Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ÃQDQG-HUXVDOHP
$XWKRUV6XOLPDQ%DVKHDU
6RXUFH%XOOHWLQRIWKH6FKRRORI2ULHQWDODQG$IULFDQ6WXGLHV8QLYHUVLW\RI/RQGRQ9RO
1RSS
3XEOLVKHGE\Cambridge University PressRQEHKDOIRISchool of Oriental and African Studies
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/617216 .
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London.
http://www.jstor.org
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM
By SULIMANBASHEAR
1. Qur'an 2:114 ' describes those who prevent God's name being uttered in His
mosques (man mana'a masdjida 'llihi an yukhdarafith 'smuhu)as' most unjust'
(azlamu). If further states that' they shall not be allowed to enter them except in
fear; they shall endure the curse of chastisement in this world and great torture
in the aftermath'.2
Modern scholars who translated the Qur'an into European languages have
briefly noted the existence of two opposite directions of interpretation in the
traditional Muslim commentaries: one which proposes a Jerusalem/Byzantine
context for the verse's revelation and meaning, and another, which brings to
bear a Meccan/Qurashi one. Beyond such passing notice, however, no serious
attempt was made to examine the issue thoroughly.3
A. Rippin has recently paid closer attention to this verse.4 However, in
drawing on Wansbrough's scheme5 for examining the relation between
' halakhic' and' haggadic ' elements in the, mainly later, Muslim commentaries,
Rippin centres attention on the former; a further examination of the haggadic
interpretations given to the verse by pre-classical exegesis therefore seems
justified.
My initial interest in this verse was aroused by a unique commentary in
Shams al-Din Suyiiti's (d. 880 A.H.) work on the merits (fadi'il) of the Jerusalem
sanctuary.6 ' It was revealed', he says, 'concerning the barring of Muslims by
the Byzantines from the Jerusalem sanctuary'.7
Such a remarkable commentary in itself justifies further investigation.
Moreover, 2:114 is followed by two verses (2:115-16) which could be taken as
'According to the modern standard Egyptian edition of 1342/1923 = 2/108 of Fliigel's edition:
ConcordantiaeCoraniArabicae, Lipsiae, 1842, 118-19. In J. M. Rodwell's translation-edition it was
given no. 19/108. See his: The Koran translated, London & New York repr. 1913, 350.
2 Unless otherwise stated, the English renderings given in this paper are based upon those of
J. Arberry, The Koran interpreted, London, 1964. The literal wording of the verse in Arabic is:
wa-man azlamu mamman mana'a masdjida allahi 'an yudhkarafiha ismuhu wa-sa'a fi khardbihd;
'uld'ika ma kana lahum an yad-khuliuhdilla Khd'ifin, lahumfi al-dunyd Khizyun wa-fi al- 'dkhirati
'adhdbun'azTm.
3e.g., C. Sale, The Koran, New York & London, 1984 repr. of the original 1734 ed., p. 15, n. (b).
See also the notes of E. M. Wherry on Sale's translation entitled: A comprehensivecommentaryon
the Quran, London, 1896, I, 331-2. J. M. Rodwell says that if the Meccans are those meant by this
verse then it is misplaced here, op. cit., p. 350, n. 2. In M. Watt's words:' the reference is uncertain.
It can hardly be the pagan Meccans in this Medinan context. Jerusalem has been suggested,'
Companionto the Quran, London, 1967, 27. Compare also with R. Blachere, Le Coran, Paris, 1951,
II, 759-60. Rudi Paret's Der Koran (Stuttgart, 1982, 18) does not comment at all.
4 See his
unpublished Ph.D. thesis,' The Quranic Asbdb al-Nuzul material: an analysis of its use
and development in exegesis', McGill University, 1981, 180-7. I am grateful to Professor Rippin for
making the relevant chapter available to me and for the valuable comments he gave on several issues
dealt with in this paper.
5 As developed in his Quranic studies, Oxford, 1977, to which further references will be made
below.
6 thdf al-Akhis.d, Cairo, 1982. This work was translated into English by J. Reynolds as The
history of the Templeof Jerusalem, 1836. However, it was wrongly attributed to Jalal al-Din Suyuiii,
and the translation is outdated. Extracts were translated also by G. Le Strange and published in the
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 19, 1887, 247-305. Reference to a manuscript copy of the work
in the Hebrew University (no. 64/2) and some use of it were made by M. J. Kister and A. El'ad in
their' Haddithu ...' and ' Moslem Holy Places ...', respectively, to which further reference will be
made below. Recently M. Ibrahim published selected extracts in his edition of Fadd'il, Kuwait,
1985. Though he mentions the existence of more manuscripts of this work, the editor does not seem
to be aware of the published Cairo 1982 edition.
7
Ithdf al-Akhissd I, 100. Lit.: nazalat ftman' al-ram al-muslimTnmin bayt al-maqdis.
216 SULIMAN BASHEAR
referring to the abrogation of the Jerusalem qibla and the argument surround-
ing the nature of the relation between God and Christ.8
Considered together the two notions present, in the form of a Qur'anic
sequence, an important problematic: is there a scriptural basis for supposing an
early Muslim-Christian conflict in Jerusalem which forced the former to
abandon its sanctuary? In other words, did the verse indeed refer to the barring
of Muslims from Jerusalem? If yes, when and where was it revealed to
Muhammad? If no, who were those intended by it as the persecuters and the
victims? Was there a general need to achieve harmony between exegesis and sTra
materials?If so, when was this need felt and how was such harmony sought after
by the exegetes, commentators, historians and traditionists who dealt with the
question of the ' occasion of revelation ' (sabab al-nuzul)of this verse?And what
can such an investigation teach us about the development of traditional exegesis
in relation to other forms of Islamic literary activity?
Such an enquiry cannot, of course, be limited to the scrutiny of the variant
contents and isnddsof the different traditions concerning the historical occasion
of revelation. Examination will also need to be made of the possible effect of
different readings and meanings, based on analogies from other, parallel
Qur'anic occurrences, on the key phrases and terms in the verse. Likewise, the
effect of certain legal and theological elements inherent in the verse, or presented
as such, on its overall interpretation must also be distinguished. The effect of the
metaphorical understanding of the verse and its general applicability, together
with other factors in the way it was interpreted along non-historical lines will
also be assessed. Finally, the relation between these technical and conceptual
factors and the question of canonical composition will also be commented
upon.
Some limitations, however, must be stated at the outset. First, the present
paper is basically an inquiry into what historical processes can be discerned in
exegetical tradition, and does not claim to be anything more. Certain of the
attempts of recent date to provide completely detached, ahistorical, meta-
physical or suificommentaries on the verse will be excluded.9 Second, the legal
and theological aspects of early Muslim concepts, attitudes or rulings, will be
dealt with only as they are reflected in traditional exegesis and the later
commentaries with reference to the specific context of the verse under discus-
sion. And, therefore, only their intrusion into this material and the effect of such
intrusion on the interpretation of this verse will be examined. Third, the
questions of the position of the Jerusalem sanctuary and qibla in early Islam and
the Islamic views on the essence of God and the nature of Christ will not be
examined in detail. These are crucial issues for the emergence and development
of Islam and have been extensively dealt with elsewhere.10In fact, no thorough
review will be made of the interpretation of 2:115-16. The only question that
will be tackled concerns the relation of contextual sequence (nazm, irtibdt,
ittisdl) between these verses and verse 2:114 as viewed by the commentators.
Finally, early Islamic history as such is beyond the scope of the present paper.
Speculation, it is true, is no longer anything to be ashamed of in a field where
8 Lit.: wa-lilldhi al-mashriqu wa-'l-maghribu,fa-aynamd tuwallufa-thammata wajhu alldh. wa-
qdlu ittakhadha alldhu waladan, subhdnahu, bal lahu md ft al-samdwdti wa-'l-ardi Kullun lahu
qdnitun.
9 An example of such treatment is Qushayri Latd'if, Cairo, n.d., I, 127-9 and Muhyl al-Din b.
'Arabi (d. 638 A.H.), TafsTr,Beirut, 1968, i, 78-80. The latter work was possibly compiled by Ibn
'Arabi's student, Kashani (d. 731 A.H.). In any case, it must not be confused with Abu Bakr Ibn
'Arab 's (d. 543 A.H.). Ahkam al-Qur'dn, Beirut, 1972, i, 32-3, to which further reference will be
made below.
'0 G. D. Anawati, s.v. ''Isd ', E.I. (new ed.), iv, 81-6; A. J. Wensink and D. A. King, s.v. ' Kibla ',
E.I. Suppl., v, 82-8, and the references cited therein.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 217
history means only historiography. However, within the limits of this inquiry
and pending any further research it may stimulate, only the possible resonances
of whatever 'historical' picture is to be drawn from 2:114-16, will be brought
into consideration, insofar as they may be discerned in the historical, fadd'il,
apocalyptic and other traditional sources.
2. Revelation
Two main questions are tackled here concerning the occasion of revelation
of the verse: who are those it blames, and where and when was the act of barring
from, or destroying the mosques committed? The answers are split between four
notions current in exegetical traditions and commentaries:
(i) The Jerusalem-Christian/Byzantine context.
(ii) The Meccan-Qurashi context.
(iii) A general meaning without specific reference to any historical context (to
be followed up while considering the metaphorical and legal aspects of Khardb
and dukhul, below).
(iv) It was the Jews who tried to destroy the Ka'ba or the Prophet's mosque in
Medina in reaction to his change of qibla. (No further investigation of this
notion will be made here. Razi (d. 606 A.H.) admits that he originated it.1 It has
no basis in traditional exegesis and was ignored by later commentators.)
12Tabari, Jdmi', Cairo, 1954,498. This Ibn Sa'd, also known as al-'Awfi, should not be confused
with Ibn Sa'd al-Hashimi (d. 230 A.H.),the famous author of Tabaqdt.Al-'AwfiTsancestor, 'Atiyya
b. Sa'd, with whom the chain of isnad ends, is reported to have a tafsTrwork from al-KalbT.More
will be said about these two below. See E.I. (new ed.), s.v. 'Ibn Sa'd',VII, 922-3.
13Ibn Kathir 506, quoting TafsTral-'Awfi, clearly that
(d. 774 A.H.), TafsTr,Cairo 1977,
II,
mentioned in the preceding note. Cf. also Suyut,i Mufhimdt, Cairo, 1908, 5, who quotes al-'Afawi,
possibly a misspelling of the same 'Awfi. In another source of Suyuti, Durr, Cairo, n.d., I, 108, as in
Shawkani's Fath, Cairo, 1964, I, 132, the same form of tradition is quoted from both Tabari and Ibn
Abi Hatim.
4 As in Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.), Jami', Cairo, 1967, ii, 77, and Nawawl (d. 676 A.H.), Marah,
Sirbaya, 1970, i, 31. These two quote the unidentified Ghanawi/Ghaznawi, perhaps also a copyist's
distortion of 'Afawi/'Awfl.
15See:
TafsFrMujdhid, Beirut, n.d.,I, 86; Tabari, i, 498; Ibn Kathir,n, 506; and Ibn Humayd
(d. 249 A.H.)as quoted by Suyiuti,Durr, I, 108 and Shawkani, i, 132. Cf. also a similar notion cited by
Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkim, i, 33 who does not, however, attribute it to Mujahid.
16As in
Naysaburi (d. 728 A.H.), Ghara'ib, Cairo, 1962, i, 417 and 'Imadi (d. 982 A.H.), Irshdd,
Riyadh, 1971, i, 242.
17As in Gharnati
(d. 541 A.H.), Muharrar, Cairo, 1947, i, 395 and Tha'alibi (d. 873-5 A.H.),
Jawdhir, Algiers, 1985, i, 125.
18Abu
19 Hayyan (d. 754 A.H.), Bahr, Cairo, 1328 A.H., i, 357.
Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,Beirut, 1958, 61.
20Jassas, Cairo 1347 A.H., i, 69.
21MahalliAhkdm,
and Suyuii, TafsTral-Jalalayn, Cairo, 1966, 21.
22Suyu.tl, II , 510.
Durr, i, 108; Shawkani, i, 132; and, without source, Ibn Kathir,
23
Tus1 (d. 460 A.H.), al-Baydn, Najaf, 1957, Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H.) Majma', Cairo, 1958,I, 376;
Majlis (d. 11 A.H.) Bihir, Teheran, n.d., xx, 319.
24Maturidi, Ta'w7ldt,Cairo, 1971, i, 261.
25Zamakhshari, I, 179.
Kashshdf, Beirut, 1947,
QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEM 219
37Compare: Anon. Asbdb, 5 (a), Tha'labl, 159; Wahidi, 34; Tius, I, 416; Gharnati, I, 395;
Baghawi, i, 83; TabarsT,I, 376; Razl, iv, 10; Abu Hayyan, i, 357; Naysaburi, I, 417; Suyu.ti,
Mufhimdt, 5.
38Compare: Tabari,I, 489; Jassas,I, 69; Qurtubl, II, 77; Ibn Kathir,II, 506 and the two Fada'il
works of al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja, Fada/'ilBayt al-Maqdis wa-'l-Shdmwa-'l-KhalTl,MS Tiibingen
27, 16 (a) and Mujlr al-Din, al-Uns al-JalTl, 'Amman 1973,I, 151. The existence of such an
interpretation not only of 2:114 but of 9:29 too was briefly noted by 'Ofer Livne in a paper entitled,
'A note on some traditions of Fa.da'ilal-Quds', presented at the third International Colloquium, the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June-July 1985, pp. 8-9, nn. 46-51.
39Tabari,I, 499 with isnad; Tha'labi, 159, Suyu.ti, Durr,I, 108 and Shawkani,I, 132, without
isndd. Compare also with Ibn Kathir,I, 506.
40 These are:
Dinawari, Akhbar Tiwdi,Cairo, 1960, 23; Tha'labl, Qasas- 'Ard'is,Cairo, 1297 A.H.,
324; Ya'quibi, Trirkh, Beirut, 1960,I, 65, 146; Tabari, TdrTkh,Cairo, 1939,I, 382-3, 435; v, 2; idem,
Athdr, Cairo, n.d., 384-91; Mas'iud, Murij, Beirut, 1965-6, I, 68-72,II, 38; Ibn al-Faqih,
Mukhtasar, Leiden, 1885, 98-102; Balkhi/Muqaddasi, Bad', op. cit.; Nuwayri, Nihayah, Cairo,
1943, xiv, 153,206-8; Ibn Kathir, Biddya, Cairo, n.d.,II, 36-43; idem, Qasas, Cairo, 1968,
II, 309-20;
Ibn al-Athir, Kdmil, Beirut, 1965,I, 261, 322-5; MajlisT,Bihdr, op. cit., xiv, 351-77; Manini, al-
Ilam, Jaffa, n.d., 90-1.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 221
Jurayj transmits the same narrative on Titus and 2:114 from both Ibn Mujahid-
Mujahid and 'Ata'-Ibn 'Abbas.
But the basic anti-Christian/Byzantine sentiment prevails in spite of the
historically confused narrative element.41 Added to this, the narrative sup-
plement, which is heavily connected with Qur'anic instances other than 2:114,
does not adhere well to the original core of this verse until the late third century.
Farra', 'AwfTand Ibn Qtayba have that core only, from Ibn 'Abbas. Tha'labi
has the narrative supplement on Titus but, like Muqatil before him, does not
quote any traditional source for it. On the other hand, his contemporary, Farisi-
Fasawi, brings the same narrative in the traditional form: Ibn Jurayj-Mujahid,
though not only in connexion with 2:114 but with 17:8 too.
Moreover, in Farra''s commentary, as in Ka'b's tradition, there is a sense of
contextual adjacency between the acts of the Christians in Jerusalem, the
Muslims' defeat of them and the latters' rebuilding of its sanctuary. On the
whole, the least that can be gauged is the sense of Muslim identification with the
persecuted Jews in Jerusalem. The relatively early Maturidl, though speaking in
the context of the Christian/Bukhtnassar complicity, says explicitly that the
victims referred to in this verse were ' ahl al-isldm'. The latter are also seen as
the victims even when he presents the view that what was meant was the
destruction by ahl al-Kufr of the mosques of ahl al-Isldm in general.
Tabari's choosing to bring from Ibn 'Abbas's tradition only its initial core
does not call for comment. He also sticks to the view that the verse referred to
the Christians rather than Quraysh who were not reported to have destroyed the
Ka'ba but rather took pride in building it in the Jdhiliyya.42One also feels that
Tabari was under fire from some contemporary objection to the Jerusalem
context on the ground that prayer there was not ordained on the Muslims at the
time of revelation;43in other words, that such an understanding puts the
revelation of the verse outside the historical context of Hijazi Islam.
Against this, Tabari apologetically says that the victims of such zulm were
'the believers from among the sons of Israel ', a reminder, again, of the sense of
continuation and identification with certain suppressed Jewish beliefs and
practices in the Jerusalem sanctuary. As far as I know, the fourth century Jassas
(d. 370 A.H.) was the first commentator to note the absurdity of associating the
Christians with Bukhtnassar historically. In this he was followed by Razi whose
outlet, however, was to provide the Hijazi Jews as an alternative to the whole
context.44
Above all, it is striking that no trace of sira element could be found in all
these traditions as they do not carry any notion concerning the actual occasion
of revelation to Muhammad himself in the Meccan context. But Razi's late
attempt to bridge exegesis and slra was certainly not the first.
41Rippin notes that Bukhtnassar is 'normally connected with Qur'an 17:4', 'The Quranic
Asbdb', op. cit., p. 180, n. 9. The association of Bukhtnassar with the Christians is rejected by
commentators from the fourth century on (see below). In Nuwayri and ManTni,the name of the
'Babylonian King' is Khardus and not Bukhtnassar. In some Fadd'il sources the latter was
strangely said to have transferred holy items from Jerusalem to ' rumya'. See e.g. Ibn al-Jawzi
(d. 597 A.H.), Fada'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980, 77-8. On the confusion of his role as presented in the
Islamic sources in general, see further details in J. Pauling,' Islamische Legende uber Bukhtnassar',
Graecolatineet Orientalia, 4 (1972), 168-70 and 'Ofer Livne, op. cit., pp. 8-9, n. 47. Livne notes also
a tradition according to which Muhammad prophesied that as the end of the world approached, the
Mahdi would recover the booty carried by Titus to Rome and return it to Jerusalem, ibid., n. 51;
Musharraf, 14 (a-b); Ibn al-Jawzi, 107-8.
42Tabari, I, 499. Cf. Tusi, I, 416 and Tabarsl, I, 376 who reject this reasoning by reverting to the
metaphorical understanding of Khardb.On such understanding more will be said below.
43Tabari, I, 500: 'fa-in zanna zannun ...', etc.
44See Jassas, I, 69; Razi, iv, 10; Abiu Hayyan, I, 357 and Naysaburi, I, 417.
222 SULIMAN BASHEAR
4Ibn Manzur, Lisdn, Cairo repr. 1966, xv, 266-71; Zabidi, Tdj, Cairo, 1306 A.H., VIII, 383-5;
E. Lane, Arabic-Englishlexicon, New York repr., 1956, v, 1920-1.
5Ibn Manzur, Zabidi, and Lane, ibids.; Muqatil, Tafslr I, 62; idem, Ashbdh, Cairo, 1975, 118-
21; idem, TafsTral-Khamsmi'at 'Aya, Shfar'am, 1980, 40; Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wTl,Cairo, 1973, 467-8;
Fayruzabadi, Qdmus, Cairo, 1970, Iv, 174; al-Raghib al-Isfahamn,Mufraddt, Cairo, 1970, II, 470-2,
al-Damghanl-Isidh, Beirut, 1970, 308-11.
56e.g., Kisa'i (d. 189 A.H.), Mutashabih, MS Princeton, Yehuda (903), 50 (b), 63 (a)-64 (b);
(Anonymous), MS Princeton, Yehuda (2248), 32 (a-b); al-Kirmani, al-Burhdn, MS Princeton,
Yehuda (3999), 10 (b)-l 1 (a), 26 (a), 41 (a), 72 (b).
57 '
e.g.: wa-manazlamu mimman Katama' in Qur'an 2:140; ' .. mimmaniftar ', in Qur'an 6:21,
144, 7:36, 10:17-18, 11:18, i8:15, 29:68, 61:7;'... mimmanKadhdhaba' in Qur'an 6:157, 39:32;'...
mimman dhakara, in Qur'an 32:22.
58
Sijistani, Tafsr GharTbal-Qur'dn,MS Princeton, Yehuda (4169), 74 (a); and the lexicographic
works cited above.
59A. F. L. et Sabaic dictionary, Louvain & Beirut, 1982, 143, 172.
60Al-'lim Beeston, al.,
61
wa-'l-Muta'allim, Halab, 1972, 65, 72-3.
Musnad, Halab, 1962, 210.
62Shafi'L, al-Fiqh al-Akbarfi al-Tawhld, in the margin of Abu HI.anifa,al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Cairo,
1324 A.H., 27.
63
e.g.: 'The hypostasis of the Archous' and 'On the origin of the world', in J. M. Robinson,
The Nag Hammadi Library, Leiden, 1978, 155, 157, 166, 170-3.
224 SULIMAN BASHEAR
on the Muslim side, with the condemnation of those who try to imitate
God's creation, and the branding of such act as zulm, which occurs in a quds7
tradition the very wording of which constitutes a parallel to 2:114: ' wa-man
azlamu mimman dhahabayakh luqu ka-khal ql.. .'. It is also striking to see
how the commentaries on this tradition connect it with the condemnation of
hanging pictures and images (tasawlr).64
All this warns of the complexity and variety of sources, elements and stages
to be sought in following the development of the meaning of zulm in early Islam.
As for 2:114, a few commentators equated ' alamu' with ' akfaru ', glossed it
with the phrase 'fi kufrihi', or added '.. wa-ajra'u 'ala allah '65
-atwa-a't
To complete the picture, one must add that one of the meanings given to
Qur'anic dhikr is monotheism-tawhid. Indeed, some exegetical sources inter-
preted ' 'an yudhkara' of 2:114 by adding: ' bi-'l-tawhld'.66
Given the Jerusalem/Christian context of revelation, then, verse 2:114
appears to be loaded with Judeo-Christian theological debate. Our conclusion is
of course far from being final. However, a further investigation is needed into
what seems to be a Mu'tazili formula inherent in this verse: i.e. ahl al-'adl (the
antonym of zulm/jabr)wa-'l tawhld(= dhikr) (the opposite of shirk), being one
of the names the Mu'tazila were known by.
Finally, note must also be made of the fact that in extreme Shi'ite
commentaries the victims of zulm (alladh[na zulimu) are understood to be the
people of Muhammed ('dl muhammad),without, however, any connexion with
2:114 or the Jerusalem context.67 In Isma'ili exegesis in particular, tawhld is
presented as the recognition of the right imam; thus, the denial of 'Ali's imima
and the zulm committed by Abu Bakr and 'Umar against the relatives of
Muhammad, equals shirk.68
64Nawawi, al-Ahadith al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1985, 239-40. See also Dhahabi, Kitdb al-Kaba'ir
Damascus & Beirut, n.d., 181, for the noting of which I am indebted to M. J. Kister.
65 The
pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas sources, cited above; Tha'labi, 159; Baghawi, I, 83; Nawawi, I, 31;
Khazin I, 84.
66Pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas; Muqatil, TafsTr,I, 62; Nawawi, I, 31.
67
See, e.g., Majlisi, xxiv, 221.
68Ja'far b. Mansur al-Yaman (d. 347 A.H.), Kitab al-Kashf, Beirut, 1984, 45, 63, 88-9, 146, 150.
69 Pseudo-Ibn
'Abbas; Mujahid, I, 86; Muqatil, TafsTr,i, 62; Ibn Qutayba, TafsTr,61, and cf. also
Tha'labl, 159; Tabari, I, 500; Jassas, I, 69.
70Tabari, I, 499; Tius, I, 417; GharnatT,I, 396; Baghawi, I, 84; Zamakhshari, I, 179; Tabarsi, I,
377; Nasafi, I, 65-6; RazT,IV, 11; Khazin, I, 84; Tha'alibi, i, 125; Baydawi, i, 107; Shawkani, I, 131;
Alisi, I, 498; Kashl, 31; 'Abd al-Jabbar, TanzThal-Qur'an, Cairo, 1329 A.H., 28-9.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 225
71Jassas, i, 69-70.
72
e.g. Baghawi, i, 84; Tabarsl, i, 377; Abu H.ayyan, I, 358; Khazin, I, 84; Ibn Kathir, II, 508;
Biqa'i, Nazm al-Durar, Haydarabad, 1970, II, 118.
73e.g., 'Abd al-Jabbar, TanzTh,29; RazL,iv, 11. Note that, on the Shi'ite side, a similar notion is
cited concerning the destruction of' the mosques of the best believers', but, as one would expect,
only by substituting 'All and his Sh'a for Abu Bakr (as in Hasan 'AskarT,255-6), or without
specifying any name (as in Kashi, 31).
74cf. Tabari, I, 500; Baghawl, I, 84; Zamakhshari, I, 180; Tabarsi, I, 377; Razi, iv, 12; Qurtubi, II,
79; Naysabiur, I, 418-9; Ibn Kathir, II, 509; Ibn Jaziyy, Kitdb al-TashTl,Cairo, 1973, I, 101.
75cf. Zamakhshari, I, 180; Razi, iv, 19-20; Nawawi, I, 30; Naysaburi, I, 419; Alusi, I, 500;
Baydawi, I, 107, 'Imadi, I, 243.
76cf.: Shafi'l, Umm, Cairo, 1961, I, 54; idem, Ahkam al Qur'dn,comp. by Bayhaql, Beirut 1975, I,
83-, II, 61; al-Nahhas (d. 338 A.H.) Kitab al-Nasikh wa-'l-Mansukh,Cairo, 1938, 59, 167; 'Abd al-
Razzaq, Musannaf, Beirut, 1970-2; I, 412-4, vI, 52-3, x, 356.
VOL. LII. PART 2. 17
226 SULIMAN BASHEAR
unbelievers could enter certain mosques, but only in certain cases, e.g. for
arbitration (hukuima),etc.77
But fourth century halakhic interpretation had first to overcome a certain
problem of 'reading' which 2:114 seems to have posed in the period which
witnessed the stabilization of the text. Or, based on the variant readings of
Kha'ifin, one might even say that such halakhic interpretation was itself a kind
of 'reading' of it in that form. From late third century Tha'labi we learn,
however, that the word appeared in the Ubayy codex in the form of L.- . And
Jeffery records that this was the same form which appeared in the Codex of Ibn
Mas'ud too.78 Now, following Bergstrasser, Jeffery adds that Ibn Khalawayh
(d. 370 A.H.) read the text as hunafa and not khuyyafa!79He also notes how Ibn
Khalawayh was condemned for not knowing the difference between qird'dtand
tafslr. Given, however, that Ibn Khalawayh was active during the period of
hectic activity for the stabilizing of the canonic reading of the text in the first
half of the fourth century,80and given also the striking absence of any halakhic
interpretation of 2:114 in the sense of barring entrance' except in fear ', Jeffery's
rejection of Ibn Khalawayh is not at all justified.
Another source, of the early fourth century, Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.) is accredited
with the introduction of the element of 'divine promise' (wa'd-bishara)to the
interpretation of the phrase ' m kdna lahum'.81In fact, we find that in Tha'labi,
a generation earlier, lies probably the core of what later became a notion of that
divine promise. In Tha'labi, however, this notion is brought in conjunction with
the Meccan context of the fath.82However, the idea of bishdrawas favoured by
later commentators who, without mentioning Tha'labi or Zajjaj, connected
2:114 with the conquest of Mecca as it was 'foreseen' by this verse.83At the
same time it is also worth noting that already with Jassas (d. 370A.H.) the
halakhic activity has generated a tendency to favour the idea that the verse
spoke only in general terms, i.e. about all mosques; an idea which found its
support in the plural form of masdjid.84On the other hand, those later
commentators who continued to hold to the idea of specification and to resist
the historical detachment by general applicability could rely on masoretic and
Qur'anic parallels where plural forms are used to denote specific reference.85
To sum up, the metaphorical and Halakhic understanding of Khardb and
dukhul in this verse, which was facilitated by a certain exegetically oriented
reading of -- played an important role in detaching it from its association
with Jerusalem. In the words of some later commentators, the particularity of
the cause of revelation (Khusus al-sabab) does not hinder the generality of its
sense and applicability.86A. Rippin rightly noted how 'between Jassas and
Qurtubi, one witnesses an interesting shift (of) more neglect for history and the
final establishment of the status of the Qur'an as a law source in a way that
overrules any haggadic element in it.' 87
Finally, mention must be made of an isolated Shi'l tradition which interprets
' ld yadkhuluha illa Kha'ifin' as: 'they will accept belief only with the swords
over their heads'.88 This, however, like the mainstream Shi'ite interpretation in
general, was given in the context of Mecca.
Considering the last part of the verse, one notices the existence of an ijma' in
early third century to interpret 'adhdb as hell-fire. Only Farra' (d. 207 A.H.)
understood it as God's promise for the defeat and conquest of the Byzantines
(fath al-rum), and in doing so, he was described as standing alone (infarada).89
Concerning Khizy, almost all the early traditions put its interpretation in the
Jerusalem context. Here it corresponded to the notion of conquest and defeat of
al-rum. In Suddi's tradition in particular, and possibly those of others too,90
such defeat was expressed in an apocalyptic form, i.e. as a future punishment,
the conquest of Constantinople, Rome, 'Amurya and other cities to be effected
by the Mahdi.91However, some variants, as well as other traditions, present the
killing and conquest of al-rum as a historical event, i.e. carried out by the
Muslims.92
The tradition of Qatada is noteworthy for interpreting Khizv as payment of
Jizya ''an yadin wa-humsaghirun '-i.e. associating it en bloc with Qur'an 9:29
(sulraBard'a, again!).93Note, however, that the two elements of killing/conquest
on the one hand and payment of Jizya on the other, became combined from
early fourth century on in one formula: killing for the warrior (li-l-harbi) and
jizya for the dhimm.94The earliest quoted authority for such combination is
Zajjaj, though his name was dropped by most later commentators.95
As for Mecca and Quraysh, the Ibn Zayd tradition provides nothing on
khizy. Al-Jubba'i is the oldest authority quoted by Sunni sources to have
interpreted khizy as 'expulsion from mosques '.96In a few later commentaries,
however, khizy acquired the specific meaning of Quraysh's defeat and the
conquest of Mecca.97
86Zamakhshari, I, 179; NawawT I, 31; Nasafi, I, 65-6; Naysabuir, I, 418; Abu Hayyan, I, 357;
BaydawT,I, 107; Khazin, i, 84; Tha'alibT,I, 125; 'Imadl, I, 242; ShawkanT,i, 131; Aiius, I, 498.
87'The Quranic Asbb ', op. cit., 183.
88
'Ayyashi, Tafsir, Qumm, n.d., i, 56-7; Kashi, 31.
89Farra' i, 74; Abu Hayyan, I, 360. In Tus¥'s words: 'wa-'l-ndsu 'ald Khildfihi', i.e. in
disagreement with Farra', TusT,i, 420-1.
90Besides Suddi, Ibn KathTr,ii, 510, mentions 'Ikrima and Wa'il b. Dawud.
91cf. Tabari, i, 501; Ibn Kathir, ii, 510; Suyiut Durr, I, 108; Qurtubi, ii, 79; ShawkanT,i, 132; Tius,
I, 420; TabarsT,i, 378.
92Muqatil, I, 63; Farra', I, 74; cf. also Baghawi, I, 84 who adds al-Kalbi to Muqatil; Gharnat, I,
396-7, who adds Hiraqla to 'Ammurya; Zamakhsharl, i, 180; Khazin, i, 84; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101, who
specifies the conquest of Jerusalem itself; Naysaburi, I, 419.
93cf. Tabarsl, I, 500; Ibn Kathir, 11,510; SuyutTi,Durr, I, 108; Shawkani, I, 132; Tius, I, 420.
94cf. Tabarsi, i, 378.
95Razi, iv, 12; Qurtubi, ii, 79; Baydawi, I, 107; 'Imadi, I, 243; Gharnati, I, 396; Zamakhshari, i,
180; Baghaw I, 84; Maturidi, I, 261; Khazim, I, 84; Nasafi, I, 66; Wahidi, Wajiz,I, 31; Naysabuir, I,
419. Cf. also AliusiI, 500. AbuiHayyan, I, 359, cites an isolated view attributed to Ibn 'Abbas which
interprets 'Khizy 'as 'Jizya for the dhimmi'.
96cf. Tuis, I, 420; Tabarsi, I, 378. Cf. also Razi, iv, 12 and Naysaburi, i, 419.
97Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101;Qurtubi, 11,79; Ibn KathTr,ii, 509-10; Baghawl, i, 84; Gharnati, I, 397, on the
Shiite side compare with Hasan Askari, 258.
228 SULIMAN BASHEAR
background of the sequential relation between 2:114 and the following two
verses on qibla and Christ. On these and related issues, however, traditional
exegesis concerning variant readings and analogical interpretation reveals
interesting structural problems of both composition and sequence; an issue
which is most crucial for the overall historical understanding of the three verses
taken as one scriptural complex.
5.1 With the issue of variant reading of 2:114 in relation to exegesis, we have
dealt above. Attention will be paid here to some serious problems raised by the
fragmentary nature of its traditional exegesis.
Actually, all the above-mentioned traditions on 2:114 were cited only in the
form of scattered comments on separate parts, phrases, or even selected terms of
the verse. In some of the second or even third century works, no commentary at
all was given on it.98 The initial fragmentary nature of traditional exegesis
persists in the structure of even Tabari's commentary; he simply amasses the
available, or selected, traditions dividing the verse into three separate
paragraphs, each of which he calls ' aya '. The fifth-century Tusi sticks to what
seems to be an early Basran view: that there were two separate verses involved in
2:114,99a view which is still held by the very late Suyuti.'1°
Against this background the method of analogical interpretation by com-
parison with other Qur'anic parallels becomes crucially suggestive. For, the
loose connexion between the different paragraphs, suggested by the fragmen-
tation in their traditional exegesis, corresponds to their association with
different scriptural, biographical, legal or other materials. Note especially the
frequent association of the paragraph on dukhul with Surat al-Bard'a and the
related Prophet's call concerning pilgrimage to Mecca. Different traditions
connect the conquest of Bukhtnassar to various verses other than 2:114.
Apocalyptic and futuh materials figure much in the traditions on khizy. But
Qatada's tradition equates this term with the verse on jizya, again from Bara'a
(no. 9:29). Finally, attention must also be paid to the syntactical structure of the
different parts of 2:114: the first, (man azlamumimmanmana'a) speaks about the
past; present attitudes and practices towards the Christians are expressed in the
third part (lahum fi al-dunya Khizyun); and the second part, although
paraphrased in a past-participle form (md kana lahum), actually denotes later
imperatives and rulings recommended for the future.
5.2 Verse 2:115 has an acute problem of variant reading. One of its key verbs
could, and seems indeed to have been read tawallaw and not only tuwallu.°'0
Moreover, walla could, and seems, indeed, to have been understood as 'turn-
away', 'run-away' and not 'turn-towards'.102 Altogether, it is not
unanimously accepted that this verse speaks about qibla or even the ritual
98
See, e.g., Thawri (d. 161 A.H.), TafsTr,Rampur, 1965, on the Sunni side, and Furat, TafsTr,
Najaf, n.d., on the Shi'l one.
99Tusi, i, 416. Cf. also Tabarsi i, 375.
00 Durr, I, 108.
101This is repeatedly said by some of the commentaries cited above to have been the non-
canonical reading of Hasan al-Basri. See, e.g., Gharnati, i, 397; Zamakhshari, i, 180; Qurtubi, 11,79;
Razi, iv, 24; Alusi, I, 500 and Ibn Khalawayh, Mukhtasarfi Shawadhdhal-Qur'an, Cairo, 1934, 9.
On the transmittersof this reading see also Qabaqibi, Ithdf, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2297), 5 (a), 122
(a).
102It must be remembered that this verb
belongs to the group of naqa'id verbs capable of
conveying two opposite meanings. From the insistence on giving it the meaning 'turn towards' in
this verse and the argument against interpreting it as 'to turn away', one can only surmise that the
latter meaning was also advocated, e.g. Tabari, i, 505, calls it shudhudh'irregularity'; in Alusi I, 502
it is considered gharrb'strange'.
QUR'AN2:114 AND JERUSALEM 229
103Some commentators make a point of mentioning that Hasan's reading was originally
'tawallaw 'and associate such a reading with the threat conveyed by the verse to the committers of
zulm, namely that wherever they may flee to, God's authority will still reach them. See Abu Hayyan,
i, 360; Alius, i, 502; and, less explicitly, also Naysabiur, i, 423. Other commentators base their
presentation of this tawallu, on the orthographic form tatawallu, so that it may still be taken to
convey the meaning of 'you turn towards'. See Zamakhshari, i, 180; Qurtubi, II, 79; Razi, IV, 24;
Nawawi, i, 31. Such an ingenious exercise, however, contradicts Hasan's reading which is explicitly
stated as: ' tawallaw, bi-fath al-ta' wa-'l-ldm '. Gharnatl, i, 397; Abu Hayyan, i, 360 and even Qurtubi
himself, ii, 79. Naysabuir, i, 423, in his turn, insists that even tuwalluis addressing the runners away
in the second person.
104As noted
105
by Razi, iv, 23.
Compare Razi, iv, 22 with Wahidi, Asbdb, 35-6, and see also Abu Hayyan, i, 361.
106Compare: Wahidi, Asbab, 36; Ibn Jaziyy I, 101; Tabarsi i, 379; Razi, IV, 20; Baydawi, I, 108;
Naysabuir, I, 422.
107This is
narratively expressed by referring to instances of prayer in the dark, at war, while
travelling on the back of a camel, a non-ordained (ndfila) prayer, etc. Further details with respective
traditional authorities in Muqatil, TafsTr,i, 63; Tabari, i, 502-3; Ibn Kathir, 11,513-9; Maturidi, i,
273; Wahidi, Asbdb, 35-6; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101; Abu HIayyan,i, 360; Biqa'l, ii, 123. On the Shl'ite side
compare also with Qummi i/59; 'Ayyashi 1/56-7; Tabarsi 1/380.
0 Tabari, i, 502-3; Gharnati, i, 398; Tusi, i, 224; RazL,iv, 20; Qurtubi II/82; Abu Hayyan 1/360;
Naysaburi 1/422.
109Lit: 'aqsama bi-llahi al-sha'biyyu md rudda al-nabiyyu 'an qiblati bayti 'l-maqdisi ill li-
ghadabihi 'ala bayti 'l-maqdis/'alaahlihd', Thawri, 12. Kister, who notes this tradition, refers also to
'Abd al-Razzaq's Musannaf as another source for it. 'You shall only set ...', Le Museon, 82,
Louvain, 1969, 183.
230 SULIMAN BASHEAR
Noting this tradition, Kister also called the attention to other indications in
Muslim sources of a clear disagreement as to why indeed Muhammad 'hated
the Jerusalem qibla and inclined towards the Ka'ba'.10 From the connexion
between 2:114-15 and 2:150 as supported by Sha'bi's tradition, it is clear that
the whole issue lies outside the Hijazi context. As for the Jews, it is plausible to
suggest that the change of qibla constituted a departure from their practices in a
way that would raise their objection. But from 2:114-115 it is not necessarily the
Jews that he was angered at. Rather a new line of reasoning suggested by the
contextual sequence of these two verses should at least be opened; i.e. that it was
the Christians/Byzantines with whom he had a conflict concerning Jerusalem.
5.3 The same method may be applied to 2:116. Here, the reading of the
' '
opening 'qalu instead of 'wa-qalu by Ibn 'Amir (d. 118 A.H.) is often men-
tioned as part of the problem of sequential conjunction vs. resumption ('atf,
isti'ndJ).1"But the way this issue was treated by commentators could point in
two opposite directions: either to an early disconnexion between 2:116 and the
two preceding verses, or, more likely, a later attempt at such disconnexion."2
In any case, 'atf and, even without waw, ittisal eventually emerged vic-
torious.113But, before that, precautions seem to have been taken to ensure the
connexion with the HijazT framework by means of clustering sTramaterial
around the exegesis of the verse. The striking fact is that such clustering was not
completed before the fourth century. However, from that period on the verse
was presented as referringto either the Christians (but of Najran!) who said that
Christ was the son of God, or to the Jews (but of Medina!) who said that 'Uzayr
was the son of God, or else to the Arab polytheists (implicitly of Mecca!) who
said that the female angels were the daughters of God."4
Now, the third view cannot be attested before the early fourth century as
Zajjaj is the earliest source named for it.15 As for the Jews of Medina (preferred
by Razl), the sTrasources mention them in connexion with verse 9:30 (again
from Bara'a) rather than 2:116.116It must also be noted that verse 9:30 contains
"libid., p. 183 n. 42, cf. Nuwayri, Nihdyat, I, 329.
Il With the name of 'Abdullah b. 'Amir al-Yahsubi is associated the Syrian variant reading of
'Uthman's codex. He is sometimes called 'al-shdmT' and is said to have been qd.d of Damascus
during al-Walid I's reign. See: al-Dani (d. 444A.H.), al-Taysir, Istanbul, 1930, 5-6. A. Jeffery,
Materials, p. 1, n. 1, notes that to Ibn 'Amir was attributed a work on Ikhtilafal-Masahif. On Ibn
'Amir's reading of 2:116 see: Ibn Abi Dawud (d. 316 A.H.), Kitdb al-Masdhif in Jeffery, 44; Ibn
Khalawayh, al-Hujja, Beirut, 1971, 65; Muhammad b. Ja'far al-Khuza'T(d. 408 A.H.) al-Muntahd,
MS Princeton, Yehuda (3558), 90(a); al-Dani, al-Muqni', Damascus, 1940, 1940, 102, 110; idem, al-
Ta'rTf,Muhammadiyya, 1982, 72-3; idem, al-TaysTr,op. cit., 76; idem, al-Mufradat, Cairo n.d., 189;
Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 A.H.), al-Nashr, Cairo, 1920, ii, 220. See also Qabaqibi, 122(a); Biqa'i, ii, 126-7;
Tabarsi,I, 381; GharnatT, I, 400-1; Baydawi,I, 198; Nawawi,I, 31; Tius, I, 426; NasafT, I, 66;
Baghawl,I, 85. In Abu Hayyan,I, 362 and Alius,I, 502, the name of Ibn 'Abbas is also added to Ibn
'Amir.
112In Tabarl,I, 506, the' wdw' links
qdlu to mana'a and sa'a, i.e., the Christians in 2:114. See also
Baydawi,I, 108. Note, however, that dropping the wdw could still imply conjunction (malhuzunfihi
ma'na al-'tf) in spite of the apparent resumption. Alusi,I, 502; Gharnat, I, 400-1; Tabarsi, I, 308;
and compare with Nasafi i, 66.
113Note that even in the extreme case of isti'ndfby dropping the wdw, qdlu was presented by some
as referring to both the Jews and Christians in 2:113. 'ImadT,i, 244; Biqa'i,IV, 126-7; and cf.
GharnatT,
t4 I, 400-1.
Anonymous, Asbdb, 4 (b)-5 (a); Wahidi, Asbdb, 36; Baydawi,I, 108; Biqa'i,II, 126; Ibn Jaziyy,
I, 101. Cf. Maturidi,I, 266; Zajjaj apud Tuis,I, 426 and Abi Hayyan,I, 362; and see the following
note.
115 Note that Zajjaj, as quoted by Tusi and Abu Hayyan, ibid., says that the verse was revealed
concerning both the Christians and the Arab polytheists. Compare also with MajlisT,ix, 68 and
possibly his source, Tabarsi, i, 382, neither of whom mentions Zajjaj by name. In only one source,
Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101, is there the isolated notion that the verse could also refer to the sdbi'un and some
of the Arabs, who believed that the angels were the daughters of God, as well as to the Christian
belief in the sonship of Christ.
116
Razi, iv, 25. For the stra material on ix, 30, see Ibn Hisham, Cairo, 1955,I-II, 570; Suhayli,
Cairo, 1971, II, 116; Halab, I, 518, II, 38-9.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 231
polemics not only against the Jews but against the Christians and 'the
unbelievers before them' as well.17 As for the notion that 2:116 refers to the
delegation of Najrani Christians, it does indeed occur in Muqatil's Tafsir.
However, such notion is nowhere attested by any of the slra traditions of his
contemporary Ibn Ishaq. Moreover, most traditional exegesis on 2:116 speaks
about the Christians as being the ones referredto by it, but only in the indefinite
form, i.e. without mentioning the Najrani delegation."8 And, finally, a quick
glance at the narratives brought by some commentators on the Najrani
delegation shows that such narratives were connected with the revelation of at
least three different verses, and not specifically with 2:116.119
As for the occurrence of 'qdnitun 'in 2:116, a quick scrutiny of the analogies
and parallels mentioned by some traditions for its interpretation reveals another
fact of compositional importance: the second part of 2:116 (lahu ma ft al-
samdwdtiwa-'l-ardikullunlahu qdnitun)occurs en bloc also in surat al-rum(verse
30:26). There, as in 2:116 it was interpreted as 'admitting/worshipping in
servitude.120 Indeed, the very wording used for interpreting qdnitunin 2:116 in
this sense is worth noting. In the pseudo-Ibn 'Abbas source it is 'admitting
servitude to and monotheistic belief' in God (muqirrunbi-'l-'ubudiyya wa-'l-
tawhld). In Muqatil's TafsTrit is: 'ya'nT 'Tsd(s) wa-ghayrahu 'abTdahuwa-fi
mulkih'. In Abu 'Ubayda's (d. 210 A.H.) words: 'Kullun muqirrun bi-annahu
'abdun lahu '.121 In Maturidl's 'muqirrun bi-'l-rububiyya lahu wa-'l-'ubudiyya li-
anfusihim '122 Finally, Tabarsi cites a tradition by Hasan al-Basri which
interprets qdnitun as 'witnessing servitude to Him'.123 Tabarsi also quotes a
similar interpretation by the fourth-century Jubba'i and the fifth-century Abu
Muslim al-Nahawi (d. 459 A.H.).124
On the other hand, there exists a strong current interpreting this word as
' obedient' (mutl'un),relying mainly on a tradition by Mujahid with occasional
attribution of similar views to Suddi and even Ibn 'Abbas.125Some commen-
tators bring the two views as alternative interpretations and a few tried to
harmonize them.126From the analogical interpretation in this sense by parallels
brought from other Qur'anic occurrences it is possible to detect the source of
confusion. The meaning of 'obedient' was projected from the phrase 'wa-'l-
qdnitin wa-'l-qdnitt ' of Qur'an 33:35 and 'qumuilillhi qdnitin' of Qur'an
2:238.127
Against this background the possibility that the source of confusion lies
actually in traditional reference to originally different Qur'anic occurrences
must not be ruled out. Indeed, more meanings of Qur'anic and traditional qunut
117'
wa-qalat al-yahudu 'uzayrun ibnu allah, wa-qdlat al-nasdrd al-masThuibnu allah yudadhtna
qawla al-ladhTnaKafaru min qablu ..'.
118 See
e.g. Tius, I, 426; Tabarsi, I, 382; Tha'alibi, I, 127; WahidT,Asbdb, 36; Maturidi, I, 101; Abu
H.ayyan, I, 362.
'19e.g., the traditions 'by the exegetes' (al-mufassirun) Hasan, Sha'bi, Dahhak and Muqatil
himself, cited by Wahidi, Asbdb, Beirut, n.d., 74-32.
120 Damghani, Islah, Beirut, 1970, 391; Ibn Qutayba Ta'wl, Cairo, 1973, 452.
121Abu 'Ubayda, Majdz al-Qur'dn, Cairo, 1954, i, 51.
122
Maturidi, i, 266.
123
Tabarsi, i, 382.
124
He is said to have compiled an important TafsTrwhich, unfortunately, has not reached us.
However, he could be the same person often quoted by Razi. For more on him, see Suyiut, Bughyat,
Beirut, 1964, I, 188; idem, Tabaqdt, Leiden, 1839, 32; Ibn al-'Imad, Shadhardt,Cairo, 1350 A.H., III,
307; Ibn Hajar, Lisdn, Haydarabad, 1331 A.H., V, 298; Dhahabi, Mizan, Cairo, 1963, III,655; Safadi,
al-Wdfi, Istanbul, 1921, iv, 130.
'25See TafsTrMujahid, i, 86; Farra', I, 74; Tabarsi, I, 382; Biqa'i, ii, 127; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 102;
Gharnati, I, 401.
26e.g.: Maturidi, I, 266 and Baydawl, I, 108.
127
Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wTl,452 and Damghani, 391, respectively.
232 SULIMAN BASHEAR
140
H. Busse, ' Omar's image ' JSAI, 8, Jerusalem, 1986, 164-8; idem ' The Tower of David .. .', an
unpublished paper presented at the fourth International Colloquium: 'From Jahiliyya to Islam',
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987; 'A. El'ad, ' Muslim holy places', art. cit., and the
references cited therein.
14' Musharraf, 15 (b)-16 (a); and the later sources quoting him: Shihab al-Din (d. 765 A.H.),
Muthfral-Gharamas, in its turn, quoted by Mujlr al-Din, Uns, I, 170-2 and Shams al-Din's Ithaf, I,
128-30. Cf. also Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo n.d., vIn, 58 and Taflati (d. 1191 A.H.), Husn al-Istiqsa,
MS Princeton Yehuda (515), 152 (a-b).
142 This tradition is
reported on the authority of the Damascene Sa'id b. 'Abd al-'Aziz
(d. 167 A.H.), see Musharraf, 20 (b)-21 (a) and Ibn al-Jawzl (d. 597) Fada'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980,
108-9. On the position of Jerusalem under the late Byzantines, see Hirschberg, 'The sources of
Muslim tradition', Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 17, 1951-2.
143WasitT(d. c. 410 A.H.), Fada'il al-Bayt
al-Muqaddas, Jerusalem, 1979, 21, 24, 44.
236 SULIMAN BASHEAR
Syria as a whole.'4 But only one verse (no. 43:45) is said to have been revealed
in Jerusalem itself and that, while he made his journey to heaven.
As one would expect, but still worth noting, the latter verse is polemical
directed at those who, on the alleged authority of the Apostles (clearly the
Christians), believed that other gods were appointed to be worshipped by
God-a strong reminder of the polemics in 2:116. And, in association with the
revelation of that verse (i.e. 43:45), a tradition is usually cited attributing to
Muhammad the saying that prophecy descended upon him in Syria as well as in
Mecca and Medina.'45
Beyond the slra and traditional limits, there occur only scattered and highly
obscure referenceswhich place Muhammad's mission and the Muslims' occupa-
tion of Jerusalem within the context of Judeo-Christian conflict in and
concerning it. One of these is the above-mentioned tradition related to the order
by Qaysar to clean the Temple site upon receiving Muhammad's letter in
Jerusalem.146
Tabari, in his turn, cites a unique tradition of Raja' b. Haywa (d. 112 A.H.)
and Rabi'a al-Shami (d. 123 A.H.) concerning the discussion between Ka'b and
'Umar when the latter visited Jerusalem. According to this tradition, the Jews
strove to preserve the Temple site but were unsuccessful because of the
consecutive Roman/Byzantine and Persian attacks. This situation, continues
the tradition,' prevailed until you ('Umar) reigned. Then God sent a prophet on
the (place of) assembly/garbage (lit.: Kundsa)who said: a good omen on you, O
Jerusalem, the fdruiqwill clean you from whatever (dirt) is in you .. .1.47
But early Muslim, late Judeo-Christian relations concerning Jerusalem, let
alone in the city itself, remain highly obscure throughout the period of early
Islam. The pilgrim Arculfus who visited it around the year A.D. 680 speaks
'
vaguely about a conflict in the city between Christian Jews' or 'believing' and
'unbelieving Jews' during Mu'awiya's reign, without, however, attributing any
role to the Muslims by name.'48
As for 'Abd al-Malik's time, we have a curious report on the appearance in
Jerusalem of a false prophet named al-Harith b. Sa'ld who was executed there in
79 A.H., not before attracting many followers from within the army of 'Abd al-
Malik.149From Baladhuri, Tabari and Ibn al-'Ibri we learn about a major
outbreak of conflict with the Byzantines in Syria in the year 70 A.H., in the
course of which 'Abd al-Malik was forced to pay the king of al-rum a weekly
ransom of one thousand dinars for opposing him over the Muslims in Syria.150
But these sources do not elaborate on the religious aspects of these
developments, let alone the religious position of Jerusalem in their context. On
the other hand, scholars are increasingly inclined to believe that the construc-
tions of 'Abd al-Malik and his son, Walid, on the Temple site are to be
considered against the background of the politico-religious conflict with the
Byzantines rather than the wish of 'Abd al-Malik to divert the hajj from
'44Besides the above-mentioned fadd'il works, see also Raba'i (d. 444 A.H.) Fadd'il, Damascus,
1950, 23, 26, 39, 61; Ibn 'Asakir, Tadrkh,Damascus, 1951, I, 135-95.
145Ibn al-Firkah
(d. 729 A.H.), Ba 'ith al-Nufis, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2336), 29 (a-b); Ibn
'Asakir, I, 154;H.asan b. Habib al-Naysaburi (d. 406 A.H.) as quoted by Ibn Hisham al-Ansar
761 A.H.), TahsTlal-Uns, in M. Ibrahim, op. cit.
(d.146
Biddya, Cairo, n.d., vii, 58, quoting Baha' al-Din, al-Mustaqsafi Fada'il al-Masjid al-Aqsd.
47Tabari, TarTkh,in, 106-7.
148The
pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land, transl. J. R. Macpherson, in Palestine Pilgrims'
Text Society, vol. 3, London 1895, 12-5.
149Shihab
al-Din, MuthTral-Ghardm,Jaffa, 1946, 42; J. van Ess,' Early development of Kalam',
in G. Juynboll (ed.), Studies, Carbondale, 1982, p. 120 and n. 59; cf. D. M. Dunlop, Studies in Islam,
New Delhi, 1964, I, 12; Y. Friedman, 'Finality of prophethood in Sunni Islam', JSAI, 7, 1986,
pp. 194-5, nn. 61-3 and the sources quoted therein.
150Baladhuri, Futuh, Cairo, 1956,I, 189-90; Tabari, TarTkh, nll, 1-2; Ibn al-'Ibri, TarTkh,Beirut,
1958, 112.
QUR'AN 2:114 AND JERUSALEM 237
tions testify to such a trend in the form of controversies over the question as to
where this or that scholar prayed in Jerusalem. Several of these traditions were
noted by Goitein.159On the basis of these and other traditional testimonies,
Kister has shown that the position of Jerusalem was indeed placed in jeopardy
from the early second century on: a development which is made clear by the
growing attempts of Muslim scholars to resist the equation of its status as a
place of pilgrimage with that of Mecca and Medina.160
With this trend came a clear departure from the position of primacy given by
'Abd al-Malik and Walid I. To Goldziher, however, must be accredited the
observation that it was only during the early 'Abbasid period that consecration
of Islamic memorials in the Hijaz took place.6"'On the other hand, a tradition
circulated by the Jerusalem family of Mansur b. Thabit 162 testifies to the fact
that the early 'Abbasids finally removed certain holy items and state symbols
from the Rock of Jerusalem, where they had hung since the days of 'Abd al-
Malik, to the Ka'ba.'63From another tradition of this same source we also learn
that the doors of the Jerusalem mosque were made, during Abd al-Malik's
reign, of gold and silver. But, the mosque deteriorated under the 'Abbasids
Mansur and Mahdi, who refused to spend money on its reconstruction after it
was wrecked by two consecutive earthquakes.164
The present inquiry has shown how precisely around this period (mid second
century) elements of a Hijazi orientation made their presence felt in the
exegetical efforts to fit what became the canon of Muslim scripture into the new
historical framework of Arabian Islam. From the literary scrutiny of the
development of these efforts it becomes clear how such exegetical efforts
affected the textual composition of 2:114-16 in a way that fitted the general
orientation, attested from other literary fields, towards a Hijazi sira, sanctuary
and, with them, scriptural revelation. On the other hand, no sufficient basis was
provided by this material to prove the historicity of the otherwise vivid picture
behind the Jerusalem context of 2:114-16-i.e. to prove that the early Muslims
initially were, or considered themselves to be, a continuation of a Judeo-
Christian religious heresy which emerged as a reaction to the desecration of the
Temple site by late Byzantine mainstream Christianity, and as part of the
controversy over the essence of God and Christ's relation to him. Likewise any
idea as to what exactly were the historical (political and military) circumstances
which forced the abandonment of Jerusalem as a qibla and cultic centre and the
search for an alternative, one more national Arabian and secure, must remain,
for the time being, mere speculation pending further research which the present
inquiry may help to stimulate.