Journeys in holy lands : the evolution of the Abraham Ishmael legends in Islamic exegesis PDF
Preview Journeys in holy lands : the evolution of the Abraham Ishmael legends in Islamic exegesis
Page iii Journeys in Holy Lands The Evolution of the AbrahamIshmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis Reuven Firestone STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS Page iv Published by State University of New York Press, Albany © 1990 State University of New York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address State University of New York Press, State University Plaza, Albany, N.Y., 12246 Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data Firestone, Reuven, 1952 Journeys in holy lands: the evolution of the AbrahamIshmael legends m Islamic exegesis / Reuven Firestone. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ISBN 0791403319 (alk. paper). — ISBN 0791403327 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Abraham (Biblical patriarch) in the Koran. 2. Ishmael (Biblical figure) in the Koran. 3. Koran—Criticism. interpretation, etc.—History—Middle Ages, 6001500. I. Title. BPI33.7.A27F57 1990 297'. 12dc20 909661 CIP 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Page v CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction ix Transliterations xiii Abbreviations xv Part One Background 1 1. Biblicists and Arabs 3 2. The Nature of the Literature 11 Part Two The Syrian Prologue 23 3. Abraham's Emigration 25 4. The Tyrant 31 5. The Birth of Ishmael 39 6. Beersheba 48 7. The Angels Visit 52 Page vi Part Three The Meccan Sequence 61 8. The Transfer to Mecca 63 9. The Jurhum 72 10. Abraham's Visits 76 11. Building the Ka'ba 80 12. The Pilgrimage 94 Part Four The Sacrifice 105 13. Prelude to Sacrifice 107 14. The Sacrificial Act 116 15. The Redemption 129 16. Isaac or Ishmael? 135 Conclusion 153 Part Five Appendices 161 1. The Exegetes and Their Sources 163 2. Traditionists Naming Isaac or Ishmael as the Intended Sacrificial Victim 170 Notes 179 Selected Bibliography 245 Index 259 Page vii PREFACE This book would not have been possible without the help and encouragement of friends and colleagues. Professor William Brinner offered early guidance by helping me to wend my way through the maze of problems and issues inherent in the study of Isra'iliyyat *, and continued to offer suggestions and comments throughout. Very helpful comments on parts of all of this work have been offered by Professors Gordon Newby, Marilyn Waldman, Steven Wasserstrom, Jacob Lassner, Robert McChesney, and Ross Brann. They alerted me to a number of errors and stylistic difficulties as well as questions regarding my interpretation of the material, thereby greatly strengthening the book. I am particularly indebted to Professor Bayly Winder, whose passing has been a tremendous loss for the study of the Middle East. And Professor F.E. Peters, who served in many respects as mentor throughout my studies at New York University and beyond, deserves special thanks for his encouragement and willingness to impart some of his tremendous creativity and incisive thinking. This book would have been unthinkable without the patience, support, and encouragement of my wife Ruth, whose own professional and family responsibilities made her support of this enterprise no simple matter. Page ix INTRODUCTION PreIslamic Arabia and the first century or more of Islamicate history remain largely unknown even to specialists. Although fully within the period of recorded history of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the profound scarcity of contemporary documents renders our knowledge of early Islam extremely tenuous. Information that is available derives almost entirely from literary compilations that were assembled into their present form more than a century after the death of the Prophet, Muhammad *. It is generally accepted by modem scholars that many of these works preserve data that are considerably older, but they also agree that it is extremely difficult to separate the authentic older material from later accretions, insertions, or glosses, which often weave in anachronistic or tendentious information. This study makes no claim to break the code of historicity in traditional Islamic literature, nor does it claim originality in regard to sources. The primary sources upon which the study is based are all published and available in the Islamic world or in the West. They were chosen as the sample of study partially for this very reason, for their easy availability points to the fact that they continue to be read and studied in today's Islamic world. The fact that the narratives found in sources dating from the early ninth to the fifteenth centuries continue to be published in the modem era shows that they have spoken and continue to speak to the Islamic community, from earliest times to the present. This is a study of literature which is both oral and written. Although rendered in written form in our sources at least two centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammad*, the traditions examined exhibit traits of both orality and literacy that suggest their existence in far earlier periods as well. Yet because of the lack of any kind of confirmed chronology, this work makes no claims to represent a strictly historical study. It is, rather, an attempt to put the issue of crosscultural communication and religious influence in early Islam into perspective, based upon new approaches to intertextuality in the study of traditional religious narrative texts. Page x The issue of terminology is worthy of discussion in a work such as this, partially because it applies somewhat novel approaches to material or issues that are already familiar, and partially because of the lack of a universally accepted nomenclature. I begin simply with the common term "Bible," which for the purposes of this book refers to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Because a major goal of this study is to seek out the intertextual environments within which Islamic exegetical material about biblical characters evolved, accurate nomenclature must be employed to clarify the nature of those environments. The largely postbiblical environment in which extant narratives on biblical themes evolved cannot therefore be accurately termed "biblical"; neither can the narratives themselves located in postbiblical literature, despite the fact that they are associated with biblical themes. The term "biblical" is reserved in this study to refer to material found within the canon of the Bible, and does not include the massive corpus of noncanonical or postbiblical literature based on biblical themes. The familiar term "JudeoChristian" is also an inappropriate term, despite the fact that this study often refers to an environment of shared scripture between Jewish and Christian groups. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity developed separate exegetical traditions based upon scripture, though they clearly were familiar with and shared aspects of each others' traditions as well. Despite the commonalities, each community professed differing ideologies, whether Jewish or Christian, and whether eventually determined to be orthodox or heterodox. These distinctions along with differences in selfperception eventuated in their separation into distinct groups that remained religiously separate. ''JudeoChristian" inaccurately implies agreement upon religious concepts derived from a common scripture. In truth, however, Judaism and Christianity have never shared the same view or interpretation of scripture. Even the quite different names employed by both groups, Hebrew Bible by Jews and Old Testament by Christians, points to quite different perspectives which render their readings of scripture to be significantly different. In order to dispel preconceived notions of a common exegetical tradition (though in many respects there are indeed real similarities), I refer to the shared scriptural environment of Jews and Christians as a "Biblicist" milieu. 1 Our terminology for the various forms of prose narratives follows William Bascom.2 Legend refers to prose narratives regarded in their host culture as true and set in an early period, though typically without a preponderance of supernatural phenomena. Folktale refers to prose narratives which are generally regarded as fiction, with or without supernatural phenomena. Tradition refers to any category of narrative prose that is passed on intergenerationally and usually orally. Rendition refers to an individual telling of a narrative, whether a tale, legend, or tradition. It could be unique or could represent one of many renditions of a tradition. Version refers to one of at least two different Page xi narrative traditions treating a single topic. A version may be composed of a dozen or more renditions, all fitting into the same basic approach to the topic. Covariant represents a rendition of a version which differs more from the paradigmatic telling than the average rendition but nevertheless remains similar enough in structure, content, or style to be included as part of the version. The covariant differs always in relation to its related tellings of the same version. Finally, a word must be said here for scholars of Islam about the accuracy of Islamic traditions based on the reliability of their records of authentication (asanid *), though a more detailed discussion ensues in the following chapters. This study does not analyze the records of authentication attached to traditions, but it does take note of the fact that traditions attributed to specific authorities tend to be quite consistent in content and style. Because of this relation, traditions tend to be organized here according to the earliest members of these records as well as according to topic, and particular versions are identified by their earliest attributed authority. I am less concerned with whether or not the attributed authorities actually related the traditions attributed to them than with the nearly universal recognition among the traditionists that they did. That recognition reflects, in my opinion, a sensitivity to the particulars of content (matn) in a tradition as well as its record of authentication (isnad*). Generally, therefore, I record the earliest authority listed when providing the sources for narratives examined in this study. Page xiii TRANSLITERATIONS The transliteration of Arabic words is according to the following alphabetical substitution: —' (omitted at the beginning of a word) —l —m —n —h —w —y —k Dipthongs are written ay [ ] The three short vowels are represented by a for the fathah *, i for the kasrah, and u for the dammah*. The long vowels are represented by a* for the alif, u* for the waw, and i* for the ya'*. Final ha'* is represented by a at the end of the word, and by at when in construct. Full declension (i'iab*) is not employed in the transliterations. The following system of annotation has been employed: a. Qur'an* verses: Q.2:8: SOME PEOPLE SAY: WE BELIEVE IN GOD AND THE LAST DAY, BUT THEY DO NOT [TRULY] BELIEVE. b. Transliteration (with italics). c. Parenthetical comment or addition or substitution in translation [no italics].
The list of books you might like
