Introduction1
Qurâanic Studies today are dominated by scholarly work from outside the field. This development, the Qurâanâs âmigrationâ from Islamic Studies into neighboring disciplines, may be due to the attraction exerted by the current focus of Late Antiquity scholarship at large which lies on the imperial eschatological and apocalyptic ideologies of the 6th and 7th centuries, movements that figure prominently particularly in Syriac writings of the time. The Qurâan by several scholars is classified as such an apocalyptic text as well.2 Others â though targeting the Qurâan â focus Qurâanic echoes of doctrinal positions held in the Syriac ecclesiastical milieu.3 Works on the Qurâan today, thus, predominantly originate in the circles of historians, comparatists, Syriacists and historians of Christian theology, in short: scholars with ecclesiastic rather than Arabist philological backgrounds. Despite the invaluable increase in profundity and historical consciousness that has arisen from this track of approach its hermeneutical deficit is hard to miss: The Qurâanâs rank as a major, indeed revolutionary, player in Late Antique religious culture is widely faded out. Literary and hermeneutical studies in the Arabic text â outside, âbeyondâ, reception history â have become rare,4 or at least prove insufficient to crystallize into a consistent image that does justice to the aesthetic, rhetoric, let alone the historical significance of the Qurâan. The present perusal of the Qurâan as just another testimony for Late Antique ecclesiastic or imperial discourses should not distract from the still looming task already raised by Kenneth Cragg5 and Mohamed Arkoun,6 i.e. to explore the âQurâanic eventâ, lâévénement coranique, the appearing of the Qurâan as an active player on the stage of Late Antiquity, that epoch which is agreed upon to have substantially shaped Near Eastern as well as European civilization. The Qurâan indeed can be regarded as a most relevant link between Roman/Byzantine and Islamic culture. Insofar as it mirrors this transition it can justly be labeled not only as an Islamic but equally as a âEuropean textâ.7 A critical and hermeneutically sensitive reading of the Qurâan is therefore highly relevant not only for the Muslim community and Muslim theologians but equally for Christian thinkers and â insofar as such inquiries promise new theoretical discoveries â for cultural or literary scholars in general as well.
In the following we will dwell on one exemplary point of entry into a sort of Qurâanic Studies that can alert us to the disciplineâs âsurplus valueâ. We are thinking of its significance for current processes of innovation, such as the questioning of accepted theological positions on the one hand8 and the broadening of the scope of transmission history on the other to include hitherto disregarded venues such as aural and visual experiences.9
The prophecy of the Qurâan, its prophetical communication process extending over 23 years, addressed to an emerging new âpeople of Godâ can be viewed as an educational process that changed a conventicle of pious into a community. What is primarily demanded for a more adequate understanding of the Qurâanic event is the awareness of the Qurâanâs peculiar new telling of Biblical stories. The divergences are not â as has been hitherto usually assumed10 â fully explainable by recourse to previous exegesis. The stories need equally to be related to particular exigencies of the communityâs social situations. It is the Sitz im Leben then, that deserves new consideration. In view of the almost tabooed status of the sÄ«ra in Qurâanic scholarship11 this inquiry should dispense as far as possible with sÄ«ra information and rather rely on the Qurâan itself. It would of course be pretentious to claim that the Qurâan can be studied without any pre-knowledge of the time and space of its genesis. Yet the bare âskeletonâ of indispensable â sÄ«ra related â local and temporal data has to be enwrapped in a new narrative deriving the successive stages of the communication process from the Qurâanic speech itself. Incidents and discussions concerning the life of the community that are reported in the context of a particular narrative will serve as its ârealâ, social frame for the storytelling.
Reality-related statements will also provide a key for one of the most frequently told stories in the Qurâan which â although part of the universal heritage of Late antiquity â has acquired the status of a particularly âIslamic narrativeâ, the story of IblÄ«sâ rebellion.
The Sample: Adam, Satan/Diabolos/Iblīs, and the Origin of Evil
In our view then, stories in the Qurâan founded on the Bible are not simply reproductions of canonical narratives, nor exegetical interpretations, but in many cases are introduced to cope with urgent aporias incumbent on the community. A recent investigation into the Qurâanic creation story12 has shown that the story of IblÄ«s, the Islamic Diabolos,13 responds to a societal crisis in the middle Meccan community. IblÄ«sâ rebellion which is narrated not less than seven times14 eclipses the canonical creation story, presenting a new etiology of evil. This surprising discovery provokes the question of âwhy so?â â While the conventional approach would have been to look for a model in earlier tradition15 â such as might be identified in some early apocrypha â we prefer to start with a close look at the suras in which the IblÄ«s story appears. What is the Sitz im Leben of this new focus on evil?
Rebellions vs Transgressions
A look at the first mention of the story in SÅ«rat al-Ḥijr, Q 15 reveals that in real life, evil is manifest in a social malaise: During the middle Meccan ministry of Muhammad the community faces the opposition of non-believers, indeed ridiculers of the truth, âdeniersâ of Muhammadâs true prophethood; Q 15:6â11:
Sectarian strife is imminent. There are not only deniers, but the adherents of the Prophet themselves are for the first time conceived as a party, a community of Ê¿ibÄd, âservants of Godâ, Q 15:24.42.49, and thus as antagonists of the âdeniersâ.17 What is the origin of their âevilâ rejection of truth? In Christian theology with its peculiar reading of Gen. 1â3, on the creation of man and his first transgression, Adamâs first sin is the source of evil as such. â Not without consequences: This act that in the âantiqueâ Biblical text had resulted in his expulsion from paradise, had in late antique Christianity received a sustained salvation historical interpretation: Adamâs fault had triggered redemption, and his persona had mutated into a world historically significant agent whose âalter egoâ, the Second Adam, the messianic redeemer, in Christian understanding was virtually inseparable from him.18
Not so in Jewish understanding. The Christian âenlargementâ of Adam, of man created in Godâs image, into the double figure of a culprit and his redeemer-alter-ego, was felt suspiciously close to the much-maligned imagination of a âsecond power in heavenâ19. The Rabbis, writing at a time when Christianity already prevailed, were aware of the outcome of the installment of a second ruler figure in heaven; they made a number of attempts to restrict Adamâs authority, indeed to ridicule Adam, be it as a newly created figure20 â be it as an already acclaimed co-ruler with God.21 This is also the stance of the Qurâanic message in SÅ«rat ṬÄhÄ, Q 20:115â123 which follows Q 15. Here the primordial Adam is degraded to a weak person, oblivious of his paradisiac covenant. Settled in the garden he is immediately warned of the rebel IblÄ«s, Q 20:115â7:
But since he seems even unable to discern the momentousness of his picking the forbidden fruit, which he mistakes for the satisfaction of a physical need, God must remind him (Q 20:118â119):22
The pericope goes on with the Biblical seduction story, where a biblically coded alter ego of IblÄ«s, al-Shayá¹Än, â a demon who does not argue but whispers â has taken over the role of the snake, Q 20:120â123:
Adam â though re-accepted without efforts of his own â thus is a very faint person, his image is even trivialized. â Needless to say, that the Qurâan ignores the Second Adam altogether. Yet, at a later stage, the Qurâan refers to the Adam-Christ typology by reducing Adam and his alter ego Jesus (Christ) to merely genealogically unique mortal figures, Q 3:59:
What remains central, however, is rebellion. The Qurâan replaces the disobedient passive Adam by the active, rebellious IblÄ«s. This replacement makes sense in light of the communityâs new perception of evil. âEvilâ â is no longer identical with the troubles caused for humanity by the Biblical Adamâs fault, such as physical constraints and the suffering of injustice, nor with manâs liability to commit evil deeds (cf. Gen. 3:14â19). It is rather an epistemic malaise that is perceived by the just: the rejection, even ridicule of prophetic truth by the âdeniersâ. The Sitz im Leben of the new dealing with âepistemic evilâ is the communityâs aporetic situation vis-à -vis the imminent social split. In the middle-Meccan SÅ«rat al-Ḥijr, Q 15:26â44, for the first time, the agency behind the opponentsâ provocations is associated with a persona called IblÄ«s. IblÄ«s is an angelic figure, only later classified as essentially belonging to the jinn, the demons, a somewhat indefinite category of beings created from fire.23 Demons, labeled shayá¹Än/shayÄá¹Ä«n are remembered as rebellious, as illegitimate eavesdroppers,24 and desirous of illicit knowledge, in the same sura, Q 15:16â18.25
The communityâs awareness of the presence of demons in the world is another prerequisite of the IblÄ«s-storyâs ârealâ, social background.
Iblīs
IblÄ«s stands out among the angels as well as the âcommunity of the jinnâ. Although it is most challenging to contextualize the Qurâanic figure with earlier and later representations of the âintermediate worldsâ26 we will confine ourselves to the Qurâanic figureâs development so as to filter out the hitherto ignored Qurâanic Adam/IblÄ«s theology27 which from our perspective is worth comparing with other Late Antique Adam resp. Satan theologies. What is the embedding of the Qurâanic discourse? IblÄ«sâ story is no less than an alternative creation report, which conveys to the earliest act of disobedience a new dimension: Q 15:26â44:28
After creating Adam God calls the personnel of his heavenly court, the angels, to prostrate themselves before him; they all abide, except IblÄ«s who refuses, only to be expelled from Godâs vicinity. This at first sight resembles the Biblical Adamâs fate. But IblÄ«s is shrewd: he does not surrender but negotiates with God for a compensation, and through clever reasoning turns the divine verdict of expulsion into an empowerment of his person: He succeeds to be assigned the tempter of humans on earth, thus accounting â together with his demonic followers, the shayÄá¹Ä«n â for human error (including those of the deniers). The communityâs social crisis has thus been furnished with a scriptural explanation.
IblÄ«sâ case, however, is an ambivalent case. To receive a recompensation for his loss he âjustlyâ argues that he has been overreached (âput into the wrongâ), unfairly stripped of his high status in favor of a less worthy rival. An even more stringent argument that he does not proffer has in later Sufi tradition earned him the title of âthe true monotheistâ,29 âthe first martyrâ:30 he suffers for the truth, since he has privileged the eternal divine will, Godâs prohibition to venerate any being but him, over the divine command to prostrate himself before Adam.
The plot is no Qurâanic invention, the alternative creation story was current in apocryphal literature31 where Diabolos is however a larmoyant figure who after being ultimately defeated with Adamâs rehabilitation retells the story of his âfallâ, deploring his misfortune.32 The Qurâanic IblÄ«s is depicted much more persevering and sophisticated, being convinced of his just position. In his heroic self-representation, he reminds of the ancient Arab hero who defies fate as such.33 Yet he is essentially none other than the refiguration of an equally persevering Biblical figure, the Satan, âha-saá¹anâ, of the Book of Job, who functions as a divinely assigned prosecutor.34 His role is to question the validity of the divine order based on the balance between doing and faring, thus enacting a sublime rebellion against the unquestioned divine will. In rabbinic exegesis he is explicitly identified as such a juridic figure: ha-satan meqaá¹reg or simply ha-meqaá¹reg,35 a derivative from Greek kategoros. As such he functions again under the name Diabolos in the temptation story of Jesus,36 challenging Jesus, âthe Second Adamâ against his divinely imposed mission.
1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by Diabolos. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5Then Diabolos taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. (Ps. 91:11â12) 7Jesus said unto him: It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Deut. 6:16). 8Again, Diabolos taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Deut. 5:9; 6:13) 11Then Diabolos leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.37
In the Gospels Diabolos figures on eye level with Jesus, both are portrayed as involved in a kind of courtroom debate. Both use equal rhetorical devices, both adduce scriptural verses to support their cause. Ephrem of Nisibis38 surreptitiously applauds the Gospel Diabolos for his rhetorical skills.
The Qurâanic IblÄ«s is thus eventually an outcome of Biblical thinking. He equally debates with God whom he rhetorically maneuvers into a decision that brings about his own empowerment: his assignment to become the seducer of men on earth. His mode of argument â using conditional phrases and employing scriptural i.e., Qurâan quotations, follows Diabolosâ mode. It is rhetorical skill, juridic argument that characterizes IblÄ«s as it had been characteristic of Jobâs âsaá¹anâ and of the Gospelâs Diabolos. This figuration has little in common with the Christian image of the Devil. No surprise that it has earned IblÄ«s the honorific of the inventor of syllogistic speech, awwal man qÄs,39 only matched by the Rabbinic classification of Satan as the prosecutor, ha-meqaá¹reg or kategor.
IblÄ«s is an ambiguous figure then: He is the initiator of juridic reasoning that will become a standard figure of Qurâanic arguing, and which has not remained unnoticed by theologians like al-Ghazali.40 Simultaneously, he has rendered benefit to the community who has become aware of the ultimate origin of their aporia, their opponentsâ unbelief, which goes back to IblÄ«sâ and his adherentsâ, the demonsâ, workings on earth. Evil is not the ontological reality of Christian theology, but rather an epistemic challenge that needs to be countered dialectically.
Fighting the assaults of invisible seductive agents is a demand which is not incumbent on the community alone. Their situation strongly reminds of another Late Antique case: the scenario depicted by the desert father Evagrios (345â399) who in his Antirrhetikos designed responses apt to be cast against demons who would attack the pious trying to seduce them.41 Evil which is of epistemic nature is to be fought by references to epistemic truth, in Evagriosâ case: verses from scripture.
The Qurâanic IblÄ«s story as far as it is told in Meccan suras (six of seven instances) is a success story, IblÄ«s last but not least is an âeducatorâ, who exemplarily employs juridical devices, to set dialectical processes in motion and thus evinces epistemic gain. Adamâs randomly committed âtransgressionâ is eclipsed by IblÄ«sâ consciously enacted rebellion. IblÄ«s acting against Godâs command â viewed historically â marks a new stage in the development of wisdom thinking. Aware of the problems inherent in a particular divine command, he questions the validity of the rule for pragmatic behavior based on the doing-faring balance altogether. Not unlike his Biblical predecessor he risks causing rupture within the divinely imposed order of the world.
The Multifaceted Adam
IblÄ«sâ antagonist, Adam, in the Qurâanic discourse hermeneutically remains present as well. In the Biblical story he had been destined to become the just ruler over creation. This plan, according to Christian thinking had due to Adamâs primordial failure not been implemented but was postponed to be realized by the âSecond Adamâ. In Judaism it is not a primordial but a historical national trauma that equally led to the perception of the need of a redeemer, a charismatic figure to restore Jewish nationhood. The Qurâanic community did not absorb such salvation historical memories, but at the very time of its emergence found itself confronted with the ideological consequences that had resulted from those salvation historical speculations.
Propelled probably by the political circumstances where two powerful rulers â Heraclius versus the Sassanian Khosrow II â were rivelling over the supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean the community early in middle Mecca started to reflect on the preconditions of just rulership.42 Elsewhere messianic movements had â in Judaism â produced the ideal of the revived kingdom of David, and â in Christianity â the return of the redeemer-figure Jesus Christ. The quest for a vicarius dei, a khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-ará¸, had generally become a major urgency.43 The community however discarded both the candidates proposed for that rank in their milieu: first David,44 proffered by messianic Jewish groups of the time, who was briefly considered a proper khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-arḠin the middle Meccan SÅ«rat á¹¢Äd, Q 38.45 The communityâs quest had equally bypassed the ruler image upheld by the Christians who had established a khalÄ«fa in the person of the pantocrator, the âruler over allâ Jesus Christ, who was ubiquitously present in liturgies and in expressive icons. The community was to choose another figuration excluding the soteriological options.
Medina and the New Placement of Man
Already in Late Mecca, when a more inclusive form of addressing both believers and pagans was needed, recourse was made to the basic common denominator of mankind, the descend from the protoplast, Adam. YÄ banÄ« Ädam, âchildren of Adam!â in Q 7:31â2 is used to appeal to pagan worshippers whose dispense with decent clothing for their KaÊ¿ba worship is classified abominable â their nakedness being comparable to the first coupleâs being stripped of their (spiritual) cloth due to their transgression, Q 7:11â27. Adamâs ill fate, his shameful nakedness, suffered though the machinations of al-shayá¹Än should serve as an abhorrent example. Although the IblÄ«s episode is re-narrated, Q 7:11â17, it is Adamâs faring, that is of relevance for all his progeny, believers, and pagans alike. The focus has shifted from the rebellion of Diabolos/IblÄ«s to the primordial tragedy of man.
In Medina, at a time when the community had proven its valor with major political achievements â think of the âconstitutionâ,46 of the change of the qibla47 etc. â the Qurâanic creation of man scenario was critically revisited. In the Jewish neighborhood of educated co-dwellers in Medina the communityâs scope was widened to encompass Jewish knowledge and experience. The middle Meccan focus on the epistemic malaise created by the antagonism between deniers of the truth and believers and the communityâs uneasy position in between two messianically charged religious communities had given way to a more settled and confident self-view: Here the âantiqueâ Adam, once rejected by IblÄ«s, reappears with new dignity. When God proclaims to install Adam as khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-ará¸, the angels â erstwhile so prone to venerate him beside God â try to dissuade God predicting that moral evil, violence, will result from his empowerment. But their argument is discarded â by a superimposed divine verdict: God himself vouches for Adam. This divine ânevertheless!â is part of Late Antique thinking, it is eloquently expressed in a famous rabbinic tradition:48
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to create man/Adam, He created one group of ministering angels. He said to them: If you agree, let us fashion a man in our image. They said before him: Master of the Universe, what are the actions of this one You suggest to create? God said to them: His actions are such and such. [â¦] They said before him: Master of the Universe: âWhat is man that You are mindful of him? And the son of man that You think of him?â (Ps. 8:5). God outstretched His small finger among them and burned them. And the same with a second group. The third group that He asked said before Him: Master of the Universe, the first two groups who spoke their mind before You, what did they accomplish? The entire world is Yours; whatever You wish to do in Your world, do. When arrived the time of the people of the generation of the flood and the people of the generation of the dispersion, whose actions were ruinous, they said before God: Master of the Universe, didnât the first speak appropriately before You? God said to them: âEven to your old age I am the same; and even to hoar hairs will I suffer youâ (Isa. 46:4).
This conciliatory divine turn to Adam is not random. It is hard to flash out the ârealâ background of the Talmudic angelsâ pessimism: Man in his â by then established â Christian ambivalent configuration as created in the image of God and yet practicing violence, presents an oxymoron. It can be dissolved only through an almost paradoxical divine act of solidarity, through Godâs persistent âsurplusâ confidence in man, his âvouchingâ for Adam.
This idea is likewise expressed in the last IblÄ«s pericope in Q 2:30â38, where the angels who witness Adamâs creation and are informed about his elevation, are equally biased against him, but again are outvoted. Adamâs installment is carefully prepared for. God provides Adam with exceptional knowledge to qualify him for his ruler role. IblÄ«sâ rebellion is briefly remembered â it is by now without avail, there follows no dispatchment of IblÄ«s to play a significant role on earth. Instead, the act of seduction is practiced by his alter ego, al-shayá¹Än, like in Q 20:115â123 and Q 7:10â18 before, âBible knowledgeâ, the coupleâs first transgression, moves into the foreground. But, again, it does not substantially affect their status â there is no âoriginal sinâ in Qurâanic thinking. Godâs forgiveness in this last IblÄ«s narrative has however gained momentum. He, who had already taught Adam all the names, provides Adam with âwordsâ, calls him to his new mission, Q 2:30â38:
Not unlike in the case of the Talmud, it is Godâs persistent attachment to man that induces him to turn again (tÄba) to Adam. But contrary to the Talmudic case, where Adamâs elevation is Godâs lonely taken decision, in Q 2, it is a surplus privilege of Adam, divinely bestowed exceptional knowledge, that ostentatiously qualifies him for the position so much disapproved of by the angels. Not moral excellence nor salvation historical momentum, but knowledge, qualifies Adam for his role as a khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-ará¸. The finally identified ruler then, is not a figure towering over mankind, but rather the primordial man in the state he was created by God and successively endowed with knowledge. He equals mankind itself â or, viewed microstructurally: he is represented by the new community, finally excelling in religious knowledge.
Instead of the need to wait for a redeemer figure to come there is the challenge to take over the leadership oneself.50 A newly acquired self-confidence, epistemic and political, has â after six preceding acts of IblÄ«sâ rebellion as a key to understanding the human condition, finally allowed to restore the pivotal position to man himself. Adam â an Adam who is however completely stripped of his salvation historical clothing â is established as a khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-ará¸.
âThe Surplus valueâ of Considering the Qurâanic Prophecy
Christian theology has long ignored the Qurâan as a theologically relevant part of post-Biblical literature. The recent rediscovery of apocryphal literature may build a new bridge to the Qurâan as well. In the case of the IblÄ«s stories, one Jewish/Christian apocryphon even acquires a sort of âcanonicityâ through its appearance in the âcanonicalâ text of the Qurâan. â To what benefit? Such an inclusive gaze can throw new light on theological positions that have become controversial today: The Qurâanic version of Diabolosâ rebellion reveals a more differentiated image of evil than does the story of the much-maligned Christian Devil. It excels for its artful depiction of Diabolos as a juridical actor, as an epistemic challenger, who does not primarily cause evil but rather stirs critical reflection. The diversification of the Diabolos image could serve as an impulse to rethink different dimensions of evil which in its Late Antique perception is not only a morally, but moreover an epistemically vexing malaise.
Historians will make the startling observation that the Qurâan though continuing Biblical traditions at times tells a completely new story â in response to âtopicalâ, social, and political problems that occupy the community. It is at once a heritage text and a mirror of the collective perceptions hedged in an emergent religious group of the 7th century. â Literary students and cultural students will realize the paramount importance of language and rhetoric in the Qurâan, which in Late Antiquity is virulent across confessional borders â expressed by Ephrem no less emphatically than by the Qurâan â a proficiency which even tends to challenge moral judgements.
The assets of critical, i.e., diachronic, and hermeneutically sensitive Qurâanic Studies for Islamic theology are numerous. One of the most significant though hitherto little noticed Qurâanic achievements is the evidence of a particular â confident â image of man, which is reached in the course of a long development. Judging man not primarily by moral, but by epistemic standards the Qurâanic message arrives at a remarkably new perception of humanity where Adam, cleansed from the stigma of his âoriginal sinâ can finally be installed as the viceroy of God. The â implicit â construction of Adam as the communityâs self-image, furthermore, gives expression to a strikingly optimistic view on human history â unknown of in the neighboring cultures.
Substantial parts of this article are based on an earlier joint publication, see Neuwirth and Hartwig, âBeyond Reception History.â
See Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet; Shoemaker, The Apocalypse of Empire. Other representatives are Bladel, âThe Alexander Legend in the Qurâan 18:83â102,â 175â203, critically discussed by Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 154f., and Tesei, âHeracliusâ War Propaganda and the QurʾÄnâs Promise of Reward for Dying in Battle,â 219â47; Tesei, ââThe Romans Will Win!â,â 1â29, discussed by Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 167â79.
See e.g. Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Prophetin â Jungfrau â Mutter [English Version: Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qurâan] and Ghaffar, âKontrafaktische Intertextualität im Koran und die exegetische Tradition des syrischen Christentums.â
See e.g. Stewart, âSajÊ¿ in the Qurâan.â For the work of Nora K. Schmid see e.g. Schmid, âOaths in the Qurâan,â and see Klar, âA Preliminary Catalogue of QurâÄnic SajÊ¿ Techniques.â
Cragg, The Event of the QurâÄn.
Arkoun, La pensée arabe.
See Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike [=KTS] [published in English as The Qurâan and Late Antiquity [=QLA]].
An example would be the âorigin of evilâ, see Haag, Abschied vom Teufel and its discussion below. â For a theological reaction by Ratzinger, âAbschied vom Teufel?â
Such disregarded venues have been explored in Syriac Studies more recently: Durmaz, âHearing Sanctity,â 56â88 and Ruani, âObjects as Narrative Devices in Syriac Hagiography.â
Heinrich Speyerâs seminal work, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran has been used as the most important source for such readings of the Qurâan. More recently numerous other ancient, particularly Christian apocryphal texts have been involved, see e.g. Minov, âSatanâs Refusal to Worship Adam.â
The sÄ«ra has been called the âMuhammadan Evangeliumâ which provides the live background for the essential message, see Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.
See Neuwirth and Hartwig, âBeyond Reception History.â
See for the derivation of Iblīs from Greek Diabolos Horovitz, Koranische Untersuchungen, 87.
We take the Qurâanic text as point of departure, placing the passages under discussion into chronological order: Q 15:26â48, Q 20:115â127, Q 38:71â85, Q 17:61â65, Q 18:50â53, Q 7:10â30, Q 2:30â39. These IblÄ«s pericopes mirror an ever-changing valorization. See for Q 15, Q 20, and Q 38 the commentary in Angelika Neuwirth, Der Koran, Bd. 2/1: Frühmittelmekkanische Suren. Das neue Gottesvolk. Die âºBliblisierungâ¹ des altarabischen Weltbildes, Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2017 [=HK 2/1] [published in English as The QurʾÄn. Text and Commentary, vol. 2/1: Early Middle Meccan Suras. The New Elect, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], for Q 17 and Q 18, see Angelika Neuwirth and Dirk Hartwig, Der Koran, Bd. 2/2: Spätmittelmekkanische Suren. Von Mekka nach Jerusalem. Der spirituelle Weg der Gemeinde heraus aus säkularer Indifferenz und apokalyptischem Pessimismus, Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2021. This also distinguishes our approach from Zellentinâs (Zellentin, Trialogical Anthropology), who does not always view the Qurâanic passages in chronological order. In fact, by focusing excessively on the presumed intertexts (The Bible, The Cave of Treasures, Clementine Homilies, and Genesis Rabba), âprivilegingâ them over the Qurâanic text itself, he comes to different conclusions. In our view, it is worth studying the Qurâanic text not only in terms of âreception historyâ, but as a genuine new response to the burning theological questions that were en vogue in the epistemic space of Late Antiquity.
Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, see also Minov, âSatanâs Refusal to Worship Adam.â
English translation: Abdel Haleem, ed., The Qurâan, slightly modified.
See Neuwirth, HK 2/1, 236f.
See e.g. St. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods, here: Book XIV:1.
See Schäfer, Zwei Götter Im Himmel; Schäfer, Two Gods in Heaven.
bSanhedrin 38b, BT Ḥagiga 12a, Genesis Rabba 12:5, 19:16, 21:2, 24,2, Leviticus Rabba 12:2, see Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 47.
Genesis Rabba 8:10. See Peter Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, 82f.
Cf. HK 2/1, 352â356.
Q 55:15 â wa-khalaqa l-jÄnna min mÄrijin min nÄr, âAnd he created the jinn from a flame of fireâ, for a detailed interpretation see also Angelika Neuwirth, Der Koran, Bd. 1: Frühmekkanische Suren. Poetische Prophetie, Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2011 [=HK 1] [published in English as The QurʾÄn. Text and Commentary, vol. 1: Early Meccan Suras. Poetic Prophecy, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022], 598.
On the motive see Wild and Hawting, âEavesdropping on the Heavenly Assembly and the Protection of the Revelation from Demonic Corruption.â
See HK 2/1, 238f.
See the seminal study by Sara Kuehn, who also discusses the later Islamic developments, textual and iconic alike: Kuehn, âThe Primordial Cycle Revisited,â 173â200.
The IblÄ«s accounts have been discussed narratologically in Neuwirth, âThe QurʾÄnic Path towards Canonization as Reflected in the Anthropogonic Accounts,â 113â52, where however no particular theology had been sounded out. See also Bodman, The Poetics of IblÄ«s.
See ibid., 240â245.
The famous mystic al-ḤallÄj (858â922) was the first to identify IblÄ«á¹£ with a âtrue monotheistâ, even stricter than God himself, see Ritter, Das Meer der Seele, 538 quoted by Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 194.
See Awn, Satanâs Tragedy and Redemption.
The most prominent works are: Johnson, âLife of Adam and Eve,â 249â95; Dochhorn, Die Apokalypse des Mose; Toepel, âThe Cave of Treasures,â 531â84. The latter occupies a special position in some recent studies, cf. Reynolds, The QurʾÄn and Its Biblical Subtext, 39â53. It is however no more than a blatantly christological reworking of the earlier apocrypha of the Life of Adam and Eve cycle.
Johnson, âLife of Adam and Eveâ.
See Jacobi, âAllgemeine Charakteristik der arabischen Dichtungâ; Wagner, Grundzüge der klassischen arabischen Dichtung.
See Stokes, âSatan, Yhwhâs Executioner.â
E.g. Genesis Rabba 38:7; 84:3; 91:9, and Leviticus Rabba 21:4.
Matt. 4:1â11; Mark 1:2â13; and Luke 4:1â13. It sees as if the text is an adaption of the King James Bible, but this is not stated. It is to the point to use the word âDiabolosâ in the English text, but it does seem strange with the rest of the archaic traditional English.
The original KJV translation uses the word âdevilâ. We have replaced this with the original Greek word âDiabolos.â
St. Ephrem, Hymns on Paradise, 164f.
Awwal man qÄs â cf. Muḥammad AmÄ«n alâAmÄ«nÄ«, Al-ImÄm JaÊ¿far al-á¹¢Ädiq: ramz al-ḥaá¸Ärah al-islÄmiyyah, 91; cf. Stewart, âAn Eleventh-Century Justification of the Authority of Twelver Shiite Jurists,â here: 482.
Thus al-GhazÄlÄ« (d. 1111) devoted an entire treatise, Al-Qisá¹Äs al-mustaqÄ«m, to the demonstration of syllogistic structures in the Qurâan, cf. Kleinknecht [Neuwirth], Al-Qisá¹Äs al-mustaqÄ«m, 159â188.
Evagrius of Pontus and Brakke, Talking Back.
See for the work of the Corpus Coranicum on the middle Meccan suras: Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext; Neuwirth and Hartwig, HK 2/2.
This is expressively expounded in Q 27, see the commentary in HK 2/2, 507â599, and Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 75â110.
Q 38:26: âDavid! We have made you a khalÄ«fa fÄ« l-ará¸. (Abdalhalim: âgiven you the mastery over the landâ). Judge fairly between people. Do not follow your desires, lest they divert you from Godâs path: those who wander from his path will have a painful torment because they ignore the Day of Reckoningâ. See for the implicit messianic reference the commentary in HK 2/1, 551 ff. See also Neuwirth, âDavid Im Islam.â
See HK 2/2, 38 ff., and Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 57â74.
For the constitution of Medina see Lecker, The âConstitution of Medina.â
See Neuwirth, âThe Qibla of Muhammadâs Community Reconsidered.â
bSanhedrin 38b; see Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, 92, 97, 220ff.
See for a more exhaustive interpretation Neuwirth and Hartwig, âBeyond Reception History.â
In contrast to our interpretation of verse 37 (fa-talaqqÄ Ädamu min rabbihi kalimÄtin fa-tÄba Ê¿alayhi â¦), underlining an optimistic attitude towards men, i.e. securing his status as a God-pleasing political agent, Zellentin, âTrialogical Anthropology: The QurʾÄn on Adam and Iblis in View of Rabbinic and Christian Discourse,â 120f. cautiously suggests âto understand the expression of Godâs âwordâ given to Adam in Q 2:37 as evoking a similar epithet of Godâs âwordâ applied to Jesus in Q 3:39 and 45 and Q 4:171, where the same Arabic term kalimah is equally used (see also Q 19:34) ⦠by giving Godâs word to Adam in a form that may well evoke the epithet used for its Messiah, the Medinan Qurâan may well corroborate its teaching in Q 3:59 that highlights the affinity of Jesus to Adam â¦â. A different meaning of the Qurâanic pericope has been offered by Neuwirth and Hartwig, âBeyond Reception History,â 27f.