Islam and Christian– Muslim Relations,

Vol. 16, No. 4, 413 –428, October 2005

Abraham as an Iconoclast:
Understanding the Destruction of
‘Images’ through Qur’anic Exegesis

YOUNUS MIRZA
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

ABSTRACT The question of Islam and its aversion to images has caused modern scholars to search
for a theological basis in Islam’s traditional sources. Much work has been done on the various
hadiths that indicate that graven images are forbidden and particular verses in the Qur’an that
allude to an aversion to them. However, little work has been done to understand this issue
through the qur’anic parables and exegesis. This paper explores the issue of Islam and image
through qur’anic exegesis, in particular, the story of Abraham as a youth breaking the idols in
his polytheistic town. By tracing the commentary of some of the major exegetes of the Qur’an,
such as al-Tabarı̄, al-Rāzı̄, Ibn Kathı̄r and Sayyid Qutb, this article considers how Islam has
˙ and how that view has either fluctuated or
viewed images ˙ remained constant over time.

Introduction
The question of Islam and icons has been of great interest to Western art historians who
debate their existence in classical Islamic history. Many have considered Islam to have
prohibited icons throughout its history, thus explaining why Islamic art developed in
unique ways that stressed geometric designs and calligraphy and steered away from the
making of inanimate representations of animate beings. But recent findings have
pointed to the fact that certain ‘icons’ were created, some even depicting Muhammad
in the effort to explain his miraculous life. Art historians have thus debated why some
Muslims throughout history have refrained from making images while others have not.
Additionally, with the recent destruction of the Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan,
many in the West have an increasing sense that Islam is hostile to images to the point
that they would like them to be destroyed. This feeling is also connected with the wider
belief held by some that Islam is against art and culture, and that it strives to return to a
traditional mode of life rather than to develop a creative modern identity.
This article will try to elucidate some of these themes by considering through qur’anic
exegesis how the Qur’an views the destruction of images. Islam has a rich history of com-
mentary on the Qur’an which has always been extremely influential. Many of the great

Correspondence Address: Younus Mirza, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, 241 Intercultural center,
Georgetown University, 37th & O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057-1020, USA. Email: YMirza3131@aol.com

0959-6410 Print=1469-9311 Online=05=040413–16 # 2005 CSIC and CMCU

DOI: 10.1080=09596410500250222
414 Y. Mirza

scholars of Islam wrote full length commentaries on the Qur’an which have become a
standard reference for understanding what the Qur’an, and hence God, is trying to
convey to humanity. This paper will analyse four of the greatest exegetes, al-Tabarı̄,
˙
al-Rāzı̄, Ibn Kathı̄r and Sayyid Qutb, who lived in different times in the Muslim world
˙
and used varying methodologies. Through summarizing and analysing their different
commentaries, the article will then show how their exegeses can be used as a vehicle to
understand how Islam views images.
The article will first cite and then summarize the verses concerning the story of
Abraham as an iconoclast. It will then move to examine chronologically the different
commentaries on these verses given by traditional and modern exegetes. Each section
will include a note on the commentator, summarize his commentary on the verses in ques-
tion, and then analyse his position. The last section will attempt to synthesize the various
commentaries in an effort to draw conclusions on Islam’s position on images and suggest
possible new areas of research.

The Qur’an and Images and the Significance of Abraham’s Iconoclasm

Among the major themes in the Qur’an is the discussion of how people have been led away
from the exclusive worship of God. In this discussion, the subject of idols is frequently
raised and they are indicated as a means through which people have been led astray and
have associated various beings and objects with God. For instance, the Qur’an (71.23)
alludes to the gods of Noah’s people. According to accounts in later sources, these are
statues of righteous men made by the people as reminders of God, but in time the
people forgot why they created the statues in the first place and began to treat them as
idols. The Qur’an also relates the story about Moses’ ascent up Mount Sinai to be with
God (Q 7.142 – 151). In his absence the children of Israel construct a golden calf which
they begin to worship despite the opposition of Aaron. When Moses returns he is
shocked at what he finds and seizes Aaron violently, asking him how he could allow
such a sin to occur (Hawting, 2001, p. 481). Aaron pleads with Moses for mercy saying
he was unable to prevent the people from their idolatry because he feared that they
would harm him. The instigator of the sin is eventually expelled and the Children of
Israel would later pay for their action with their death (although they would eventually
be brought back to life by God).
Idols were also a major obstacle in the way of Muhammad’s prophetic message to the
people of Mecca. Mecca was well known at the time as the capital of Arabia, housing the
various tribes’ idols in the Kacba. Because of the city’s religious significance, Arab tribes
would make annual pilgrimages to the city, which also had an impact on its becoming a
center for trade and commerce. So when Muhammad came with his message of absolute
monotheism, it was perceived not only as a religious threat but as a belief system that
could potentially undercut the economic structure of Meccan society. The Meccan
leaders feared that if they accepted Muhammad’s new message they would lose the profit-
able trade that resulted from the tribes coming to pay homage to their idols. Several of the
Arabian idols are mentioned by name in the Qur’an and are derided as man-made creations
that provide no spiritual or material gain (Q 53.19 – 25) (Hawting, 2001, p. 142).
However, the story of Abraham and his challenging of the idols in his society is unique
because it is the only story in the Qur’an in which one of the prophets physically breaks the
idols. The other prophets referred to in the Qur’an, such as Noah and Moses, try to
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 415

dissuade their people from worshiping idols while leading them to submit themselves to
God (71:23 –24),1 but none, apart from Abraham, ever takes a hostile stance towards
idols to the point of actually destroying them. Abraham thus presents a unique
example in the discussion of how Islam views images and whether it would sanction
iconoclasm.
Abraham is also distinct because he plays a foundational role in the development of the
Islamic tradition. He is given special recognition in Islam because he is said in the Qur’an
to be among the elite prophets who completed their mission on earth. There are several
stories in the Qur’an related to Abraham such as the birth of Isaac (Q 21.72; 37.112–
113), debates with different kings and peoples on the nature of God (e.g. Q 21.51 –71;
26.70 –82; 29.16 –18, 24 –25; 37.83 –98) and the command that he sacrifice his son
Ishmael (Q 37: 102 –107). This last story is important because it is the basis for
the second Muslim festival (the first being the celebration of the end of Ramadan),
c
ı̄d al-adhā, or the commemoration of the sacrifice, which takes place on the last day of
˙˙
the annual pilgrimage of the Hajj. Muslims throughout the world sacrifice sheep on this
day to commemorate Abraham’s and Ishmael’s willingness to submit their interests to
the will of God, and to show solidarity with the pilgrims making the sacrifice in Mecca.
Additionally, Abraham’s son Ishmael is seen as the ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad.
As the Qur’an mentions (14.37), Abraham leaves some members of his family ‘in a valley
without cultivation, by your sacred House’. Later tradition identifies these family members
as Hagar and Ishmael. After hearing Ishmael cry out in hunger, Hagar begins to run in
desperation between two mountains looking for water or for other signs of life. A
spring miraculously appears when the baby Ishmael rubs the earth with his heel, and
the two are saved from certain death in the desert. Hagar’s act of faith is imitated by
millions of Muslims from all over the world in the annual Hajj and the cumra, the volun-
tary pilgrimage. Pilgrims run between the mountains of Safa and Marwa commemorating
Hagar’s resolute faith in God and hope of his infinite mercy. Tradition relates that Arab
Bedouin tribes would later settle in the area in which Hagar discovered water and begin
the development of the city of Mecca. Ishmael grows up in this settlement, learns the
Arabic language and eventually marries within the tribe. Thus the tribe of Muhammad,
the Quraysh, is intimately connected with the legacy of Abraham.
Abraham is also significant because in more recent times there has been a movement to
understand him as a unifying figure of the three great monotheistic faiths: Islam,
Christianity and Judaism (Feiler, 2002, passim). He is recognized in all three faiths as
an exemplary figure who contributed to the development of each religious tradition
as is shown in the modern reference to these religions as ‘Abrahamic faiths’. There has
also been a call for American values to be recognized as more inclusive and for them
not to be referred to as simply Judeo-Christian but also as Judeo –Christian – Islamic or
‘Abrahamic’. In the recognition of the role of Abraham in each of these traditions there
is the hope of fostering interfaith dialogue and greater religious understanding.

The Qur’anic Story of Abraham and the Idols

The story of Abraham and the idols occurs in Sūrat al-anbiyā’, The Prophets (Q 21.51 – 70):

We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were we

acquainted with him. Behold! he said to his father and his people, ‘What are
416 Y. Mirza

these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?’ They said, ‘We found our
fathers worshipping them.’ He said, ‘Indeed ye have been in manifest error—ye and
your fathers.’ They said, ‘Have you brought us the Truth, or are you one of those
who jest?’ He said, ‘Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He
Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth). And by
God, I have a plan for your idols—after ye go away and turn your backs.’ So he
broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and
address themselves) to it. They said, ‘Who has done this to our gods? He must
indeed be some man of impiety!’ They said, ‘We heard a youth talk of them: He
is called Abraham.’ They said, ‘Then bring him before the eyes of the people,
that they may bear witness.’ They said, ‘Art thou the one that did this with our
gods, O Abraham?’ He said: ‘Nay, this was done by—this is their biggest one!
Ask them, if they can speak intelligently!’ So they turned to themselves and said,
‘Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!’ Then were they confounded with shame:
(they said), ‘Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!’ (Abraham)
said, ‘Do ye then worship, besides Allah, things that can neither be of any good
to you nor do you harm? Fie upon you, and upon the things that ye worship
besides God. Have ye no sense?’ They said, ‘Burn him and protect your gods, if
ye do (anything at all)!’ We said, ‘O Fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety
for Abraham!’ Then they sought a stratagem against him: but we made them the
ones that lost most!

As traditionally understood, this story takes place when Abraham is a youth and is becom-
ing increasingly aware of the oneness of God or tawhı̄d. He begins to challenge his idol-
˙
worshiping society, beginning with his father, by asking why they worship such objects
instead of God, the creator of all things. They stubbornly reply that they found their
fathers worshipping idols and that these idols have become an indispensable part of
their culture and tradition. Abraham, who is frustrated by this reply, asserts that this
tradition is wrong because the true God is the God of the universe. It is He alone who
should be worshipped and should not be associated with any other thing. Abraham then
plots to show his people the absurdity of their idol worshipping and why idols are deficient
compared with God. While the townspeople are away at a celebration, Abraham sneaks
into the area where the idols are kept and destroys them all except the biggest. When
the townspeople return they see their idols in ruins and immediately seek to find the per-
petrator of the crime. Rumors seem to point to Abraham because of his previous question-
ing of the idols’ legitimacy and his desire to see his people worship the one God. The town
leaders bring Abraham out to the public and ask him if he committed the crime. He
responds slyly that it was the big idol that destroyed the other idols and mockingly says
that they should ask the big idol, if they believe ‘he could speak intelligently’. Their
response affirms the obvious, that the idols cannot speak, giving Abraham the opportunity
to question how people could worship beings that have no intelligence. For Abraham,
these idols do ‘no good or no harm’ and are obstacles that distract people from the
worship of God.
The leaders of the town are immediately thrown into a state of disorder. Abraham has
just publicly denounced the town’s gods, logically proven their insignificance and implied
the foolishness of those that worship them. They eventually decide to execute Abraham
publicly in an attempt to save their town’s culture and tradition and make an example
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 417

of him to the community. However, when they throw Abraham into the fire, God cools the
fire and saves him from death. This becomes a sign from God to Abraham’s people as well
as to all of creation that God will stand by His servants and will protect them from those
who try to harm them.

Al-Tabarı̄
˙
Our first exegete is Abū Jacfar Muhammad Jarı̄r al-Tabarı̄, who lived in the ninth century
˙ ˙
and is known as the father of qur’anic exegeses. His voluminous commentary is known ‘as
the tafsı̄r [qur’anic exegesis] par excellence’ (Bosworth, 1960). It is unique because it is
the first of its kind that ‘treated the Kur’anic verses from a grammatical and lexicographi-
cal stand point, but also made dogmatic theological and legal deductions from the
Kur’anic text’ (ibid.). Through his unique style of quoting various traditions on a given
verse, al-Tabarı̄ attempts to canonize the rich Islamic oral tradition on the Qur’an.
˙
However, he does insert his own view on the text through the way he arranges the narra-
tions and by occasionally explicitly asserting his own opinion. His exegesis is considered a
classic and it is still used today by Muslims to understand the meaning of the Qur’an.
Al-Tabarı̄ begins his commentary (to be found at www.al-quran.com) on the first verse
˙
by explaining that Abraham had been given guidance by God just as the other prophets,
such as Moses, Jesus, Aaron and Muhammad, had been guided. He also points out that
Abraham was unique because he was given guidance when ‘he was young’ to the
extent that he had complete faith in God and never associated anything with him. This
is evident in the next verse when Abraham questions his father and the people about
why they are devoted to these ‘images’. Al-Tabarı̄ explains that these ‘images’ are not
˙
‘pictures’ (ibid.) but more accurately ‘idols’ that Abraham’s people were continuously
devoted to. They worshipped them because they wanted to stay on the ‘path’ of their fore-
fathers and maintain their religious tradition. Seeing this polytheism, Abraham challenges
his people by claiming that they have digressed from the clear path of truth and subverted
their intellects to their deviations. When the townspeople ask if he is speaking the truth or
simply jesting, Abraham asserts that he is not joking but bringing the truth of the one God
who created the heavens and the earth without the aid of any idols. These ‘images’ do ‘no
benefit or harm’ and only distract people from the worship of God.
Abraham subsequently decides to destroy the idols after the townspeople leave the town
for their annual celebration. Al-Tabarı̄ quotes a narration that several of the people hear
˙
Abraham say that he has a ‘plan for [their] idols’. This occurs, according to another narra-
tion, when Abraham’s father asks him to join his people in the celebration. Abraham
initially agrees but when he is about to leave the town he says that he is sick. Al-Tabarı̄
˙
relates that a group of townspeople had overheard Abraham saying when he was returning
to the town that he had a plan for the idols and so immediately point to him when the
town’s leaders ask who destroyed their gods. Al-Tabarı̄ continues to explain that
˙
Abraham destroyed all of the town’s ‘gods’ except the biggest one. After he demolishes
all of the smaller idols, Abraham puts the axe, the tool he used to destroy them, in the
hand (or wraps it around the neck in another narration) of the biggest idol. He does this
so that his people will ‘consider and learn’ that their gods bring no benefit, realize that
their idols could not defend themselves from destruction and return to the ‘tawhı̄d of God’.
˙
When the townspeople return they see their gods in ruin and instantly ask who did it.
They receive the response that a young man named Abraham had been heard to plot to
418 Y. Mirza

destroy their gods. The ‘leaders of the people’ then state that they should bring Abraham
out before the ‘eyes of the people’ to be questioned. Al-Tabarı̄ then states two opinions on
˙
why the leaders of the town would do this. The first is so they could have the townspeople
witness the questioning to ensure that no punishment takes place without it being clear that
he committed the crime. The second is that they wanted the people to witness the question-
ing and punishment of Abraham so he could be held up as an example of those who chal-
lenged the town’s traditions. When Abraham is brought out and questioned, he responds
that it was not he but rather the biggest idol that committed the crime. Here, al-Tabarı̄
˙
quotes a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad which states that Abraham never lied apart
from three times. The first was when he said that he was sick, the second is this instance
when he states that the biggest idol destroyed the smaller ones, and the last was when he
said that his wife Sarah was actually his sister in an attempt to save her from Pharaoh.
Al-Tabarı̄ also sees this ‘lie’ as similar to when Joseph accuses his brothers in the
˙
Qur’an of stealing even though they had not stolen anything (Q 12:70). Abraham then
invites the leaders to ask the biggest idol if it destroyed the smaller ones. In a state of con-
fusion and disarray, they ‘begin to look at one another’ and start to ponder on the weight of
Abraham’s words. They realize the truth of his argument but respond by declaring that he
should know that the idols do not speak. Abraham then asks why they worship things that
they have created and do ‘no benefit or harm’. He argues that they should abandon these
idols and worship the God of the heavens and the earth ‘whose hand contains all that is
beneficial and harmful’. However, the town’s leaders refuse to abandon the ways of
their fathers and decide to execute Abraham by burning him alive. Al-Tabarı̄ then pro-
˙
ceeds to discuss which people historically tried to kill Abraham, narrating different
opinions ranging from Nimrod to Hizan, and ends the story with a long commentary on
the verse about God ordering the fire to become ‘cool and peaceful’. Al-Tabarı̄ narrates
˙
different transmissions of what Abraham actually said when he was about to be thrown
into the fire. There are also different narrations about how Abraham was saved from the
fire, ranging from the angel Gabriel coming from heaven to rescue Abraham, to rain begin-
ning to fall. Al-Tabarı̄ is additionally interested in the use of the words ‘cold and peaceful’
˙
in the verse. He gives the opinion that God could have made the fire so cold that it could
have killed Abraham, but God also made it ‘peaceful’ so Abraham could survive.
As shown in the summary above, al-Tabarı̄ is not entirely concerned with the idols as
˙
images. He does not go into a long exposé on how images are forbidden in Islam or
how Muslims should abstain from drawing animate creatures. These ‘images’ referred
to in the story are interpreted by al-Tabarı̄ to be ‘idols’ that are leading the people away
˙
from worshipping the one God. This worship of the one God and not associating anything
with him is known in Islamic tradition as tawhı̄d. It is the most fundamental principle in
˙
Islam constantly emphasized in the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions. It is also the oppo-
site of shirk, which is associating anything with God. Throughout Islamic tradition and
history, shirk has been seen as the gravest sin and one that will not be forgiven by God.
It also has serious social and political implications because it can put the one who
commits it outside of the fold of Islam. Al-Tabarı̄ sees this story as essentially one
˙
about tawhı̄d in which Abraham is the courageous youth who challenges shirk in his
˙
society. The images are thus a representation of shirk and by destroying the idols he is
ridding the society of its major ills. But as al-Tabarı̄ points out, Abraham is not simply
˙
trying to destroy the idols as a quick solution to the problem, but rather trying to reveal
the foolishness of the town’s actions in an effort to steer his people to the worship of
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 419

God. This is evident in his debates with the townspeople and constant questioning of why
they worship beings that do no benefit or harm. Al-Tabarı̄ also emphasizes that even
˙
though Abraham’s actions were met with the harsh sentence of death, he is still victorious
because he maintains his belief in God and is saved miraculously from the fire. The moral
is given that even though the disbelievers plotted against Abraham, God’s plan will
forever prevail and the believers will always be successful.
As alluded to above, al-Tabarı̄ focuses most on Abraham’s lie, the way in which the fire
˙
became ‘cool and peaceful’, and who tried to kill Abraham, rather than on the inanimate
objects. He quotes various hadiths and narrations that discuss how Abraham’s lies
were legitimate because they were told for the right reasons. Various narrations are also
quoted about how Abraham was saved from the fire, ranging from angels descending
from heaven to the sudden start of rain. He also enters into a short discussion of who
tried to kill Abraham and attempts to identify them historically. It is notable in and of
itself that al-Tabarı̄ is almost silent on the idols and their destruction, neither promoting
˙
nor condemning it.

Al-Rāzı̄
Our next exegete is the great Fakhr al-Dı̄n al-Rāzı̄, who lived mostly in the twelfth century
and died in 1210 CE. His exegetical style is distinct because he ‘shifts the authority of
interpretation to the philosophical and theological, subordinating the traditional and
philological readings of Muslim exegesis to those of the philosophers and theologians’
(Jaffer, 2004). His commentary is thus unique compared with that of others because he
incorporates much of the philosophical and theological debate of his time into his
exegesis. This approach still borrows heavily from traditional exegesis but its fresh
style creates exceptional interpretations that are not found in other commentaries.
Al-Rāzı̄ begins his exegesis by examining what the Qur’an means by saying: ‘We
bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct’ (Q 21.51). He holds that this
section of the verse could be interpreted in a variety of ways, including that Abraham
was given guidance in terms of becoming a prophet and was given true understanding
when he was a youth (Rāzı̄, 1934 –62, p. 180). The story then begins with Abraham
questioning his father and the people about why they were so devoted to their ‘images’.
Al-Rāzı̄ takes great interest in the choice of the word ‘images’, defining an image as some-
thing ‘that is created (by humans) and finds similarity in the creation of God’ (ibid.). It
could also mean in this context that Abraham’s people used to worship idols that
resembled human beings. The only reply that they are able to give to Abraham is that
they found their fathers worshipping these idols and wanted to follow the ‘way of their
tradition’ (ibid., p. 181). Abraham counters confidently that they and their fathers have
been in clear error. The people of Abraham reply apprehensively asking if he is sincerely
bringing the truth or simply trying to be argumentative. Abraham answers back, asserting
that he is bringing the truth and is calling his people to worship ‘your Lord (which) is the
Lord of the heavens and the earth, He who created [you] (from nothing)’. Al-Rāzı̄ inter-
prets this last section of the verse to prove that God creates things for the benefit and not
the harm of human beings. Abraham then proceeds to distinguish himself from his people
by avowing that he is a ‘witness’ to God’s majesty and that God is the creator of all things.
He then moves to show his people that he is not joking and that he is both serious in ‘word
and action’ about the true nature of tawhı̄d (Rāzı̄, 1934– 62, p. 181). When the people
˙
420 Y. Mirza

leave town for their annual celebration Abraham is invited to go with them but he says that
he is sick and will stay behind. According to some interpretations that al-Rāzı̄ provides, as
he leaves to return to the town he utters the phrase that he has ‘a plan for [the townspeo-
ple’s] idols’ (ibid., p. 182). Immediately upon his return to the town, he proceeds to break
all the idols, except the biggest, with an axe and then wraps the axe around the biggest
idol’s neck (ibid., p. 183). Abraham does this so that his people will ‘return’ to God
and worship him dutifully. Al-Rāzı̄ also explains that the word ‘return’ could also mean
that Abraham’s people would ‘return’ to the biggest idol and realize that he was undeser-
ving of their devotion. When the townspeople come back to the town the leaders ask
angrily who destroyed their deities. This act of destroying the idols was seen as ‘criminal’,
a ‘transgression’ and a tremendous ‘insult’ to the town (ibid.). Several people respond, as
mentioned above, that a young man named Abraham had been challenging the town’s
gods and had promised to plan something against them. The town’s leaders order that
Abraham must be brought before the ‘eyes of the people’ which, as in al-Tabarı̄, is
˙
given two interpretations. The first is that Abraham should be brought out in public so
he can defend himself in front of a large number of witnesses. The second is that the
leaders wanted the townspeople to observe his punishment so they would understand
the fate of those who dare to challenge the town’s gods (ibid.). When Abraham is
brought out in public he is asked whether he committed the crime. He replies audaciously
that it was not he but rather the biggest idol and that they should ask him if he could speak.
Al-Rāzı̄ proceeds to spend a large part of his commentary exploring whether Abraham told
a lie, and if he did, how it would be excusable. Al-Rāzı̄ provides seven excuses for why
Abraham’s statement could be interpreted as not being a lie, varying from how his declara-
tion was understood by the people, to the actual words Abraham uses. He concludes this
discussion by arguing that lying is acceptable when it is used against transgressors and
when it is done for the ‘greater good of the community’ (ibid., p. 185). He justifies this
by quoting a hadith, which is also quoted by al-Tabarı̄, that states that Abraham only
˙
lied three times. He also narrates several traditions that permit lying to one’s enemies
especially in times of war. The leaders then ‘return to themselves’ (ibid., p. 186)
because they realize their ignorance and delusion. They lash out, telling Abraham that
he should know that the idols do not speak. This leads Abraham to ‘furiously’ (ibid.,
p. 187) question why they worship beings that do no benefit or harm. The leaders have
now had enough of Abraham’s arguments and order that he be burned alive. Al-Rāzı̄
goes into some detail trying to define exactly who it was that ordered Abraham to be
burned and presumes that it must be a man named Heron who God punished in his
grave until the Day of Judgment (ibid.). The townspeople then prepare a conflagration
which is so immense that it reaches the ‘birds’ (ibid.). As Abraham is about to be
thrown into the fire he ‘looks to the sky’ and calls out to God, ‘Oh God, you are one in
the sky, and I am the only believer on earth, there is nobody that worships God besides
me, you are sufficient for me and it is you I trust’ (ibid.). In another narration, he says
‘Oh God, there is no God but you, glory be to you, to you is praise, the kingdom of the
universe, and I do not associate anything with you’ (ibid., p. 188). God hears Abraham’s
prayer and saves him by making the fire ‘cool and peaceful’. This last section of the verse
is also of great interest to al-Rāzı̄, who attempts to interpret how the fire could become cool
and peaceful. He cites miscellaneous traditions which include Gabriel descending from the
sky to ask Abraham if needs help, the idea that Abraham stayed in the fire without being
hurt for days and that when he was actually thrown into the fire the only thing that was
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 421

burned was his chains (ibid.). Al-Rāzı̄ continues this discussion for another page asking
questions relating to how the fire could become ‘cold’ and what it means for a fire to
become ‘peaceful’.
As seen above, al-Rāzı̄ is interested in why the Qur’an uses the word ‘images’ tamāthı̄l
in the story as opposed to other verses in which the Qur’an uses the word ‘idols’ asnām. He
˙
defines an image as something that reflects a similarity with God’s creation and explains
that the Qur’an probably uses this word rather than ‘idols’ because the idols in Abraham’s
town were most likely made to look like human beings. There is a slight negative connota-
tion in the way al-Rāzı̄ defines ‘images’ as something that resembles God’s creation.
However, he does not discuss the use of images in Islam at length and clearly does not
prohibit their production.
Al-Rāzı̄ seems more concerned with issues relating to faith and with building a vivid
narrative. He repeatedly brings up the issue of tawhı̄d and the difficulties that Abraham
˙
faces in fighting against shirk. When the people in the beginning of the story ask
Abraham if he is serious or simply joking in his argumentation, al-Rāzı̄ states that
Abraham is sincere in both ‘word and action’ in asserting tawhı̄d. He also affirms
˙
God’s oneness and denies associating anything with him when he prays before being
thrown into the fire. Al-Rāzı̄ is additionally interested in issues relating to the idea of Abra-
ham’s lying, exactly who tried to kill Abraham and the nature of how the fire became ‘cold
and peaceful’. Throughout the commentary, he tries to set the scene by giving as much
detail as possible and using colorful language and various narrations. He spends a good
amount of time describing the immensity of the fire and goes into specifics about how
Abraham could possibly have been saved.

Ibn Kathı̄r
Our next exegete is the famous Ibn Kathı̄r, who lived in the fourteenth century. His exe-
getical style is marked by his reference to other verses in the Qur’an and his frequent use of
hadith traditions. As a student of the great Hanbalite jurist Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathı̄r uses
˙
the Hanbalı̄ methodology that sees the Prophet, the Companions and the successors of the
˙
Companions as the ultimate authority in religious teachings. This school of thought is
therefore more hadith-based than other schools of thought that are more rational or
more inclined to look at the normative practices of Medinan society.2 This is apparent
throughout his exegesis, which frequently refers to the lives of the Prophet Muhammad
and the great Companions.
At the beginning of his commentary on the verses Ibn Kathir emphasizes that God
begins the story by saying that he gave Abraham guidance and therefore the whole narra-
tive should be a source of inspiration. In particular, Abraham should be seen as a model
because he challenges his society by questioning his father and the people about why
they are devoted to their idols. The townspeople respond that they found their fathers wor-
shipping these idols and want to maintain their traditions. Ibn Kathı̄r sees this response as
extremely weak because it is the only reason they have to justify their worship. When the
townspeople ask Abraham if he is jesting or serious about bringing the truth, Abraham
demonstrates his unwavering faith by asserting to his people that there ‘is no God
except God’ (Ibn Kathı̄r, 1978, p. 868), and that it is he who created the heavens and
the earth, and all things between. Abraham further demonstrates his faith by testifying
openly: ‘I am a witness to this (Truth)’ that there is no God except the one true God.
422 Y. Mirza

Ibn Kathı̄r subsequently explains that Abraham begins to plot to ‘break’ the idols after
the townspeople leave the town for their annual celebration (ibid.). Abraham destroys all
the idols except the biggest and puts the tool that he destroys them with in the ‘hand of the
biggest one’ (ibid.). When the townspeople return, they see their idols in ruin and feel
humiliated and debased. They immediately ask who could have carried out such a
crime and hear that a ‘young man’ (ibid., p. 869) named Abraham was possibly behind
the ‘transgression’ (ibid.) because he was heard to have been plotting against the idols.
The most ‘prestigious leaders’ (ibid.) of the town then bring Abraham out in front of
the people to ask him if the rumors are true. Abraham replies that it was the biggest
idol who did it and they should ask the idol ‘if he could speak’. Ibn Kathı̄r comments
that Abraham does this in the hope that his people will truly reflect on what they
worship, realize that their gods have no intelligence and eventually abandon the adoration
of inanimate objects. Here Ibn Kathı̄r explores the issue of Abraham lying and quotes the
hadith, which is also cited by al-Tabarı̄ and al-Rāzı̄, that ‘Abraham never told a lie except
˙
three times’ and explains that this incident was one of those occasions. Ibn Kathı̄r follows
this hadith with the second incident in which Abraham was believed to have lied when he
was afraid that his wife Sarah would be taken prisoner by Pharaoh. After the narration, Ibn
Kathı̄r returns to comment that the leaders ‘returned to themselves’ because they wanted to
protect their gods. They immediately pronounce Abraham a criminal and question him
about why they should ask the idols when they all know that they do not speak. This
plays right into the hands of Abraham who asks how they could then worship beings
that do no benefit or harm.
Ibn Kathı̄r proceeds to describe the scene where the town’s leaders gather all the towns-
people to witness Abraham being executed by being thrown into a tremendous fire.
According to another hadith, when Abraham is about to be thrown into the fire he
states: ‘Allah is sufficient for me and I put my trust in him’ (ibid.) It is explained that
Abraham, along with other righteous believers, has great trust in God and believes He
will save him from any harm. According to the interpretation of the famous Companion
of the Prophet and qur’anic commentator, Ibn cAbbās, God responds to Abraham’s
prayer by sending rain which leaves only a small part of the fire burning. This saves
Abraham from the evil plot of the leaders, who are understood to be defeated by the
greater plan of God.
As seen in the earlier commentaries, Ibn Kathı̄r is not concerned with images as such but
rather with shirk or associating anything to God. Idols are seen in this context to be nega-
tive not because they are images per se but rather because they distract human beings from
tawhı̄d. Ibn Kathı̄r sees Abraham in the story as a prophet who is attempting to guide his
˙
people to the true monotheism that was upheld by all righteous people throughout time.
These idols have taken Abraham’s people away from God and so Abraham devises a
plan to show that their worship of them is nothing but foolishness.
Ibn Kathı̄r’s lack of emphasis on images is also relevant because his exegetical style
falls into the category of tafsı̄r ma’thūr, or hadith-based commentary. As seen in
the summary above, he frequently uses hadith or the opinions of the Companions of the
Prophet to expound the meanings of the verses. This is significant because in modern
times, hadiths are usually used to justify the belief that images are forbidden in Islam.
However, Ibn Kathı̄r does not quote any hadith regarding the prohibition of images in
this passage but rather emphasizes the problem of shirk and the importance of tawhı̄d.
˙
He seems to be more concerned with the issue of Abraham, who is seen as the ideal
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 423

believer, lying to the town’s leaders, than with the fact that he destroyed the idols. All the
prophets in Islam are understood to be model servants of God in that they have the finest of
characters and actively call others to God’s worship and service. Yet, Abraham is seen
here to be undoubtedly lying and thus going against the exemplary moral character
found in all the other prophets. Ibn Kathı̄r justifies this by quoting the hadith that is
narrated by the other exegetes too, which says that Abraham never lied apart from three
times. Each lie was justified and excusable because Abraham was striving for something
greater. In this particular story, Abraham was trying to guide his people away from the
idols and back to God, so his lie was excusable. Ibn Kathı̄r is lastly interested in how
God saved Abraham from the fire. He quotes several narrations that Abraham made a
specific prayer before being thrown into the fire and that God sent rain to extinguish the
inferno. This act of God saving Abraham demonstrates his promise to protect believers
as well as his ability to respond to their prayers.

Sayyid Qutb
˙
Out last exegete, Sayyid Qutb, is the most modern, having lived in the mid-twentieth
˙
century. He spent most of his life in Egypt (though he spent a short time in the United
States), and witnessed the rise of secular Arab nationalism which sought to unite
Middle Eastern countries on the basis of Arabism. He gradually grew disenchanted with
the movement and with modernity in general and desired to ‘become part of the revolu-
tionary movement aimed at changing the world and bringing in a new ethical moral
order based on freedom, brotherhood, and justice for all’ (Haddad, 1983, p. 67). He
eventually joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which saw Islam as a complete way of life,
and quickly became the editor of their newspaper. Qutb would go on to write his great
˙
commentary Fı̄ zill al-Qur’ān (In the Shade of the Qur’an) while being in and out of
˙
jail on charges of conspiring to overthrow the Egyptian government. He would later be
convicted of conspiracy against the state and was hanged in 1966, instantly becoming a
martyr of the Islamic revivalist movement.
Qutb starts his exegesis by commenting on the first verse, which shows that Abraham
˙
was given guidance and so his actions should be a source of inspiration for all believers
(Qutb, 1961, p. 37). He then proceeds to the story, and points out that Abraham asks
his people why they worship ‘images’, using that word rather than ‘gods’ (ibid., p. 38).
This is significant for Qutb because it shows that the idols of Abraham’s town were not
˙
worshipped continuously but rather only revered. Qutb’s commentary is very harsh
˙
towards the townspeople and their response to Abraham’s question regarding their
reason for worshipping the idols because of their forefathers. For Qutb, this shows how
˙
tradition had frozen their minds and souls ‘into stone’ (ibid.) to the point that they
could no longer distinguish between right and wrong. Faith, in comparison to polytheism,
is a liberating force that frees people from the limitations of false traditions. This is what
Qutb argues is the essential message of Abraham’s reply, in which he asserts that the
˙
townspeople and fathers are in ‘manifest error’. Value, for Qutb, does not come from
˙
culture or tradition but rather through what is essentially right and divine. The townspeo-
ple respond by asking if Abraham is bringing the truth or is just joking. Qutb understands
˙
this reply as the response of people who are insecure in their faith. Worship can only be
carried out with ‘certainty’ and cannot be based on ‘shaky’ belief systems that are illogical
and man-made (ibid.). However, Abraham represents the ideal believer because he is
424 Y. Mirza

confident in his belief that God is one and that he is the God ‘of the heavens and the earth’
(ibid.). He is not afraid to assert his faith in the face of opposition and has no doubt that his
belief is the correct one. Abraham is a ‘witness’ to God because he knows that it is not the
idols ‘that create, but it is God who is the creator’ (ibid., p. 39) of all that is in the universe.
Abraham then plans to show that the idols are powerless by destroying all of them
except the biggest. He does this so his people will ask how the idols could be present
and not defend each other from destruction. He also hopes that his people may realize
their foolishness and ‘may return’ (ibid.) to God. However, when the townspeople
return they are not concerned with the defenseless nature of their idols. Qutb argues
˙
that this is because tradition has prevented them from contemplation and from thinking
of a reality outside of their inherited culture. Rather, they ask who destroyed their idols
and immediately receive the response that it could possibly be a ‘youth’ named
Abraham who had previously shown aversion to the idols and promised to plan something
against them. The town leaders then bring Abraham before the ‘eyes of the people’ and ask
him if he destroyed the idols. Realizing that he is outnumbered but on the path of God, he
responds jeeringly that it was not he but rather the biggest idol. To verify this, Abraham
tells the town’s leaders that they should ask the biggest idol ‘if he could speak’ (ibid.,
p. 41). This response ‘shakes’ (ibid.) the belief system of the leaders tremendously and
they begin to reflect and consult one another on what they should do next. They impul-
sively respond that Abraham is a transgressor even though their ‘eyes have been
opened for the first time’ (ibid.) in that they begin to question themselves about why
they worship mindless beings. However, despite realizing the falsity of their idols they
do not have the courage to go against their celebrated traditions. In a state of confusion
and frustration, they violently order that Abraham must be burned alive. Yet, despite
this ruling, Abraham is ‘patient and forbearing’ (ibid.) and continues to ask how anyone
could worship something that gives no benefit or harm and stands in opposition to God.
But the leaders are no longer interested in Abraham’s arguments and ‘act in the way
tyrants act when they lose an argument’ (ibid.), which is to extinguish their opposition.
They plan to execute Abraham publicly by throwing him into a great fire but their plan
is subverted by God, whose plans always prevail. As Abraham is thrown into the fire,
God orders the fire to be ‘cool and peaceful’ and it instantly responds, saving Abraham
from immediate death. Qutb discusses how other commentators, such as those examined
˙
above, have questioned how the fire could become cool, but for Qutb, this issue is irrele-
˙
vant because God states in another verse that ‘if God wants anything all he has to say is
“be” and it is’ (ibid., p. 42). The question of why or how is not important for Qutb because
˙
God can do anything He wills regardless of whether man can comprehend it or not. Qutb
˙
takes this stand because he sees no clear evidence in other qur’anic verses of how such a
miracle could occur, so he believes that Muslims should accept the story at face value and
not delve into the realm of conjecture.
Qutb then emphasizes the interesting fact that a youth could make such a dramatic
˙
impact on an entire society. Despite the town’s efforts to kill him, he is saved by God
as a sign of God’s infinite powers. The plans of the disbelievers ultimately fail because
the Qur’an says that the town ‘desired a plan, but we (God) made them the losers’
(ibid.). Qutb concludes by mentioning that some commentators have argued that
˙
Nimrud was the one who tried to kill Abraham. But this is of no importance for Qutb
˙
and he rather focuses on the fact that God saved Abraham from those who attempted to
plot against him (ibid., p. 43).
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 425

From the summary presented above, it is clear that Qutb is interested in deriving as
˙
many lessons as possible from the story especially in terms of the struggle between
truth and falsehood represented by Abraham and his people. He does not go into a long
commentary on why images are forbidden in Islam or why idols should not be worshipped.
Rather he is interested in why they were worshipped and what distracts people in general
from worshipping God. As mentioned above, Qutb was writing at a time of Islamic revival
˙
when he was trying to create a vanguard of believers who would oppose the dominant
secular and materialistic worldview. Qutb believed that in his time God was not given
˙
the attention he deserves, that humanity had distanced themselves from the essential teach-
ings of the Qur’an and that Muslims had created new gods out of Western ideologies
which are symbolically akin to the worship of idols. This could be one of the reasons
why he repeatedly attacks the blind following of tradition. As seen by Qutb, ‘tradition’
˙
takes on a negative connotation and is associated with the townspeople worshipping the
idols. ‘Tradition’ freezes their minds ‘into stone’ (ibid., p. 36) by preventing the townspeo-
ple from worshipping God, thinking critically about their idols and understanding
Abraham’s logical arguments. It also ultimately forces the town’s leaders to try to kill
Abraham in an effort to preserve their traditions from further questioning. Thus it is not
images themselves that are negative, but rather traditions that prevent people from analyti-
cal reasoning and from realizing the true nature of tawhı̄d. This stark criticism of
˙
‘tradition’ is no doubt connected to a wider critique of Qutb’s society. He sees Egyptian
˙
society and Muslims at large following Western ideologies, cultures and traditions in
preference to those that would be considered Islamic. The story of Abraham then
becomes an interesting metaphor: the town’s leaders are the West while Abraham is
Qutb and the righteous Muslims. Qutb is encouraging his readers to do what Abraham
˙ ˙
did in challenging the dominant societal worldview. This may cause strong opposition,
as seen with the town’s leaders, and may result in persecution, as seen in the failed
attempted execution, but God has promised the believers that they will be successful.
It is also apparent that Qutb is not interested in the details of the story or in building a
˙
narrative. As seen above, he does not concern himself with what type of idols they are,
what they look like or how they were made. Neither is he interested, as the other commen-
tators were, in how Abraham was saved from the fire or the names of the people who tried
to execute him. Rather, he examines the different lessons and values that contemporary
believers can derive from this qur’anic parable. In this understanding, it is not necessarily
important that the characters in the stories were historical figures. Instead, the stories, and
their various elements, take on a more symbolic role of informing believers how they
should live their lives as righteous human beings.

Analysis of Exegetes in Relation to Islam and Images

After summarizing and analyzing all the commentators, it is clear that the greatest concern
for all the exegetes is the belief in tawhı̄d and the fear of committing shirk. Each commen-
˙
tator understands this story as one about tawhı̄d, in which Abraham challenges the shirk of
˙
his society and calls his people to the oneness of God. This is explicit in al-Tabarı̄ when he
˙
explains that Abraham destroyed the idols of his town so that his people may return to the
‘tawhı̄d of God’. Al-Tabarı̄ believes that Abraham does not feel any animosity or ill-will
˙ ˙
towards his people but rather wants the best for them by bringing them to follow the truth
of worshipping God alone.
426 Y. Mirza

Al-Rāzı̄ also emphasizes tawhı̄d by citing the various prayers that Abraham might have
˙
said when he was about to be thrown into the fire. These narrations could very well be
fabricated because they are not cited and do not appear in any well-known hadith collec-
tion. They do nonetheless show us how al-Rāzı̄ interprets the story as a means of affirming
God’s oneness. In both narrations that al-Rāzı̄ quotes, Abraham begins his prayer by
invoking the unity and inimitability of God by stating that there is no god but the one
true God. The first narration is unique because Abraham asks God not to allow him to
be executed because he is the only believer on earth. If he is killed there will be no one
after him to worship God correctly and call humanity to tawhı̄d. The second narration
˙
is also distinct because Abraham uses the word shirk, saying: ‘Oh God. . .I do not
commit shirk.’ These prayers are important because God answers them by miraculously
saving Abraham from the fire and thus affirming their content.
Ibn Kathı̄r also emphasizes tawhı̄d when he discusses Abraham’s response to the
˙
people’s question of whether he is seriously bringing the truth or simply jesting. Ibn
Kathı̄r states that Abraham is bringing the truth ‘that there is no God but God’ and that
Abraham is a ‘witness’ to God’s sovereignty over the ‘heavens and the earth’. Qutb,
˙
additionally, sees Abraham as a courageous revolutionary who challenges the polytheistic
foundation of his society. Abraham is the model believer because he debates the issue of
tawhı̄d with his people, tries to point them to God by destroying the idols and is even
˙
willing to sacrifice himself for tawhı̄d. Throughout the commentary, Qutb emphasizes
˙ ˙
that the polytheists are insecure in their beliefs and that Abraham is confident in
his faith in God. It is this certainty of faith that ultimately prevails when God saves
Abraham from his execution.
None of the exegetes focus on the issue of Islam’s view concerning inanimate images.
Al-Rāzı̄ gives the most commentary on the word ‘images’ by defining them as things that
resemble the creation of God and suggesting that the idols in Abraham’s town probably
resembled human beings. Even though al-Rāzı̄ gives a negative connotation to the word
‘images’ as used in the story, he does not explicitly prohibit their manufacture.
Al-Tabarı̄ and Ibn Kathı̄r do not take any real interest in the choice of the word
˙
‘images’ and interpret it to mean ‘idols’. Qutb distinguishes between ‘images’ and
˙
‘idols’ only for the purpose of explaining the townspeople’s relationship to the idols.
Qutb argues that by using the word ‘images’ and not ‘idols’ the Qur’an gives the
˙
impression that they were not consistently worshipped but are only greatly revered.
However, it could be convincingly argued that the commentators would probably
approve of iconoclasm or ‘more preferably aniconism’ (Grabar, 1996, p. 99). Aniconism
leads ‘to the consistent avoidance of strong visual symbols for states or for dynasties as
well as to an apparent paucity of formal and consistent religious symbols’ (ibid.).
Religious symbols do appear in ‘folk art’ (ibid., p. 100) but they are scarcely found in
the high art of the various Islamic empires. Even the Ottoman Empire, which was
influenced by Italy and ancient Rome, ‘developed an almost fanatical avoidance of
mimetic themes or of non-representational alternative symbols in both its public art and
such of its industrial arts as ceramics and textiles’ (ibid.). It could be said that these were:

attitudes, some directly derived from the Koranic message, others from historical
circumstances, that became not so much rules as formal approaches, conscious or
hidden intellectual and aesthetic programs, and eventually social and sensual
habits carried on by successive generations of Muslims through whatever means
 Abraham as an Iconoclast 427

many different societies had developed for the transmission of commonly held
values and constraints. (ibid.)

This sentiment is evident in the commentators because they do not prohibit the making of
images but the images nevertheless carry a negative connotation in that they have the
potential for leading human beings away from God. In also important to note that no com-
mentator makes any effort to distinguish between different types of images or to argue that
certain types are permissible.
This, nevertheless, leads to the question of the relationship between Islam and images
which are not worshipped. As seen with the exegeses above, the commentators are against
the images in the story because they represent idols that are actively worshipped by the
townspeople. These idols must be avoided because they are a violation of the fundamental
principle of tawhı̄d and are a clear form of shirk. When Abraham is destroying the
˙
‘images’ he is really destroying the idols which have become the town’s deities.
However, would these images be permissible if they were not worshipped or revered?
We would possibly have to look at other verses that discuss idols and contain the word
‘images’ in order better to understand views towards inanimate representations.

Conclusion
The relationship between Islam and images remains a fiercely debated topic in modern
times. Questions have surfaced, especially after the Buddhist temple bombings in
Afghanistan, about whether Islam is against inanimate images. Among the best ways to
answer this question is to examine how the Qur’an views the destruction of images.
The Qur’an discusses images and idols at length as a means by which people have been
led astray and away from the worship of God. But there is only one story that discusses
the actual breaking of idols and that is the story of the young Abraham. This story therefore
presents an important case study in how Islam views images and whether it would sanction
iconoclasm.
To best understand the Qur’an’s meanings, it would be essential to look at qur’anic
exegeses. Islam has a rich history of qur’anic interpretation and many great scholars
have written full-length commentaries. These exegeses are also important because they
allow us to see how the Qur’an was historically understood and what questions early
Muslims were interested in answering. In order to present a wide-ranging perspective,
this paper has chosen the exegetes al-Tabarı̄, al-Rāzı̄, Ibn Kathı̄r and Sayyid Qutb, who
˙ ˙
lived at different times in the Muslim world and represent different exegetical method-
ologies. Through a comprehensive look at their commentaries we can draw particular
conclusions about the relationship between Islam and images.
As seen through the summaries of the exegeses presented above, the question of Islam
and images is never a real focus. The traditional exegetes, represented by al-Tabarı̄,
˙
al-Rāzı̄ and Ibn Kathı̄r, are more interested in Abraham’s lying, who exactly tried to
kill Abraham and how Abraham was saved from the fire. Qutb in many ways writes
˙
counter to these interests and tries to deduce from the story as many lessons as possible
for contemporary believers. He sees the story of Abraham as a metaphor for the way in
which modern believers should challenge the secular and materialistic idols of modernity.
Of all the commentators, al-Rāzı̄ is the only one who troubles to define what ‘images’ are
and explain what they could have been in Abraham’s town. No other exegete puts any real
428 Y. Mirza

emphasis on interpreting the word and what it implies in the discussion of Islam and visual
representations.
However, they are all very much interested in the concept of tawhı̄d and the sinfulness
˙
of shirk. Each commentator emphasizes tawhı̄d at different parts of the story, whether it is
˙
the various debates that Abraham engages in with his people or the prayers he says before
he is thrown into the fire. They all also portray Abraham as a model believer who embodies
the teachings of tawhı̄d and challenges the foundations of shirk in his society. Because of
˙
his belief in tawhı̄d and his resolute faith in God, Abraham is seen to be miraculously
˙
saved by God from the fire as a sign to all believers.
Yet, it could be argued that the commentators would agree to the concept of ‘aniconism’
according to which Muslims would be wary in the production of ‘images’. Most of the
commentators above associate the ‘images’ with ‘idols’, which immediately gives a nega-
tive connotation to inanimate objects. However, they do not appear to be against images to
the extent that they would support iconoclasm. As they all emphasize in the exegeses,
Abraham does not destroy the idols because he is against images or even because he
thinks they are evil, but rather to guide his people back to tawhı̄d. This sense of aniconism
˙
could also be seen to be supported throughout Islamic history. During Islamic expansion,
the Muslim empires were not known to be iconoclastic when they entered into new terri-
tories. Nevertheless, they did not include icons in their ‘high art’ and shied away from their
production.

Notes
1. Muhammad is historically noted to have broken the idols of Mecca after its conquest, but this narration
does not appear in the Qur’an.
2. The former school of thought, which focuses on analogy and reason, would usually be associated with
the Hanafı̄ school while the latter, with an emphasis on hadith and the normative practices of Medina,
˙
would be the Mālikı̄ school. However, the general distinction made between schools of thought that
focus on ‘hadith’ and those that focus on ‘opinion’ does not always refer to Islamic schools of law.
For instance, qur’anic exegeses are also divided between those that are based on hadith and those
based on opinion.

References
Ali, Abduallah Yusuf (1993, etc.) The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (Brentwood, MD:
Amana and many editions).
Bosworth, C. E. (1960) Art. Tabari, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn (EI 2) (Leiden: Brill).
Feiler, B. (2002) Abraham: a Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths (New York: W. Morrow).
Grabar, O. (1996) Islamic art, in: Dictionary of Art (New York: Grove’s Dictionaries).
Haddad Y. (1983) Sayyid Qutb: ideologue of Islamic revival, in: J. L. Esposito (Ed.) Voices of Resurgent Islam
˙
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 67–98.
Hawting, G. (2001) Idols and images, in: J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, vol. 2 (Leiden:
Brill), pp. 475–484.
Ibn Kathı̄r (1978) Tafsı̄r al-Qur’ān al-karı̄m (Cairo: Dār Ihyā’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya).
˙
Jaffer, T. (2004) Fakhr al-Din al-Razi: theologian and philosopher as exegete. Lecture delivered at Georgetown
University, 19 January.
Qutb, S. (1961) Fı̄ zill al al-Qur’ān (Bayrūt: Dār Ihyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabı̄).
˙ ˙
Rāzı̄, Fakhr al-Dı̄n ˙al- (1934– 62) Al-tafsı̄r al-kabı̄r (Cairo).
c
Tabarı̄, Abū Ja far Muhammad Jarı̄r al- (n.d.) Tafsı̄r al-Tabarı̄. Available at: www.al-quran.com (accessed 21
˙ ˙ ˙
April 2005).