Introduction
From earliest times, Muslims have made immense efforts to understand and interpret the Qurâan. The first objective of these interpretative attempts, commonly referred to as tafsÄ«r, was to clarify the plain meaning of the Qurâanic text. The genre of tafsÄ«r developed quickly, so that by the end of the third/ninth century, voluminous commentaries had appeared, devoted to various aspects of the text of the Qurâan, including its lexicography, grammar, variant readings, jurisprudence, and theology.1 In one of the earliest types of tafsÄ«r, called ânarrative exegesisâ or âhaggadic exegesisâ (to use Wansbroughâs terminology),2 a large amount of biblical and post-biblical narrative material is enlisted in order to unfold and contextualize the often allusive Qurâanic versions of biblical stories. The central concerns of this genre were the identification of figures and events appearing in biblical stories that are alluded to by the Qurâanic text. In order to embellish the Qurâanic narratives, Muslim exegetes (mufassirÅ«n) incorporated a vast amount of (extra-Qurâanic) biblical and para-biblical lore. In later times, these narrative materials were conventionally designated by the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt.3 This term must be taken as a cover term and not necessarily as a description of their content, which, at first glance, seems to be narratives derived merely from Jewish (and Christian) traditions but, as already known, also covers stories of a much broader domain of Near Eastern folklore traditions.4
The isrÄʾīliyyÄt have usually been presumed to go back either to early converts, who supposedly transmitted these materials from their own pre-Islamic traditions,5 or to figures from among the nascent (Muslim) community who were familiar with biblical and post-biblical materials,6 as their names are featured repeatedly in the isnÄds of these traditions. However, recent studies have drawn attention to the suspicious character of these attributions, encouraging a re-evaluation of the function of both alleged âsourcesâ, suggested that their value is somewhat more symbolic than historical.7 Schwarzbaum has pointed out that these personalities may not necessarily have transmitted the material attributed to them but often served as âpersonality pegsâ on which many Jewish and Christian legends were âhungâ in Islamic sources.8 Many of the individuals involved in the transmission of these exegetical traditions were mawÄlÄ« (sg. mawlÄ, âfreedman clientâ),9 whose family background and place of origin could have given them special knowledge of Jewish, Christian, or Zoroastrian sources.10
In the early Muslim period, the attitude of Muslim scholars towards the collection and use of so-called isrÄʾīliyyÄt was one of positive acceptance, as reflected in an early tradition attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad: âNarrate from the children of Israel; there is nothing wrong with it.â11 Such an affirmative conception of the material led to the understanding that using isrÄʾīliyyÄt for elucidating certain aspects of the Qurâan, clarifying areas of vagueness, or supplying spiritual and moral guidance was regarded as legitimate. IsrÄʾīliyyÄt were thus treated as valid exegetical material leading to their wide presence in early Muslim literature, particularly in the genre of Qurâan exegesis. This is also suggested by the fact that the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt itself appeared very late. While this term occurred in different genres of Muslim literature since the fourth/tenth century,12 its first recorded occurence in tafsÄ«r literature dates to an even later time, namely the sixth/twelfth century.13 The term isrÄʾīliyyÄt in a fixed pejorative sense entered the exegetical terminology only with Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328)14 and particularly with his student Ibn KathÄ«r (d. 774/1373), who was the first to make systematic use of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt in his works, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿aáºÄ«m and Qiá¹£aá¹£ al-anbiyÄʾ. Thereafter, labelling certain traditions as isrÄʾīliyyÄt became a way of discrediting them: They were to be rejected because of their apparent Jewish or Christian origins, and they were regarded as untrustworthy, on account of their objectionable contents, which allegedly contradicted a by then established Islamic value or norm or were considered too fanciful and extravagant.
Nevertheless, the term was not used in a very coherent way: One and the same scholar might use the label isrÄʾīliyyÄt in order to express disapproval of exegetical material on one occasion but transmitted biblical traditions and used them for theological argument on another occasion.15 Perhaps, on account of this ambiguous approach, no later scholar followed Ibn KathÄ«râs example. The systematic usage of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt did not receive general acceptance, and the rejection of these traditions did not become a major concern of Qurâan exegetes until the reformist movement in the modern period. Although the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt eventually came to carry a pejorative sense and was often the basis for rejecting biblical and para-biblical traditions, many of these traditions continued to survive in Islamic literature. The negative attitude toward the isrÄʾīliyyÄt did not prevent such material from being transmitted in tafsÄ«r works or the collections of universal history along with other genres devoted to religious concerns (zuhd, faá¸Äʾil, qiá¹£aá¹£ al-anbiyÄʾ, etc.).16 Not only had they become well integrated into Islamic lore and were therefore included in the most respected works and cited freely in the authoritative exegesis of the Qurâan, but also they had been proved to be âeffectiveâ exegetical tools, and therefore helpful and necessary to Muslim exegetes.
Haggada versus IsrÄʾīliyyÄt
In order to understand better the dynamics whereby biblical material was incorporated into Islamic exegetical works, we need to set out the historical context of the early Muslim community and their interactions with pre-Islamic traditions. It is known from historical sources that the first community around the Prophet and the first Muslim exegetes in urban centres of the Islamic world from the East to the West, including Hijaz, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and Andalusia, have lived in environments in which Late Antique traditions were known and well assimilated into their every-day life. Those diverse religious communities naturally interacted with one another, and such interactions, particularly in oral cultures, often involved story swapping, resulting in a shared pool of religious traditions and legends over time. The Qurâanâs ability to refer allusively to a wide variety of biblical themes and stories with little or sometimes no explanation reveals the existence and extent of this pool of traditions and the diverse stock of knowledge that its first addressees had already shared.17 In his broad study on the Arabic Bible in the pre-Islamic period, Sidney Griffith states that, while a proper Arabic translation of the Bible had not yet been produced, it was still known in many parts of Arabia, not in the sense of a written Arabic translation, but as an oral âinterpreted Bibleâ, which was debated, expanded, and discussed. According to Griffith, the Qurâan is closely connected to that floating, oral âinterpreted Bibleâ, though it does not reflect an adaptation but rather a thorough reworking and reshaping of earlier traditions.18 Assuming the existence of a floating, oral tradition of biblical lore that existed before the Qurâanâs emergence and continued to exist after it, one can well contextualize the isrÄʾīliyyÄt as its continuing reception in Muslim tradition.
The corpus of texts which can be regarded as a good representative of this oral, floating tradition may be collectively designated as aggada, or its equivalent term used by Palestinian sources, haggada.19 Haggada is the multifaceted material found in the Jewish-rabbinic literature that does not fall into the category of law, namely halakha, âthe legal material.â In terms of content, haggada consists of different types of material, including stories and anecdotes, which add to or elaborate the biblical texts. These haggadic narratives do not simply function as entertainment tools and fantasy devices; they are exegetical and/or homiletical in nature, produced and employed in various literary genres not only to explain philological and conceptual difficulties of the biblical text but also to expand and elaborate on theological issues and religious ideas. In his lengthy review of L. Ginzbergâs Legends of the Jews (1909â1928), Bernhard Heller remarkably related haggada to the Ancient Orient (Egypt, Babylon, Persian, and India), Classic Antiquity, Hellenism, the Church, Islam and popular legends. In the course of centuries of contact among these various cultures, customs, and folkloric traditions, extensive mutual interference occurred.20 While Heller maintained that Islamic narratives borrow abundantly from Judea-Christian haggada, at the same time, he emphasized that they were also incorporated into the motifs of the haggada, expanding, extending, and sometimes even deepening it.21
From this angle, isrÄʾīliyyÄt can very well be seen as the Islamic counterpart of haggada in Muslim literature. While the Islamic tradition adopted elements from haggadic material, it also consciously remoulded and refashioned these cultural artefacts according to its own norms and values. The style and content of Islamic versions of haggada display a distinct quality that sets them apart from Jewish and Christian legends. Muslim exegetes were not necessarily interested in setting the original story straight; they instead attempted to identify specific themes or motifs relevant to the Qurâanic message. Therefore, the Islamic narratives are not a confusion of the earlier sources but constitute the exegetesâ purposeful interpretation and appropriation of certain motifs relevant to the context of the nascent (Islamic) community and in accordance with their own values. In other words, Muslim scholarsâ appropriation of Jewish or Christian haggada occurred hand in hand with corrective reproductions and creative innovations, providing their addressees with appropriate material for their religious self-perception and for their own identity formation.
One can recognize various types of haggadic traditions in early Muslim scholarship. Some traditions elaborate the biblical stories of the Qurâan and add details and precisions to them, that have close parallels in pre-Islamic Jewish and Christian sources. While several studies have examined these parallels and their common motifs and commonalities while accentuating the originality and creativity of Muslim versions in the re-elaboration of pre-Islamic traditions,22 many cases still await thorough examination. This does not mean that all aspects of biblical narratives in early Muslim sources must have some basis in the pre-Islamic traditions. In particular are those Islamic traditions for which one might find no fitting parallel in pre-Islamic traditions, though they resemble pre-Islamic haggada in their form and content.23 In the following, I will discuss one such case for which I could identify a relevant parallel neither in pre-Islamic traditions nor in later mediaeval Jewish and Christian literature. Regardless of the possible origins of such a tradition, the focus of this investigation is on the process of Midrash-making, borrowing a term from rabbinic studies.
Adam and Eve Story as Narrated in Q 7:189â190
The Qurâan, in the closing sections of Q 7, sÅ«rat al-aÊ¿rÄf, while speaking about humansâ origin, reads:
189 He is the one who created you from a single soul (nafs wÄḥida), and from it made his mate (zawjahÄ)24 so that he might rest in her (li-yaskuna ilayhÄ). Then, when he covered her (taghashshÄhÄ), she bore a light burden and passed by with it. However, when she became greatly burdened, they invoked God their Lord, saying: âIf You give us a good [child] (á¹£Äliḥan),25 then we will surely be among the thankful (ash-shÄkirÄ«n).â
190a Yet, when He gave them a good [child], they assigned Him partners (shurakÄʾ)26 concerning what He gave them.
190b Exalted is God above what they associate (yushrikūn).
The first part of this Qurâanic passage presents a general description of Godâs creation of male and female humans and their primordial relationship. The account of the creation of humankind âfrom a single soulâ, out of which created its mate, occurs twice more in the Qurâan: Q 4:1 and Q 39:6. In all of these verses, the creation of humankind is generic, and no name is ever mentioned. Therefore, these verses may be understood as a reference to the generation of human beings in general, male and female spouses who marry to get comfort with each other (see also Q 30:21). In light of the other verses in the Qurâan (Q 2:35; 7:19; 20:117), however, one can readily assume that the single soul here is Adam and that his spouse is Eve (ḤawwÄʾ in the Islamic tradition).27
Yet, Q 7:189â190 deserve special consideration since these verses provide some additional information that is unique in the Qurâan, namely the first sexual experience of the primal couple that resulted in conception and childbearing. Moreover, after receiving a child from God, the first parents did not keep what they had already promised God, to show their gratitude for His grace, and instead they ascribed partners to God concerning the child He gave them. Thus, they fell into what the Qurâan calls associating partners with God (shirk, often translated as âpolytheismâ or âidolatryâ).28 However, the Qurâanic verse does not reveal whom they associated with God and what they did that indicated such an association.
By looking at other Qurâanic passages regarding the story of the primordial couple, Adam and Eve, in which the Devil is an antagonist, one finds some possible answers to these questions. Q7:11â18, as well as other passages in the Qurâan (Q 15:30â40; 17:61â65; 38:73â83), explain that after his refusal of Godâs command to prostrate before Adam and his expulsion from Paradise, IblÄ«s (most probably from Greek diabolos)29 asked for reprieve from punishment until Judgment Day, which was granted by God, in order to lead Adam and his progeny astray from the straight path (aá¹£-á¹£irÄá¹ al-mustaqÄ«m) and to destroy their relationship with God:
16 He (IblÄ«s) said, âAs You have caused me to err, I will lie in waiting for them (Adam and his progeny) on Your straight path.
17 Then I will come at them from their front and from their rear, and from their right and from their left, and You will not find most of them to be thankful (ash-shÄkirÄ«n).â
As his first demonic act, IblÄ«s, who was referred to in this context as ash-shayá¹Än,30 tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of immortality, which was a bold transgression of Godâs prohibition, causing them to be expelled from Paradise (Q 7:19â25; see also 2:35â36; 20:120â123). In Q 17:64, God allows the Devil to incite with all his means and power whomever he is able: The Devil will become their partner in wealth and children, and he will promise them what is nothing but delusion. In several verses of the Qurâan, wealth and children signify the good things and enjoyment of this world (matÄÊ¿/zÄ«nat al-ḥayÄt ad-dunyÄ, Q 3:14; 18:46; 57:20) which as such can be a source of temptation (fitna, Q 8:28; 64:15) and a distraction and diversion from God (Q 63:9; 71:21). Wealth and children can readily function as means of incitement and recognition by the Devil to lead human beings astray, including the primordial couple, to show disobedience and ingratitude towards Godâs grace by âassigning partners to God concerning what He gave themâ (Q 7:190). This is indeed a failure in total submission to God, which is regarded in the Qurâanic passage in question as shirk, âassociating partners with Godâ.
Post-Qurâanic literature in various genres, including Qurâanic exegesis, hadith, and histories/chronicles, provide several exegetical narratives in several variants which purport to supply a historical occasion (sabab) for Q 7:189â190 to contextualize the Qurâanic passage and to remove its ambiguity. As discussed earlier, the Devil (IblÄ«s/ash-shayá¹Än) is given a chance to participate in the narrative as an essential character who no longer sounds like a new, non-Qurâanic interloper. This conveys the point that God gave the pair a good/healthy child but that they were again duped by the Devil. Focusing on the negotiations between the Devil and the first couple over naming their imminent child after him, the narrative explains that they treated the Devil as a partner (sharÄ«k) in what God gave them.
In the following, I will analyze different versions of this exegetical narrative supplied in the select representative works of the formative period of Islamic tradition.31 From Muslim exegetical works, I confine myself to the earliest layer of the tafsÄ«r genre, drawing on the works of MujÄhid b. Jabr (d. 104/722),32 MuqÄtil b. SulaymÄn (d. 150/767), Muḥammad b. as-SÄʾib al-KalbÄ« (d. 146/763), and Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq aá¹£-á¹¢anÊ¿ÄnÄ« (d. 211/826). The commentary of aá¹-ṬabarÄ« (d. 310/923), though it belongs to the classical period,33 is a significant source because it includes much exegetical material that originated in the formative period. As several studies have shown, aá¹-ṬabarÄ« had several older commentaries at his disposal and was able to preserve what is apparently some of the oldest material. He very often quotes his sources verbatim and traces his quotations through his own chains of transmissions (isnÄds) to the original sources.34 Variants of the exegetical narrative are also found in historical works such as the biographical dictionary (ṬabaqÄt) of Muḥammad Ibn SaÊ¿d al-BaghdÄdÄ« (d. 230/845) and the history (TÄrÄ«kh) of aá¹-ṬabarÄ« as well as certain hadith compilations, namely the Musnad of Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) and al-JÄmiÊ¿ al-kabÄ«r of at-TirmidhÄ« (d. 279/892). I present the relevant narratives from these sources, and divide them into three categories based on form and content. I then attempt to identify the essential features in each category, as well as their common and different elements that may correspond to gradual developments and refinements of the narrative over time.
Group I: No Child Born to Adam, and Eve Survived
MujÄhid b. Jabrâs version35 reads as follows:
No child of Adam and Eve would live. So, the Devil (ash-shayá¹Än) said to them: If a child is born to you, name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. They did [as the Devil commanded them to do] and obeyed (aá¹ÄÊ¿Ä) him. This is [the meaning behind] Godâs word, They assigned Him partners concerning what He gave them.
MujÄhidâs version of this narrative is most probably the earliest one. According to this version, all the children of Adam and Eve died in their infancy. Therefore, the Devil proposed to them to name their next child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. Adam and Eve followed what the Devil ordered them to do. According to MujÄhidâs version, the pairâs obedience (á¹ÄÊ¿a) to the Devil occasioned Q. 7:190, that is, it was considered an instance of associating partners with God, for which they are reproached. Here, both Adam and Eve share the responsibility of obeying the Devil, and therefore both equally deserve blame.
MujÄhid assumes detailed knowledge on the part of the reader, since his statement does not explain why the name Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith is pertinent here. This question, of course, is answered by other versions presented below. Nevertheless, the version that al-WÄḥidÄ« quoted in his AsbÄb nuzÅ«l al-QurʾÄn36 on the authority of MujÄhid has an additional statement explaining that al-ḤÄrith was the Devilâs name before he was demoted from Paradise.37 Al-ḤÄrith, as explained here, was the original name of IblÄ«s.38
MujÄhid simply states that Satan said, âWhen a child is born to you, name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith,â but he does not explain why the Devil demanded that Adam and Eve name their child after him. An answer to this question is given in another version of the narrative transmitted by Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq aá¹£-á¹¢anÊ¿ÄnÄ«39 from his teacher MaÊ¿mar b. RÄshid (d. 153/770), on the authority of QatÄda b. DiÊ¿Äma as-SadÅ«sÄ« (d. 118/735â736),40 which reads as follows:
No child was born to Adam but that it [soon] died. So, the Devil approached Adam and said: If you wish41 this child of yours to live, name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. Hence, Adam did [it].42
Here, Eve is not mentioned at all. The Devil approaches Adam and demands that he names his child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith so that he might survive, and Adam complies. Thus, this version adds the missing elements that IblÄ«sâs naming suggestion is part of a life-giving bargain. He obeyed the Devilâs command because he supposed that the Devil had either caused the death of his previous children or could bring about the newborn childâs survival. The named childâs fate is not detailed further, however.
A similar version is found in the hadith compilations of Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal43 and at-TirmidhÄ«,44 both citing, through the same isnÄd on the authority of the Companion Samura b. Jundab (d. 58 or 59/677â679), a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad.45 This narrative presents the story the other way round so that Eve is featured prominently, and there is no mention of Adam:
When Eve became pregnant, the Devil (IblÄ«s) wandered around her while no child of hers would live. He thus said: Name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, then he will live. Thus, she named him (sammathu)46 Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, and he lived. This was of the Devilâs inspiration (waḥy) and of his command (amr).
Here it was Eve who wanted to save her child. She therefore followed the Devilâs inspiration, as the version concludes, and this solution indeed worked. Samuraâs hadith clearly states that the child eventually lived when he was named after the Devil. Aá¹-ṬabarÄ« cited another version of the same hadith, in which the Devil did not visit Eve and therefore did not request that she name the child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, but it was Eveâs wish after none of her children would survive. She vowed that if a child of hers lived, she would name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. Since the child lived, she did name him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. This act was, of course, of the Devilâs inspiration, as this version concludes.47 According to this hadith, Eve was the one who named the child at the Devilâs request or inspiration. Therefore, it is Eve alone who must be blamed for her action, though in Q 7:190, both Adam and Eve are equally reproached.48
The last, and the most elaborate, version that belongs to this group is that cited by aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, in both his TafsÄ«r and his TÄrÄ«kh.49 He received it via his own isnÄd from Muḥammad Ibn IsḥÄq (d. ca. 151/768), the famous author of the life of Muḥammad (sÄ«ra),50 who in turn transmitted from DÄwÅ«d b. al-Ḥuá¹£ayn (d. 135/752â3) from Ê¿Ikrima, the freedman (mawlÄ) of Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs, from his master (mawlÄ),51 which reads as follows:
Eve would give birth to Adamâs children and make them slaves (tuÊ¿abbiduhum) of God, by naming them Ê¿AbdallÄh, Ê¿UbaydallÄh, and the like. Nevertheless, they would die. Therefore, the Devil (IblÄ«s) came to Eve and Adam and said: âWere you to give them other names, they would live.â So, when she gave birth to a child for Adam, they named him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. In this regard, God revealed: He is the one who created you from a single soul, to His word: the couple assigned Him partners concerning what He gave them, until the end of the verse (Q 7:189â190).
This version tries to clarify the association between naming the child and ascribing a partner to God. While in MujÄhidâs version, the pairâs obedience (á¹ÄÊ¿a) to the Devil is considered as associating partners with God, here the stress is on the naming itself. By naming her children âthe servant of God,â Eve wanted to subjugate them to God. However, the problem was that they would not survive until Adam and Eve decided to follow the Devilâs suggestion and give the child a different name. As in MujÄhidâs version, the narrator of this version evidently assumes pre-existing knowledge on the part of the audience that al-ḤÄrith was the Devilâs name. This reveals why at the end of the narrative, they were exposed to the accusation of having introduced idolatry. By giving the newborn child the name Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, namely âthe servant of al-ḤÄrith,â instead of Ê¿AbdallÄh (lit. âGodâs servantâ), they indeed decided to subjugate their child to the Devil.52 Therefore, this name is regarded as an association with God in terms of servitude.53 Interestingly enough, Eve is considered thoughtful for bringing her children under Godâs domination and control, and the later idolatrous act is attributed to the couple, and not merely to Eve.
In this version, there is a crucial point regarding the Devilâs influence over the lives of Eve and Adamâs offspring. All previous children died, even though they had been named after God. But the child who got the name Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, and was thus subjugated to the Devil, survived. This paradoxical situation does not correspond very well to the Qurâanic passage, which emphasizes the ingratitude and disobedience of the parents towards God. When their babies kept dying even though they showed their whole devotion to God, they were not any more in a position to be among the thankful (Q 7:189). This fact has been considered in a later version of the narrative provided by al-KisÄʾī (d. ca. 4th-5th/10th-11th century). By introducing a new character into the narrative and making some minor changes in the order of the events, al-KisÄʾī resolves the theological paradox. His version tells the story as follows:54
Eveâs first two pregnancies ended in miscarriage, making Adam and Eve very sad. When Eve became pregnant for the third time, they prayed to God that this pregnancy would end sound. It was at this juncture that the Devil (IblÄ«s) offered the name Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. After she delivered safely, Eve followed the Devilâs suggestion. Then, God sent an angel to the pair, asking them the reason for this. Eveâs excuse was to save the child. The angel asked if they had ever tried Ê¿AbdallÄh, Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn, or Ê¿Abd ar-RahÄ«m. At this moment, the couple felt intense regret for their error and abandoned the child. So, God caused the child to die. After that, Eve conceived and gave birth to twenty sets of male and female twins, and they named all their children after God.
Contrary to all previous narratives, in this version, God appears as an active character who mitigates the extent of Adam and Eveâs ingratitude towards Godâs grace and leaves the door open to them for repentance and compensation. It is also clarified that the Devilâs suggestion was nothing more than an illusion wrongly perceived as truth.
Group II: Eve Was Ignorant of the Process of Human Reproduction
The best representative of this group is the version of the narrative provided by MuqÄtil b. SulaymÄn55 and Muḥammad b. as-SÄʾib al-KalbÄ« (d. 146/763).56 Both MuqÄtil and al-KalbÄ« narrate a very different and more detailed version.57 They recount that the Devil approached Eve in her early pregnancy and alluded to the idea that she may be carrying some sort of beast in her womb. When she was about to give birth, the Devil revisited her, stipulating that in exchange for naming the child after him, he would pray to God, beseeching Him that the child take a human form. After this conversation with the Devil, Eve confessed her worry to Adam, so both became troubled. They prayed to God till she gave birth to a sound child. The Devil returned to Eve, asking her to fulfil her promise. She named then the child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. The story ends with the childâs immediate death.
Ibn SaÊ¿dâs biographical dictionary includes an identical variant of the narrative mentioned above from al-KalbÄ« and MuqÄtil,58 though a significant difference deserves attention. This variation can help us reconstruct the original narrative regarding how the Devil introduces himself to Eve. All three versions agree that the Devil approached Eve in disguise, trying to hide his real identity in order not to be identified by her. MuqÄtil emphasizes this by repeating that Eve listened to the Devil while she did not know him. In the beginning, MuqÄtil also reveals to the reader that the Devilâs name was al-ḤÄrith,59 as in the first group of narratives. However, this contradicts what is spelt out at the end of the narrative, where MuqÄtil notes that the Devil âliedâ to Eve, supposedly regarding his real name. This inconsistency can be simply resolved in light of the parallel version provided by Ibn SaÊ¿d. According to his version, the Devilâs name was Ê¿AzÄzÄ«l,60 but he feared that Eve would recognize who he was.61 To dupe her, therefore, the Devil disguised himself as al-ḤÄrith. Yet another difference from the first group of narratives becomes evident: al-ḤÄrith in the narratives of group II is not the Devilâs real name but his alias.
Parallel versions of the narrative by MuqÄtil, al-KalbÄ«, and Ibn SaÊ¿d
Another version, which resembles the narrative of group II though it consists of some additional elements to the already mentioned narratives, is the one cited by aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, in both TafsÄ«r and TÄrÄ«kh, via his isnÄd68 from the famous KÅ«fan Successor (tÄbiÊ¿Ä«) SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayr (d. 94/714).69 This narrative reads:
When Eve became heavy with her first pregnancy, the Devil (IblÄ«s) came to her before she gave birth, and said: âO Eve, what is that in your belly?â She said: âI do not know.â He asked: âWhere will it come out, from your nose, eye, or ear?â She again replied: âI do not know.â He said: âDo you see if it comes out healthy (salÄ«m), would you obey me in whatever I command you?â She said: âYes.â He said: âName him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith!â The Devil was called al-ḤÄrith. She said: âYes.â Afterwards, she said to Adam: âSomeone came to me in my sleep and told me such-and-such.â Adam said: âThat is the Devil (ash-shayá¹Än). Beware of him, for he is our enemy who drove us out of Paradise.â Then the Devil (IblÄ«s) came to her again and repeated [what he had said before], and she said: âYes.â When she gave birth to the child, God brought him out healthy. Yet, she named him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. This is [the meaning behind] Godâs word: They assigned Him partners concerning what He gave them; but God is exalted above what they associate.
As one rapidly notices, this version exaggerates Eveâs ignorance of childbirth to the extent that she did not even know from where the child would come out! The fear resulting from such naïveté can readily explain her willingness to accept the deal with the Devil that would keep both her child and her healthy. Another distinct element in SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayrâs tradition is how Eve confronted the Devil: When she was sleeping, namely in a dream. In bold contrast to the narratives told by MuqÄtil, al-KalbÄ«, and Ibn SaÊ¿d, Adam could recognize the Devil and warned her by reminding her that he was their enemy who, had caused their expulsion from Paradise. She nevertheless ignored her husbandâs warnings not to listen to the Devil and named her child after him when the child was safely delivered.
At three points the narratives of group II clearly diverge those of group I. First, the main aim proposed in the first group that caused Adam and Eve to name their child after the Devil was to save the childâs life. In contrast, in the second group, the Devil got the opportunity to deceive primal couple because, during her first pregnancy, Eve was totally ignorant of the process of human reproduction and feared that she might produce a nonhuman animal or that childbirth might hurt her. All these narratives emphasize that the child was born without any defect merely on account of Godâs grace, while the Devil claimed credit for himself out of Eveâs ignorance. In other words, these narratives indicate that Eveâs fear was baseless and ridiculous because the process of human production is so well-known and commonplace, because only God can secure the wellbeing of mother and child, and because the Devil has no hand to intervene in it. Following the Devilâs demand or obeying his command was therefore unnecessary.
Second, another difference has to do with Adam and Eveâs invocation of God, which was out of the concern raised by the Devil. The couple prayed to God and promised to be grateful if they were given a sound child. God granted them their wish, but they failed to keep their promise, for Eve had already promised the Devil that she would name her child after him in return for his intercession. The pairâs failure is thus not the fact that they obeyed the Devilâs order or followed his suggestion or inspiration as portrayed in the narratives of group I, but rather their recourse to the Devilâs intercession seems to be considered as associating partners with God here. This explains why, at the end of the narrative of SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayr, they were exposed to the accusation of having introduced idolatry: Naming her baby after the Devil, as she had promised him, proves that she believed in the Devilâs intercession.
Third, the narratives of group I indicate that the child named at the Devilâs suggestion lived, whereas the narratives of group II end the opposite way: Eve named her child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, and he immediately70 died. This sharp contrast manifests the moral purpose behind this narrative: Here is a clear condemnation of Eveâs act71 of naming the child after the Devil, which puts the childâs death as its direct punishment. Unlike the first group of narratives, here it is God alone who retains the power of life and death over the child of Adam and Eve. Thus, the childâs death suits the narration context as a moral outcome. It explains the ingratitude of Eve and Adam and can function quite well as a background for the Qurâanic passage. However, one quickly notices that in this narrative, the bulk of the blame is placed on Eve, which is in bold contrast to Q 7:190.72
Group III: The Reconciled Version
Considering the contrast mentioned above between the narratives of groups I and II, one could hardly expect a kind of compromise between them. Surprisingly, such a compromise is offered by a tradition narrated on the authority of the late Successor IsmÄÊ¿Ä«l b. Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn as-SuddÄ« (d. 127/745).73 This narrative combines features of the two first groups. Aá¹-ṬabarÄ« split as-SuddÄ«âs narrative, like many other narratives, into three parts and put each in the relevant position of his TafsÄ«r and only one part in his TÄrÄ«kh.74 I combined them here and discuss them in detail:
She bore a light burden, i.e., the sperm and His word passed by with it, i.e., she got along with it. When she became greatly burdened, i.e., the child became heavy in her belly, the Devil (IblÄ«s) came to Eve, frightened her, and said to her: Do you know what is in your belly? Perhaps a dog or a pig or a donkey! Do you know where will this come out? From your anus, which will kill you, or from your vagina? Or perhaps your belly will split and so kill you? This is [meant] where [God says:] The couple invoked God their Lord, saying: âIf You give us a good [child], i.e., like us, then we will surely be of the thankfulâ. So she â i.e., Eve â gave birth to a boy (ghulÄm). The Devil came to them and said: Name (pl.) him my servant (Ê¿abdÄ«); otherwise, I will kill him. Adam said to him: I have once before obeyed you, and you caused me to be driven out of Paradise. So, he refused to obey him, and they named him Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn. Then, God gave a free hand to the Devil over the child (fa-sallaá¹a AllÄhu Ê¿alayhi IblÄ«sa),75 and he killed him. Eve bore another [child], and when she delivered him, the Devil said to her: Name (sg.) him my servant; otherwise, I will kill him. Adam said to him: I have once before obeyed you, and you caused me to be driven out of Paradise. So he refused, and they named him á¹¢Äliḥ. Then the Devil killed him. The third time around, the Devil said to them: If you (pl.) [want to] overcome me, name (pl.) him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith! â the Devilâs name was al-ḤÄrith; he was called IblÄ«s when he bedevilled/despaired (ablasa)76 â So they succumbed (Ê¿anawÄ). This is [meant] when God says: They assigned Him partners concerning what He gave them, i.e., in the naming [of the child].
According to this narrative, the Devil approached Eve without hiding his identity and frightened her that what she was carrying in her womb would be a beast and that the position of her body from which it should come out would kill her. Notably, the Devilâs demand in this version is combined with a threat.77 Eve gave birth to a boy, and the Devil threatened to kill him if the child was not named âmy servantâ (Ê¿abdÄ«), supposedly meaning Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith (lit. âal-ḤÄrithâs servantâ), as introduced at the end of the narrative. This narrative explicitly indicates submission of the child to serve the Devil, as it uses literary parallelism such that the word Ê¿abd (slave/servant) appears in both names: Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn versus Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. Adam recalled what happened last time when he followed what the Devil recommended. On account of this, he refused the Devilâs demand and named the child Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn, opposite to what the Devil desired. The Devil then carried out his threat and caused the child to die. The inappropriate consequence of such a statement is not dismissed, as one notices in the variant of the narrative, in which the whole act was out of Godâs permission, which means that no independent power on the part of the Devil over the lives of the children was taken for granted. The cycle repeated itself when Adam named the second child á¹¢Äliḥ. A clever choice, evidently adapted from Q 7:190 so that the adjective á¹£Äliḥan is taken up as childâs name,78 is made by the narrator, who could have thought of finding a name that could reduce the contrast between the Devilâs desire who wanted the child named as his servant (Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith) and Adamâs wish not to follow the Devil. This choice, however, failed as well. When the third child was born, the Devil again insisted that they had no choice other than to name the child Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith. The story concludes with them complying out of despair inferred from the reference to Q 7:190. However, about the childâs fate, the reader does not learn anymore.
Theological Challenge: Did Adam Commit Shirk?
Apparently out of theological concerns, Muslim exegetes attempted, in different ways, to interpret the Qurâanic passage to protect Adam (and Eve) from committing any sin. The concern was evidently caused by the idea of âthe infallibility of the prophetsâ (Ê¿iá¹£mat al-anbiyÄʾ), in the sense that the prophets were immune against any sin (dhanb) or error (khaá¹aʾ). This doctrine appeared from the mid-second/eighth century onwards, originating from among the Shiâa, but it was quickly embraced, in one way or another, by almost all Muslim sects and all theological and legal schools.79 Since Adam is considered the first prophet,80 Muslim exegetes were forced to claim boldly that he did not commit any sin, let alone the cardinal sin of shirk or idolatry.81 In this regard, aá¹-ṬabarÄ« cites the following tradition,
SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayr was asked, âDid Adam associate others with God (ashraka Ädamu)?â to which he replied: âI seek refuge in God to think that Adam committed shirk ⦠Adamâs associating (others with God) was only in the name.â82
The addendum to some versions of the narrative is supposed to clarify the issue raised when the verse is understood as a story of the child born to Adam and Eve in which they are reproached for ascribing partners to God. The complimentary comments maintain that Adam and Eve obeyed the Devil only in naming the child but, thus the association to God was only by name, not in worship (fÄ« al-ism lÄ fÄ« al-Ê¿ibÄda).83 This additional explanation tries to mitigate their transgression; however, it does not entirely solve the problem, especially when one considers the broader context of the Qurâanic passage. How shall one make sense of Q 7:190b, which reads: Exalted is God above what they associate (yushrikÅ«n)? Is this also an objection to take partners with God just in name, or does it indeed refer to those who worship other gods? One also reads the next verse, Q 7:191: Do they associate others that create nothing and have been created themselves? which clearly indicates that the objection is directed to âworshippingâ Godâs creatures than God Himself. This is indeed a common Qurâanic argument demonstrating the foolishness of worshipping anything other than God: Since all objects of worship other than God are themselves created beings, they are ultimately incapable of creating others (cf. Q 16:20, 25:3), and in our case, bringing a sound child into the world. Therefore, they never deserve to be worshipped. Considering all this, one sees that the charge of shirk is still directed at Adam and Eve. In a tradition attributed to as-SuddÄ«, a rhetorical solution is suggested: to disconnect parts a and b of Q 7:190 so that they can be interpreted as referring to different matters. While Q 7:189 and the first part of verse 190 relate the story of Adam and Eve, the last part of verse 190 addresses Arab polytheists worshipping their idols.84 MuqÄtil and al-KalbÄ« pronounced a similar opinion,85 and aá¹-ṬabarÄ« also approved of it.86
In contrast to this odd solution that splits a Qurâanic verse into two separate, independent parts, in another version of the narrative, the story of Adam and Eve not only covers the whole passage (Q 7:189â190) but also extends to the next verse Q :191. This narrative is transmitted on the authority of Ê¿Abd ar-RaḥmÄn ibn Zayd b. Aslam (d. 182/798)87 as follows:
A child was born to Adam and Eve. They named him Ê¿AbdallÄh. The Devil (IblÄ«s) came to them and said: what did you name your son, O Adam and O Eve? â because before this one, another child had been born to them, and they had named him Ê¿AbdallÄh, but he had died. Then the Devil said: Do you think God will leave his servant (Ê¿abdahÅ«) with you? No, by God, He will take him as He did with the other! But I will tell you a name so that [your child] will stay with you as long as you stay. Thus, they named him Ê¿Abd Shams.88 This is [meant by] Godâs word: Do they associate others who create nothing and have been created themselves? Does the sun create anything to have a servant? It is itself a creature! The Messenger of God, may Godâs salutation and peace be upon him, said: He [the Devil] deceived them twice. He deceived them once in Paradise, and he deceived them again on earth.
This narrative adds three new elements to the story, developing the idea of naming the child. First, the Devil explains why the first child named Ê¿AbdallÄh died: This name literally means âthe servant of Godâ, and God does not leave His servant with others. In other words, the literal meaning of the name is emphasized here. Second, in order to keep the child alive, the Devil suggests to Adam and Eve that they choose another name for him that does not imply serving God, namely Ê¿Abd Shams (lit. Sunâs servant). Third, naming the child a servant of other than God is rebuked, because none of them has a role in creation so that they deserve servitude. So the connection between naming the child with associating partners with God becomes clear: It is no longer a mere name but a confession of servitude to something other than God, which has no meaning but shirk. The narrative concludes with a prophetic hadith stating that the Devil once more deceived Adam and Eve: The first time, they were expelled from Paradise for disobeying Godâs command, and the second time, they were again accused of committing idolatry out of their ingratitude.
IsrÄʾīliyyÄt: An Easy Label to Eliminate the Problematics
In their various amplifications and elaborations, the Adam and Eve narratives presented and discussed above represent the dominant understanding of the Qurâanic passage in the formative period of Muslim exegetical tradition. While these narratives provide a clear context in which the Qurâanic passage could be easily understood, they cause complex exegetical challenges regarding theological doctrine, namely the doctrine of the prophetsâ infallibility. This background can quite well explain why it was proposed to understand Q 7:189â190 in reference to people other than Adam and Eve. For instance, aá¹-ṬabarÄ« recorded from al-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ« (d. 110/728)89 three different explanations for Q 7:190:90
(1) âThe verse refers to some offspring of Adam who fell into idolatry after himâ;
(2) âThis is about followers of some religions, not about Adamâ;
(3) âThey were Jews and Christians, whom God gave children, but they turned them into Jews and Christians.â
Apart from the apparent discrepancies between these three interpretations, none of them is considered acceptable by aá¹-ṬabarÄ« himself, for he takes it for granted that Adam and Eve are those who are referred to in the Qurâanic verses, since there is the consensus among the exegetes about that. Therefore, he prefers to understand the Qurâanic passage as his predecessors despite all mentioned difficulties.91
The attitude toward the exegetical narratives gradually changed. Muslim commentators of the classical period and later, generation after generation, gravitated toward explanations of the kind attributed to al-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ« as their preferred interpretation of this Qurâanic passage.92 There is no surprise to see that Muslim scholars and exegetes with rationalist tendencies, including MuÊ¿tazilites and ShÄ«Ê¿ites, preferred to understand this Qurâanic passage as a parable relating to married couples in general. Thus it demonstrates the human tendency to beseech God when one feels hopeless and afraid but to attribute good fortune to other natural and supernatural causes after receiving Godâs help and grace.93
Along with this change of attitude, later commentators begin to criticize Adam and Eveâs narrative. Nevertheless, this narrative continues to evoke the attention of, or even the admiration of, the exegetes while interpreting these verses, even those who evidently took a negative stance towards these narratives in general. The best example of this paradoxical position is TafsÄ«r of Fakhr ad-DÄ«n ar-RÄzÄ« (d. 606/1210), who first presents a long list of shortcomings and discrepancies in the interpretation based on the narratives of Adam and Eve but later attempts to provide compelling arguments to justify the understanding of earlier commentators who accept the narrative as background information for the Qurâanic passage.94
The first Qurâan commentator who used the label isrÄʾīliyyÄt in his tafsÄ«r on this passage in a pejorative sense, indicating that the narrative was unreliable, was the Andalusian jurist and exegete AbÅ« Bakr Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« (d. 543/1148), as far as I could determine. After citing al-KalbÄ«âs version of the narrative, he evaluates it negatively by stating:95
This [narrative] and the like are mentioned in the weak hadith in [the collections of] at-TirmidhÄ« and others. In the isrÄʾīliyyÄt, there are many [such narratives] which have no certainty (laysa lahÄ thabÄt), and one who has a mind (man lahÅ« qalb) does not rely on them. For Adam and Eve, although the deceiver deceived them concerning God (gharrahumÄ bi-llÄhi al-gharÅ«r), the believer would not be bitten from the same hole twice â after that, they would not accept from him any advice nor hear him any say.
No pre-Islamic, Jewish or Christian, tradition is identified that shows common elements with the Islamic narrative. Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« himself does not provide any evidence or argument for labelling this narrative as isrÄʾīliyyÄt. However, the mediaeval scholar, Ibn KathÄ«r (d. 774/1373), takes a step forward. After criticizing Samuraâs version for being considered as a prophetic hadith,96 he speculates that the Companion Samura could have received the narrative from some converts among the People of the Book (ahl al-kitÄb), such as KaÊ¿b al-AḥbÄr, Wahb b. Munabbih, or others.97 He then cites other versions of the narrative transmitted on the authority of another Companion, Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs, which were further transmitted and distributed by a group of Ibn Ê¿AbbÄsâs students (jamÄÊ¿a min aṣḥÄbihÄ«), including MujÄhid b. Jabr, SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayr, and Ê¿Ikrima, as well as by transmitters and exegetes from the next generation (aá¹-á¹abaqa ath-thÄniya) such as QatÄda b. DiÊ¿Äma, as-SuddÄ«, and others, and later commentators. Then he repeats his speculation, stating, âIt seems â and God knows best â that it [=this narrative] is originally taken from the People of the Book,â and as a support for his claim, he refers to a version of the narrative that Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ« cited in his TafsÄ«r from Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs on the authority of Ubayy b. KaÊ¿b.98 Regardless of the evident problem in the isnÄd of this version,99 it does not supply the necessary evidence for his claim â none of the people in the isnÄd, including Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs and Ubayy b. KaÊ¿b, belonged to the People of the Book and later converted. Or perhaps he means that these famous Companions simply reported traditions from the People of the Book without mentioning their sources. The answer is clearly expressed in the introduction of his TafsÄ«r, where he explains his principles for the Qurâan exegesis. While emphasizing the significant role of the Prophetâs Companions, whose exegetical traditions are the keys to the meaning of the Qurâan, Ibn KathÄ«r speaks of the traditions that they received from the People of the Book,
Sometimes sayings are transmitted on the Companionsâ authority that they used to recount from the People of the Book, [the practice of] which the Messenger of God â God bless him and give him peace â approved when he said, âConvey on my authority even a single verse and narrate [traditions] from the Children of Israel for there is nothing wrong with that. However, whoever tells lies against me intentionally, let him take his seat in the Fire.â100
Surveying the wide usage of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt in Ibn KathÄ«râs works shows that he only used the term when he was faced with narratives to which he objected. His objections were theological and directed against a kind of tradition that in his opinion previous scholars had uncritically introduced into Islamic literature. There is no necessary co-ordination between the use of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt and having recourse to biblical material; Ibn KathÄ«r himself is also one of the most assiduous readers of the biblical traditions, whose contents he transmitted when he approved of them.101
According to Ibn KathÄ«r, all versions of the narrative about Adam and Eveâs child were rooted in the isrÄʾīliyyÄt material, and he confidently repeats his claim: âAnd these traditions (al-ÄthÄr, i.e., traditions transmitted from the Companions and the Successors) seem â and God knows best â to have been taken from the traditions of the People of the Book.â Therefore, he reminds his readers of his opinion on isrÄʾīliyyÄt, the collective tradition passed down from ahl al-kitÄb, as follows: âThese reports [form the People of the Book] fall into three categories: (1) What we consider âtrueâ considering the evidence we have from the Qurâan or the Prophetâs sunna; (2) What we consider âfalseâ because it contradicts the Qurâan and the sunna; and (3) What [our sources are] silent about (maskÅ«t Ê¿anhu), ⦠which is neither confirmed nor denied.â102 Whether this narrative belongs to the second category or the third, Ibn KathÄ«r admits, is of dispute, though his preference for al-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ«âs opinion indicates that he assumes that the narrative is false.103 The use of the label isrÄʾīliyyÄt by Ibn KathÄ«r and others for this narrative is, therefore, introduced to condemn traditions of a suspect nature that lack the authority of an authentic prophetic tradition.
Concluding Remarks
What can one conclude from this collection of narratives? One cannot label these traditions as isrÄʾīliyyÄt, in the sense of deriving from Jewish and Christian lore, without having any objectively discernible connection to non-Muslim sources. Those mediaeval Muslim scholars who used the label isrÄʾīliyyÄt in order to discredit these traditions never supplied any evidence supporting their claim. By proposing âan intertextual reading of this narrative in a broader context of ancient and mediaeval Near East religious milieu,â Hadromi-Allouche attempted to identify parallels from Jewish, Christian and Greek texts. However, in her summary of the article, she admits that none of the proposed cases could be regarded as a relevant parallel to the Islamic narrative in terms of content and context.104 The present study, however, shows that the narrative of âthe child born to Adam and Eveâ is deeply rooted in the Muslim exegetical tradition and belongs to a well-attested process of Midrash-making in order to explain the Qurâan in narratio by filling out its biblical narratives, supplying details, identifying persons, clarifying conditions, and resolving contradictions. All this is applied to produce a coherent narrative out of the elliptical references to the biblical figures â in this case, the primal couple. Although it cannot be determined where the actual provenance of the story lays and whether it emerged independently from the Qurâanic text, one cannot entirely agree Hadromi-Alloucheâs conclusion when she maintains that the narrative âdoes not fulfill its exegetical role very well.â The Qurâanic passage speaks of the first coupleâs ingratitude and disobedience to God, and the narrative attempts to contextualize the Qurâanic message by focusing on the concerns of the primal couple regarding the process of procreation.
The oldest version of this narrative dates to the end of the first century, when the generation of Successors was active in producing and transmitting traditions on the exegesis of the Qurâan. Later, several versions, with a variety of elaborations and embellishments, were developed by later generations of transmitters that reflect different narratological as well as theological concerns. It is not surprising that variants of this narrative were projected back to earlier authorities. It is a well-known phenomenon in both hadith and exegetical traditions that in order to acquire higher authority, statements of later generations, such as Successors, were attributed to earlier authorities, including Companions and the Prophet himself. This fact did not escape the notice of later hadith critics, in our case as well, as already shown.105 This study also shows how effectively the narrative served to shape the conception of the Qurâanic passage, Q 7:189â190. It became the dominant and commonly accepted interpretation in the formative period of Muslim exegesis. Even the alternative interpretations attributed to al-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ« were evidently dependent on the framework of the narrative. This proves that the narrative was commonplace among early Muslim exegetes. In other words, later exegetes and, following them, mediaeval and modern commentators approached the Qurâanic passage in the light of the strong tradition already produced and widespread by early Muslim exegetes, although the later commentators expressed their own preferences and proposed alternative interpretations.
Following the developments of this narrative allows one to see how sensitive the early generation of exegetes was towards the portrayal of the biblical figures in the Qurâan. The Qurâan does not contain an explicit indication of the idea that Adam was a prophet: He is not directly referred to as a prophet (nabÄ«; pl. anbiyÄʾ) or a messenger (rasÅ«l; pl. rusul), nor does his name appear in the list of prophets (cf. e.g. Q 2:136, 3:84). However, Q 3:33 seems to allude to the prophetic mission of Adam by stating that âGod chose Adam and Noah, and the House of Abraham and the House of Ê¿ImrÄn above all the worlds.â Several versions of the narrative reveal that the theological doctrine of the infallibility of prophets, which developed over the eighth and ninth centuries in Muslim theology, raised new concerns among Muslim exegetes. In the beginning, the reaction was adding a small clarification that softened the severe transgression of idolatry and obedience to other than God. Later commentators, however, preferred the alternative interpretation, in order to remove any accusation against Adam. Mediaeval scholarsâ decision to label the narrative as isrÄʾīliyyÄt shows that for them, the charge of idolatry would be too stark an accusation, something that could not be conceived as having originated from within Islamic tradition. It should be, therefore, merely regarded as an outsider influence, opposed to the truth as known from the Qurâan and prophetic hadith, and harmful to Islam.
An earlier version of this paper, titled âThe Quest of the IsrÄʾīliyyÄt in Interpretations of the Biblical Stories in the Qurâan: The Life of Adam and Eve as a Case,â was presented at the interdisciplinary symposium âNotions of Dignity and Deficiency â Intertextual Approaches to the Anthropology of the Qurâan in Contemporary Muslim Discourse,â held on September 17â18, 2015. This event was organized by Dr. Rüdiger Braun, the chair for the Study of Religions at the University of Erlangen in cooperation with the Center for Anthropology of Religion(s). I am profoundly grateful to my colleague Devin Stewart for his meticulous proofreading and valuable comments on the final draft of this article. I also extend my thanks to Mohammad Ali Khavanin Zadeh for his careful reading and corrections on the final proof. Any remaining errors are my own.
For a critical overview on the history and literature of this genre, cf. Shah, âIntroduction.â
See Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, 122â48.
For a comprehensive survey of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt and its appearance in Muslim literature, see Tottoli, âOrigin and Use of the Term IsrÄʾīliyyÄtâ; Tottoli, âNew Materialâ.
See Rippin, âTafsÄ«r,â 13:8952; Newby, âTafsÄ«r IsrÄʾīliyyÄt,â 686.
A key figure to whom the transmission of isrÄʾīliyyÄt is ascribed is the Yemenite Jew KaÊ¿b al-AḥbÄr (d. ca. 32/652), who converted under the Caliph Ê¿Umar ibn al-Khaá¹á¹Äb. See Schmitz, âKaÊ¿b al-AḥbÄr.â
The most famous figure among them is Ê¿AbdallÄh Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs (d. 68/688), the cousin of the Prophet, whose knowledge of biblical traditions was said to be so extensive that he was called ḥabr al-umma, meaning âthe rabbi of the community.â See Gilliot, âÊ¿AbdallÄh b. Ê¿AbbÄs.â
Pregill, âIsrÄʾīliyyÄt, Myth, and Pseudepigraphy,â 231.
Schwarzbaum, Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk Literature, 55.
In the patronage system of early Islamic times, non-Arab freedmen linked by clintage (walÄʾ) to their Arab patrons were called mawÄli. See Nawas, âClientâ; Wensinck and Crone, âMawlÄ.â
See Newby, âTafsÄ«r IsrÄʾīliyyÄt,â 688â93; Newby, âThe Drowned Son,â 21.
For a thorough examination of divergent opinions of Muslim scholars about this statement, see Kister, âḤaddithÅ« Ê¿an banÄ« isrÄʾīla wa-lÄ á¸¥araja.â
The first evidence of the term isrÄʾīliyyÄt in Muslim literature â as already noted by Goldziher, âMélanges Judéo-Arabes,â 65 â is found in al-MasÊ¿Å«dÄ«âs (d. 956), MurÅ«j adh-dhahab, 370ff. According to al-MasÊ¿Å«dÄ«, scholars at his time held differing opinions concerning the validity of this kind of traditions; he himself stated that all these traditions should be treated with caution, since they are supposedly of uncertain credibility. See also Tottoli, âOrigin and Use of the Term,â 194; Tottoli, âNew Material,â 2.
See Tottoli, âOrigin and Use of the Term IsrÄʾīliyyÄt,â 197; Tottoli, âNew Material,â 4.
Ibn Taymiyya used isrÄʾīliyyÄt as a technical term for what he considered unreliable traditions of Jewish and Christian origin, that were quoted in early Muslim exegesis. According to him, these traditions had to be rejected unless they conformed to sound Muslim traditions. Even in the latter case, Ibn Taymiyya claimed that âIsrÄʾīliyyÄt should only be mentioned for purposes of attestation (li-l-istishhÄd), not as a basis for belief (li-l-iÊ¿tiqÄd)â; Ibn Taymiyya, al-Muqaddima fÄ« uṣūl at-tafsÄ«r, 100. There are some scepticism regarding the authorship of the last two chapters of al-Muqaddima and its attribution to Ibn Taymiyya. For details, see Mirza, ââA Precious Treatiseââ, 84, and note 32.
See for example, Mirza, âIshmael as Abrahamâs Sacrifice,â where he shows that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn KathÄ«r both engage biblical lore and the biblical text directly to argue that Ishmael was Abrahamâs intended sacrifice. Tottoli, âOrigin and Use of the Term IsrÄʾīliyyÄtâ; McAuliffe, âIbn Taymiya.â
Tottoli, âThe Corpora of IsrÄʾīliyyÄt,â 684.
Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike, 44.
Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 91f.
See Wald, âAggadah or Haggadah,â 454.
Heller, âGinzbergâs Legends of the Jews.â
Heller, âThe Relation of The Aggada To Islamic Legends,â 281f.
Tottoli, âThe Corpora of IsrÄʾīliyyÄt,â 688. These studies usually emphasize âthe mutual interdependenceâ of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions in creating their versions, indicating that the Jewish and Christian parallels are not always at the origin of the Islamic narratives but rather reflect Islamic influences. To name just a few, Firestone, âAbrahamâs Journey to Meccaâ; Lassner, Demonizing the Queen of Sheba; Wheeler, âMoses or Alexander?â; Alexander, âJewish Traditions in Early Islamâ; Halperin, âCan Muslim Narrative be Used as Commentary on Jewish Tradition?â; Wheeler, âThe Jewish Origins of QurʾÄn 18:65â82?â; Lowin, The Making of a Forefather; Bernstein, Stories of Joseph.
Schwarzbaum in his Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends promoted the idea that these Islamic reports supply evidence of now lost pre-Islamic (mostly âJewishâ) traditions. Certain scholars, therefore, proposed a methodology to reconstruct lost midrashim through Islamic sources. See for instance, Newby, âThe Drowned Sonâ; Halperin and Newby, âTwo Castrated Bullsâ; and for a recent one, Silverstein, Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story.
The grammatical problematic here is that the feminine nafs (soul) is the reference of the pronoun suffix in zawjahÄ, literally meaning âfrom her made her mate.â To keep its original ambiguity, some English translations render this expression as âmade from it its mateâ; see QarÄʾī, The QurʾÄn with a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation; Nasr, The Study Quran.
The term á¹£Äliḥ in the Qurâan usually occurs in plural, meaning âthe righteousâ. See BadawÄ« and Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary of Qurâanic Usage, 532. Some English translations of the Qurâan adopted the exegetical tradition and translated á¹£Äliḥ in this context as âa healthy childâ. See e.g., QarÄʾī, The QurʾÄn; Nasr et al, The Study Qurâan. To keep the ambiguity of the verse, I choose âgoodâ which can cover both meanings.
An alternative reading attributed to NÄfiÊ¿ and ShuÊ¿ba from Ê¿Äá¹£im is shirkan (association), meaning âThey assigned Him a share concerning what He gave them.â See Ibn MujÄhid, KitÄb as-sabÊ¿a fÄ« al-qirÄʾÄt, 299.
Her name never appears in the Qurâan in which she is referred to only as Adamâs zawj; Spellberg, âWriting the Unwritten Life,â 306; Schöck, âAdam and Eveâ; Aghaei, âḤawwÄâ; Tottoli, âEve.â
Fletcher, âShirk.â
See Jeffrey, The Foreign Vocabulary of the QurʾÄn, 57f.
In the Qurâan, the Devil is referred to as IblÄ«s where he refused to acknowledge the superiority of Adam, while in the story of Adam and Eveâs temptation in Paradise and when he appears as tempter of humans on earth, he is designated as ash-shayá¹Än, the demon or Satan. See Wensinck and Gardet, âIblÄ«sâ; Lange, âDevil (Satan).â
In secondary literature, a selection of these Islamic narratives have already been discussed from a gender-oriented perspective. See Spellberg, âWriting the Unwritten Life,â 314â18; Hadromi-Allouche, âName Him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith,â 185â188.
MujÄhid b. Jabr AbÅ« al-ḤajjÄj al-MakkÄ« al-Aswad (d. ca. 104 or 107/722 or 725) is a distinguished Successor (tÄbiÊ¿Ä«) who was a prolific transmitter in exegesis and hadith. MujÄhid was mawlÄ of as-SÄʾib a Companion from BanÅ« MakhzÅ«m. See Rippin, âMud̲j̲Ähid b. D̲j̲abr al-MakkÄ«.â
See Gilliot, âKontinuität und Wandel in der âklassischenâ islamischen Koranauslegung (II./VII.-XII./XIX. Jh.),â 42ff.
For a comprehensive study of the sources of the commentary of aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, see Horst, âZur Ãberlieferung im Korankommentar aá¹-ṬabarÄ«sâ; Lucas, âTranslatorâs Introductionâ; Savant and Seydi, âDispatches from al-Tabari.â
MujÄhid b. Jabr, TafsÄ«r, 348; cf. aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:312, no. 15522.
Al-WÄḥidÄ«, AsbÄb nuzÅ«l al-QurʾÄn, 225.
See also aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 455, no. 606 (at Q 2:30), 502, no. 685 and 509, no. 704 (at Q 2:34); idem, TÄrÄ«kh ar-rusul wa-l-mulÅ«k, 1:81.
For the etymological speculations regarding the meaning of al-ḤÄrith, see Hadromi- Allouche, âName Him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith,â 183 f.
Abd ar-RazzÄq, TafsÄ«r Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq, 2:103; cf. aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:312, no. 15520. In the isnÄd of Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq, the name of al-KalbÄ« also appears as the authority from whom MaÊ¿mar transmitted, but this version, as we will see below, seems not to be compatible with al-KalbÄ«âs. See note 56; also ath-ThaÊ¿labÄ«, TafsÄ«r, 4:315.
AbÅ« al-Khaá¹á¹Äb QatÄda b. DiÊ¿Äma as-SadÅ«sÄ« (born in 60/680, and died of plague at WÄsiá¹ in 117/735) was a Successor (tÄbiÊ¿Ä«) who became prominent for his knowledge about genealogies, lexicography, historical traditions, Qurâanic exegesis and readings, and hadith. See Pellat, âḲatÄda b. DiÊ¿Äma.â
The text of Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq reads: inna shará¹a an yaÊ¿Ä«sha waladuka hÄdhÄ, meaning âthe condition that the child lives,â which I considered a scribal error and amended with that of aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, Vol. 13: 312, no. 15520, which reads instead: in surraka an yaÊ¿Ä«sha waladuka hÄdhÄ âIf you wish that this child of yours lives.â
The imperative verb (sammÄ«hi, f. sg.) in Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄqâs version addresses a woman while the Devil talks with Adam. This is most probably a scribal error, if not that of the editor. Cf. another edition of Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄqâs TafsÄ«r edited by Muá¹£á¹afÄ Muslim Muḥammad and published earlier under the title TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn, 1:245, and the version presented in aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:312, no. 15520: sammihÄ« (m. sg.). In a similar version of QatÄdaâs tradition though transmitted through a different isnÄd, the Devil approached both Adam and Eve and addressed both: sammiyÄhu (in dual form); see aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:312, no. 15521.
Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 33:305, no. 20117.
At-TirmidhÄ«, al-JÄmiÊ¿ al-kabÄ«r, 5:160, abwÄb tafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn Ê¿an rasÅ«l AllÄh: bÄb wa-min sÅ«rat al-aÊ¿rÄf, no. 3077. At-TirmidhÄ« situated this hadith in the section on Qurâanic commentary that concerns Q 7, though he did not specify which verses it describes. See also Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ«, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn, 5:1631.
The isnÄd of this hadith consists of Ê¿Abd aá¹£-á¹¢amad b. Ê¿Abd al-WÄrith â Ê¿Umar b. IbrÄhÄ«m â QatÄda b. DiÊ¿Äma as-SadÅ«sÄ« â al-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ«. According to at-TirmidhÄ«âs evaluation, this hadith is gharÄ«b (lit. âstrangeâ) because it is only known through Ê¿Umar b. IbrÄhÄ«m from QatÄda and there are other variants of this hadith which are not attributed to the Prophet, indicating that a Companionâs opinion/saying was projected back to the Prophet. In other words, a mawqÅ«f hadith that its isnÄd ends at a Companion of the Prophet is elevated to a marfÅ«Ê¿, i.e., attributed to the Prophet. For a detailed discussion of at-TirmidhÄ«âs hadith terminology and its implication for âback-projection of traditionâ (rafÊ¿ al-ḥadÄ«th), see Aghaei, âCommon Link.â
In Ibn Ḥanbalâs version, the verb is sammawhu in plural form, thus meaning âthey named him.â Although it is not in dual form (sammayÄhu) to better fit the context, apparently it was meant that both Adam and Eve participated in naming the child.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:309, no. 15513; idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:149. See also Muḥammad b. Ê¿AbdallÄh al-ḤÄkim an-NÄ«shÄpÅ«rÄ«, al-Mustadrak Ê¿alÄ aá¹£-á¹¢aḥīḥayn, 5:10, no. 4051, where he evaluates the isnÄd of this hadith as á¹£aḥīḥ (sound) although the two Shaykhs, i.e., Muḥammad b. IsmÄÊ¿Ä«l al-BukhÄrÄ« (d. 256/870) and Muslim b. al-ḤajjÄj an-NÄ«shÄpÅ«rÄ« (d. 261/875) did not transmit it.
This discrepancy did not escape aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, for, right after Samuraâs hadith, he cited another tradition from Samura (albeit with another isnÄd), in which he underlined the point that Adam named his son Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith, too. See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:310, nos. 15514â15.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:310, no. 15516; idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:149. The translation, with minor modifications, is taken from idem, The History of al-ṬabarÄ«. 1:320f.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ« quotes here from Ibn IsḥÄqâs work through his teacher in Rayy Abu Ê¿AbdallÄh Muḥammad b. Humayd ar-RazÄ« (d. 248/862) from AbÅ« Ê¿AbdallÄh Salama b. al-Faá¸l al-Azraq (d. after 190/805â6), judge of Rayy, who was the direct student of Ibn IsḥÄq. See also Rosenthal, 17f.
About Ê¿Ikrima and his master Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs, see Schacht, âIkrima.â
See also al-FarrÄʾ, MaÊ¿ÄnÄ« al-QurʾÄn, 1:400.
This can explain why, in Sunni tradition, it is not permissible to name a child a âservantâ (Ê¿abd) of anyone but âGod.â See Ibn Ḥazm, MarÄtib al-ijmÄÊ¿, 249.
Al-KisÄʾī, Qiá¹£aá¹£ al-anbiyÄʾ, 1:67f.
MuqÄtil b. SulaymÄn, TafsÄ«r, 2:79f.
The original TafsÄ«r of al-KalbÄ« is lost, though his narratives are transmitted in later Qurâan commentaries. Here I rely on HÅ«d b. Muḥakkam al-HawwÄrÄ« (died in the last decades of the 3rd/9th century), TafsÄ«r, 2:65f., which itself is based on the commentary by YaḥyÄ b. SallÄm al-Baá¹£rÄ« (d. 200/815). For a variant of al-KalbÄ«âs narrative, cf. also ath-ThaÊ¿labÄ«, TafsÄ«r, 4:315.
For abridged versions of the same narrative, see also al-FarrÄʾ, MaÊ¿ÄnÄ« al-QurʾÄn, 1:400; Ibn Qutayba, TaʾwÄ«l mushkil al-QurʾÄn, 258f., where he cites the narrative from âthe commentatorsâ (qÄla al-mufassirÅ«n) without mentioning any specific name.
Ibn SaÊ¿d, aá¹-ṬabaqÄt, 1:37f., where he inserted this version in a whole narrative section of several pages about Adam and Eve after their fall from Paradise, combined of various stories and supposedly taken from different sources, though he provided no sources for any part of this long narrative. See Ibn SaÊ¿d, aá¹-ṬabaqÄt, 1:34â39.
Also see below, SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayrâs version.
See also aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 1:502f., nos. 686â687 (at Q 2:34); idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:83. The name Ê¿AzÄzÄl as a title for the leader of rebellious angels is found in the pre-Islamic Jewish Book of Enoch; see Ahituv, âAzazelâ; Kohler, âAzazel.â
See also ath-ThaÊ¿labÄ«, TafsÄ«r, 4:315, where it says, âIf he introduced himself with his real name, Eve would recognize him.â
Comparing this phrase with the two other parallels (fÄ« ghayr ṣūratihÄ«) reveals that this could be a misspelling of fÄ« that changed to wÄw.
Here âI stoodâ does not make sense and most probably is due to a scribal error. Other parallels suggest replacing it with âI sat.â
It seems that something here is missing that could be emended by other parallels from al-Kalbī and Ibn Saʿd.
See note 66.
Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith as the Devilâs name sounds weird and most probably is due to a scribal error. This also contradicts the name that appears in the beginning of MuqÄtilâs narrative, where the Devil is introduced under his name al-ḤÄrith.
Adamâs contentment is missing in other versions.
SufyÄn b. WakÄ«Ê¿ (d. 247/861) â Muḥammad b. Fuá¸ayl b. GhazwÄn (d. 194â95/809â11) â SÄlim b. AbÄ« Ḥafá¹£a (d. ca. 140/757â8).
See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:313, no. 15523; idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:150; Translation, with minor modifications, is taken from aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, History, 1:321. Through a different isnÄd, namely al-QÄsim b. al-Ḥasan b. YazÄ«d al-HamadhÄnÄ« (d. 272/885) â al-Ḥusayn b. DÄwÅ«d (d. 226/840â1) â al-ḤajjÄj b. Muḥammad (d. 206/821â2) â Ê¿Abd al-Malik b. Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z Ibn Jurayj (d. between 149 and 151/766â68), aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:307, no. 15511, cites another version of SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayrâs tradition that contains a peculiar element: The Devil threatens Eve that he will kill the child if she does not follow his command, though Eve takes Adamâs warning seriously and does not follow the Devilâs command, so that the childâs death appears to be the Devilâs evil act, as he himself reveals. It seems that this element has been adopted from another narrativeâI shall discuss below (Group III), and inserted into SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayrâs version, most probably by its transmitter Ibn Jurayj. This supposition is supported by a quite similar tradition preserved in aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:311, no. 15518, with the same isnÄd, though this time oddly attributed to Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs rather than SaÊ¿Ä«d b. Jubayr (also see note 77).
Or after a short time, according to Ibn Qutayba, TaʾwÄ«l mushkil al-QurʾÄn, 259.
Although in MuqÄtilâs version, it was accomplished with Adamâs contentment.
See Aghaei, âḤawwÄ.â
He was a freedman (mawlÄ) of a female Companion Zaynab b. Qays from Quraysh, of Kufa, was a popular exegete who got his name presumably from his wont to sit at the threshold (sudd) of the mosque and explain the Qurâan. Although his reputation as a narrator is quite mixed, and he is accused of rÄfiá¸Ä« tendencies, his opinions are extensively reported in the exegetical literature, including aá¹-ṬabarÄ«âs TafsÄ«r. See Juynboll, âal-SuddÄ«.â
See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:305, nos. 15503, 15505, 307 f., no. 15512, 313 f., no. 15525, where all three parts are transmitted through one and the same isnÄd: MusÄ b. HÄrÅ«n al-HamdÄnÄ« â Ê¿Amr b. HammÄd â AsbÄá¹ b. Naá¹£r; cf. also idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:151; the translation with minor modifications is taken from aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, History, 1:322.
See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:314. The variant in aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:151, reads: fa-sulliá¹a IblÄ«su Ê¿alayhi laÊ¿anahu AllÄhu, âthe DevilâMay God curse him!âwas granted power over the child.â
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 1:509 (at Q 2:34), cites a few traditions that combine IblÄ«s with the verb ablasa, the meaning of which is indicated to be âto make someone despair, to eliminate oneâs hopeâ as it can be inferred from the occurrence of its cognates in the Qurâan: Q 6:44, 23:77, 30:12, 49, 43:75. This root meaning may be genuine, but it could have originated from etymological speculation on the name IblÄ«s, as Rosenthal suggested âbedevilâ in his English translation. See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, History, 1:322; cf. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, sv. b-l-s.
Compare to Ibn Jurayjâs tradition attributed to Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs; see aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:311, no. 15518.
Also see Rosenthalâs note, aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, History, 1:322, note 924.
For a general overview of this doctrine, see Madelung and Tyan, âÊ¿Iá¹£ma.â
As regards his prophecy, which is not explicitly attested to in the Qurâan, early traditions display various attitudes, but it is mainly in awÄʾil literature that Adam emerges as the âfirst of the prophets.â See Tottoli, âAdam.â
The Qurâan (Q 4:48 and 116) explicitly states that God can pardon all sins except one, the sin of shirk.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:313, no. 15524.
There are various formulations though with quite similar meaning: âIt was associating others in obedience not in worshipâ; âThey associated others in naming not in worshiping.â See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:311 no. 15518, 312, nos. 15520, 15521, 313 f., no. 15525.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:315, no. 15529, though through a different isnÄd: Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. MusÄ al-KÅ«fÄ« â Aḥmad b. al-Mufaá¸á¸al al-QurashÄ« â AsbÄá¹ b. Naá¹£r, and 317, no. 15531, through al-Ḥasan b. YaḥyÄ â Ê¿Abd ar-RazzÄq aá¹£-á¹¢anÊ¿ÄnÄ« â SufyÄn ibn Ê¿Uyayna â á¹¢adaqa b. YasÄr. See also Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ«, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn, 5:1634f.
See al-HawwÄrÄ«, TafsÄ«r, 2:66.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:315.
Ibid., 318, through YÅ«nus b. Ê¿Abd al-AÊ¿lÄ (d. 264/877) â Ê¿AbdallÄh Ibn Wahb (d. 197/813). See also Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ«, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn, 5:1635.
In another version, the Devil promised that the child would live so long as the sun continued to rise and set.
AbÅ« SaÊ¿Ä«d al-Ḥasan b. YasÄr al-Baá¹£rÄ« (21â110/642â728) was a Successor, who was born to a Persian slave and later rose to pre-eminence in Islamic scholarship as a prominent exegete and reader (qÄriʾ) of the Qurâan as well as a distinguished theologian. See Mourad, âal-Ḥasan al-Baá¹£rÄ«.â
See aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:314 f., nos. 15526, 15527, 15528.
Aá¹-ṬabarÄ«, JÄmiÊ¿ al-bayÄn, 13:314; idem, TÄrÄ«kh, 1:151.
See e.g. az-ZajjÄj, MaÊ¿ÄnÄ« al-QurʾÄn wa-iÊ¿rÄbuhÅ«, 2:395f; al-MÄturÄ«dÄ«, Taâ ʾwÄ«lÄt ahl as-sunna, 5:111â15; al-JaṣṣÄá¹£, AḥkÄm al-QurʾÄn, 4:212.
This view is cited from AbÅ« Muslim Muḥammad b. Baḥr al-Iá¹£fahÄnÄ« (d. 934), the famous MuÊ¿tazilÄ« theologian and exegete; see ash-SharÄ«f al-Murtaá¸Ä, TanzÄ«h al-anbiyÄʾ, 34 f; aá¹-ṬūsÄ«, at-TibyÄn, 5:54.
See Fakhr ad-DÄ«n ar-RÄzÄ«, TafsÄ«r, 15:90f.
Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«, AḥkÄm al-QurʾÄn, 2:355. Al-Qurá¹ubÄ«, al-JÄmiâ li-aḥkÄm al-QurâÄn, 9:410, repeated Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs statement word for word without mentioning his reference.
Cf. note 45. For a similar isnÄd criticism, see ash-SharÄ«f al-Murtaá¸Ä, TanzÄ«h al-anbiyÄʾ, 36f.
Ibn KathÄ«r, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿aáºÄ«m, 3:527; Ibn KathÄ«r, Qiá¹£aá¹£ al-anbiyÄʾ, 1:73f.
See Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ«, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn, 5:1633.
Ibn AbÄ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ« transmitted this tradition through a very odd chain of transmitters: his father AbÅ« ḤÄtim ar-RÄzÄ« â a certain AbÅ« al-JamÄhÄ«r â SaÊ¿Ä«d b. BashÄ«r â Ê¿Uqba â QatÄda â MujÄhid â Ibn Ê¿AbbÄs â Ubayy b. KaÊ¿b. This isnÄd appears only once in his TafsÄ«r, and no occurrence of that is found in other early sources so far I surveyed.
Ibn KathÄ«r, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿aáºÄ«m, 1:8f., which is in fact a verbatim copy of a passage in Ibn Taymiyya, al-Muqaddima fÄ« uṣūl at-tafsÄ«r, 98. See also note 14. The translation with minor modifications is taken from McAuliffe, âIbn Taymiya: Treatise on the Principles of Tafsir,â 38.
See also Calder, âTafsÄ«r from ṬabarÄ« to Ibn KathÄ«r,â 137, note 38.
See also Ibn KathÄ«râs introduction to his, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿aáºÄ«m, 1:9.
Ibn KathÄ«r, TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿aáºÄ«m, 3:528.
See Hadromi-Allouche, âName Him Ê¿Abd al-ḤÄrith,â 188â96.
For references and detailed discussion, see Aghaei, âRafÊ¿-i ḤadÄ«th.â