirn to heaven and i:>utify him of association with the
offenders (3: 55) . Then the farni'liar story i5 told of how
>

Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in

his stead. God cast the liken,ess of Jesus upon a disciple
i
!
who was then killed and crucified. It is aiso mentioned that
\ ,
1

1 \
sorne believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted as
1 •
1
a punishment for his betrayal.
j o -
'~~at this accou~t is unsatisfactory ta al-zarnakhshari
\ is evident'in the following, whe,n the commentator details the
\ confusion of the wi tnesses of these events. "Sorne said that
Jesus was killed and crucified, and sorne said, l'If that is
, Jesus, where is our companian; or if that i5 our companion,

'" '.
 80

\
where is Jesus? 1 Sorne said he was raised to heaven and sorne

said tha t the face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the
body of our cornpanion. n 29

It is now that al-ZarnakhsharI begins the granunatical

discussion which distinguishes his tafsIr. A question, very

simply. posed, asks to what does the verb shubbiha refer. We

are alrèady aware of the centrality of this word in the

exegesis of the ve'l:'se, having seen the resul ts of previous

attempts at its explication in the substitution theories.

~ al-ZarnakhsharI says that if shubbiha has Jesus as i ts obj ect:.

{
then someone or something is likened to him, not the other
<
way around. Since this someone or someth'ing is never specified
I
c"
..
in the Qur1an, ,such a reading ,is impossible. (Presum~bly
t "
t? because one of the purposes of the Book is to instruct the
~

î~
-_/

fai thful; an allusion to the unknown cannot be considered

.~
\ instructive.) The only alternative ,the~ is to read shubbiha
1
"
as referring to the most readily available object at hand,

namely the' prepositiona+ phrase ,lahum.

.
Thus the understood
'

, subject of 'the verb is the implj!rsonal pronoun, Le.,,: Ult

, .
(the affair of the crucifixion) was made obscure toO theltk. "
'
The gloss"huWtla ilayhl"is presented for shubbiha lahum;
, thus, the fOllowing translation ernerges: ~ They killed hirn
not, nor 'did they crucify hirn, but the affair was imaged
.
to them r. ~o "h

.', . '

, '
 ..
._________._H_. ____, - - - - - - - - - - - -

81

, '

( )
" J

It is certainly euriaus that no exegete prior to

al-Zamakhshari ~xpressed an int~rest in this question.
,
Perhaps no need ta' broadÈm the understanding of the verse
was felt. Whatever the reason, it is clear
, that this inter-
.pretation rep~esents the most significant dev~lopment ~ in
tafsI~ heretofore encount'ered , and as will be' seen, it
could he questioned whether anything cOIllfaxable has occurred 1

sinee.
l,
,
It ls apprapriate here also ta treat the later

popularizer of al-ZarnakhsharI 1 s tafslr. For the most part,

\

'al-BayQ.awI simply' repeats the former' s exegesis, reco4,nting ., ,

t the sarne tradition

'{. l'
exeept ior the inclusion of
(1fatanüs) for the Jew who ·was crucified " and repeating the
à narne

1 ,
same gramma t lca 1 ana l ' • 31
ySlS al-BaY9awi als~ mentions that

,
.
!1
such a substitution should be considered a miracle, possible
,
only during the time of propheey (zaman al-nubüwwah).

eensured the Jews, for their boasting and the.i:r intention

God
l,
'1
1
; to kili His prophet.
'1
1
! It is interesting that al-BaydawI refutes the idea that
•
1
the humanity (nasüt) of Jesus was crucified, while his divinity
(lahüt) was raised to heaven. 32 ,We are not told here where
this interprefation cornés from, but it is a familiar theme
in Christian, sectarian polemics.
,
That this sch~lar derived'

the statement from such a source is possi~le; it ls a1so

.1 ')

,< ,
 82

conceivable that his sourcewas not quite so far afield.

The Ikhwan al"Safa taught .,.-an identical doctrine centur~es
earlier. 33 It would be helpful to know just who al-BaYQàwï
,'.
1
1 is quarreling with here.
,f
His treatment of yaqlnan is aiso worthy of notJ.ce.
For the first timetverses of poetry at:e presented in an 1

at tempt to trea t this ayah: - i 1

1 1
1 1
Thus we understand the two worlds cQmpletely; !
And with m~4knowledge l have killed \you certainly 1
-lyaginan) . ), G
\
\ t
,\ !
With this, al-BaYQàwï says the J~ws did not kill hirn
as they had claimed (zaca~a), that is w~th certain knowledge.
"~ Rather; God r~ised him ta Himself ,. l~futing and rejecting
(radda wa ankara) his killing, and verifying (athbata) his
"raising. Nothing is viçMrious against :,His wish to protec~

Jesu$ • The ,J:erminplogy l1ere i5 that of theologicai debate,'

)
and may be thought to refiect an abstraction of the issues,
"
rather than pertain to actual events. Thus i t is possible,
If particularly in light <;>f the preceding granunatical discussion;

.
that al-BaydawI. 15 suggestlng a novel ipterpretation, one in,
which the Jews are confounded by more mysterious\ rn~ans than
'"..,

have elsewhere been understood. 35

.,

()
,>

..
,~~ . . . . __
• ___
1':,_...
"'._---
 ----------'-------"'---
· ..__ ._--~._._~_._.

~
,
\
83
,

al-Raz! (d. 606/l209t,

Fakhr al-Dln ~l-RazI, as is weIl known, was a man of

diverse and monumental accomplishment. Known as a critic ~

the MuCtazilah, he produced several works in support of AshcarI

theology in which he freely employed the methods of the Aris-
t

11 totelians. One of .these, the Mafatib al-ghayb, a commentary ~

on the Qur' an is considered "the Most comprehensive and in-

1
1 clusive commentary • • • ever composed ... 36 Therefore, inclusion,
1 (

of it in a discussion of tafsIr requires no apo10gy; but, an

unqua l l'f'le d accep t ance 0 f S'th'
ml s cavea t l'S •in order here. 37
Al-Raz! opens his discussion of 4:157 with a repetition
i
of the tradition in al~ZamakhsharI, although he does not name
his source, citing only two verses (26~27 and 15:16) to ~upport

his opinion that 1 rasül allah ~ was spoke? by the Jews in

ridicule. al-Razl j~stifies the appearance of such a distaste-
f
fuI (gabfh) story ~ecause it exalta (raf~a)
-P •
the rnernory of
Jeéus. The commentator then observes ~at there are severai ,
,''''
'

questions about this·verse which he proceeds to answer~

"J
The first is the grammatical problem dealt with by
al-ZarnakhsharI and al-Bay~awI. . 'l'he answer is aiso the sarne •
.
The second question pursues the problem introduced in al~~üsI

concerning the logical possibility ofGod transferring the

identi€y of one man to another. Contrary to al-TüsI's tafs!;,

-4'

l ,~

'(.
 - - -- -- - ,-- -- - ~ --_.'--- ---------- ,----,- ,_..-- ,-----------..----------------

84

-a detailed answer is presented. Claiming that ,such-a pos-

1
\ A.: sibili ty would "open the do or of sophistry",' this argÜtnent
1

runs: /

So that if we saw Zayd it would be possible that~it

was not really Zayd, 'but that ~he likeness of zayq.
had been cas t upon another. This would imply bhe .1
nullification of social con tracts such as rnarriage , q

and ownership. Aiso it would lead to the impugning j

of the principle of tawâtur, bringing into serious 1 1

doubt al! transrni tted" histo~ical knowledge. This

principle should be~upheld as long as it 15 based r
on perceived phenornena [al-ma9süsat]. Such a con- , 1
fusion about perceived phenomena would threaten
the foundations of aIl religious laws [sharCiyy~}
Neither is it permissible 'to argue for such a trans-
ference of identi~ by appealing to the tradition 1
which allows for ~racles during the time of prophecy. ,!
Such a provision would bring -into question the identity
of the pro~hets themselves, which in turn would calI
1
-!
into question~he probity of the sources of rel~gious
knowledge. 38 .
" ,
His d:itscussion of 4: ISB does not go to th~ sarne
lengths. ~A list of varying traditions, (without asanld) ca~l-
_. . . . . } ing for al;literal (i .e. dramatic) interpretation witl1 Jesus
being physically Iifted to heaven is offered. al-RazI'1 , ,.
, ...
simply says·that these are the conflicting theories [wujüh)
• 39 .
~nd that God knows best ,what happened. References to his
commentaryon 3:?5 does however of fer sorne clues as to what
his thought might have been on this verse (4':lSB).
. .
.. .
' co~
Th ~s .
,entary ~s .
qu~te ext '
èns~ve, 40 but a summary
\
of its highlights~eve,ls that al-Raz! met the issue with
creatiVity an~ originality. After citing the several traditions
il

refer~ed to abové, he says that the verse can rnean severai

.fT'
\
1
,'4'-
~ " ..
"'<
-c
"
":.l' -'
:';!.~ ... 'f .
,1
 .. "

-_.... _~--

- .- - -- _.. ----_ ...

}
-~ -,-
ll.

,d

-' '",
/ 85

·r
other things. One of these ia that the deeds of Jesùs \fere
raised or accepted by God, citing 35:10 t it ia He Who exalta
c '

each deed of; righteo~sness 't. This could me~n that by enjoin-
ing obedience to Jesus' words upon the people ~ these words and
1
ii works were sanctified or raised. 41 \
l ,~
. ,
l' /
Al-RizI dwells ai". sorne length on the implications this
, r,
1 t
• ~'
; raising has for anthropomorph!sm. If Jesus were physically i

raised to God, then God would have to be ~ocated somewhere.

Such a thinq, for al-Razr, ~s clearly impossible. He then
compares the v~rse with 37: 99 t l will go to my Lord' which
was spok~n by Abraham in the face of opposition by his people.
Another alternative. is that Jesus was raised to a place ruled
~:mly .by God, whereas in the world there are di v~rse peoples
- with various laws. In Jesus 1 case sorne of these laws were

. ,) invoked ~~inst hirn~ Finally, al-Rizl says that

,
the raising
is one of degree'I attesting to.Jesus' superiority--(fawqiyyah)'
, 42
and not to to place. , ~
.''''
This lengthy review of al-Raz ~s tafsI~ has shown a
refreshing attempt towards a new und rstanding of the problems
presented in 4 :157.
.Al though he cer ain1y stops short of \
,
1

actually affi~ll\ing the usua1 Christi n idea tha t Jesus wàs

put on a cross and killed, al-Raz!, n his çri ticism of the
substitution l~end, ma~es cons~dera le progress toward such a
posi tion, -In view of t.he enormous ight thesè traditions

_1
1 .... {

~ 'f
1-
 .
.. .,
J
r'
, ""~ .... --.---. ---_. -,---~ ~----.----~---_._.~--~---- /
~

,. 86
"
'If
,

, . tf .
(
exerted, i t ls remarkable that this Sh!'~i ci went as far '
i\ as he did.
';.,;- f'L

One ia" able to understànd' better the charge that .

his tafsIr is 1ess\a tafsIr than it ls a philosophical treâtise'.43,
,
.L

What i8 curious isthat his commentary on this verse hils beert, ,

, • 44 , c,

,virtually neglected by non-Muslims in their missionary efforts.,

.
Like-w-ise i t '18 puz~ling that °tbis tafsIr Ihas had so lit.tle:- /
,
1 l
influence on later Muslim exegetes ..

• . '-0
Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373)
<>
'r
- 1-Fid8:' Isma
Abu -c...:Ll b. c'Umar ,ibn Kathu
.. W&S born near
;, J ~
Ba,rah in 701/1301. Educated in Damascus, he becaine ~n authority
"
;,~
" - c... "
..
$ . ~m the Shafi l 1egal method and composed, a universal history
,,'
"", " ' .
for which he is' hest known .. His,tafsIr exhibits a strong
1
j ~

1
f. reliance upon tradition and ia consïderêd by J:luslims as one
45 '
of the most important works in the genre. A1though it is
"\,
\ 1
f
well known' that this s'tud~nt of the staunch conservativ:e Ibn"
'. ,
1 "
1 Ta~ Cd. 728/1327) was concern~d mainly ~~ reiterate ,;,. .......,
,

themes of rel~qious science, it is surpri,~inq

)
' ,
that his l;.afsir knows nothing of the rational approaches of
<>

al..)RâzI. Should i t appea'r infeliéi tous t;o mention such

1

\.. divergen~ temper~ment~ in the sarne paragraph, let it, be

".
recalled that al-~zI carries the title 'of myiaddid for the
, 1 .\
"
sixth century, and was an exponent of"the sarne ~égal scho~l

1
. ',

() "

,~
1
(t, i ' ,
,.'
},
.... -

.
l.
~ ~ r " \
1
: ' ,

f
,
.",

,
t
"
 . . • • ltI........

• as Ibn Kathlr. We are also told that the tafsIr of

al-zamakhsharI had by this time ~~quired wide fame. 46
'. "-
It is therefore at Ieast passing strange that an 'exegete
11 writing in the eight/fourteenth century couid have avoided :
f
i ~
i reference to such commentaries. Nonetheless, this i8 the
!
case with Ibn Kath!r.
\ The cowmentary is replete with~ \(illification of
i 1

the Jews; the exegete misses no opportunity to calI down

1
. the curse of God on those who mocked and envied Jesus for
h~b~lity to perform miracles (by God's will). They dis-
, obeyed him and tried to oarm hint in every possible way,
until God led His prophet away from them; Jesus and Mary
travelled ext;ensively to avoid such persecution. Ultimately,
. \ the Jews notified the King of Syria that there was a man in
,
the holy house who was charming and subverting the people. •
b

The king wrote to his depu ty in Jerusalem to be on guard il)

~
against this; moreover, that he should crucify the culprit
(Jesus) and place thorns on his head to stop him from harming
the flock. -The deputy obeyed the order
(
an~ a group of Jews
to where Jesus was with his followers '(12 or 13). When Jesus
was aware that they were after him, he asked for a volunteer
\
ta take' his, place .. ohe stepped forward, was taken 'by the Jews
and crûcified. Jesus was raised through the roof. of the bouse.
The Jews announced that they had crucified Jesus, bpasting
, ,

, ,
" ,

.j.;~j~ . 1

,~ ~-~~-~_.,-' --~.. -"

 - ,.-

.. " .... --~.~,~.

~.,... --:---~·.. I·,
. "

• 1
! 88
• 1

about it, and a number of Christians accepted this claim in

their ignorance and la'Ck of reason. The fact that the other •
disciples haa seen Jesus raised was ignored. Everyone eise'
thought that the 'Jews had crucified Jesus. 47
There is r~ally not
_ rn1ch
pi ,
to be said here, except te '
rémark once 'again how quickly the rationalistic endeavors of
~
Ibn Kathir's farbears were fergotten. Perhaps the pelitical
climate encouraged the anti-Jewish' rhetoric; or, that it was
necessary to assert sorne kind of unique1y Islarnic pos~tion
i
Hecause of inter-confessional polemical activity. In any
1
i
,i case, by this tirne barely a hundred years had elapsed' sinee
.
t
the oruel and stupendous shock of the fall of Baghdad had
'1

'1 i
occurred. In his resort to tradition Ibn Kathir rnay have been seeking
:jfuge in one of the only inviolable sanctuaries left to hirn.
0

"'"
al-SuyütI (d. 911/1505)
"J '~
1
It is apprapriate that we end this chapter with an
, ,
1i
examination' of this illustrious student, of the Qur' an. As . ,)
i the codifi,er of quranie sciences 1 he deserves mention if only
.
~\ f~r the unflin hing energy
1 and~ thoroughness wi th which he,
,
pursued his task as a preserver of the tràQ.it~onal exegesis
-'
of the book. al-Suyü-t:i offer~o exei ting new interpreta tians
1
of our ,verse; rather he lists the usual traditions, cd'mple~e
" '

with asânld, but which have by now' aequired new variations

\ 1

, ,-
.,. _ _ 1--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ->--
 _- ------'----------- --_.
, -------------.--------~------~----~~----
--'- -----_._---_-...... "~ --~~-
j
, ~1
!
\
î
. .. 89
!
~
\ "

( ~
in detail. 4 8

One of these variation.!' is the attempt t9-',trace the

beginnings of Christian sects to th~ events surrounding the
crucifixion scene.
1
Thus we are tald, Oft the authority af
none other than Ibn cAbbas., that when Jesus asked for a
1 volunteer to tàkè his place on the cross, three discipies
stepped forward. 'Jesus rejected the first two for unspecified' 1
'"', /

reasons, and the third took 'his place. Jesus was raised • 1

through the roof and the ai;~iple,

, was crucified. After the
!
crucifixion the disciples split into three groups: 1) Jacobites;
2) Nestorians; 3) Muslims. The implication is of course that 1
1
"
the three volun!:eer's each represen;one of -these groups.
1 Al! but' the Muslims became kafirün, a d when God sent- Mu~arnmad
the Muslims accepted him. 49 '- 1

Al-$uyü~I cite.s eleven tradi tians in aIl. We are

-'
already familiar with most of themi hawever there are three
which are presented on the authori ty of Abü R!:fi c, Abü
'.
al-CA~iyy.aq, ~nd Ibn cAbdal~ah b. Sulayrnan respectively,.

The first' two describe the manner in which Jesus al:fcended

ta' heaven and are very brief. The third containe a statement
from c Abd ~l-Jabbar which says that Jesus was raised to
...
the place described in 54: S5 ~ '7 n an atemb1Y of truth, in
the presençe of a sovereign omnipotent'. 50
Reference to this author's other jar exegetieal

. !

.. ,
"
'
 .. .! ' .
.' '\--'._'-~~~-.~

f1

.1
90

-
work, the 'Tafsl r al-Jalalayn, 51.simp~y reveals a restatement
l. of the substitution legend • . This commentary is quite short
1
l and i t is n?t surprising. that al-.Suyü~I has wasted no space
1
\
to identify the charact~rs of the legelld by name. In fac~,

1 1 there i8 not even a rnentiqn of the Jews; the speakers of

1 1
; ! t We kiUed the Messiah. • ., are identified only as braggarts
[rnuftakhirIn]. The object of the divine deception i9.simply
\
•
to change the braggarts t certainty [mu t akkadah]' to uncertainty
by refuting [nafa J their claims [zacarna]. In 4: 158 the
\
, !
!
,only comment is that God is mighty in His sovereignty and !
l
wise in His design, i. e., in the way He fooled the braggarts. 52 1

Although al~Suyü~I rnakes no mention in either of

~

these works of the kind of tafslr which culminated in the

logical and sy~ematic method of al-Rad, he doe.f not find
,
it necessary te casti9~te the Jews the way Ibn Kathlr did',
_al-SuyüJi is content with the early traditions because they
affirm what. is fo~ hirn the rnost important dimension of the
verse. ~amely, that Ged is ever ready to protect the righteous

a,nd humiliate the d~ainf:l: Ob~ious1y the importance of

the crucifixion for al-SUyut;l and his tradi tional ancestors
j,s to be found in ,the way it illustrates t,his truth. To ex-·
pect otherwise would involve a radical, perhaps artificial,
change in ,the attitude of these Mus'lims toward their unique
-and .profound understanding of the religi~us life. 53

J,

\
 l '
,
'.'
. " {

~tf! ..."" .. _ _ _. " \ - .. ~

________. _ . ______.,_,l'.:,.'....;..._____________- - - - - - - - - - -" - -

1l 91
. ,

. Surnrnary

This study 'of classical exegesis makes possible the

, .
following observations. A need was 'felt,,'very early, to ab-
,
solve the Christians from spreading
,
"false' fl
doctrines.
~hortly thereafter, criticism of the principle of mùtawatir

was voiced in connection with the traditions. The Shicah

were seen as' the first to introduce rational criticism,of
the trad~tions while the $üfI, al-QushayrI, .neglecting Jacfar's

j method, chose to propagate a substitution th,eorYi but, t.he

Ikhwân'al-Safa' were, able, in the lOth century, to affirm
1 the crucifixion of Jésus. Later, there appeared extensive
l criticism of ~raditions, centrinq on the problem of identity

,, transfer • .This critic"ism was soon forgotten by later mufassirün.,

~

, 1

!
l
i
'\

/'

'"
\
\ .
\

,\

- /-
\
\

. \

G>
)
," ,
: ;
 . ' ...
.. ..............-.....
"~-.......- ~
-
~.'j""'r".-----,.-

, , '

., ___ ... _____

.~,,_-. _ _ •_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _""'"S"_ _ _ _ _o;r
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
','

92 'W
\

FOOTNOTES

;'
",
lAI though !l-TabarI does employ these methods else": \
where in his tafsir, their absence, in this instance, is
contl:é\Ste.d with ~he methods of later exegetes, e.g., al-
BaydawI, 1nfra, _p.82. '

2E1der, op. cit. (see note ~4, chapter II).

3Elder, p. 242.

4 Ibid , 'p. 248.

Ssupra, chapter II, ~ote 18.

6Elder's trans1ati<?n, PP,' 249-250; cf. al-'fabari,

IX, p. 374.

s , 7E1der,. p. 250.

8 Ibid . See also, chapter II,'note 9. )

"

1 ,
9WanSbrough, op.cit.". pp. 119-148, esp. pp. 147-148. ,His
l'i'ngthy analysis of, Muqâtil and Ibn ISQaq characterizes muc.h
of the ear1y exegetical traditions as "public oratory" which
was both" "didactic' and entertaining" where "anecdotal accret-a
appended to ser iptural texts eonformed admirab1y to the
• • • concept of pioq,g and/edifying tradition syrnbolized in
the formula \
~ ~~ ...\\~ 0
.. ..~ ...9 ~~ - ..
,
(poorly accredited but of therapeutie (sic) value). Il
" -
lOHalet Effendi 22.
,\

.
- 11 "
-
,
Ibid., foL 179.

~2a1-MaturïdI' s role in establish},ng a distinction

~

ll;letween tafslr and ta 'wll is discussed" in: M. Gotz, "Maturidi

und Sein KitSb Ta 'wïlit al-Our'an," Der Islam, _XC~ (1965),
pp. 27-70. ,\
)

"
/
-'
 r 93
,
( )
13Halet Ei. ;22, fol..,l79.
14
cAlI ibn IbrahIm ibn, Hashim al-0ummI, Tafslr
al-OummI '( 2 vols.; Najaf: Maktabat al-AmIn, 1386/1976),'
ref. i8 to l, p. 158. This aathor should not be c2n!u8ed
with Abu JaCtar Mubammad ibn AlI ibn Husayn ibn Musa
,1 Babüyah al-QummI - Shaykh al-~adüq (d.· 381/991) as.in
1 Smith, 0E. cit., 17ff. ' . cJ
[

. f,
\ , • As a, matter, of interest, Ibn -Babüyah does discuss
this verse,t,.. ut nQt in a tafsIr. ln Jlashim a1-Bahdini,
al-Burhan f\":' tafsIr a1""'Qur'ln (TIhran: Chapkhanah-i
lft&b, n.d. \1 p. 2aS; the o11owing is presented as cominq ,
from the l "\ Ri~a .on the, authority of Ibn Babtlyah:
~,~

.The case of no one amonq the Prophets. of God and

i His Preof's Olajjaj ( (sic) has been obscurl:!d te
.,-
men except t1j.at '9f Jesus alone. This is \ due to
the fact he was taken up fram the world a,1ive,
and his spiri taken a-lray from him between heaven
and earth. He was taken' up to heaven and ther,e.his
spiri t ,,!as retu e to him. (Ayoub' s trans., e.E..
, i
, pp. 16 -11 . ) ~ "
If: might be added th t examination of al-eünuni t s tafsIr
has c nfir.med the 'observa Qjl that it shows very little in rJ
common witl1 the exegesis' of Jacfar, the alleged a t , r i ty for
the ~:5Ab- WJa:fSihbroughhl OP • cit.,~. 146._ > ·1·T:b\ _ f-
_ u a r u. amma d l..bn Hasan al-TuSl a - l yan l
tafsir al-Qur'an 10 vois.; Najaf: al-Matbaé at al- C I1miyah,
1377-82/1957-63), ref. i.s to Iq, p •.382 •
. 16 Ibid • , p. 383.
, 1 7!12!.f! • 1
'18Ibi~.
l ,

19There arè two' feature, of this tafsIr whi~ bear \

notice. One is the mention of a group of scho1ars who rej\ect
aU traditions. In the text 'they are given as al-sanumiyy~h
(p. 38.4). This is undoubted1y a misprint of a1-Surnaniyyah,
the Indian philosophers. The other i8 found in a short sec\tion
• at j::h:e end of the commentary. Here al-TüsI raises questions
abolit the nature of the place! to which Jesus was raised (p. 3,85).
His treatment 1s very brief but appears to mark the beginning
of the ~ind of rational analysis thât occupied al-Zamakhs)rarI,
(\ al-B~9awi., and al-Razi, to be 'discussed below. "
 " ,\ \
_ _ _ r~' _ _ _ _ .-.~ .... .., ..... . . - -........... --.~- _ •• ~ - - - - - - - - •• _ -
'LI
~~~---
j . _•• ~.-

94

~
~
(
- cAl~
20Abu ... al
-FaAl ' . c
... MaJma
b_\', al-Hasan al-"'abars1,
't
al-ba~an f~ tafs~r al-Qur'an~(30 vols.; Beirut: Da-r al-Elakr
i 1 -.,. T "'_
, 1
i and Dar al-Idt!b ~al-Libnani/\l376/l957) 1 ref. is to IV,
~ 280 where two prèfatory sectd.ons ti tled a'l-lughah and
.,, a1- 6 irab reveal no discussiod\ of grammatical prob1ems of '
the type found ljlter in al-zamakàsharI, etc. 'l'he main com-
"
! l!lentary is under the ti tle al-ma na_ .
Î

,i \'
' 1 21Abü al-Qasim c Abd ' al-KarIm b. Hawazin b. c Abd
l al-Malik b. Taltla b. Muhammad al-Qushalri (Imam 'al-Qushalrï) :
r
! Lati-!-i-f~rat tafsÏr i,üfI kamil li-' l-Qur' an al-Karim,
ed. b~ Ibrahim ,Baywâni ~ s-'v,olS.; Cairo: Dar al-Kitab a~­
CArab1, n.d.). For a bîbhogra~hy of hl.S other works see:
Louis Mas~ignon, "I<ushayri," El., II, 1160. \ . ---.
\\
1 ,
1

23Assuming al-SulamI transmi tted Jacfar' s tafslr.

i
~
t,
~

,t
,l
Massignpn (note 21) says he was a· follower of al-.Sulami.

24AIOYs Sprenger' s edi tion of cAbdu-R-Razzaq' s

,
t '

1: .r Dict'ionary of the Technical Terms of the $üf!s (Calcutta:

1 Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1845) offers no treatment of
zu·lfa or, qurbah. Reference could be made to R. Hartmann
i- al-KuscharIs Darstellung des SüfItums (Berlin: Mayer and
~ Mûller, ,1914) •
i
i•
2.5Goldziher, Richtungen, pp. 117-177 .
\
l1
" ,26Smith, op. cit., p. 92, citing James Heyworth-
\
Du~ne, An Introduction to the History of Education in Mo'âern
~ (London: Luzac and Co., n.d.), pp. 4.5-46. ..
1 27
\ In view of the report that al-ZamakhsharI was not
only"-, an exegete but also an accompli,shed scholar in as 1 many
as thirty disciplines, this is a rather spectacular assessment.
Smith', op. oit. ,. p. 90.

\28Mahmud
-
b. c Umar al-Zamakhsharl.,
... al-Ka!hshaf
- C an
ha a' i " hawamid al-tarizil (4 vols.; Beirut: D'ar al-Ki tab
al- Ara ,1947), re .15 to I, p. 396, Cf. Qur'an 5:6Qt
2: 65f 7: 66 and their similari ty -to Matthew 8:28-30.
'. " /J>

\ ~~

'v.Jl
1-
.
'

1,

J'
 . "

t
, 1
\

95 '

( \

r
J 30 Ibid • See also, Ayoub, op .. cH. p. 13.
!,, 31
f
r CAbd Allah b. c Urnar al-saycjawl, Anwar al-taQzil
r wa-a:srar ~Ü~ta'wIl (5 vols.; Cairo: Dar al-xitab al- ArabI
~ l33ti;'1911), ref. is to II, pp •• 127-128, Cf. Gat je, pp. 127-
129, where. this tradition is translated but without indicating
the kind ôf analysis which follows. This kind of representation
\ is hardly jus t; indeed, the importance of the exegete' s
1 achievement is completely missed in this way, to say nothing il
of the opportunity to present an alternate MJsl.im view of the . ,1
"
crucifixion. . ~~ 1

32 .
i
Anwar al-tanz~l, I, p. 128.
1
t 33Ikhwan al:"saûi', Ras~' i l (Cairo: a1-Maktabat
t al-Tijariyyat al-Kubra, 1347/1928); the following translation
~ is from Vol. l, p. 98:
l,
if
So Jesus 'went on the 'morrow and appeared to the
people and summoned thern 'and preached to them until
. he was sei z ed and tak'en to the king of the ban!
:' isra' il. The king ordered his crucifixion, so his
nâsüt was crucified, and his hands were nailed to
the wooden ctoss. and he stayed crucified from morning
f' till evening. And he asked for water but was given
r vinegar. Then he" was pierced with a lance and buried
1 in: a woods while fort y troops guarded the tomb. And
aU of this occurred in the presence of the disciples.
When they sàw him they knew that i t was he certainly
1 and ,that he had not commanded thern to differ about it.
i
:r-:
Then they gathered three days 1ater in a place. And
Jesus did appe# to them and ,;they saw that mark which.,.
\; was' known by them. The news was spread among the ban~,
iara 'Il that the Messiah was not killed. So the tomb
was opened and the nasüt was not found. Thus the troops
differed among themselves and much id.le chatter ensued,
and the story was complicated . . .
This adapted translation of a non-exegetical work was
t~ought worthy of inclusion for several reasons. The most
obvious being that here we have Muslims affirming that Jesus
was indeed crucified. It is also not completely clear just
how non-exegetical this passage ia. Notice the terrninological
correspondences ("certainly", "differed' among theIb.selves") to
(,)

----.._-_.... ~ -- - - ---
 l'
,1.

\ -------~----~-- ------- --~--~------'_\------------------~------I

96' 1

!
( -,

4: 157. Elder first noticed this passage in 1:-923 (page 253).

Why sa little of it has been made in discussions of the ctuci-
1 fixion is difflcult to determine.
4 " \-
" 3 al-Kaslîshàf, 1,\ p. 128.

35Except of ~ours~ al-ZamakhsharI.

36smith, op. cit.; p. l~5.

37 11lt is perhaps more difficult to select isolated

verses and sections to consider (ta dip down in1:,o the .middle
as it were) from t;his' work than from any other of the commen-
taries considered 'in thi's essay. An entire thesis devoted
to the MffatIh could only begin to penetrate its 'depth. • ,."
. Smi th, p. 1 06 •

38rakhr al-nIn al-Raz!, MafatIh al-ghayb al'-mushtahar

bi Il-tafsIr al-kabIr (38 vols. ;:;';;;;;;;C~a;;r.ir':";o:;'::~a;';':l:;"-~Ma~t~b";;;a:""cFa~t-\-a';:'l~-B::-a~h~ff-y"';;;'at,
l354-7/l935-8), XI, pp. 99-100. • \

J
\ 1

39~., p. 100.
~

\
,
40 Ibid • , VoL IX, pp. 71-76,.
\
41 Ibid • , p. 72. ,'-
\
42 Ibid • , pp. 73-7('.
1
i
1
, 43Ga~jet 37:-" • • • f:-om the Mus1im side, th~ 2b~ection
1 has been ralsed, and not entl're1y unjustly, that al-Razl goes
far beyond the realm of actual exegesis and in many instances
misses the purpose. Il ,If this purpose ,is simply to perpetuate _
tradition it might well be asked what "purpose" any ,post-Tabar.!
tafsir might have had.~ Indeed, according to this criterion,
the assessment of al-Raz! is correct.

In leaving this exegete, it h' unavoidable to ask,

as did Smith, 012. cit., p. lOS, just what his alleged
oppo~ition ta the MuCtazilah means, par~icularly in llght
of hJ.8 elaboration of- themes first introduced with the name
. of al-Jubba'I. '
 .,
(

44 Thus EIder, • cit., p. 245,- refers to both al-

BaydawI and al-RazI but ly to quote the tradition' trans- \
latèd by Gâtje (note 30). r ignored the extensive \
criticism of this tradition of ed by both exegetes. Su ch
criticism would have been thought author' s argument.
Nor does this unfortunate tendency c EIder. See
also Schedl, op. cit., p. 562.

45Por a discussion oI Ibn Kathlr and his work, see

Smith, op. cit. ,-"'Ptï. -127-130.
46 1.
Carl Brockelmann, "a1-~amakhshar~,
':"
g 1, IV, p. 1205.
47 - c - ,
Ibn Kathir, Umdat a1-tafsir, ed. by Ahmad Muhammad
ShaJdr (5 vOls.; Cairo: Dar a1-Maeârif, 1376/1957), ret. is
to IV, pp. 28-34. See also Ayoub, op. cit., pp •. 12-13.
~
f
• 48 JaU1 a1-0In al-suyütI", al-Durr al-manthür fI-'l-
f tafslr bi'l-ma'thür (6 vols.·;·T~hran: al-Mat6a C at al-Islamiyyah, ,
~-
137771957), ref. is to II, pp. 239-241. ~--4

1 49 ~.,
"""d p. 239.

~ 50Yusüf cAlI' s translation

~stablished
j
Pickthall has t Firmly .
in the favor of a Mighty King t. For more on
\1 Abd al-Jabbar's reading of 4:157 see: S.M. Stern, 'tQuotatioI).s
from the Apocryphal Gospels in cAbd al-Jabbar, Il Journal of
l Theological Studies, XVIII (1967), ~pp. 34-57.
1
!
SIlS' -t"~, Ta f"
a - uyu s~r aJ.,:,~mamayn
1-' - a 1 -Ja
. 1-1
a ayn (Damascus:
Matkabat al-Millâh, n.d.). •

52 Ibid., p. 135.
•

53 sir Hamilton A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historical

Ir Survey (New York: Mentor Books, 1958), p. 59, quoted l~the
introduction to this thesis. See also Charles J. Adams, '\' Islam
/' and Chris~ianity: The Opposition of Similarities," paper
read at 'the University of Toronto, 1978 (now in press, Univer-
sity of Toronto), where Gibb's assessment i9 borne out, e.g.
• • • "the notion of salvation, and theneed for it are a1so
not to, be found among the basic religioùs ideas of Islam, and,
the concept of the savior is not to be discovered there at
aIl .. ": p. 10.
 f
t

CHAPTER IV
"

Modern Developments

It would be impossible here to offer an exhaustive'

survey of modern -exeges-i-s.- The'~nüîfiber of tafslr works pro-
\
\ dùced in the 20th centuu itself bears eloquent witness to --
1
the enduting vitality of the Muslims' relation to the Qur' an.
Unfoz;tunately, sorne of the works which should have been in-'

cluded in this chapter were unavailable or inaccessible.

The Urdu commentarl' of the so-c11led father of modern exegesis,
Sayyid Abmad Khan, i~ one examp'le. 2 The "atheistic" tafslr
of Mul}.amxnad Abù zayd 3 simply because of scarci tl' ,is another.

.
The well-known mufassirah, Bint al-Shati', might have been
inclüded had her tafsIr covered the relevant verses. 4
Furthermore, much modern commentary is true to the
,
exegetical. tradition in that it ls quite repetitive.
1
A few
e~egetes are considered to be" representat:ive of a distin€~
1
1
approach to exegesis; an a'ttempt has been made' to select authors
""
from this group. Five major ~authors, from four different
cultural and geographic aréas, have been chosan with the hope
,
of indicating. the kind of diversity one May expect to find
\
.... in modern exegesis. 'The fit'st author 18 the IIpre-mOdern"
al ..ilûsI,5 followed Pl' RashId
,,'.
Rida. .
Sayyid Qutb, Mawdüdr,

and al-'fabâ~abaII are then discussed" in' turn~

(J

\
 ,
1t 1
,

\ / (
\, " 99
11
,
l

( ')
,
1
1 a1-Al.üsI (de 1270/1854)

'1 Abü' l"lThana' al-.AlÙsI was the son of a scholarly

family, of Baglidad. At the age of thirteen,' he was~a1readY
" ~,'

4 teacher and ~uthor., He came to be consfâereâ by his peers

1
as one of the most eminent scholars of Iraq. According' to

1 Smith, bis tafsir is important for its organized treaœent

\ of'a 9reat~ mass o'f earlier materia1, sorne .Of which lS un-
!,
1
available elsewhere. N'e \find no analysis of asanId h.ire; 1
i :
i 'f
1
only the eitation of tradition~ with sorne >theological dis- i
l-
i
cussion: This method lS later adopted and elaborated by
j
1
the authors of the TafsIr al-manar. Thus al-Alus! i8 seen
6
to be a link between the classica1 and modern commentators.
Our verse is' divided into the usual exegetica'~ units.
Tbe boastful statement of the Je~s is compared with the t~unt

ôf the kafir~n found in 15:6. "t rasul allah' '.ts spoken by

j

1 the Jews in ridicule (th!S in marked contrast to Rida, see

•
'c

0\
l infra). t wa lakin shubbiha· lahum 't is God' s' counter-assertio'n
[ i ctiraQ.] against the perfidious 'claim. The familiar \egends
! from Wahb are then off~red.
,
It
"
is here that al-Al.~Ils shÏCr sOuI'<;;,e
is"apparent,7 for whë\t follows i8,a1most an exact quotation ,
8
from al-TüsI including a statement from al-.1ubba' 1. The
.. , J

fQrmer' 8 name is not mention'd. Surprisingly, and although

"

his name is not mentioned either, the grammatical analysis

,.
first encountered in al-Zamàkhshari( i8 given. al ... AlüsI does 'l

\ •l' J'

"

, ,
",
\' "
·/.1
 tA J*,,*

not dwel! here at length but simp!y çh~racterizl'th,~,s ',as

1
!
one statement
, among many.9 ....
At this point al-AlüsI depftrts from the usu~l type
f ...
, ~t.,,··,
~

of discussion to offer criticism of the christologies of two" ~-, ,

1.1 'i,
Christian groups. Beginning with, "Sorne of the Christians say ~~' ~

'11 his nasüt was crucified but his lahut was not, the exegete., Il

; \
i
" .
,.,
takes to task the Jacobites and, ttle orthodox [al-rum] • He
''-'P. r
-
, ,
proves the inconsistency of the,ir argumen~s by hOld,ing,1;pe ca
Christians to' their own doctrine of Jes~~< -uni ty- 01 being. 10
The Christlàns and Jews are both ~aid to be ~ full of
.,.
doubt '1 about the crucifixion, and t yaqInan t has the obvious
1 , [~ahir 1 meaning that the y did not kill Jesùs. He then cites

1 Ibn outay~scussion, but al-AlüsI says that this means

i the Jews did not know who Jesus was (rather,than: the JewS
did not kill their doubt about the matter, see Ibn Qutaybah,
Chaptérl I~') •. al-SuddI is said to have connected y'agInan to
\ .
rafaca in the fQllowing verse -to mean: GOd èertainly raised
.-:>' - -----
Jesus in order to CQunter th~-Jewish boast.~lJ
" Al~hoU9h al-Alüsi touc~es much of the exegetical history

of the verse, the'obvioùs exception ls the lack of aay' refer-

ence to al-Riz!. The auth~r prefers -the Su~stitution lnter-
, .
pretation,
,
and afher
-
sorne discussion'of this, closes the
. . . " )

subject with t Mighty~~~ise ~ ·that ls, God i8 mighty

and wise
1
"t'~ ~
.
-
in havinq cast' the likeness

,. ,
upon someone else.l~,
\

... '
.. A

"

- '
~~~'_......L-..."'---'"_.
,
 -,~,~_ .._..-.,,---,----,------_._.
_. -------'-~-_._--~---------------------

t'~;'
,t - 101

This superficial treatment of,the ear1ier exegetes depends

..
for its success lipon a lack of geReral fami1iarity with tneïr
,
writ~ngs by al-AlüsI's public. ~he author himself must have-

been aware of the other arguments, as he has ~ulled from these

,
various authors statements which either support or embe1lish
his own thesis. 13 This selectivity h~s the'effect of'mak1ng
\ C.
the author appear qua1ified for the prodigious dem~nds of
'r •
tafsIr, while at the sam~ time allowing him to'avoid ideas
which he does not choose to discuss. This trend, as we have j
seen, began ve~y
- is here single~ out @be-
- -
ear1y, but al-Alusi
~ 1

1
cause of his more b~atant employment of 'such taét~Q~. As will -r 1

become apparent',--this is one more feature which linkis, tthis author ;-; l'

l '-::' ,IA, ~
Cl to 20th century exegesis.

Tafslr a1-manar
"
/
A few words of introduction are in 'order before pro-
ceeding direct1y to the exegesis contained in this work.'
. ,
Although it was begun by Muha~ad cAbduh, the famous reformer
. ~

l "'10.... _,_

was able only to comment through verses 4 :-125. Rashid Rida'

/ \ <f'
completed the work as it is availab1e ~rough 12:25. The
1 /

problem of a discrepancy of thought between the master and

f his disciple is weIl known, and though int~resting in itself,

14 •
fs quite be~ide. the point Of, this s~udy. Following s~~,
(p. 187), Rashld Rida is considered the author of the 9!fsIr.
• ~~q
Il ~.: ..

1 ~ " • r'
.~
14.,;,:tf, '\, " .

~ .
, ~\.
 .. ,...,.........
_,.....~~ .... r"" ~ _ _ _ _ --._. _ _ -..-.,. .... _ ....... _ _ _, _ _ .... _ _ _ _ _ ........,_~ ___ ~ _ _.._ . .._ .M
-~ __ 0!1.._ _ _
.. ...W_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.............__" ..

102

Rashid RiQa (~. 1354/1915)

Ri~a, 1i~e.cAbduhl was 1 partly educated in Europe,

but was not inf1uenced by this education to'the sarne degree
his teacher was. Before founding the journal al-Manar in
1898, Ri4ahad been a confirmed Syrian nationa1ist. It is 1

therefore possible to read into his commentary some poiiticai l'

concerns. The outstanding feature of his exegesis of thi~ 1

J verse is its polemical na,~ure in which the argument.is sup- !j.

ported, in part, by appealing to the Qur'an in the 1ight of
"scientific" statements from various sources. It shou1d not 1
be inferred from this that Ri~a indulged 'in the kind of so-cailed
sc~entific exegesis of al-Tant:awi, et al. The aut'hor of the
1

Manar Commentary was in fact oppose~ to this type of exeg~sis.l5

l'

His commentary on this verse is in two sections. The

~ first is presented along the lines of traditional "intèrlinear"
exegesis~ the second and much longer sect10n,
. }, .
~s a detailed
discussion of the soundness of the Christian cr~ed [caqIdahj'
of the crucifixion. We begin with a detailed summary of ,the
former.
,~~~ (
, \:he verse is divided i~Jo the usua1 five segments for
- \
the purpose of detailed explan~tion.
, Ri9a agrees with his
predecessors: t Verily, we, kil~ed the Messiah,- Jesus son of
Mary' is SPoken~ the Jews in ext~eme ~l~ [bi-muntahan
\ -
al-jur'ah) and boastfu1 ridicule. It is interesting that the
il "
\
"
(' 1

.\
 \ J ) , ~ .- ......

l'
.. -- .. - '- .,- ... -., -- ._---_ .._-- -_._-- _.__., -- .-- -----_._--------------- ----- -~

f
~ ~
"

, \
t
1
• • 1
103 \1
- l
1,

"
author reads ~ rasül allah , not as Jewish sarcasm, but as
the quranic affirmation of Je_sus' apostleship as opposed to
the diviriity ascribed to him by Christians. 16 t And theY~d~Q
l' ,

not kill him, nor did they qrucify him 1 mean~ that the Jews,
"
contrary to their claims which they had spread amongst the~
t people, did not kil~ Jesus. ~ wa lakin shubbiha lahum '- -
1
i
1 what really happened was uncertain [al-shubbahJ for them; or,
a double [al-shibh J was crucified. They ~hought [~annu]' that
tàey' had crucified Jesus, whereas they ~ad r~ally crucified
T
another [ghayrahi ] This is comparable to the doubt [ al-shibh ]

1
)
or confusion [al-ishtibah'] which happens in al! periods of time. ,
11

r t And those who disagree about it are full of doubts about it.
~ They have no knowledge, only conjecture to follow.' This
means that the people of the book who disagreed ~bout the
matter of Jesus' érucifixion are in doubt about ~he truth of
the affaire They are. in confusion [hayrah] and are unsure
[ taraddud ]. -
They have no conclusive [thabit qat.~
.c ] knowledge, .
"
but they fol}.ow conjecture [;ann J.
So far, Riga has done -little more than tepeat the
>. quranie language. or derifons of quranie roots. Other
than this, thè tafsir is. di,stinguished by the immediate intro·
duction of polemics. This theme is greatly expanded in the
sècon~section, ,ta be dea-l t wi th partially in due course. For
now, let us return to the text.
\
, . \

-'

, .
..
l'
\
 , \ , ....... ~ " ~ - ~ ..
'1
~..,- ..-- --~ ... -"""'-~.,.,.-~...,-....."""" ... ,."' ... --- ... _---- dJUA

104

(
The doubt, Ri9a says, was complete. None of the ~

witnesses were free of i t. The account

...
which reports that
\
. ~
Jesus was crucified is simply one of a nurnber of conflicting_
~

opinions which happened to gain ascendancy over others. Be-

cause of aIl these conflictinq stories, it is not possible
to say what happened. l7 Those who followed conjecture in
this matter ~e~e individuals who glazed )zajj~ja ]l8what
,- \.
really happene~ wi th d!saqreement due to the events or their ~
1
• l
, ,, l

faney or desire. The true interpretation cornes from the con-

. !
vent tonal meaning of shakk. Its meaning in the language' is
i similar to ignorance [jahl ]. That is, to be deprived of
.t
:v.
clarity [istabanah] of mind eoncerning a given matter. Rida

1
t,
then cites two poets to support this definition, summing up
, his argument by saying that in the arabie language [lisan
~
~ al-carab - this may be reference to the famous dictionary of
~
the sarne n~e] al-shakk is the antonym [ç.idd] of al-yaqin,
1
therefor~ it implies conjecture [;ann). Thus the doubt ab~~t
1 • 1
1
the crucifixion is indecision[taraddud]about whether Jesus 1
1
"' ,'
or another was killéd. None of the wi tnessE!S had certain 1

/'
knowledge
, (c ilm yaqInI] since they were followlng ,ann.
1

Ri9a then quotes Matthew 26: 31, "You will all fall away from
me this night - [kullikum tashakkuna fI-yI fI hadhahi al-
~, laylah ]19." He concludes that if those who knew Jesus best
,'-

"

were in doubt about the situation then it i8 not impossible

/'

,
1.,~.-,·T'.~"'lr~ '1'-.,,....,.,.............- - - - -
 ~ ""r,._,,,t_.~ ... ......~ ...............-"'~ ..."__ ~_ ..... "'_~_<l'.ltc_ . '. ._. . _r·~ __ ·· __ )~_r ~~-~-,....,-~----:--

; 1 •

t
1
,f
(
(
105
• 1

.(
that a mistake' in identity, occurred. In any case, the whole
story is based upon an imperfectly tranfmi~ted historical

"
~
·~ccoun~ [munqati cah al-isnad) •
~ c) 't ma gatalühu y~gInan , means they didn't kill ,Jesus
,
. wi th a certain kill ing . ! qi t;lan yaqln~n], nor were they sure
t, i [mutayaqqinln] that the,
,
vict!m was none other than he because .. ,
they (the Jews) did not really know who Jesus was. Riqa ·then
• 1

recounts the familiar story. in which judas was asked by the

Jews to lead them to ~esus. ~ccording ta the ~osp~.l of
Barnabas, ,.a m~stake was made and the Jews took Judas. There
was no d~ent about wtan they had seized,. even though none
of the Jews knew who Jesus was to begin with. 20 Riçâ then
refers ta the treatment of~ yaqlnan first encountered in Ibn
\" \ , <jI

Qutaybah. He mentions no sou~ce here and hfs .\011ly comment cornes

in the introductory "and it i5' also said • 1 • • ". ,The author,
ci tes the tradition on the authority of Ibn cAbbas, which
interprets the statement as ' "They did' not kill their con-
jecture with certainty. " Ridii seems to'1>refer th!. interpreta tion"l
According to Ri9a, the accou~ts of the mutassir~'
, bi-l'ma'thur
are in di'sagreement about ,this because their information came
,
from Jews and Christians, neither of whom had certain knowledge
,
about the affair. But, he adds, all of these early exegetes
.
agree that Jesus was saved and another was killed in his place •
..,.
RashId Ridi's treatment of 4:157_18 a mixt~re of
\

, -,
/
 •
106
, .
1

reference to 'philological
, discussion, tradition, and his
own critique bf Christian scriptures an~ doc~rlne. ~t w~ll

have ?eej' noticed 'tha t the ~xegete has' av~ided ,m~ntiÔn of

the. grammatical analyses of the rationalists, ô'r the discussion
"
concerning the ac?eptability of a transference of identity. '
This discussion, which
ç
re~ched itsJh~hest development with ~ Ir
i
al-RazI, becomes particularly conspicious by its absence when
this commentator is referred to in the treatment of 4:158.
Rida ci~es al-Raz! by name wh~n he offers the lattèr's,arg~­
ment that Jesus was not raised to an,actual place (supra, .;
1

Chapter III). It is obvious from this that our author'was

extremely selective in his use of the early mufassirün.

.
Rida refers the reader to the tafsIr of 3: 55' 'for an
unders~anding of 4:158. This former verse was commented
1 -

upon by cAbduh hirnself, but Rida takes this opportunity to

/ • 1

offe,r an original comment. He argues qui te stronglY that

Je~us was raised in both bod~ and spirit, althoug~.it is
l '.

not clear to whorn this argument is' addressed. Riga says·that

, l'
it is weIl known arnong the exegetes "and others" that God
raised Jesus béC~use he wa~ seen by MUQammad in the second
\ "
This means that not only Jesus
but also the other prophets whom Muijarnmad saw in the other
. ,
heavens were raised in body'and spirit. He ends his discussion
of these two Vf:!rses by adrni tting that sorne scholars reject his
./

1~,

..,. _.... ,,_,.~,_ .•,~-"'_ ,.:,~ .l

 , \ t 1 --~~~ -~ '-~~---
..... _..... __ ._-;_._._._._._.- ----
_. _. __.._._--~_. ---
107

(
interpretatiQn and he allows that tafsIr is not the proper
place in which to find a solution because the Our 1 an itself
is nQt firm [lam yathbuta] about these questions. 22
The most significant development here is Riqa!s
use of the GoSpel of Barnabas. (For a full discussion of
this work, the reader ls referred to the appropriate litera-
ture. 23 ) Ri4a was the first exegete to rely upon the Gospel,
\ and this reliance is seen to be the cause of sorne of the in-
"consistencies of his argument. For example, R!4a 'condemns .
1
1
the Christian canon as unreliable b~t is able te- accept the
t
<'
apocryphal Barnabas at face value. Jomier has pointed out
l,
1
/ that because Barnabas agrees with the Qur'an, Riga had'no
1 reason to reject it. 24 , It is, I think, a matter of opinion
whether the two agree. NevertHeless, Ri4a apparently thought
1
"
\,

, \
1
.-.ao and this enabled him to disp.ense wi th the legends of t):le
mufassirün bi-1'ma'thür because of'their Christian and Jewish
provenance, and to assert
r

solely on the testimony of the

Gospel of Barnabas. that Jesus was not crucified. This,
of course,· presen.ts an i11 usory break wi th tradition. Rida
•
\

la now a Jlmbdern Il exegete, but his intractabili ty about the

crucifixion raises', the ques~iC?n of just how modern Ri9a
would have been· without Barnabas.
The sècond section of Rida's discussion of the cr~cifixi~n
lé far too lengthy to ~ve a detailed aummâry here. His
\ ,
/

/
 / ., ~--
.
.. ~ ~~ ... ~~----

108

basic task is to refute the cr,ucifixion and attack the idea

of redemption in Christianity. He repeats his criticism of
the poorly transmitted gospels, while arguing that many im-
- ~

portant sources have been lost or destroyed. ae'gqes to great

, , lenqths to argue for the possibility of a substitution, cit~
5

mg pas:t\judicial errors involving mistaken ldentity. He even

uses the ~adiyyah argument that Jesus went off like Moses
to die alone, and his tomb is now in Kashmir. RiQa, ultimately
dependent upon the Gospel of Barnabas, says that Judas was the
one crucifi.ed.

\, , This lengthy discussion of the TafsIr al-manar was

though{ to be justified by the' appearance in it of'the themes
1
/'
which appear ta confine the discussion of elle crucifixion in
"
,
modern exegesis. It is interesting ta note that èven Rashld
Riç1a confesses that the Qur' an itself i9 not definitive" on
this question. It appears, howeve,r, that even at. this ea'rly
time of the 20th century, the problem was complicated by the,
appearance of the Gospel of Barnabas and the rise-of the
~adiyyah movement~ That th~se factors gained such importance
i$ seen to be the result of the pressures of Christian mission-
ary effort. Ayoub, speaking of Ri9a and cAbduh writes, .
,

".1 • • their polemical arguments against Christian! ty must

/
1
• 1
b~ seen in the context of Christian polemics against Islam~c
tradition, both in its religiof and culture.
n25
~i4a himse14

(~

/
 ......................... '"' _ _ _ ........ _ _ ............... w--.-,. • ....,_~_.- - . - - - -

, 109

\
( .
r
tells us of his experience in a Cairo church when he was
1
1
,i asked to 1eave ~ecaûse he interrupted the sermon with questions
(

f pertaining to Christian doctrine. 26 It is therefore possible

î
l
!
that such an atmosphere of confrontation would tend to ern.. -
phasize ~he differences, rather than the similarities, of

1 the two rel~gious groups. Thus Rida is wil1ing to dispense

1
1
with the evidence which might unde~ine the reliability of

,
such sources as the Gospel of Barnabas, in order to assert ..
1 what he perceives to be the Islamic view of Jesus' prophethood
!
and mission.
L
Sayyid QUtb (d. 1386/1966)

1 This author of a complete tafsir was born in Egypt ln

1906. He was educated in the traditional manner and graduated
from thé Dar al- c ulUm in 1933. He appears to have been the
only commentqtor discussed in these pages" other than Mawdiidi,'
·to have visited North America. After a two-year stay, he re-
turned to Egypt in 1945 and became very active in the popular -
Musiim Brotherhood. His duties in the movement included the
.4.-
editorship of its official organ, the Majallat al~Ikhwan
1

al-muSlimIn,. along with other writing projects. After an attêmpt

on the life of cAbd al-Na~ir, Sayyid Qu~b was imprisoned for
nine years. Released, he quickly took up his political actiV1ties
and was returned to prison. The publication of his critical
-','.

,,'
••.•••• ~ .• L ~_ J_'. "'c.'..
... -1
 H d

f
1
)

110

)
c
Ma ilim al-tariq brought upon him the government's wrath;
the author's refusaI to moderate his activities caused him
, to be hanged in 1966. 27
J
l' Arnong his non-po1itica1 writings (aIt~ugh it may
1
1 ! \ ' -
: j be reasonably questioned to what extent any of this dedicated

,f man's work
..
could
. b~ considered - non-political)
, this tafsIr
is accepted as a valid contribution to quranic science~28
The work i tself has been characterized as an "enormous
,, 29 '
collection of sermons" rather tnan a strict commentary.
1 -"

1\ '
Bu t , g1ven 1' t S
it must be treated
W1'd e '
C1rcu
he~e.
l '
at10n , fl uence among Mus l'1ms, 30
and 1n

J
Verses 4:157-8 are' seen in the general context of
the divine reprimand of the Jews, but the Christians are
aiso singled out by these verses for their conjectures
r

about the crucifixion. t rasül allah , is spoken by the

.
Jews (contrary ta Rida) in ridicule. "History" according
"\

\1 to Qu1:b-is silent on the details ,of Jesus' birth and death

[nihayah]r therefare these thin~s cannot be terribly important. 31
In any case, no one has spoken o~ the crucifixion in certainty.
It is very/difficult to determine exactly what happened because
the events happened very fast and were canfused by cantradict6ry
, , \
. reports. \; ,Ne have only the ward of God' ta proper1y guide us
i i
, • 32
in this quest10n.
1

The fourth ~ospel which rec~unts the ho~rible [gabIh]

\ / '

, '
"
 t

--&-----------_.- ------------::----:---------- .1

.\J 111 '.

( )
1
story'of Jesus' crucifixion, death an~ resurrection was
1
1 writterl after the weakening [fatrah] of 'Jesu~ 1 covenant
1
\
,1
[c adh ]. Its complete story ~as suppre~sed [ i9t.ihad J in
~
r
i
his religion [diyanah) and for his f,ollowe~s, it is there-
t
fore difficult to ascertain what really happened in such
ti • 33
1 an enviropment of secrecy and fear. Ma~y other gospels
i
;
~ had also been written, but this ~ourth gospel was chosen
, 1
officially near the....clend of the second century A.D. For
j - 34
1 this reason it is n~t above suspicion [al-shubhat].
i One of the gospels which was wr i tten before the j
"

1 fourth gospel aria received official ~anction was the Gospel ~I

/

of Barnabas [injIl barnaba).

1
It disagrees with the canonical
gospels about the crucifixion and death of Jesus. .
Qutb
1
f' then inserts a lengthy quotation trom Barnaba's which tells
of Judas leading the Jew.s and Roman soldiers to arrest Jesus.
\
l
According to this account, it was late at night and Je~us and
1
1
the disciples were sleeping. When Judas entered the hous~
1
!
/ Jesus was carried to heaven by angels and his image and vo~ce
l'
! \
were cast'upon Judas. Unaware that this had happened, Judas
awakened the disciples to ask them where Jesus had gone. The
dis-ciples 1 recognizing Jesus, thought he was merely disturbed 0

with the fear of death. Although the quotation stops here,

the Gospel goes on to add that J':!das was seize~ by the Jews
and Romans, his protests we.re considered the r.avings of a madman,

\ -
1

l ', .
,
;~
 , (

_.,,_--__________
\
-------------T~----

,J
; 112

,
(
and-he was cruêified.
1
Jesus appeared three day5 later ta
--~~- .
~ ~ his mother and the r~t of his ~ollower~ to reassure them
, ) , and annaunce the cominq of MUQammad, who was to fulfi~l aIl
/ he had taught. 35

r Sayyid Qu~h says.that the acholar ia unable to be

'. certain about these events which occ~ in the,darkness

~\ of niqht, nor is he able to determine exac'tly who "disaqreed" 1
1
about them in choosing one story ov~r another. The Qur'an 1 -1
does not offer details about Jesus' raising: whether it was
"
1
in body or in spirit, or when and where his death occurred.
1
"But the y did not kill him and they did' not crucify him , but
1
(

the killing and crucifixion happened to one,~ho was made to

look like hirn' exactly \'c a1a man shubbiha lahwn siwahu~. Il The
Qur'an do~s not offer details about this other person, we.have
"

only t~ statement in 3:55 but this qives no details about

the death, its nature, or date. Qu~b says that he chooses
to remain in lIfthe shadow of the Qur'an [fI ;Üal al-Qur'anJ,
and therefore does not refer to the sayinqs and fables ,[ asa~ir]
q.;t , (presurnablY the traditions from Wahb et/al). In closin~ his'
discussion of these two verses, the author excuses himself
for what he considers to be a digression from the general

.
and alI-important theme-of this section of the Qur'an, namely
. "redress" [istidrak].36
.',

\
, "
,',
 \\
\-

l
f
J,...
11 j 113

·c) \
1 The name of Abü al-Acla MawdüdI requi~e no introduc-
i1 "
4

\d! ti For those interested in his revivalist,a d politico-

re igious activities, a s~zabl~ bibliography ex! ts.
37
l1 he exegete.
38
1 unfortunately, this is not the case witb MawdüdI
:' ~ )

\ Sorne indication of what is ta bé expected in the tafsir i8

1
l . ' ,)

\ \ found in MawdüdI's stat~ent of bis po1itical ·phi1osophy.

1
1 "What was uppermost in my mind was to keep alive in the Muslims
!,
a ,sense of their separa te entity afid' prevent their absorption ,
J
1

j
'into a non-Muslim community. ,,39 Although €here is no reason
to believe that t~~~uthor was here thinking of a Christian 1

1 "cohUnunity", it ls nonethe-less significant-~

as the 'fol1owing
will show, that this separatism ~~s~-a.---personal credo or: the
~----

1 mufassir.
~----;;;;-.

,. \
\
\

\
pretation, and although these words are of a very general
..
Mawdüdi has spoken more directIy about Qur'an inter-

1 \ nature, they may help to understan~ hi~ work.~

(§~)
1

In order tO'understand the Quran thoroughly,

\ it is essential to know the nature of the Book, its
\ central idea and its aim and object •••
\'
\ The AIM and OBJECT of the revelation is to 'invite C'

\ Man to that Right Way taught by aIl the previous

\prophets and to present clearly the guidance which
~e has lost • • •

The only thing with which it is concerned ia to

expound the Reality •• " That ,is why it states o~'· \
dis'eusses or cites a thing only to that extent
which ia relevant to its aims and objects and leaves . ,
out ùnnecessary and irre1evant details. • ,.40

,.'. ,
;) ;,~,~-
(
. ,,' 1FiJ'\~~ .......
 .. :"'V>"'-..,....".......-...-.... ,.,~~ ....._..--._-_....._--............--.--.........
' . _ _ .. --......., - -~ ~ . ,. .",......", ...- ......... ...,._.~
_ _- - - . - - - - - - - - , - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . c

\! 114

()
Ul tirnately for MaWdüdi the only way to c.ompr~hend
"1,
~
the theme of tJ:te Book i5 to attempt to live a' ~ife according . ,

1,
,"
. to i t, an:i above aU te invite others to accept this way of ~
J 41 \
,life. 1 .,~
'1
r
1 MawdüdI's treatment of 4:157-,8 15 seen to be in

..line wi th this general vi~w. The Jews had no doubt that

\< Jesus was a 'true prophet and MawdüdI argues qui te extensively
to support the idea that their boast to have killed such a
i
l'
i prophet 15 sirnply ernblematic of the de-gradatlon to which
1
this blighted people had sunk.

j Though it appears very' strange that any conununity

shou1d slay a person whom they know to be and
acknowledge a Prophet of Allah, yet lt is so, for
the ways of wicked' communi ties are strange. They
,cannot and do not tolerate that person who criticises
their evil ways and prohibi ts unlawful things. Such
people, even though they be the Prophets of Allah,
have always been persecuted, imprisoned and slain
by their own wicked people.
As a proof thereof the following i5 quoted from
Talmud: "When tQ§t,ci ty had been captured, ,Nebuchad-
ne'zzar marched w1th the, princes and officers of the
. Temple. • ." [ellipsi~ sic J. On one of the walls he
found the mark of an arrow' 5 head as though somebody
had been killed OI' hi t nearby, and h~ asked "Who
was' killed here?','
.. Zachariah, the son of Yehoyadah 1 the high pr iest, Il
answered the people. "He rebuked us incessantly on
account ,of our transgressions and we were tired of
his words and put him -to death. Il

Ne learn also from the~ibie that, when Prophet '

Jeremiah rebuked the Jew on account of their trans-
gressions, they sent him to prison. Likéwise John
the Bapt.\.st was beheaded because he 'criticis~d thern
for theii'" evil ways. ,

,- f
"

" .
··~·i~~:,
.,1 \.
,' ... , 1
, '

, 1.
 115

(
It is, therefore, obvious from their record that
wh~n they presumed that they h~d crucified Jesus
Christ, they would have most SUrel{ bragged, ··We
have slain\ il Me~senger of Allah. Il 2
,-ç..!""
.
-MawdüdI distinguishes himself' here from the other
exegetes in this study wi th his use of the Talmud (though he
gives no other reference) and the Hebrew Bible. His explana-
t,ion of ~ shubbiha lahum ., is equally unique.

This verse~ la
quite explicit on the point that
Prophet ~~ Christ was rescued frem crucifixion
and that the Christians and the Jews are both
,1 wrong in believing that he expired on the cross.
A compaFative ~tudy of the Qur'an and the Bible
1

f
, \

.1
shows that most probably it was Jesus himself who
stood his trial in the court of Pilate, but they
could not kill or èrucify him, for Allah raised
him to Himself.
This is what happened. Pilate knew quite well
that Christ was innocent and had been bro~ht in
hi~ cour~t out of jealousy. So he asked the crowd
whether Jesus Christ should be released on the
" occasiqh of the Festival, or Barabbas, a notorious
robber': But the high priests and eIders persuaded
t~e'-crowd to ask for the release of Barabbas and
for the crucifixion of Jesus~ After this, God,
, ,
~ho can do any and everything he wills, raised Jesus
to Himself and rescued him from crucifixion and, the
one who was crucified afterwards was somehow or
other taken for Christ. •• As regards how "it
was made doubtful for them" that they had crucified
Jesus JI> we ,have no means of ascertaining this matter.
Therefore, it is not right to base on mere guess-work.
ahd .rumours an answer to the questions how the Jews
were made to believe t~at they had crucified him,
,whereas in, fact" Jesus the son of Mary had escaped
from them. 43 ' , '.
l-, ,---'
It ~enOUgh here fqr Mawdùdi that the Jews were bent
upon wickedness and were duly.. foiled by God in their plot.

• 0
 116
..
t
... () '-~.~ ,~
j 'l'here is no i:E!'(erenç~ to, any previou~ exegesis, r~tional
1
1
1 or otherwisei but it ia clea~" tha't:"1:.hê""aut,hor: "a.,~~,~,~ns . special
!1 significance to the eJ~nts described in the verse •. ~~~~~~;''' .. '" '''' ,'""
t
f
is he in need of the Gospel of ,Barnabas for an explanatlon
there ~re many versions
4

of the mystery. He simply says tha t

1\ of the crucifixion and that the existence of such variants
1 proves that no one had definite knowledge about it. Without
, 1l-
, 1
, i naming his sources he 9 ives the essence of these stor ies, I
1
i
sorne of obvious gnostic origin 44 and others reflecting other

christological disputes. It is curious that he dces t'lot

1, mention the sto\y found in Barnabas as one among these several
"
conflicting accounts.
- - f . ,
\ Mawdudi' s \discussion of 4: 158 is qui te extensive i
~

al though it is equal1y barren of reference to earlier exegetes,

i t is nonetheless significant in its attempt to find meaning
in the crypt:l.c assertion that God raised Jesus to Himself.

1 His explanation begins:

\1
l
1
Here 1.11ah has told the fact of the matter. The
) Our' an explicitly says that the Jews did not succeed
in putting Jesus to death and that Allah raised him
to Himself, but it is silent about the nature and
the details of the matter and does neither say ex-
pliei tly whether Allah raised him bodily from the
e~rth te sorne place in heaven, nor do es i t say that
he died like other mortals and only his soul was
raised to heaven. It has been couehed in such a
language tha't hothing can be said definitely about
the incident except that it was un-conunon and extra-
ordinary. • .45 -

,. '.
C'~
_. 1
1,,1.

,
' ..
'':.il,
, "' ... .,." . . . . . . . ~ ~ u~ ~
__ ..... .... ~~, ....... _~ .._ ..... ~ _ _ _ ..... _ ..._ ... - - - _ ................. _ .. _ _ _ ,, _ _ ~- -~--------'
.. _._._-_P. __. . . . ._.:---
117

These words are sugg~stive of Sayyid QU~b' s commentary

( sUpra) , but it is not known if they ref1ect a direct in-
46
fluence. , MawdüdI goes beyond Qu,!:b in his explanat~on 6f
''''-'''' ., , , ,~ .., ,
'why' "the "eYent",mP~.~, ,!?!7.. ,,~? ,~~~,r,ao:~~nary. He says t~él:t the
quranic language is
.ambiguous and could even be inte~preted

to support the Christian "Doctrine of Ascension".

Had it not factua11y been an extraordinary incident,

the Our 1 an would never have used such ambiguous words
as helped support a doctrine of God-head of Christ
'which the Qur'an refutes so strongly.
Second, had Allah rneant by the words (in v. 158) used 1
in the Text that (a) "Allah caused his dea_th" or that
(bl "Allah raised him +n rank, more, explicit words
would have been used. 4 .
Il l 1
/

This is perhaps a veiled allusion to al-RazI 1 s tafsir,

or to those later exegetes which cited the rele"ant passages
in i t (supra, e. g. al-Alllsi and Rida).

In the case of (a) words to this effect would have

been used: "No doubt they did not slay 1:1irn nor did
they crueify him but Allah rescued hirn alive from
them and afterwards he died a natura1 death, Il and l
in the case of (b) "They intended to dishonour him
by the crueif ixion but God raised him very high in
_ rank", as in the case of Prophet Idris: 'An~we
had raised him to a high positl'on.' .(XIX:57).8

MawdüdI is confideht ill his position to such a degree

that he is able to speculate how the Qur f an would have been
wordêd to der ive an opposing interpretation., 'This kind of
speculation has not been met with ,until now. In addition to
the oblique allusion, t~ al-Raz!, we -see a similar refutation

~ -
<" "1
, f,~k~ ~/
t1;. t',~ ,
/
;,~'t _ ri
 .- -

\
\

• !II

! 118

( "

of the Atunadiyyah téaching that Jesus died a naturàl,i'death

in Kashimir. MawdüdI is extrernel:'{ caref<ul, however, not to
mention any narnes. Inasmuch as the work itself iS,directed
to an English·audience (and p)fesurnably non-Musl~m"as well)"
it may be that the author de~ires to present Islam as a unified
religion in the hope of attract,ing converts. ,Or, it may be
,
that be quite rightly jUdged that such direct references
.t
would have little meaning for most of his "readers. Whatever
~

the reason 1 he continues his discuss ion of 4: 1 S8 • Presenting

as it doès a unique interpretation, it is reproduced here in
full.

Third, i f the incident that has been rela~ here \

meant merely the natural death of christ, a the use
of the words, "And Allah is Ml-Powerful, and All-
Wise ( cazIzan hakIman J l' [final quotation mark addedJ
in connection with i,t, would have been' quite meaning-
less. These words can appropriately be used only in
connection with sorne extraordinary manifestations ,of
the power and wisdom of Allah. The only thing tha't
can be cited in support of this/interpretation of
v. 158 that Jesus died a natural death is the use of
the word (~~) in v. 55, al-i-'Imran, in connec-
tion with this inçident, but it has been made clea~ " •
that the word ( lJ";" ) does not l i ally mean '
"to seize the soul" but merely "to tak ànd to .
receive" the body or the soul or both t ether.
As there is a scope for both the interp etations
in this word, its use cannat refute the above-
mentioned arguments against the mean;i.ng, "Allah
caused his death:-II Those who insi~t 0 this '
'" interpretation a;rgu~ that there is_no 0 her in-
stance in which ( li';'" ) mutawaffi has been used \
for the seizure of both body ,and soul together.
This is meaningless, because this ls the only
incident of its kind in the whole of human histo~y.
The only' thing to be considereâ is wnether 'this
word may lexically be used in this sense or not.

,,;." ' l'

~, ,
\ î." 'l 1
 i
{
1,
119

( ,/

If there ia a scope in the lexical meaning of the

word for such a use, as there i5, we have to face
the question: Wny does the Qur'ân not use a direct
ward for death, instead of such a~~d_~s ~his which
is liable to support the. doctrine of As~nsion,
which in its turn, ~has given ri~e to the Doctrine
of the Divinity of Jesus? /Tlfe use of this word is
clear prcof of the fact(that there ~as something
extraordinary about the incident. Above all, the
doctrine of Ascension ie' further strengthened by
the Traditions according to whi~n Ptophet Christ,
son of Mary, will come again to tte Ear;th and fight
with Dajjal. Il [sic] ••• Th~se cllearly and cate-
gorically prove the $econd C minglof Christ to \
the Earth. Therefore it wou d be more rational \
to believe that he must be 1 ving somewhere in
the universe before his Seco d'Coming than that
he' rnight be lying dead sornew erè. 49 .

MawdüdI's reading of t M'ghty, Wise ~ is unique. As

we have seen thes~ arljectives ar usually construed to affirm
God's wisdom in the way he countered the Jewish assertioAs,
either by casting the likeness of Jesus on another, or in a
--,

more general way. Again, the.only reference to th~se verses'

exegetical history are anonyrnous or general, ("Traditions") .
\
His effort at explanation is ingenioùs in its use of "lexical"
meaning, and may be thought to represent a distinct develop-
• •
ment in the tafaIr of the verse. With ~he above exçerpt it

\
1
becomes even more tempting to identify at least one of his
opponents as the ~adiyyah.

In surn, it must be pointed out that·while MawdüdI

\, emt>llasizes the "ext1raordinary" na~ure of the event, he aff~rms
that"someoné eise was crucified. He, like other modern exegetes,

"
, r"!

•
 • '>'t'~,.._.~~~

.
_... -_~.....- __

~ . . - -..... ~ ......- . _..... __ ....... _...........__.__ __ .... _ _ ...._ _ _ _

~~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r_.._..

120

c is not able to speculate on who or how the ultimate confusion

occurred. Thus MawdùdI upholds a substitution explanation.
It is obvious that here as in the case of Riga, it is of the
utmost importance to main tain the errot',of1Christian doctrine.
l,
In 50 doing, MawdùdI has stripped away from his exegesis much
of the early traditions in his reading of the verse while still
maintaining a substi tution theory. It is to be questioned
that if the crucifixion of Jesus
,
were. a 'doctrinally neutral
issue, how necessary would. it have been fot MawdûdI and others
•
to deny it. For example, it would seen'l that a simpfe cruci-

fixion, whic'h did not car~; with it such un-Islami1 cortt:epts

as vicarious atonement, cauld easily be accepted. In light of
, ,
the almost universal acceptance that tisomeane" was crucified,
it appears that the probl~ faced by the exegetes is not 50

much Jesus 1 death Jn l

the cross, ,but their inability ta accept

thi. and ~~t ~he (a~e Ume maintain their Islamie understandin~
of prophecy .. l submit that such a position, in view of the
\

q~ranic teachings discussed in Chapter l, is possibfe. "

MawdudI' s final question (How could Jesus return in the last
-days if' he were not living somewhere in' the u~iverse?) could,
\

for instance, be answered Sy-reference to the verses which ~

discuss those who have died in the path of God.

/
"t Think not of those who are slain in God' s wa'y as
dead. Nay, they live, findiF\9 their sustenance in
the Presence of their Lord ~ (3: 169, see also the
other verses referred to in Chapter 1.) /

() •
:,,'

i \ r.'

1, 1;\~-~;5-
.
jt.-..:-._ç~. ~ ~,.....;..... . ~ .'"",~. ". ~~_~
 .. ~-- - ....- _. , _._~--' ,--.. _--_ ... -... __ _._-~----_.-------------------
..

• 1
• c
121

(.. ,,
That these verses are never, 'at least in the material
surveyed for this Eitudy, cited in connection with 4 :157:"8
is symptomatic of what al-FarüqI identifies as a major
shortcoming of modern exegesis. The quranic notion of

1 1 death, particul:arly for the righteous' (among whom the

f 1)

quranic Jesus holds an indisputable rank), ls. a para'dox.

\ 1
As such it lends itself to discussion under the principles -1
enunciated by him in ·an article published almost thirVy , j
50
years ago.
Though al-FarüqI 1 s major concern here is with the deri-
vat ion of an etl'iical code \ from the Our 1 an which has meaning for
modern Islam, his thesH~ is applicable to the Book as a whole.

, Inasrnuch as this notion of "death" reôresents an apparent can-

e 4

tradiction in the Our' an, the fOl1owing quotation is especially

pertinent.
In the methodology 'we are suggesting 1 we m~y sur- •
mount the limitations under which suyÜ:~I-, al-Raz!
and Shah Waliy Allah have 1aboured. Évery contra-
diction or variance in ei ther the Holy Our 1 an or
the Sunnah is apparent, including the cases 01.
naskh which ta' their 'minds have seemed obdurate.
The differentiation of the levels of meaning, thè
\
distinction of ,ca~egorical real-existents from \
ideally-existent 'values and of higher and lower
orders- of rank arnong the latter makes possible
the removal of aU ambiguities, equivocations,
variations and contradictions wi thout repùdiating
a single letter of the Holy Writ • . •f
Khat " s, therefore, paramountly imperative upon
all Mus i 'a1::- this state of their history • .:. .
ia a \sy mati~ restatement of the Holy Our' an 1 s
,valuat ona content.:'J 1

/ ..
1
/
r
1

r
\ " ,1
 1 • 'II .... <

122

(
AI-Farüqi calls this process an "axiological
systemization"
/
of values. Admi ttedly, his main concern is
,/
/
with the ethical eontent of the book; but the re-examination;'
". \
of Scripture tha is called for here is. bound to have impli- i

cations for ques ions of- theology and metaphysics.

\
al-Tabat.aba '1 (b.1321/l903) )
i

(
;
t
. . .
cAllamali sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Taba taba '1 is a 1
highly respectE!d contemporary exponent of the classicai
i Iranian "intellectual tradition: he is also the author of
,1
.i
1 a recent Eng1ish publication on Shl c isrn. 52 He has taught 1
1
i

in the holy city of Qum sinee 1945, expounding such subjects

as philosophy. and theosophy to students of various back-
grounds, an.d interests, including the late Henry Corbin.
According ·to Seyyed Hossein
- - ..
Nasr, al;;'Tabataba' i has
"exercised a profound influence in bot'h the traditional

1 and modern circ~es in Persia.'. • and tried to crea te a

\
new intellectual elite among the modern educated classe:;. . ... 53
, His most important work is a quranic corrunentary,-of which
/'
t wen t,Y vo 1 ~es h ave so f ar b een comp l eted • 54 'It l' S s';"'l.'lar
.... ..
to SunnI exé.gesis of the modern period in that very Uttle
traditional'material is used to exp1ain 4:157-8.
Accordinq to this author, the main purpose of 4:157-8

() 1
" . /-

~\ . ~ '.
N""7;
.~.~;2t~~
 ~--~-~ >_ . . ,.-.-. . . --._-_.~ . .__..... _--~- ~--- ~_..... ~ . . . . . . _ _ .......-.....-_._._*_. . _.__________
• '_.""~I_.

123

. t0
15 re f u t e the J ewl.S
. hclal.m.
' 55 Pointing out that there
is 50 rnuch disagreemen't about the subject that it is diffi-
cult to determine what really happened, ....al-Tabat,aba'I says .
one possible interpretation [ ta 'wIll 18 that lIthey" did not
kili him in the usual l Cadiyan ] way. 56 The st~tement
~ they did not kill him and they did not crucify him 't
, t
supports this in unambiguous terms, inasrnuch as crucifixion
was a customary puniEilhment at that time. - The rneaning is
1
that Jesus did not die by "their" hands. Rather, the matter
appeared, so to them[bai shubbiha• lahum arnrahu] . 57

They took someone other than Jesus and killed him

;
or crucified him in his place. And it was not re- ..
", mote from custom that such killings took place in
a gathering of savage and brutal rabole. Perhaps
the true criminal was mistaken, the Rotnan- soldiers
killing him,without knowing who hewas. Concerning
this we have many accounts [rlWaya!l about how God_
~
, cast the Iikeness on someone eise. a '
,

Tlie, author 1 striving towards an historically acceptable

explanation, emphasizes the importance of the customs current

at t:hat Hme. ~s, also intere.~inq· that he dr",", attention

to the fact that the "Romans" as opposed to the Jews were
1t
responsible for the killing. This! argument has peen u.sed
extensively by modern Christian
,
writers in their attempts
. to
a~comodate the quranic version of the crucifixion to the gospel
59
accounts. The aut.por then offers the' following curious comment:

/
 r
\ 124

•
~

Perhaps sorne historians have mentioned that the

storieli relating to Jesus, his mission and the
historical events of the rulersoand other preachers
of his tirne refer to two men called Christ.
1 The tw6 may have lived five hundred years or more
apart. The earlier was the true Messiah, neither
1 1 killed nor crucified, and the 1ater, the false
Messiah, was ~crucif ied. Thus wha t the Qur 1 !:n
l ,1 mentions concerning tashbIh is that of Jesus,
son of Mary, with the crucified Christ. 60
r

1
1 It should' be mentioned that al-Taba1:aba' f,' S éxegesis
1
1 is replete with conditional statements, thus it is difficult
1
1 to ascertain exactly what he Oishes to convey. The above

i quotation is an" exarnple, par excellence, of this problem.

It is obvious that the author himself is unsufe about the
quranic teaching, in that he appears to accept "an" historical
crucifixion of someone named Jesus. His o~y source for this
arresting bit of information is the vague "Perhaps (rubbirna ]
sOrne historians have mentioned. " which introduces the
/'

comment. As to who these historians are, or even if they.

actua11y did mèntion such a thing, we are uninf9~med'. Ob-
,1 È
viously aware of this ~roblem, the exegete ends l this section
with "God knows best". 61

The remainder of his treatment 'Q.f subject

_r \, differs·
very' little from the~usual exegesis except those who
'disagreed , are never identified, perhaps be use
~~--<.

it was assumed that their identity was oommon knowledge.

However 1 given the l:ack of direct reference to Christiëms or

/,

, "
' ...'~ :,
 -- ,,~,_.-,.- -,-_._--_._----_._---_.~-_._-_.--.:..._,----------_.......::-_-

1
1
\
(
Jews, together wi th' the singling out of the polemically

neutral Roman sOldiers, it ls possible that al-t'abSt.abâ 'I

, , does not wish to·affront-these religious communities. His
;
1 'only comment here is that "they" disagreed in ignorance
t
! [jahlJ of the evènts, and their choice of one account over
[ , -
others was a mere guess [takhmin}.
62
)

A discussion lof t yaqlnan ~ is then presented in

whieh the author speeulates as to the antecedent of the
pronoun of qatalühu, but he admits that it is very difficult
i
, to de termine such in this context. It 15 pGssible that i

1 the pronoun refers to knowledgé (as in\ :j:bn Qutaybah,' but

i
'j

his name ls not mentioned) 1 "killing knowledge" being an

Arabie idiom for indicating doubt and ,unce~taint~. The pro-

1 c

noun cannot refer to rann, according to the Book [laf~

al-Qur r an j.

His discussion of 4: 158 relies heavily on the tafsIr

of 3: 55. The main idea here ls that Jesus was spiritually

i
l' 1
:[ma
c ":"
naw~ ] raised, "because the Exalted one has no place of

the kind occupied by bodies." 63 As Ayoub points ou~, ~l- .

'faba ~aba 'ILs in line here wi th Mue tazi11 and shlcI exegetical.
tradition. The author does not refer to other exegetes in
\ ,/ ,

this d~scussion' of 4: 15', likewise such re~erences are

absent' from his treatment of the previous verse. This, ,. as

we ,have seen, is oonsistent with the general trend of 20th

-/
 _ _---_._---------------..---
..... ---~........... __.. -
....... -"",

(J
126
- (
).

\~
century tafslr. al-Taba1:abi'I does not go to great lenqths

/ to .refute the idea of identity transfer the way al-~zr did;

but it is clear from his understanding of t shubbiha lahum ,
(i. e. that the' Romans merely picked t:he wrong man) that t.he

author i5 a çonfirmed rationalist.

1
-""" / ,1
1

•Summary j

This review of modern exeqetes has shown a generaJ,. 1

i
departure from the use of 2adlth in the explanation of the 1,
!
Book. Raûher there emerged a pronounced appeal to reason,
whether this be by way of theological debate or lexical dis-
eussions. The tafslr of this chapter has offered sorne new
and imaginative answers to old questions, and has also been
affected by the appearance df the Gospel 'of Barnabas. It
is interesting to note, however, that 'the last two authors
make no mention of this work, demonstrating that it is
possible, even with::>ut it or the exegetical traditions of the type
surveyed in Chapter II, to deny the crucifixioll of Jesus on
the sole strength ,of 4: 157-8. This denial is seen to be
'.
a rejection of Christian soteriology rathe[ than a disclaimer
of the event èf the crucifixion of Jesus.

\
 \ ,
d ( b

127

( .,. ,

FOQTNOTES

1For a partial list of modern Egyptian taf~Ir:

J.J .G. Jansen, The Interïretation of the Koran in Modern
'Egypt (Leiden: E.J. Bril , 1974), p. 13. As the title~b
l
l
implies, the rest of the lofuslim wor1d is ignored. J .M.S.
1
i -, Baljon, l'-lodern Mus1im Koran Interpretation (1880-1960)
(Leiden: L.J: Bri11, 1968), deals in a "disapp,ointing"
way with the exegesis of the sub-continent~ see: Charles
~
J. Adams, "Islandc Religion, II," Middle East Studies
~ Association Bulletin, v, No. 1 (Feb.,1976), p. 13.

, 2Baljon, M~dern, p. 4. An idea of Sir Sayyid' s 1

,
[ view on this issue is apparent in these words: "Crucifixion
1 itself does not cause the death of a It\an, because only the
, palms of his hands, or the palms of his hands and feet are 1
1
pierced. • • After three or four hours Chr,ist was taken
1 down from the cross, and it is certain that at. that _moment
he was still alive. Then tl}e disc-iples concealed him ip a ,
·1,
I-
I
\
! very secret place, out of fear of the enmity of the Jews!"
~ Quoted by Parrinder, op. cit., p. 13: al-t'aba-çaba',i makes
i'Î. a similar statement, see infra, p'. 123, the referenœ in n. 58.
it
,
For a brief discussion of the manner in 'tfhich crucifixion
causes death, see Jomier, (op. cit. inf,ra, p, 128, n. 14), p. 130.
A discu'ssion of Sir Sayyid' s exegetical method i9:
t Daud Rahbar, "Sir Sayyid Atuna<» Khan' ~ Principles of Exegesis, Il
1
!:!!' XLVI (1956), pp. 104-112 And. 324-335.
3Arthur Jeffrey, "The suppressed Our 1 an Commentary
.
of Muhammad Abü Zaid," Der Islam, XX (1932), pp. 301-308 .
4 .
) cA'ishah cAbd al-RatuMn, al-Tafslr al-bayanI 1i'1-
Qur' an al-karim (2 vols. 1 Cairo: Dâr al-Maearif, 1962-69).
A partial, treatment of h~r ...thought i9: Issa J. -Boullata,
IIModern Qur'!n Exege.sis: A Study of Bint a1-Shati"s Method",
MW, LXIV (197\4), pp.• 103-113.
- '"
/~

5Sml.t
. h':, op. .
c~t., p. 174 •
6 .
, For
•
a' mor"e complete genera1 d!'scussion, See Smith,
4 ...
'op. cit., pp. l74-l75! A study of sorne aspects of his tafsl.r' -"
i8 in Bitke1and, The Lord Guideth, passim.
 ~~: ,. ,. . . .____. . . __ . . .
~,, ~~ ~~,,_,,_""_~ __._. _._. __. __ . . ._-,-------------
~_'IIi_~

r
!

t\ 128

7Abü'1-Thana" al-Alü~I, Rub al-mac!ni fi tafsIr

j \ al-Qur"an 'a1- c azIm., (11 vols., Deoband: Idâriili al-'fab!cat
, al-}\.1uft:af§: i iyy-a d.), ref. is to VI, p. 1.0.
1
i
""
8 The m terial credited ta al!Jubba,t 4-s sliihtly
l' different fro tnat found in al-Tüsi and al-tabars~.
9 Rllb al-mac- - VI, p. 10, here reads "wa yaqul.
1
1
ani,
. "
j . 10Ibid ., p. 11. This concern with Christian sects,
i~ tafsI4twas first encountered in al-suyütI. Notice,also
the terrninological similarity~with the Ikhwan al-S!fa t
\ (see supra,' Chapter' III r n. 33 ) but here the .source is
positively identified as Christian, cf. Bay~wi, supra.

, IlThis coltlIllent has not been met wi th before and

{, confirmsal-Alüsi's value as a'soùrce for otherwise un-
i avai1able'material. Smith, op. cit., p. 174:
i 12 Ruv
l-o
a 1 -ma c_an~,
- Vl, p. 12 .
t
f
t
) 13 E •9 • , his' taci t allusion to al-ZamakhsharI; but the
source could just as easily have been a1-Razi. If this ïs
. the case, then the phenomenon i5 even more acute, inasmuch
~s the latter handily dispensed wi th the possibility of a'

t ~ansference of identity. l'

,
t 14Smith, op. cit., p. 187; Janse , op. cit.;' PP" 18-34. ,\ 1
~pe
uutstanding in-depth analysis of t e commentary at hand ,'\ 1
\1 ~s:
J. Jomier, Le commentaire corani u du Manâi: tendances
1 modernes de l'el{ 9 se coran~que en Egypte, Is am d h~er et
, 1 \ d'aujourd'hui, collection dirigée par E. Lévi-ProvençaL
.-
,/
"
. Vol. XI (Paris: G.P. Maisonneuve and Co., 1954). / "
1
1
'{1
., "1

15Ja~sen, op. cit., p. 53. '\

l'
"

l6MUQammad Rashid Rida, TafsIr al-Qur'an al-karIm,

al-shahIr bi-taf.sIr al-man!r (2nd ed.; 12 vols.; cairo:
D~r al-Manlr, 1367-75/1j48-S6),' ref. 18 to VI, p.'lS. Here
the author cites John L7: 3 "And th~s' is eternal life, that
they know thee the ,only tru,e God, and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent," to argue ,against the divin,ityr-of Jesus by
confounding the Christians with their own book (which irï- 1>
cidenta11y he declares to be untrustworthy, infra,). Thus
the commentary immediateli assumes a polemical, rather than
a pure1y exegettcal funct on. See aiso Ayoub, op. cit., p. 3Q.
l " ~
~

~'

, .
.... j
~
,;j/ '
"
 • "1"'" !II 'lM",\liNl'~II'i.IIIINtJ li" • • " ... ,,~.t ________ "'' ' ,.;1is_.'
Mt _ _ _

129

i l7Tafslr al-manar, VI, p. 18. RiQa dr&.ws support

,, ,
,
1 for tijts conclusi9n by claiming to use the methods of the
logiclans: IIkama 'yaqul c u1arna ' al-mantig". , Thus he is able
to be seen as a modern rationaliste

l8Ibid • The text has'~;which is .probably a misp~int

for \~;--

19Notice the presence of the quranic root sh-k-k.

l

20Ibid ., p. 19. The Gospel of Barnabas was first

published-rn-England by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, '1907). It was translated by the Raggs
from an Italian mapuscript and contained a critical intro-
duction. This extensive assessment was deleted in the
later Arabie translation, executed under the direction of
RashId Rida, published by the Manar Press (see Jomier,
op. cit., p. 128).· The Ragg edition is quite rare, and as
such was unavailable to me. 1 have consulted instead
L. Ciri11a and t1. Frémaux's edition (see infra,. n. 23).
The relevant passage here is on pages 545-546. •
21 Tafsir
- al-manar,
- VI, p. 20.

22 Rida ,s reference here to the miCraj is (except ,

for the oblique allusion not~ced in Muqâtil) indeed an
original one. It is of courSe quite possible that the
miCraj tradition was so f irmly à part of their religious
view that the earlier commenta tors thought direct reference
to it redundant. It is clear that the tradition has in-
fluenced, at 1east partially, the acceptability of a sub-
il> stitution theory which required the physical ascension of
Jesus. See:" Geo Widengren, Muhammad the Apostle -of God,
and His Ascension (King and Savior V), Uppsal~ Universitets
Arsskrift 1955: 1 (Uppsa~a: Almqvist and Wiskèlls, 1955),
esp. pp. 96-114.

, 23The Most recent and comprehensive being: Louis

Ciri1lo and M. Frêmàux, Evangile de Barnabé, prêface by
Henry Corbin (Paris,: Beauchesne, 1977). For RiQa' suse
of Barnabas, see Jomie~, 0E. cit., pp. 128-130. Its use
by modern Muslim writer's is surveyed in, Todd Lawson, "The?"
Goseel of BéW='nabas: Its Use by Muslims and its Value as
a Source u (unpublfshed paperf Montreal, 1980).
\
 J~
1

....- - - - - - - - - - - - - -......--:---.---~--~_- -
, l ,
jo..,..,..~-- ..... -_... .-...,-_.. ~~~ ........- - • .., . . . •\",,_._ _ .L: ... - -
1

130

24 ~ . '
Jomier, op. cit., p. 128.

1
!
!
1
\\
if

pp. 311-313.
25
Ayoub, p. 32. For a iood a'bc.ount of the non-
exegetical section ,of ~he tars~r,. see Jbmier, of. cit.,
( •
,1

. /

26 _ -
1
1
1'
Tafs~r al-manar, VI, p. 25.
1 i,
l ,~
1 ~
Il
2~Smitht o~. cit., pp. 203-207.
1

, -
.,
28 Ibid • t p. 205.
I!.

,·1
, 1
29
_ Jansen, °12· cit. , p. 79, n. 15.
1
1
30Tne tafsIr has been translated into Turkish and
Persian, and as of 1977, was being translated into Urdu.
Smith, 012- cit., p. 106. 1
31
Sayyid Qu'tb, 'Fi iilal al-Qur'an (7th ed..-; 8 vols.;
Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-cArabI, 1391/1971), IV, pp.,
586-587.

32 Ibid ., p. 587.- .r

33.Ibid • This comment could be seen as (,an indictment

of Qut.b's Egypt, thereby calling into question the "apolitical l1
na-t,re, of his tafslr·.
34 . -
1 Ibid. 1 p. 587.
"
!
-1
,
35Ibid .,· pp. '58.1-S8~; cf. Ciril10 and Fr~maux, op. '.cit.,
pp: 539-545.
... -

36 Ibid ., p. 588.
1
'{

"

,l' " ,
'.
, . " ,
, ,;: ,~ .
~, ', , .'
1 _, j
 ........... J. .id .111
1
11
\
t
, 131

(
38Aside from scattered references in B~1~OE' op. cit.,
and Jansen, ,p.
cit., see: Freeland Abbot, "Mau1ana Maudüdil
on Quranic nterpr~t~tion,': MW, XLVIII (1958), pp. 6-19.
There is a1so'Mawdudi's own Introduction to the Eng1ish edition
of his Urdu tafslr: The Meanin2 of the Qu~'ân, trans1ated by
Muhammad Akbar (6 vols.published; Delhi: Markazi Maktaba
Jamaat-E-Is1ami Hind, 1968-), see vol. l, pp. 5~28~

39Bahadur', op. cit., p. 12. This is a quotation from

t~e Musa1man Aur Mawjuda Siyasi Kashmakash.

1
40 Mawdudi,
- - Meanin2, l, pp. 7 and 9-10.
, 1
\
4l Ibid ., p. 27. It should be stated her'e that it is
sornetirnes -difficu1t to determine the author of the "Explanatory'
notes", whether it was MawdüdI or his translator. i
42 Ibid ., Ii, p. 389. .1
1
l 43 Ibid ., pp. 389-390.
\ /

1 44 E.g., Jesus was said to be watching the Romans

crucify someone e1se while 1aughing at their folly. Cf.
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic GOSruglS (New York: Random House,
1979), pp. 70-101. Cf. als~ Wa 's 2nd account supra,pp.45-46.
\, 45l·lawdudi,
. - - op. cit., II, p. 390.

1 '46Cf • also Riga, supra, ap.l07.

1 , ,
1

47MawdüdI, op. cit. t II, p. 391.

48 Ibid •

4~~bid., pp. 391-392.

\

50IsmacIl kagI al-FaruqI, "Towards a New Metho~ology

for Qur'alnic IExegesis," ~I, l, p:t. 1 (March, 1962), pp. 35-5~,

51 Ibid ., p. 45.
 ---~,----------~----------------~--~.--_,_._-
• - - - - - - - - ••'-=t!- --'u
BI

132

(
):.-' .~------- --------- editor Ehsan
52ShICiteIS1~, persian Studies Series, 5, genera;l ,
Yar-Shater, trans.: 'and ed •. by Seyyed Hossein
l
• ' ~Nasr (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1975) •
\
1 53~., pp. 24-25.

54~." p. 239.
1 '
1

55~1-Sayyid M~hammad Husayn a1-Tabataba'I, al-Mlzan

fI tafsI r Cal-Qur'an (14 vols. printed;'Beirut: a1-A~1!mi
1i-l-Matbu it,- 1390/1970). Ref i8 to V, p. 131.

56~., V, p. 132.

S7 Ibid •
1 /58 Ibid .

59
E.G.: Elder, pp. 256-258; Parrinder, p. 119; but
see the difference in ~asetti-Sani, op. cit., pp. 171-172.

1
60AypUb'S tra~slationi oE. cit., p. 26. '
l' 61 . . l ,

See p.66, n. 50, chapter I~:

1
62 ,. -
al-M~zan, V, p. 133.

63AYOUb'S translation, op. cit., p. 25.

\
\"
 .I.,~_. ___ . __....__ . . _.__ ._____""'' -________._____. __. . . . _.u________._·__
~ _~
..
'

(
CONCLUSION

1
!' Chapter l endeavored to cor~ect the assertion of
,
l
modern non-Muslim students, of the Qur'an that the book denies
1\ the crucifixion of Jesus. In a brief discussion of the
~ .
t semantics of 4:157-8, it was aiso suggested that the Qur'an
!
,
itself is neutral 'on the subject of the historicity of the
,
crucifixion, and~may indeed be read to affirm it. Chapter I~

sbo~ hav~made it clear ~at the early exegetes were dependent

!

upon sources other than the Qur'an for their interpretations.

These sources were seen 'to be of either Jewish or Christian
origin. It is aiso shown th&t the early interpretations,
in tpe ~Qrm of substitution Iegends, are the source for that
typ~ of exegesis which denies that Jesus was crucified.
Chapter III described a trend in tafsIr which sought to free
the Qur'an. text from inter-pretations based on the extra-Islamic
substitution Iegends. This vari.cltion fran tba nore usual patterns of exegesis
"

is one of the prircipal evidences of the conclusion offered in this

thesis that rot aU Muslbns have agreed on ~ interpretation of the
verses in question. This trend was seen to have ended abruptly
by the 14th ,century ·A.D. Chapter IV witnessed to the per-
sistence'of modern exegetes in their denial of the crucifixion,
even though many of them have disclaimed the util~ty of early
traditions for purposes of exegesis. ,In som~ authors, this

'"
, .
 Il
\
. ~ _. . --.~ . . ~~ -t. -_. . .". . . . . ~~.~ ~_
,
._. ~~ _____. ,. . . . . . . . _. . . . . _~_.,-.M._._. '"...:;~._"1"'J
_01101_ _ _
....
".""_ _<*1
_....
__" .9.4
..._
" _ . _. ., ._ . _
.. 0_
......._llt1_ ;.~.M_ _--l~
....._ ..U _ _ _

134

(
continued denial was supported by th~ Gospel of Barnabas;
others depended upon different arguments in order to main-
tain what is perceived in this' theslis as a disparity between .
the avowed methodo1ogy of modern exegetes and, in this in- 1
1

stance, their resu1ts. In both instances this persistence

in denying the crucifixion indicated that the real issue was
something other than the historicity of the crucifixion ~'~

Jesu~. ~ecifically, the issue was Cnristian theo:ri,es of '\

\
salvation. \
. ,
Here 'fie rray also rnake a few observations apout the complicated
problem of the origins of the substitution legend itself. As
was rnentioned in.the Introduction, one of the'earliest authors
to have charged the Qur'an with a denial of the crucifixion
was a ëhristian - John of Damascus. This fact, along with
the disposition among certain non-Muslim scholars to view
\

Isla~ and tts Revelation as a bastardized form of previous

~ x:elig~on, has moved sorne te posit a Docetic (Ch~istian) pre-
/
~dent for. 4: 157-8. 1~ Now docetism as a subject for general
discussion is beyond the scope of this thesis, but it is
certainly not insccurate te say that docetic elements are
disc~rnible in many widely disparate' periods and cultures
as lia peculiar feature of religious typology." 2 Indeed, the
fact that these element. are not restricted to no~orthodoX

,', \
 135

(
1
( rel~gion3 might be expected to shèd li9ht on the relationship
j
) between Islamic orthodoxy and the so-called heterOdox
-!
authors of the Rasa'Il Ikhwan al-§afa' oi more precisely,
this fact would help define more cl~arly what the correct
application of such terms as "orthodoxy" and "het~rodoxy"

shouid be. According to Bianchi' s thesis, i t i8 qui te un- ,-

necessary, and may possibly be a hindrance to an appreciation
of the general genius of Islam,
,
to tead into 4:157-8 direct ,

influences from previous "heterodox" religions.

.,-
At the same
time, that John of Damas~oUld have done this is not o~ly
possible but probable. ,~. ~
There is also suffic1ent evidence to show that any
influence that might be present in-the verses need not be
"religious" (i. e. Jewish, \Christian, Manichaean, etc.) in
1
origine As ear1y as 1890, Goldziher drew attention to a
\ belief shared 1:Iy sorne of'Mul}ammad's "pagan" contemporaries
who, upon hearing of the Prophetls death; renounced Islam
"undell' the pretext that a-man who i5 subject to death like
;
/
-all,other men cannot have been a prophet~ ,,4 In this connection,
the substitution legends may reflect a prevailing "unconscious
tendency" in ear1y Islam "to draw a picture of Mul}anunad that
shou1d not be inferior to the Christian picture of Jesus. ,,5
Although none coulq claim for Mu~arnmad a para1le1 to the death
and resurrection of Jesus, in Jxegesis, and in the popul~r'

/
 f
.__ . . ____. _. . ___
~ ''''''i--''''''*''~'''''-"·:M_-------------.---

136

( ,

gisa$ al-anbiya ' literature, the-Christian verse could be

and was transforrned into something more "workable". To in-
fuse the events surrourlding the crucifixion with th~~es drawn
ftom attested "facts" of Mul}arrnadfs career, such as the miCraj,
was a more readily accomp1ished feat than to attempt a dis tor-
ti9n of what was recognized to be the history of Muhammad's
last days. It is no~ meant to suggest that such a distortion
would otherwise have been atternpted.
Another dimension ~o a possible history of th~ ideas
embodied in the substitution legends appears in the variegàted
motifs of Jewish messianism. For example, one may see in these
legends a reflection of the Je\'lÎsh idea that the Messiah "would,
~ ·6
be defeated,. hide, and eventually reappear." It is possible
that the early exegesis of this verse (~s a product of the
Islamic preacher) represents the tailoring of the Revelation
ta suit the messianic expectations of prospective Jewish con-
,
verts. In the se 1egends ;Jesus is "defeated" by the authori ties l é

(either Roman or Jewish) in their sen~encing him ta death. Jesus

, ,
l is 'then "hidde'n" by Ged. and expected t<? "reappear" sometime in
1
the future. A Jesus who thus conformed to~hè messianic beliefs
,
of possible Jewish converts would make acceptance of his quranic
title al-masIh much easier for them tha~ wo~ld a Jesus who had
,
,
died an iQglorious and despised (Dt. 21:22-23; Jos. 8:29-10:26:
\
 131 ,

r
c· 2 Cor. 2l:6~9; possibly Num. 25:4) deàth on the cross. This
,/

of course i6 only speculation, but we have f?und very little

in the pertinent literatute which ma~es even an initial attempt
/

to trace the origins of the substitution legends.

1
One exception is the solution proposed by Massigno~:

"
Cette ex~g~se, qui s'est infiltr~e de três bonne heure,
vers 150 H., dans les tafsIr sunnites, nous semble d'ori-
gine shiCite. Elle applique A Jêsus, rétrospectivement,
l'explication trouvée, à Küfa, pour la mort violente de
leurs Imams lêgi times, par des sectes extr~mistes qui
les avaient divinis~s. Dieu n'ayant pu les faire "mourir
avant leur temps", et la parcelle divine qui résidait en
eux ayant ~t~ néèessairement soustraite A leurs assassins,
il n'était resté d'eux qu'une forme ,apparente (shibh) (n.),
une loque humaine que Dieu faisait assumer pa~ un démon
ou un·damn~ durant les tortures de l'agonie. D~s l'an
145 H., cela s'~tait dit de Nafs Zaftiy~. Pour Huseyn
(d. 60 H.), une théorie plus complexe s'élabora: sub-
stitution d'un disciple d~vouê, Hanzala Shiba~I, qui,
n'assuma que la ressemblance physique de l'Imam, les
souffrances' ~ta'nt transf~r~es sur un damné invisible,
COmar. On remarquera que les tafsIr sunnites postérieurs
hésitent ~galement devant l'alt~rnative, démon ou disciple,
pour caractériser le ,sosie de Jésus. Les Kh~~~abIya,
et aprés eux, les Ismaéliens, se sont souvent offerts A
la mort, dans la conviction que le supplice pour les·
martyrs est une extase.
1·
n.: Mot employé par les KhattâbIya (KIlani, ghunya, 1',78):' 1

vers 140 H.7 ••

If it is possible to see a shICI origin for the sub-

stitution legends, then the quèstion ~ust be asked, wny was
it so necessary for the early shIcI commenta tors to uphold the
substitution theory? That is, if the ShIcah would accept the
violent deaths of their Imams, and aIl of the sUffering which

()
.
.. ,
 ;'

138

went along with such deaths, why were they unable to accept
<

the traditional Christian account of Jesus' death? This

question becomes more pressing in light of Ayoub's recent
treatrnent of the positive role of the idea of redemptive
suffering in Islam,S which study attempts to revise th~
! ,general assumption that red~mptiv~ suffering is a concept
, 1
foreign to Islam.
Whatever the original impuls~ may have been, the
substitution legend has been a popular exegetical device
ever sinee the second Islamie century. Dr. Kamel Hussein,
author of the City of Wrong, offers this assessment of the
legend:
/ ~--'
The idea of a substitute for -Christ is a very crude ,--
way of éxplaining the Quranic text. The exggetes, we
assume, had to explain a lot to the masses.

This statement is in line, as we have seen, with the

modern trend of minimizing the value of tradition, especially
, \

of the Isra'Iliyyat, for exegesis. We have aiso se en that

{BÔme versions of the substitution Ieg~nd fall into the category
( . ' \ -
,o~ Isra'Illiyat inasm~ch as the~ were related ~ the authority
of either Christians or Jews. While it is true~ha~ecaUBe
of the nature of Most of the so~rces used in this thesis, one
,
could mistake this modern rejection of tradition for a function
" exegesis, it is also clear that these ideas
of "revivalist"
are shared by modern Muslim religious scholars of a different
I;Jtamp.
(}
 ,. _.. __. . . . __I__ . . . .
~ ~ .. . . ,._ _ ... ........._ _ _
~ ~ "..._~ ___4a_'_IA_I_-._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _•___ "

139

( )
" ,
Dr. cA'isha. c Abd al-Rahmin (Sint al-Shati') is a
, ',J- • .
widely pu~lished Muslim quranic scholar whqse informed and
earnest approach
1
to tafslr has been discussed in detail by
10
Boullata. Of the four guidelines for exegesis to which

\
Bint al-Sha~I' subscribes, one is of immediate interest:
,
X
i i
1
1
To understand the subleties (sic) of expression, the i
text in its .quranic setting "rsstudied for what it tnay ../ 1

mean, both the letter and the spirit of the text being 'l
1
considered. The sayings." of exegete are then examined
in relation of the text thus studied, and only what
agrees with the text may be accepted. To be avoided
are aIl sectarian interpretations and all intrusive
Iara' Iliyyat (Jewish-Chri~tian materials)J that were
forèed on the books of Tafsir.

The integrity of this principle has recently been sub-

stantiated in an independent analysis of early exegesis. The
results of this study by Wansbrough have already been men-
tioned (supra, ch. nI, p.71 and n.9 ), but are referred to
"again here for the purpose of drawing attention to. what i5
perceived to be a significant ,correspondence blatween Muslim and
o 11 "
non-Muslim scholarship.
A, word may now be saiÇl about~a subjéct intr9duced in
Chapter IV. It seems at least worthy of notice that those
Western scholaJ';s who claim that the Qur' an denies the crucifixion
may possibly exhibit a reaction to the theological debate
st;imulated ~y the t:.,achings· of the Alpnadiyyah. It may be that
1;hose soholars who have had wide experience with Islam,

J
 \

------,-~~-«_._.-------------------------------

140

( )

especially in !he sub-continent, have been infl'uenced in

•
,!,/
their views \ abdut the quranic crucifixion by the Ahmadiyyah .
movement, a rnovement which is among the most vocal of Islarnic '
groups in that region and elsewhere. 12 The confident and
categorical, statements of the rnovement ~n the subject of
the crucifixion of Jesus may have hâd the effect of diverting
a discussion of the Qur 1 an text into a theologicai debate in
which both sides would have feit compelléd to "defend" their
respective religions. This applies aiso to debates on this
subj ect among other, groups, but in the case o'f the Al].rnadiyyah,
given the nature of its claims, such a debate would be apt to
f - - '"'\

become more polarized than would be the da~e in''other circurn-

stances. In this caSe, the Qur'an would becoine a salvo re-
leased over both 'camps, while its revelatory and literary voice
became overwhelmed by the' noise. It is no mystery why the
\ ,

leaders of either group would not have been exercised, in such

a struggle for conquest, to ddnate ammunition to the enemy.
In surn, the followinq points are consider~d to be the
,
most important elements of this study:
/

1. The position of the Qur'ân on the crucifixion of

Jesus is neutral on the ,question of its histor~!t'~.

2. There i5 no unanimity among mufassirün on the -matter.

3. At one time a trend developed within,\sunni Islam which,

-
, " ....
sought to interpret the vers~o~ide'the 'terms of the
"--~,

• .J " '
..; , .',
, "<"

. "
 ,
." .. -"
-~~ "/~

1
l, ,
;
141
!
t
, '

,
substitution leqend and its concomit~nt denial of
! the crucifixibn of Jesus.
. 4. The eXéqetical position which denied the crucifixion~
.,1 ; was founded upon intrus ive materia1, which material
modeFn' exegetes deem unworthy of use in their inter-
,
1
pretation of the Qur'an.
11
5. The position taken by the majority of modern commenta tors
! on the subject of the crucifixion seerns dete~ined more
by apoloqetic and theoloqical considerations than by ,

\ 6.
histo~ical or exeqetica1 ones.

The modern denial of the crucifixion is a function of

.1
1 !
the basic ,Islamic denial of Christian soterioloqy. j

"
n'

,i

. '

'.

..
, '
N' ,}•• ,
,
. , ,.

" ". l '. ,' t

.\~

:~\~L' •
. \ '
" ....
:;~ ,
,
.. ,'. :"l~~:';:
~~ ~~.::,'
 ... _ _ _ ....... ~_ .. _ .. _ . . _._,_._____________
... _"'I .......... ~........- .. _ _ ..... _ _ • _ _ _ ~_.. _ _ _ _ _~-~-----'_s,-_ ltll
. . ._
. -

(
., . FOOTNOTES
'tt
-- --=- -=:;:

lIt. is not clear whether Jonn Wansbrough, Sectarian

Milieu: Content and Corn o'sition of 'lslamic Salvatlon Histor
Ox ord: Oxfor Unlvers ty Press, 7 ,p. 08, 1.S a u ~n9
to a direct borroWing in the case of 4 :157-8, of "so-called
'docetie'" elemen~a," but his statemeÎit on p": 128, indicates
as muel): "The translation of word, and with it concept, into
Arabie exhibi ts the one, perhaps only, class of 'fact' un-
ambiguously attested in the earliest l i terature. Sorne
impression of the awkwardness occasioned by such 'facts' can
be' seen i~ the Islamic accomodation (or, rather non-accomodation)
of Christolog{cal concepts like messiah, virgin birth, and
docetism." We would accept "awkwardness Il (if this. is meant 1
1
to de scribe a quranic phenomenon) only in the sense one could di\,
conceivably apply it to the manner in which Stravinsky, say,
adapted to his music the tnemes and techniques of the romatftics.
A few examples of othèr autl1ors, less opaque in their
'"
expression, w.ho are dispased ta read into our verse,
direct docetic influences are: Henry Grègoire, "Mohammed et
l~ Monophysisme," Etudes sur l',histoire et sur l'art B zance:
Melanges Charles Dle l (Paris:- Ernest Leroux, 930), pp. O~-
119, and his tra-nsmitter, Henri Michaud, Jésus selon le Coran
(Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1960), see esp.c p • 66. ~his
thesis is in turn approved by Georges Anawati, "Isa," El ,
IV, p. 84. See also, Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qür'ân
(London: Faber ~nd Faber, 1965), pp. la9-lI1. Such a position
represents little advance over the theory of Richard Bell, The
Origins of Islam in its Christian En'viropment (London: Macmillan,
• 1926), p. 154 which supported the argument of ~rdmann Fritschj
Islam und Christentum in Mitte1a1ter (Breslau: Verlag-Muller
and Seiffert, 1930), pp. 66-70, echoes of which are heard- in ~
Claus Schedl, Muhammad und Jesus (Vienna: Herder and Co.),
pp\ 563-566. See also Henry Corbin, "La Gnose Ismaê1ienne," /"1
Eranos Jahr Book, xxiii (1954), pp. 142-244, esp. pp. 193-
210.

2ugo Bianchi, "Docetism: A peculiar Theory about the

Ambivalence of the Presence of the Divine," Selected Essays
on Gnoticism, Dua1ism and Mysteriosophy (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1978) t p. 265.

, '

\
 __ .... ......--_...... ........,..,...,...... u, _ _ _ _ _..-_"._..-_._ _ _ _ _._._ _ _ :1._
• _ _ _ _._lIdu_.r__...... ..........
__- - : - - _....._ -
...
_~~ .~~

. 143
. f\

3Ibid •
See A.L. Tibawi, "Ikwan as-Safi and Thelr
Review of a Century and a Half of Rese~rch,"
Rasa' il: -X-Critical
in Arabie and Is1amic Themes: Historical, Educational and
Literary Studies -(London:' Luzac and Co., 1976), pp. 161-186,
esp. p. 174. An interesting analysis of this author's anti-
. Orientalist posture is~ Donald P. Little, "Three Arab Critiques
of Orienta1ism, MW, LXIX, No. 2 (1979), pp,. 110-131, esp.
pp. 111-115. --

4Ignaz Go1dziher, ,Mus1im Studies, Vol. II, tràl1s. ):)y

S.M. Stern and C.R. Barber,. ed. by Süern (London: George Allen
and Unwin, 1971), p. 261.
1
! \ SIbid, p. 346. See a1so, p. 122.
1
1
1
6S01omon D. Goiten, Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts 1
through the Ages (New York: Schocken, 1970), p. 168. One ,j
shou1d also refer to Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in
i
t ,Judaisrn, and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York:
1
1
J 1
Schocken, 1971); and, Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea
1 in Israel from its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah,
transe by W.F. Stinespring (Néw York: Macmillan, 1955), pp. 325-
327.
,
\~'"
7Louis Massignon, "Le Christ dans les évangelies selon
Ghaza1i~ REl, (1932) , pp. 523-526. Quotation is fro~ p.
0525,:. This article is a1so interesting for 'the subject of
Isma crli influences on Ghazali •.

/ 8Mahrnoud Ayoub, Redem Stud

of the devotional aspec~t~s~o~~~~~~~~~--~~~--~(~T~h~e--
Hague: Mouton, 1978).

9Kamel Hussein, City of Wrong, intro. and trans. by

Kenneth Cragg (Amsterdam: Dj ambatan , 1959)r p. 222. The
passage continues: /lNo cultured Muslirn be1ieves th~;; !n~wadays.
The text i8 taken to mean that the Jews thought they ki1led
Christ but God raised him unto Him Hi a way we can leave un-
explained among the several mysteries which we have t~~en for ,
granted on faith~ alone. /1 •

",.-.1--

1
i
:.
.'
 ______•________ • ________________________
ln_
••_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

144

10 ' ' - . '

Issa J. Boullata, "Modern Qur'an ExegesJ..s, A Study,
of B'int al-Shati"s method," MW, LXIV (1974), p. 105. Al"
.thoug~ this exègete has not cOiiünented direc~ly on 4:157-8,
her review· of City of Wrong, MW, LI (1961) J p. 149; indicates
what her approach might he expected to produce. Describing
her meditation on the book, Bint al-ShaH' offers this
"Easter Impression": .

• .• l iistened to the bel1s tolling out the

triumph of Right and Gaod, blessing the narne of the \
Lord Christ (on him Peace) • The city of wronq, \
sùpposed that it had put an end to him when it
condernned him to crucifixion. ,But he li ved on
to fill all history and life, and the agonies he '
endured because of his message were blessed.

llThis shou1d not imply, of course, that either scholar

weuld completely subscribe to the views of the other.

12Although the Atlmadiyyah ia divided intq at least

two major groups, it appears that both agree on the genera1
outline ·of an explanation of 4: 157-8. The gist of this is
that Jesus was actually put on the cross but did not die;
he merely fainted, giving the appearance of death. Later
he lef t his tomb and journeyed to Kashmir where he died a
natural death and was buried. Today his tomb in Kashmir •
is v~sited by those who believe this 'account.
l , r,
"

11
\ -
See Maul vi MUQ,ammed nin, "The Crucif ixion in the
I<eran," !lli, ~y_(1924), pp. 23-29; Maulvi Muhammad 'Ali,
The ~lY Qur'an, ad 4:157-8; Sufi Mutiur Rahman Bengalee,
1
1
The omb of Jesus (Qadian: Nazir Dawato Tabligh, 1970).

1 •

,'
'J • Il

,0

.
'~,tr ~1
~~, ~~> li
 ._ ..... ""~ _... ,..... .....__. ______ .~ __ .. _ _ ,'., ____ ~o---l..,,,.. - - -;.-~
--------------------------
.... ---.
"

(i
Bib1iography of works in Western Languages
including Qur'an translations

! ' The following a~thors, their works, _and publication infor-

mation appear as they- are found on the ti tle pages of the
works cited. No atternpt is made to standardize the spellings
1, - or tr ansH tera tions •
ï

\ \
Abbot, Free1and. - "Maulana Haudu4i on QuraniC:: Interpretation,"
r
1
. MW, ŒLVIII (1958), pp, 6 - 19.

Abbott,Nabia. St-qdies in Arabie Literary Papyri II: Qur'anic

Commen tary and Tradi tion. The Uni versi ty 'of Chicago
!

Oriental Institute PUblications, Vol. LXXVI. Chicago:

Universi ty of Chicago Press, 1967.

1 a1-Tafahum (Kenneth Cragg).

1 ~
"City of Wrong, tI MW,

XLVI (1956) 1 pp. 132-46 and 225-236.

_ _ _ _ _ ' "The Qur'an\ and The Ho1y Communion, Il MW,

XLIX (19. 59), pp. 239-48.

Abdul, l4.0.A. '_"The Historica1 Developme~t-of-T~fsir,"

1 IC, L (1976), pp. 14~';;--
/,------ ~

\,
i
Abel, Armand. --------- Brussels:
Le Coran. Office de Publicitê,
1951.

Abraham~ !'1~~9-at. Il Mahmud- Shaltut (l863-1963), A Muslim

Reformist: His Life, Works, and Religious ~~'

Unpublished PhD. thésis, Hartford Seminary, 1976.

Adams, Charles J. "Islamic Religion, IL" Middle East

Studies Association Bulletin; V, No. 1 (Feb., 19761,

() pp. 9-25.
 _ ...... "'......"-_ ,,~w ..................... _ _ _ .... _ _ ......... _~..,..... ~ i._._.______..-..
.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ _>'J _ 1_
........ t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...· _

146

( )

Addison, James Thayer. The Christian Approach to the

Moslern: A Historical Study. New York: AMS Press, 1966.
Ahrens, K. IIChrlstliches~ran.1I ZDMG, 84 (1930) 1
pp. 15-68.

Anawati, Georges C. IV, I?P. 81-86.

1
l
11 du Dr. Kamel Hussein."
"J~sus et ses juges dl après 1 La Cit~

MIDEO, II (1959), pp. 71-134.

inique'

Anderson, J.N.D. The World's Religions. Edited by --:--

idem,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, W.M.B. Eerdmans, 1972.
Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: 'l'he Man anèi His Faith. Translated by d
1
l'
Theophil Menze1. New 'York: Harper, 1960. 1
1
Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. London: Oxford ' l
l
University Press, 1964.
-!
1 Arnaldez, Roger. tial1âj ou la religion de la croix. -Paris:
Plon, 1964.

,
t
Ayoub, Mahmoud.
Death of Jesus,
Death of Jesus in TafsIr Literature)
"Towards an Islamic Christology", II: The
Real~ty or Delusion? (A Study of
Unpublished
~

! .11

article (in Ipress, 1980) MW.

Azmi, Mohammad Mustafa. Studies in Early Hadith Literature
with a Critical Edition of Sorne Early Texts. Beirut:
al-Maktab al-Islami, 1968.
Bahadur, Kalirn. The Jama Cat-i-Is1ami of Pakistan: Political
Thought and Politic,l Action. New Delhi: Chetana ,publi-
cations, 1977. \

' .
. \. ----~-_._.-
 • r _______. ..
__ _ _ _ _ _......._ . _ . .
_ .________ W_.-,
-
_--"...-.-,,--_ -- -_..
~ -~----

~ .... ...... -----~---

147

(;
Baljon, J.M.S. Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation (1880-
1960). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968.
Ba'setti-Sani, Giuilio, O.F.M. The Koran in the Light of
Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred 'Book
of Islam. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977.
Bausani, Alessandro. Il Corano. Introduction, translation
1
j and commentary by AlesBandro Bausani. Classici Della
;
Religione, cOllezione~Diretta par Raffaele Pettazzoni,
-.J

II. Bologna: Sansonï-Firenze, 1955. t

1
Bècker, Carl Heinrich. "Christliche Polemik und Islarnische J
1
i
Dogrnabild." Islamstudien: vom werden und Wesen der L
1 Islamicshen Welt, Vol. 1. Leipzig: Quelle and Meyer,
Î
1
\

1932, pp. 432-449.

1

Bell, Richard. 'l'he Origins of Islam in its Christian' Environ.,-

• 1

ment. London: Macmillan and Co., 1926.

The Qur'an Trans1ated, with a Critical Re-
, Arrang~ment of the Su\ahs.
o

2 vols. EdinQurgh: T. and

T. Clark, 1937.
\
Bianchi, Ugo. "Docetisms A p~uliar Theory about the
Presence of the Divine," Selected Essays on Gnosti?ism,
• Dualism, and Mysteriosophy. Leiden; E.J. Br~ll, 1978,
pp. 265-273.
\.
Birkeland, Harris. The Lord Guideth: Studies on Primitive
Islam. Skrifter utgitt av Oet Norske Videnskaps-Akademi
l Oslo,. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. 1956. NO. 2. Uppsala:
n Almqvist and Wiksel1s, 1956.

"
)j.!'';.~~~f.~r,o.-:-:-:;~-:~~.-.~:.-:~,T;::.;:7..,.~-.,......,-,-.-,:''C",:_:_:,.y;.l':':'1'"(~
__ ~,q.;;;:-t.11'l"',~jÇ!!_'::':',,,.~.,_-----~--·-;-~:~~.-:-u
..,'"".~,.,,,.,,r-~.,,---""""
. -.. . :~.,L~~~"",..JItJt' . {rjl~.'lf..
 ~. T~d."....',,_'"' __ ''''' ...... ~_~ ......---..... _,_~ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-----------
.. - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. ./

148

(
Birkeland, Harris. Old Muslim OPEosition against Inter-

pretation of the Koran. Avhandlinger utgitt av Det

1 Norske Videnskaps - Aka~emi l Oslo, II. Hist. -Filos •
"
t K1asse. 1955. No. 1. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells,

I~ 1 1956.

:1 \ Bishop, E.FlF. "Shubbi~hum: A Suggestion from the New

Testament." MW, XXX U940), pp. 67-75.

i
1
1
Blachère, Mgis. Introduction au Coran. 2nd ed. Paris:
i1
i G.-P. \isonneuve" 1959.
i
1 i
_ _ _ _ _'. ) Le Coran: traduction nouvelle. Vol. V of ~f

Islam d'hier et d'aujourd'hui. Collection publi~e

,/\, t
. /
,1
sous la direction de E. Lévi - provinçal. 3 pts. Par i s: "

G.P. Maisonneuve~ 1950.

Boullata, Issa J. "Modern Qur1an Exegesis: A Study of Bint '1~

al-Sha~i"s Method." MW, LXIV, No. 2- (1974), pp: 103-#

113.

Bowering, Gerhard. The Mystical Vision of Existence ïn

Cla~sical Islam: The Qur' anie Hermeneutics of the

" 1

•
1
1
1
.
SùfI, Sahl At-Tus tarI (d. 238/896). Studien zur Sprache,

Geschichte un Kultur des Isiamischen Orients, Beihefte.

zur Zeitschrift "Der Islam," • ./ Edited by Berthold Spuler.

Vol. 9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.

Buhl, Franz. "kur'an. " !!.1 '1 II, pp. 1065-1076. - ,f

Burton, John. The Collec!,ion of the Our' an. Càmbridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1977.

o
 ,,

_....~-~... _~-"-------------------~\""'\ -------...;/_'-------------

\ 1
149
1
\

()
Cirillo, Luigi and Michel Frêmaux. Evangile de Barnabê:

Recherches sur la composition et l'origine by L. Cirillo,

-
Texte et Traduction by L. c,trillo and M. rr~maux.

Pr~face by Henry Corbin. " Pâris: Beauchesne,

1977.

Craqg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1964.
~
'j, Oin, Mau1vi Muhanuned. "The Crucifixion in the Koran." MW,
\
. 1:
~ XIV (1924), pp. 23-29. /
·1
1 EIder,' Earl E. "The Crucifixion in the Koran." MW, XIII 1
~ ,
. (1923), pp. 242 - 258 • !i
~l-FârüqI, I~smà' Il RagI. "Towards a New Methodology for
Qur'!nicExegesis." 1S, I,NO. 1 (Harch, 1962),
pp. 35~52.

Fisher, Humphrey J. ?!J;madiyyah: A S.tudY/'În Contemporary Islam

on the West African Coast. London: Oxford University
Press for The Nigerian Institute of 'Social and Economie
c

Research, 1963
Fritsch, Erdmann. Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter: .1

\
Beitûl e zur Gesèhichte der Muslimischen Polemik
das Christentum in Arabischer S,erache. Breslauer S'tudien
zur hit;i,torischen Theologie. Edi ted by Franz Xaver Seppelt;
, Friedrich, Maier and Berthold Al taner. Vol. 17. Breslau:

MaUer and Seiffert, 193~.

. ...

, .
:.J:,f.
l'.;~'':;:.., .
_ :.-.........,{':"~,~,.........._~~_""""'"""~r_.--~~--
 ____ o.
--~~-~ --------- -----------~"-------------------------------------­

, /
150

Gat je, Helmut. The Qur' an and its Exegesis. Translated

j
and edited by Alford,IT• Welche A volume in the Is1amic

j
WQrld Series founded by G.E. v~n Grunebaum. London:

/outledge and Kegan Paul, 1976.

Gi", Sir Hamilton A.R. Mohammedanism: An Historieal SuFvey.
New York: Mentor Books, 1958.
Goitein, Solomon D. Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through
the Ages. New York: sloCken, 1970.
Goldziher, Ignaz. Die Richtungen der ,Islamisehen Koranaus-
, legung. Leiden: E.J. Bri1l, 1952.
ti' .
-'
History of Classica1 Arabie Literature. Translated,
t
::
li

revised, and enlarged by Joseph Desomogyi. Hildesheim:

k
t,
~ Georg Olms, 1966.
t"" ./' Muslim Studies, Vol. I. Edited by S.M. Stern,
~
t.. translated by C.,R. Barber and S.,M. Stern. London: GeoFge
r
1
-
i Allen and Unwin, 1971.
Î
i
Grégoire, Henri. "Mahomet eu le Monophysisme." Etudes sur
l'histoire et sur l'art Byzance: Mélanges Charles Diehl.
Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1930, pp. ~.07-l19.

Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of

. Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. with introduction and notes.
Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Hamidullah, Muhanunad. Le Sai-nt Co'ran: Traduction Integrale.
\
et Notes. Préface by Louis Massignon. Edited b'y Hadji i
/

Mohamed Noureddine Ben, Mahmoud. Paris: Club Français

du Livre, 1959.

"
\
 u,~ ~ __ " .... __ • ______
~ ._~

_ -- ._'.'''-~ ----- ....... ----~_. ---------------_.__.... ,_.-.__.------------ ,....

-:

151

Haqq, Akbar' Abdiyah Abdul. "Christologies in Early Christian

/
Thought and in the Quran (Being a Critical Analysis and
Comparison of Selected Christological Views in Christian
Writings to 785 A.D. and those of the Quran) ." Doctoral
1
1
Dissertation Series. Pub. 6200. Ann Arbor University
1

Microfilms, 1979 (Northwestern University, 1953).

Hayek, Michel. Le Christ de l'Islam. Paris: Editions du 1
'j
Seuil, 1959. 11

Hirschfeld, Hartwig. New Researches into the Composition 1

1
and Exegesis of the Qoran. / Asiatic Monographs Series, -1
l Vol. III. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1902.
1

!
t~ Horst, Heribert.
..
"Zur Uberlieferung im Korankonunentar at..t
TabarIs." ZDt1G, CIII (1953), pp. 290-307.

1 Hussein, Kamel. City of Wrong. Introduction and Translation

\ ./
by Kenneth Cragg. Amsterdam: Djambatan, 19~9.

Izutsu, Toshihiko. God and Man in the Qur'an. Sernantics of

1
J,
J
the Koranic Weltanschuauung. Studies in the Humanities
and Social Relations, 5. Tokyo: Keio Institute of
Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1964.
Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur'an. McGill.
Islamic Studies, Vol. I. Edited by Charles J. Adams and
John A. Williams. Montreal: McGill University Press,
1966.
Jansen t J.J.G. The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern
Egypt. Lelden: E.J. Brill, 1974.
o '/

.:r,:
~~J
1"
\ -
 ______________ M __
W_ _ _ '__ _ ______ ____ _ _MMOMO_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

O
~
r
-
~
~
~
~
~
\
VI ........ ~~_~ _ _ _ .. _~~_ .. _ - ;>'.

152

Jeffrey, Arthur. The F?reign Vocabu1ary of the Our 'an.

Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938.
14aterials for the Historl of the Text 'of the
Qur'an." Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1937.
"The Present Status of Qur'anic Studies," '
Pap:?rt on Current Research Spring 1957: Survey of CUrrent 1èsearch
on the Middle East. Director, William SaOOs, Frlitor, John Hartley.
Washington, O:C.: 'lbe Mi.d:Ue East Institute, 1957, pp. 1-16.

The Qur'an as Scripture. New York: Russel F.

Moore, 1952.
Jenkinson, E. J • "Jesus in Moslem Tradition,'" MW'
-'
XVIII 0(1928), pp. 263-9.

Jomier, Jacques. Les grandes thèmes du Coran. Paris:

Centurion, 1978.
Le~entaire coran igue du Manar. Paris:
Maisonneuve, 1954.
Ju+landri, Rashid Ahmad. "Qur'anic Exegesis and Classical
TafsIr," IQ, XII (1968), pp. 71-119.
Juynboll, Theodore W. "Crimes and Punishment (Muhammadan),"
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Ed~ted ~y James
"
Hastings.' Vol. IV, pp. 290 - 294.
~houry, Raif -ceorges. Wahb B. Munabbih Pt. I: Leben und
Werk des Dichters. Codices Atabici Antiqui, Vol. I.
/

Wiesbaden: otto Harrassowitz, 1972.

Lecomte, Gêrard. Ibn Qutalba (mort en 276/889): L'Homme, Son
Oevre, Ses Id6es. Damascus: Institut, Français de Damas, 1965.
()

,~

l'Si: 1;
"':C. ,â
 ..

\! 153 "

1
\

McLean, William Paul. "Jesus in the Qur'an and the Hadith

Literature." Unpublished MA thesis, McGill university,_

r 1970.
i
,Massignon, Louis. "Le Christ dans les !vangelies, selon
f
Ghazali. " REl 1 VI (1932), pp. 523-526.

11 . . /

l Masson, Denise. Le-Coran et la R~v~lation Judéo-Chr~tienne:

t

Etudes Compar~es. Paris: Librairie dl Amérique et d'Orient

,1 Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1959, 2'vo1s. 1
1
~
l Mawdudi, Abu cAla'. The Meaning o.f the Qur,an. Translated 1

\
f .. by Muhammad Akbar. . Delhi: Maktaba Jamaat-E-Islami
l Hind, 1968-, 6 vols. avai1able.
Michaud, Henri. J~sus selon le Coran. Neuchâtel: Editions
Delachaux et Niestle, 1960.
Muhammad Ali, Maulvi. The Holy Qur'an: Containing the Arabie
Text with EngliSh translation and Commentary. 3rd edition.
Lahore: Ahmadiyyac Anjuman-i-lshaat-i-Islam, 1935.
Nwyia, Paul. Ex~gèse coranique et ianga2e mystique: Nouvel
essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans.
(' Recherches publi~es sous la direction de l'institut de
lettres orientales de beyrouth. Série 1: Pensée Arabe
et Musulmane, Vol. XLIX. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique,
1970.
-
ilLe tafsir ,
mystique
-
.
attn.buê v C
a Ga -
far Sadiq-: .
Edition critique," Mélanses de l'université Saint-JoseBh,
( "'\-l ~LlII, No. 4 ll~68), pp. 182-230.

., -
 "'~-~-"'-"-'''''''---'''

154

c; 0' Shaughnessy, Thomas S; J • Muhammad' s Thoughts on Dea th:

A Thematic Study of the Qur'anic Data. Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1969.

Paret, Rudi. "Islam and Christianity." Tra~slated by RafIq

!, Aiunad,
l , -IS, III (1964), pp. 83-95.
\ Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur,an. London: Faber ..
1
.
and Faber, 19G5.
1
Pedersen_, J. "Tl1e l slamic Preacher: wa' iz, mudhakkir, gass," !
'1
1
Goldziher Memorial Volume, 1. Edited by Samuel Lowinger ,
1
1

1
l
and Joseph Desomogyi. Budapest: Globus Nyomdai
,
Muni tezet,
"
,>

1948.

Raisanen, Heikki. Das Koranische Jesusbild: Ein BeHrag --',

zur Theologie des Koranl? l·1issio1ogian Ja E1cun1:miikan Seuran

Julkaisuja Schriften des Finnischen Gesse1schaft fur r.u.ssio1ogie und
Ûkurœnik, XX. Helsinki: Savo~'Sananain Kirjapaioo Oy Kuopio, 1971.

!:tobson, Jé!Il)es. "Muharnmadan Teachings about Jesus," ~,

XXIX (1938), pp. 37-54.
. Î

Rodwell" J.M. The Koran. Introduction by G. Margoliouth. 1~

)
London: J .M. Dent and Sons, 1971.

Rosenthal, Franz. "The Influence of the Biblical Tradition /

on Muslim Historiography." Historian~ of the Middle

East. Historical Writings of the Peoples of ~sia.

~ ,
Edited by Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt. London: Oxford

University Press, 1962,

o
pp • .35-45.

\ '
 • •

__"'. _. . ___ ___._.. . . .,.___,_.,. .-_____

'~ ~ ~:__---------.-.-.I.-Is:/ss----------- ~,'

155

( ),
Sahas, Daniel J. John, of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy
1 of the Ishrnaelites." Leiden: E.J. Bril!, 1972 • .
-
1 Sale, George. - The Koran: with explanatory notes from the
most approved commentators. Introd"lletion by Edward
1 f
- r' Denison Ross. London: Frederick Warne and_Co. Ltd.,
1
1
t~
~
1
n.d.
al-~awwaf,
- ; -
l.fujahid Mu~ammad. _"Early Tafs.ir - A Survey of
Qur'anic Cornmental:Y up to 150 A.H."
Isiamic Perspectives:
c '-
Studies in Honour of Jawlana Abdul Al? Mawdudi. Edited "

by Kurshid Ahmad and Zafar Ishaq Ansari. Jeddah:\ The

l
,. Is1amic Foundation U.K. in association with Saudi Pub-
lishing House, 1979. 11
. 1

Schedl, Claus. ~Muhammad und Jesus: Pie Christologisch

Relevanten Texte Des Korans Neu Ubersetz.--und Erklart.'
V·ienna: Herder, 1978. "
Seale, Morris. Muslim Theo1ogy: A Study of Origins with
.
Reference to the Church Fathers. London: Luzac and
Co., 1964.
\
Qur' an and 'Bible: Studies in Interpretation and,
Dialoguè. London: Croom Helm, 1978.
Smith, Jane I. An Historical and Semant;ic-study of the 'l'e'on
i
"I~làrnn as seen in a seg:uence...e.f our'ân Commentaries.
-
Harvard Dissertations in Religion, Vol. l. Missoula:
Scbolars Press, 1975.

- ~
, 1

t
">" •
'i: ~ .
\ , ,.'

- .~
:,;;'-
.. '
il) _._ _ _ _
 ",_ -'~~ """.... ~ 'Ho ... -....._ .. __ ____ ..,..... .... _.a-
~

. '

_ ;..,~_-.-.:~_._._~ .__.,., ___ ______

~ ~._~ ______.....____"':-_ _ _ _''''_.I___ .fI_____. . _~ ______
•
,r , 156
1
i

() -- .
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Islam in Modern History. New York:
The
, New American Library, 1959.
,! \
Stern, samuel M. "Quotations from Apocryphal Gospels in
~ c' \' - j

i .-''-~ Abd\,al-Jabbar. Il Journal of Theo1ogical Studies, XVIII

f 1 (April, 1967), pp. 34-57.
, \
,
1l Sweetman, J.W. Islam and Christian Theology: London:
l-
, Lutterworth,Press,1947. 2 vols., 4 pts.
, '
;,
. . l,
Tabataba' Muhanunad
.,.....Husayn. Sh1 C ite Islam. Translated from'
the Persian and' edited with an introduction and notes by
Seyyèd Hossein Nasr. Persian Studies Seri~s, General
Editor: E~an Ya~-Shater. Albany: State University
lof New yoJ Press, 1975.
Tibawi, A.L. Arabie and Islamic Themes: Historical, Edu-
"

cational and Literary Studies. London: Luzac, 1976.

Waardenburg, Jean-Jacques. L'Islam dans le miroir de l'occident:
comment quelques orientalistes occidentaux se sont

. f. pench6s sur l'Islam et se sont formé une image de cette

religion. "Maison des sciences de l'~omme, Recherches
1
M6diterranêennes, Etudes III. The Hague: Mouton, 1962.
,/ 0
Wansbro~gh, John. The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition
of Islamic Sa1vation Historl. London Oriental Series,
Vol. XXXIV. Oxford: oxford University Press, 1918.
Quranic ~tudies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-
:>
tural 'Interpretation. London Oriental series,
, 0
Vol. ~XXI.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. '

•

J
"-
'[
r';'\ (
;:jii~ ~"
 ----'-_..-:.._-------'"'.,---_.------'"---:----- ,,'

157

\
\ CJ
!" Watt, Montgomery. .Bell' s Introduction to the Qur' an.
)
1 Edinburgn: Edinburgh University Press, 1970.
!
l'
1 "The Christiariity Criticized in the Our'an,"
MW>'--LVn (1967), pp. 197,-201.
1 f
The Formative Period of Islamic Theology.,
!\ Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973.
"The Materials Used by Ibn Ishaq." Historians
of the Middle East. Historical Writings of the Pe9ples
of Asia. E~ited by Bernard Lewis and F.M. Holt.

,
London: Oxford" University Press, 1962, pp. 23-34.
1
1

Welch, Alford T./, "The Pneumatology of the Qur 'an: A

1 •
Study in Phenomenology." tJn;ublished PhD. t:he$Üs, ~urgh
..
University, 1970.
<

Widengren, GeO.' Muhammad the Apost1e of God, and His ~

Ascension (King and Saviour'V). Uppsala Universitets
Arsskrift 1955: 1. Upps'ala: Almqvist and Wikse1ls, 1955.
Wismer, Don. The Islamic Jesus: An Annotated Bibliography.,
, 4 '

.J of Sources in English ând French. New York: Gar1a~d

Publishing Inc., 1977.~

Yusuf Ali, Ab4ullah.

- (
The 80ly Qur 1 an": .Text, Translation and
Commentary. Wash~ngton, D.C.: American International
\ 4 '

Printing Company, 1946.

Zwemer, Samuel M. The Moslem Christ: An Essa Life,
Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ· '
o
the Koran and Orthodox.Tradition. New York: American
.,
,(J.
".
Tract Society

, i
i
1
.'",' i

1"
1
of 1
 ___ ....,.. ,..... -- - - - ~._-----~......--..--:

\.

Arabic Bibliography
,
,
i
!
Abu CUbaydah. Majaz al-Qur'an. Edited by Fuad Sezgin.
~

1
!
1i Cairo: Muhammad s~mI Amin a1-Khanji, 1374-1381/1954-62.
'Ii q
'- 1
1: t1
2 vols. (Vol. l avail,able only).
1
,al-A1uaI, Abu al-Thana t .
-.
Ruh ar:nlacani fI tafslr al-Qur'an
al-cazIm wa-al-sab C al-mathanI. ' Ôeoband: Idarat al-
" , -c -
.
Tiba at al-Mustafa'iyah, n.d.,11 vols.
)
al-Bahrani, ;.-
- - -c-
Hashim,~l-Shi i.
..
al-Burhan fI-tafsIr al-Qur'an.
i!
r'
.1
1\ --
al-Bay~awi,

'al-ta'wIl.
C -
Abd Allah b. C
Umar: -
Anwar -
al-tanzil -
wa-asrar
Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-cArabIyyat al-Kubra,
1

.) '\-'
1330/1911, 5 vols .
al-FiruzabadI! Abu TahIr Muhammad b: YaCqub. . Tanwlr al-
miqbas min tafsIr Ibn cAbbas. 2nd ed. Cairo: al-~I
<. b

\
l'1 '. /
.
al~HalabI, 1370/1951 •

Ibn I,shaq, Muhanunad. al-'SIrat al-nabawiyyah li-ibn Hisq.am.

Edited by Mu~~afa al-Saqqa, IbrahIm al-ubyarI, and
c Abd ai~HafIz ShalabI. 3rd ed •. Cairo: al-Babr al-

.
HalabI, 1375/1955, 2 vols •
Ibn'KathIr, Isma'Il ibn CUthman. cumdat al-tafslr. Edited
rand abr idged by Ahmad Muhammad Shakir. cair~,~~
/' '
". c-
al-Ma arif, 1376/1957, 5 vols.
\
•

, ,.
1

'.
:;
 \
\
,
---~ ...... -~.! ~---.-------.--"-'~-~-""
li .......... t4IIoI1iI •

. 159

- ,
,, Cl Ikhwan al-safa', Rasa'il. cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijarlyyat
al-KUbra, 1347/19ta, 4 vols.
- Jacfar al-sadiq • TafsIr. Chester Beatty MS t 5253.
t
". .
al-Kashani. TafsIr al-Qur'an al-karIm li-'1-shaykh al-akbar
1
,\ -"~) al-carif bi-11ah al-~Flamah MU~yi al-oIn bin cArabI.
\
i .
( C
Beirut: Dar al-Yaqazat al- Arabiyyah, 1387/1968,
2 vols. ,
\

\
al-KinanI, Ibn Mutarrif. al-Qurta\,n 'aw kitab mushkil
al-Qur'an wa qharlb ~i-Ibn Qut~y~ah. Edited by
CAbd al-cAzlz al-KhanabI. Cairo: alï~hanabI,; 1355/1936,
2 pts. in one vol.

al-MaturIdI, AbÜ Mansùr. Ta'wIlat: Halet Effendi,MS # 22.

/
Mujahid b. Jabr ;-- TafsIr Mujah.\d-., Edited by cAbd al-Ra~an
al-Tahlr Jb. Muhammad al-SurtI. Qatar: Matabi c a1-Dawhat

.
al-HadIthah, 1395/1976 •
Muqatil b. °Sulaym~n.
\! Tafslr. Beyazit Umumi MS # 561.
al-QummI, cAlI ibn IbrahIm b. Hashim. TafsIr al~QummI.
,/0'
1 Najaf: Maktaba~"al-Amin, 1387/1976, 2 vols.
al-QushayrI, 'if al-isharat. Edite~ by

Ibrahim BasyünI al-Kitab a1- c Arabi,

- n.d.,

5 vols.'

Qu~b, Sayyid. FI zila1 al-Qur'an. 7th ed. Beirut: Dar

--.
- - c - ~
I~ya'al-Turath al- Arabi, 1391/1971, 8, vols •

.al-RazI, Fakhr al-oIn. Mafatlh al-ghayb al-muehtahar

bi-'l-tafsIr al-KabIr. Cairo: al-MatbaCat al~ahlyyah
, ,.
1354-7/1935-8, 32 vols.

" _.' ,

\
 ~ -
, "" .... ............. -.
~ ~ ". -----~,.
"
. _~

- /', ..... _----_._-------------_.

:t 160

o \

Minhat al-macbüd fI-tartfb musnad

1 -.
1 al-~aYallsI AbI Da'üd. Cairo: MatbaCat al-MunIriyyah,
t 1372/1952, 2 vols.
f
al-SijistanI, Abü Bakr Muhammad. GharIb al-Qur'an. Cairo:
1
1 Muhammad cAli SabIh and Sons, 1372/1952.
tufy!n al-~hawrr. Tafsir al-Qur'an al-karIm. Rambür:
Hindüstan Brintink Wurks,' 138'5/1965.

.
al-suyütI, Ja1al al-DIna al-Durr al-manthür fI- t l-'tafsIr
bi-'l-ma'thür. TIhran: ~l-MatbaCat al-Is1amiyyah,
.---- 1377/1957, 6 vols . .
al-Itgan fI c u1Üm al-Qur'~n. Cairo: MatbaCah
?ij~zi, 1328/1950, 2 vols. in 1.
TafsIr al-jalalayn/. Damascus: Maktabat a1-
Millah, n.d.
~""'
-
al-Tabari, Abu- Ja C far. Jami c al-bayan can ta'wIl al-aya~
al-Qur'an. ..
Edited by Mahmüd Muhammad Shakir and Ahmad .
Mu~anunëid Shakir. Cairo: Dar al-~1aCarif,' 1374/1954,..

Vols. 1 - 15 available.

.
al-TabarsI, Abû CAlI. MajmaCal-bayan fI-tafsIr al-Qu~'an
al-karIm. .
Edited by IbrahIm BasyünI. Beirut: Dar \
al-Fakr wa-Dar al-Kitab al-~bnanI, 1377/1957, 30 vols.
/
al-;aba~aba'I, Mu~ammad Husayn. al-MIzan fI-~afSIra1-0url~n.
Beirut: al-MatbaCëit al-TiyariyYat al-Maktab al-t~lamI,
'1390/1970, 7 vols",

() ., \

.,
 \ .
-----------------------~----------------~~(.,--------------

161

0,'
.
a1~TüsI, Abü Jacfar, Shaykh al-Ta'ifah.
. a1-Tibyan fI-
tafslr a1-Qur'an. Najaf: Maktabat al-AmIn, 1376-83/
1957-63, 10 vols.

.
a1-WahidI, Abü al-Hasan, a1-Nisaburl. Asbab ~l~nuzül •
Cairo: MatbaCat HindIyah, 1315/1897.
WajIz fI tafsIr al-Qur'an. On the marg in ~f,

al-NawawI, Muhammad b. 'Uthman b. cArabI, al-JawI

al-BustamI. TafsIr al-NawawI. Cairo: al-BabI al-
~/

Ha1abI, 1305/1887.
al-ZarnakhsharI, Mahrnüd b. cUrnar. al-Kashshaf c an haqa'iq
ghawamid al-tanzIl. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab-al-c~abI,
l386/19~6, 4 vols •

.
/

..

!
, '
()
, -.
c,
,- , -
,li; j

'-rI