1 Introduction
QurʾÄnic narratives are âan indispensable dimension of the QurʾÄnic text [and] it is often overlooked that the QurʾÄn is par excellence a storybook, and that it teaches through its storiesâ (Johns 1993, 41â42). In view of the fact that they have been constructed for the transmission of moral or theologically-driven messages, these narratives continue to serve as âpowerful teaching devices for the community of the faithfulâ (Stowasser 1994, 3â4) in terms of Ê¿ibra (lessons) and ḥikma (wisdom) (Q 12:3, 12:111). However, the idea that QurʾÄnic narratives merely provide aesthetic appeal or are simply vehicles for transmitting moral, ethical, and even theological messages has been challenged in recent scholarship.
According to Neuwirth for example, unlike biblical narratives which have a âmeticulous shaping of personages [and] sophisticated coding and de-coding of motivesâ (Neuwirth 2006, 106), which are presented in a âroughly chronological sequence of eventsâ (Neuwirth 2006, 97), QurʾÄnic narration âpursues complex âpara-narrativeâ aimsâ. These shape and influence their telling in various ways: the frequency with which they are (re)visited; their content; what is told and what is left untold; as well as the depth and detail in which these stories are related. Accordingly, some stories are depicted as being deliberately explored whilst others are intentionally left out (Q 40:78, 4:164, 20:99, 11:100). Some stories have been narrated in full and others only partially (Q 40:78, 4:164) (Campbell 2009, 11). Those that have been narrated are concise and direct (Albayrak 2000, 15) and devoid of detail, reflecting the highly contextualized nature of QurʾÄnic narratives. The Joseph narrative remains the only fully coherent narrative of the QurʾÄn; all others tend to be related in a fragmentary manner. They are told either alongside others in a listing form or at times, shorter narrative excerpts are embedded in larger stretches of narrative.
Moreover, because of the QurʾÄnâs tendency to repeat itself, in ways that are seen as âoccasionally inconsistent or even contradictoryâ (Reynolds 2010, 236), QurʾÄnic narratives are often accused of âlacking a chronological framework [for the] events of pre-QurʾÄnic historyâ that they often narrate (Neuwirth 2006, 107). Western scholarship has frequently put this down to the Prophet Muḥammadâs awareness of the Bible from his Jewish/Christian informers or to the speed of the haphazard editing and codification process (Reynolds 2010, 250; Neuwirth 2006, 98). Some scholars have dismissed these recurrences as seeking to rectify deficiencies in the previous version(s). However, Neuwirth points out that they nevertheless deserve to be examined as a testimony to the âcontinuing educationâ of the early QurʾÄnic community particularly in their âdevelopment and reinforcement of moral or theological consensus that is reflected in the narrative textsâ (Neuwirth 2006, 107).
In this chapter, I seek to demonstrate that QurʾÄnic narration is a multifaceted and multi-purpose phenomenon. There are multiple layers to its âdevelopment and reinforcement of moral or theological consensusâ (Neuwirth 2006, 107). For example, one of the theologically motivated para-narrative agendas of recounting the Solomon narrative is to vindicate and exonerate key prophetic and non-prophetic figures from sacred history regarding whom perceptions became distorted during and after their lifetime. However, these para-narrative agendas of the QurʾÄnâs narratives cannot be fully known unless we compare the QurʾÄnic telling with its biblical predecessor.
The QurʾÄn tells stories from the Bible that are recognizable but told in different ways (Albayrak 2000, 7, e.g., Q 27:76). Some of the narrative details revealed were new, which was put forth as evidence of the Prophetâs legitimate and valid prophetic status. Regardless, Reynolds rightly remarks that it âcould not possibly exist without its scriptural predecessors as subtextsâ (Reynolds 2010, 234). As opposed to retelling a story, âthe QurʾÄn often employs [a] single word, or a simple phrase, that should bring the entire story to the mind of a biblically-minded audienceâ (Reynolds 2010, 234). In truth, âwithout knowledge of the biblical account, the audience is left in a state of bewildermentâ (Reynolds 2010, 234). The QurʾÄnâs frequent recourse to allusions and epithets âimplies that the audience is able to connect the symbolic name with the characterâs proper name ⦠at times the QurʾÄn itself explicitly evokes the audienceâs knowledge of biblical traditions1 ⦠the subsequent account is thus introduced as a reflection on the meaning of a story that is already well knownâ (Reynolds 2010, 234). This connection is because the sociocultural context of the QurʾÄn was one in which people from different faiths and beliefs were constantly interacting. According to Saeed,
this interaction gave rise to a rich resource of legends, myths, ideas, historical figures, images, and rituals, which the QurʾÄn used to relate its narratives, norms and values to the context of HijÄz. The stories of the prophets it chose were relevant to the region be they from biblical or other sources.
Saeed 2006, 118
Thus, QurʾÄnic narratives may accurately be labeled as a form of highly contextualized discourse phenomena (Wodak and Rheindorf 2017, 22). Since the QurʾÄn is in dialogue with other Abrahamic sacred texts, which constitutes what Sunderland refers to as âintertextsâ (Sunderland 2004, 30), QurʾÄnic narrative excerpts are thus essentially an example of âa text that is a link in a chain of texts, reacting to, drawing in, and transformingâ (Sunderland 2004, 30) these other scriptural source texts. Therefore, polemical and dialogic relations (Wodak and Rheindorf 2017, 30) between the QurʾÄn and Judeo-Christian sacred texts are a key dimension of the structure and content of QurʾÄnic narratives. Indeed as Lassner (1993) has demonstrated, these polemic and dialogic relations occurred within a broader practice of cross-cultural borrowing between the Muslim and Jewish traditions, where both sought to better understand their own scripture through investigating the otherâs scripture.
This chapter entails a critical comparison between the QurʾÄnic telling of the Solomon narrative with its Hebrew biblical counterpart. In this regard, I will first present an overview of the Solomon narrative as a whole in the Hebrew Bible and the QurʾÄn. This overview will identify where and how the narratives are located in scripture and will present a thematic analysis of what is considered important in both scriptures. I will then hone in on the excerpts that recount the Queen of Shebaâs meeting with Solomon in both versions of the story. This is because the meeting with the Queen constitutes an essential part of the QurʾÄnic version of the narrative. Lassner correctly points out that with time, there is much to this narrative that âshall never be recoveredâ for the benefit of the modern reader and so it is essential that we make use of âreligious, belletrist, and historical texts that shed light, however dim at times, on the distant pastâ of the Solomonic era (Lassner 1993, 6). A basic frequencies analysis shows that 27% of the total number of these verses is solely about David; 9% are about both Solomon and David; 29.5% are about Solomon only; 32% are about the Queen of Sheba and 9% are about the people of Sabaʾ. In other words, the Queen and people of Sheba are afforded roughly the same number of QurʾÄnic discursive space as these two important Prophetic agents. She thus cannot be overlooked.
This will be done using Van Leeuwenâs Social Actors Approach (SAA, Van Leeuwen 2008), a linguistically oriented, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) perspective. The findings will be interpreted in light of the QurʾÄnâs para-narrative aims of narrating to understand how and why the various elements of the QurʾÄnic narrative have been constructed and presented in the way they have been.
The chief underlying reason for using SAA as opposed to any other critical discourse studies or discourse analytical approach for my study lies in the comprehensive, critical, socio-semantic, and pan-semiotic2 categories provided by the approach, which are informed primarily by both sociological and linguistic theories from the work of Halliday (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999, 82; Wodak and Meyer 2009, 26, 34). The categories allow for a systematic and therefore retroductable analysis.3 The SAA seeks to draw up a socio-semantic inventory of how social actors can be represented in discourse using specific linguistic and rhetorical realizations (Van Leeuwen 1996, 32â34). Because meanings are understood to belong to culture rather than to language, the framework applies to any language (Van Leeuwen 1996, 33) including classical Arabic as in this case.
According to Van Leeuwen, because ârepresentations are understood to be ultimately based on practiceâ; it is the primacy of practice that constitutes the theoretical core of this particular framework (Van Leeuwen 1995, 82). The notion of individual actors permanently constituting and reproducing social structure is linked to a Foucauldian notion of discourse (Wodak and Meyer 2009, 27). The core of social action is formed by action and the participants are involved in social action in their capacity as instigators, agents, affected, or beneficiaries (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999, 92â94). Moreover, the approach also considers the context of social action or âperformance indicatorsâ (time, place, tools and materials, dress and grooming, eligibility criteria, and so forth) to be an important aspect of the analysis of social action (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999, 92â94), thereby facilitating a more nuanced understanding of social actors and social action.
The framework also allows us to differentiate between social actors on grounds of gender and social groups and individual actors, which can be diagnostic. We can therefore identify, track, and trace similarities and differences between the nominal representation of male actors vs. female actors, protagonists vs. peripheral actors, and individuals vs. social groups. Moreover, by differentiating between actors concerning their roles as agents and or affected entities, the approach allows us to understand power dynamics and hierarchies between actors more clearly.
The vast inventory of categories used to depict social actors in a range of ways compels us to think âoutside of the boxâ about social actors and how their different social, religious, and relational functions and identities shape and impact the type of social actions they are represented as carrying out. Importantly, the notion of appraisement is also very important in terms of delineating how social actors are evaluated, judged, and discursively representedâhow, by whom, and in what way (positive or negative). On a meso-level, this is connected to the ideas of legitimation and delegitimation of certain social practices. Similarly, the categories of association and assimilation vs. differentiation are also key in marking out us vs. them group configurations within the QurʾÄnic text. Collectively, the vast range of categories build up a complex, nuanced, and highly subjective/individualized picture of every social actor, by highlighting the different facets of social actor identities from various angles, enabling us to âget to knowâ key male and female social actors. What this means is that by using this method, we can better understand who the role models for emulation are, what is âemulatableâ and what is delegitimized in these QurʾÄnic men and women.
2 Exegetical Understandings of Solomonâs Meeting with the Queen in the Muslim TafsÄ«r Tradition
Before I go on to analyze the narrative excerpts using this discourse approach, it might be useful to first understand how this narrative has been understood within the Muslim exegetical tradition. In the tafsÄ«rs, the Queen of Sheba is identified as BilqÄ«s bint SharÄḥīl ibn MÄlik ibn RayyÄn. Her mother, according to Ibn KathÄ«râs (d. 774/1373) report is FÄriÊ¿a, from the jinn. BilqÄ«s ruled over a highly populated vast kingdom in Yemen (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:186). Al-ZamakhsharÄ« (d. 538/1144) explains that the reason why the Queenâs existence had been made unknown to Solomon, despite only living relatively close by, was due to Godâs maá¹£laḥa (divine reasoning), in the same way that YÅ«sufâs whereabouts had been made unknown to his father, YaÊ¿qÅ«b (al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:781). In this section, I will briefly explore four main central themes from Solomonâs meeting with the Queen, as explored by al-ZamakhsharÄ«, al-RÄzÄ« (d. 606/1210), al-Qurá¹ubÄ« (d. 671/1272) and Ibn KathÄ«r. These key themes are Solomonâs letter to the Queen; BilqÄ«sâs throne and its acquisition by Solomon and their meeting at the Glass Palace.
2.1 The Letter
Upon learning about the Queenâs existence, her vast kingdom and magnificent throne, and more disconcertingly, her problematic choice of religion (sun-worship) by his chief bird, Hudhud (Hoopoe), by way of ascertaining the truth of the birdâs statement, Solomon writes the Queen a letter. The letter was delivered by Hudhud in the Queenâs personal chamber, at a time when she was alone. Upon finding and reading the letter, the Queen is shocked and surprised and orders her government officials, nobles, and statesmen to gather for a meeting (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:188). During the meeting, she discusses the ânoble letterâ (Q 27:29) that she has been sent. Al-RÄzÄ« explains that the letter was noble because of the nobility and excellence of its subject matter, it was sent by a noble king and as such it was sealed properly (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:194). Al-ZamakhsharÄ« also adds that the letter was scented in musk and like the letter of all prophets of God; it was short and to the point as opposed to being unnecessarily lengthy (al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:782). Ibn KathÄ«r continues that it reflected the pinnacle of clarity and balÄgha (rhetoric) (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:188). Moreover, prior to Solomon, no one had written the basmala in a letter. The letter reads as follows: Lo! it is from Solomon, and lo! it is: In the name of AllÄh, the Beneficent, the Merciful; Exalt not yourselves against me, but come unto me as those who surrender (Q 27:30â31). Al-RÄzÄ« explains that by âdo not exalt yourself,â Solomon meant that do not transgress by following the desires of the lower self and show pride and arrogance like all other kings (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:195). Ibn KathÄ«r adds âdo not resistâ to this list of possible meanings (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:189). Concerning âcome to me,â Ibn KathÄ«r elaborates that by this, Solomon meant them to come to him as monotheists, sincere believers, and obedient (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:189). This is corroborated by the explanations of al-RÄzÄ« and al-ZamakhsharÄ« too (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:195; al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009).
2.2 The Throne
BilqÄ«sâs famous and magnificent throne was according to the exegetes, a splendid sight. It was enormous in size, located on the highest and innermost part of her palace, raised on pillars, and enclosed within seven other palaces, each locked by a huge door, making it very difficult to access. It was made of gold and studded with the rarest most precious jewels and pearls, and it was surrounded by hundreds of maids who served the Queen. Every morning and evening, the Queen and her people would face towards the throne and prostrate to the sun (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:187). Whilst Ibn KathÄ«r is intrigued by the design and location of the throne (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:191â192), al-RÄzÄ« and al-ZamakhsharÄ« on the other hand are more perturbed by Hudhudâs description of the Queenâs throne and AllÄhâs throne using almost the same set of words (al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:781). Thus, their concern in explaining this part of the narrative is differentiating between Hudhudâs meanings when referring to the Queenâs throne. The Queenâs throne according to them is indeed magnificent when compared to the thrones of all other kings, whereas AllÄhâs throne is magnificent in relation to His creation of all that exists in the Heavens and the Earth (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:190). In other words, for the exegetes, drawing out this marked difference was theologically motivated.
2.3 Acquiring the Queenâs Throne
Accessing the Queenâs throne constitutes an important and well-discussed part of all the commentaries examined. The chief amongst these concerns clearly relates to understanding Solomonâs motivations for acquiring the throne in the first place. According to al-ZamakhsharÄ«, Solomon wanted to demonstrate to the Queen the mysteries of his special God-given powers by showing how her most precious possession, the throne, which was within the seventh innermost palace, protected by lock after lock was still easy for him to access and take. Ibn KathÄ«r corroborates this view and adds that Solomon wanted to show her the vast diversity of beings in his army, such that none before or after him would ever possess (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:192) The acquisition of the throne was his ḥujja (proof) over her in relation to proving the legitimacy of his prophethood. Al-RÄzÄ«, adds to these plausible reasons by adding that Solomon knew that the Queen would come to visit him, and he thus wanted to test the Queenâs intellectual ability to discern and recognize her throne after it had been significantly altered. It may also have been to determine the extent of her powers and kingdom prior to meeting her (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:197). An interesting point mentioned by all the exegetes is that it was important for Solomon to take this throne before the Queenâs conversion to Islam, as after Islam, her wealth and property would become forbidden for him to take (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:197).
There is a clear difference of opinion amongst the exegetes in relation to who actually took the throne. Ibn KathÄ«r clearly prefers the opinion that Äá¹£if ibn BarkhiyÄ, Solomonâs chief minister, an honest man who knew al-ism al-aÊ¿áºam (Godâs greatest name), was the one to bring Solomon the throne (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:192; al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:784). Al-RÄzÄ«, on the other hand, puts forward a list of possible human and non-human beings, such as JibrÄ«l, a specific angel assigned to Solomon by God, Khiá¸r, Äá¹£if ibn BarkhiyÄ, a man from the desert who came to visit Solomon that day and lastly, Solomon himself (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:197). Al-RÄzÄ« argues that Solomon himself instantly acquired the throne of the Queen as a way of responding to the Ê¿ifrÄ«t (stalwart) who offered to bring it to him by the end of the meeting, by demonstrating the miracles associated with him and his greater power. He argues that had Äá¹£if or any other being accessed the throne, it would have made Solomon appear vulnerable or less powerful than those he was ruling over. Moreover, it was more plausible that he, being a prophet of God, had knowledge of the book and Godâs names (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:197â198).
OnceâtheâthroneâwasâbroughtâbeforeâSolomonâorâbeforeâthe congregationâhe ordered his nobles to alter its features, in a significant way, by way of testing the Queenâs intellectual capabilities. As such, Ibn KathÄ«r points out that the colors were changed, it was increased in some aspects of design and reduced in others, it was turned inside out and upside down (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:194). The exegetes agree that despite these significant alterations, the Queen exhibited steadfastness in her judgment, perfect intellectual discernment, and foresight (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:194). Nevin Reda thus rightly points out that the Queen of Sheba âmust have been an intelligent womanâ and âone who was difficult to trick.â Solomonâs strategy of taking her throne âworked because it appealed to her point of strength, that is, her ability to make wise decisionsâ (Hassan 2020, 134).
2.4 The Meeting at the Palace
Ibn KathÄ«r explains that Solomon had heard a great deal about the Queenâs beauty and magnificence. When the jinn found out about his interest in her, by way of preventing his marriage/union with her, they circulated rumors about her intellectual deficiency and the fact that she had hairy legs and feet that looked like that of a donkey. This was because she was the offspring of a jinn parent herself (her mother), and they did not want her to give birth to another half-human child. According to al-Qurá¹ubÄ«, Solomon had an advisor from the jinn who advised him to build a glass palace in order to trick her into revealing her legs and feet. Al-ZamakhsharÄ« corroborates this and adds that Solomon took her throne and had it altered to test her intellectual soundness and had the glass palace built to see the state of her legs and feet for himself (al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:784, 785).
Thus, a magnificent glass palace was built prior to her arrival, upon running water. Fish and other aquatic creatures were put under the clear, glass flooring and were clearly visible. Her throne was placed in the center of the palace. Solomon was seated on her throne, with jinn and human attendants standing around him, and birds hovering above him. This was to get the Queen to show him the greatest degree of respect and honor, on account of his steadfastness in religion and legitimate prophet-cum-king status.
Hassan correctly points out that despite the clearly positive image of the Queen of Sheba in the QurʾÄn, the exegetes âfail to note the liberal gender-egalitarian contentâ of the narrative (Hassan 2020, 134), concerning themselves at times with unnecessary details. So, âwhile the QurʾÄnic text praises the Queen of Sheba, and shows her exceptional abilities as a leader, traditional interpretations convey a different message, one that identifies doubts about a womanâs ability to leadâ (Hassan 2020, 134). So, upon being requested to enter the palace, the Queen mistakenly perceived the glass floor to be running water, so she lifted her skirt and here, the exegetes differ over what Solomon saw. All the exegetes in question agree that the Queen revealed perfectly formed legs and feet. However, Ibn KathÄ«r and al-Qurá¹ubÄ« go on to elaborate that the Queenâs legs were hairy and that this was put down to the fact that she was unmarried (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:195; al-Qurá¹ubÄ« 1935, 16:175) and so she did not need to beautify herself. He thus ordered the jinn to invent a hair-removal instrument and thus, she became the first for whom a razor was invented. Nevertheless, they all agree that coming to visit Solomon at the Glass Palace was what led the Queen to embrace the monotheistic faith of Solomon. Upon her conversion, Solomon and all present are said to have prostrated to AllÄh, out of joy and gratitude (Ibn KathÄ«r 1999, 6:195). The Queenâs conversion was no small matter for it meant that potentially, her whole nation would follow suit.
In the aftermath of her conversion, al-Qurá¹ubÄ« and al-ZamakhsharÄ« point out that Solomon and the Queen got married and she returned to her kingdom in Yemen. Solomon would visit her once a month for three days (al-ZamakhsharÄ« 2009, 3:785). Al-Qurá¹ubÄ« argues that she bore him a son called DÄwÅ«d, who died during Solomonâs lifetime (al-Qurá¹ubÄ« 1935, 16:175). Other exegetes like al-RÄzÄ« argue that she got married to a king called HamdÄn (al-RÄzÄ« 1985, 24:201).
Having briefly examined the Muslim tafsÄ«r tradition by way of understanding how this narrative has been read through the lens of some Muslim scholars over the centuries, I shall now go on to examine the narrative excerpts from the Solomon narrative, as they appear in the translated version of the Hebrew Bible as well as in the original Arabic, QurʾÄnic version.
3 Dispersal Analysis
The story of Solomon (and David) comprises a key part of the overall collection of narratives in both the QurʾÄn and the Hebrew Bible. In the Bible, Solomonâs story is related over two main books: the Book of Kings and Chronicles. It consists of over 700 verses. Apart from these, there are also various other references to Solomon throughout the Old Testament. The references to Solomon in the Bible are thus much more elaborate, frequent, and detailed than they are in the QurʾÄn. Whilst frequencies do not shed any light on the context, power, or impact of an occurrence, they do provide one useful way of investigating the extent to which characters are represented and which themes and motifs are considered to be significant, which can therefore be diagnostic from a CDA point of view (Van Leeuwen 1995, 85).
The story of Solomon and David is related in fragmentary form, in excerpts that are relatively short in length and are dispersed across the QurʾÄnic text. The very first mention of Solomon as it appears in the muṣḥaf, appears as a free-standing verse in Q 2:102. The para-narrative agenda of this verse is defensive and vindicatory as it seeks to refute the validity of allegations of sorcery and disbelief leveled at Solomon after his death. The verseâs message is fore-grounded because it stands alone and sets the agenda for recounting the Solomon narrative in the rest of the QurʾÄn. In fact, on a different occasion, the jinnâs knowledge of the unseen realm is further refuted in Q 34:14, in which God states that âthe jinn saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating penalty (of their task)â which Solomon had decreed for them. Thus, reinforcing the divinely originating nature of all his forms of empowerment and refuting any kind of inappropriate connection to the dark world of magic remain tied ultimately to the central theme of tawḥīdâa foregrounded, theological para-narrative agenda of the QurʾÄnic telling of the story.
Towards the latter part of the second sÅ«ra, we then have six verses strung together which recount how David acquired his kingship after defeating Goliath. Godâs promise to the Israelites, in relation to Davidâs rule, is also marked in these verses with glad tidings of receiving the Ark of the Covenant âwherein is peace of reassurance from your Lordâ (Q 2:248). Davidâs rule would thus prove successful for the Children of Israel.
These verses are then followed by a string of four free-standing verses found in sÅ«ra 4, 5, 6, and 17 of the QurʾÄn, all of which emphasize the prophetic status of both Solomon and David. They are thus represented in these verses as having been inspired by God and exalted in station over many other prophets (Q 4:163). Davidâs reception of the Psalms has also been repeated twice (Q 6:48 and 17:55). The para-narrative agenda of representing them as valid prophetic agents in addition to their well-known divinely authorized kingship is clearly emphasized in these verses, more so due to their structural location within the QurʾÄnic text as free-standing verses.
These freestanding verses are then followed by a string of five verses in sÅ«ra 21 (and similar ones in sÅ«ra 34) which briefly recount the divinely originating resources granted to both father and son which made them competent and divinely validated prophet-cum-kings, such as wisdom, discernment, and knowledge. Intriguingly, each of these verses ends with a reminder to the reader of Godâs constant supervision, backing, and support behind the numerous extraordinary powers and resources made accessible to them both. There are a couple of these verses in sÅ«ra 34 too (Q 34:10â14). In this regard, we have phrases like âand We were witnesses to their judgmentâ (Q 21:78); âAnd We made Solomon understand (the case)â (Q 21:79); and âfor be sure I see (clearly) all that ye doâ (Q 34:11). In relation to Davidâs command over the birds and the hills: âWe [God] were the doers (thereof)â (Q 21:79). Of Solomonâs command over the winds âAnd of everything We are Awareâ (Q 21:81). Elsewhere, other QurʾÄnic references to Godâs constant support comprise how the jinn were under his command âby the leave of his Lord and if any of them were to disobey him it was God Himself [who] made him [jinn] taste of the penalty of the blazing fireâ (Q 34:12). The purpose behind these reminders is clearly to demonstrate that Solomonâs extraordinary powers were not only of divine origin but that God played an active role in sustaining and maintaining his matchless sovereignty, because he was a Prophetic agent.
Then in sÅ«ra 27, al-Naml (The Ant), we find the lengthiest narrative excerpt recounting Solomonâs encounter with the Queen of Sheba. It is 29 verses long and stands as a coherent narrative entity. It is this excerpt that will inform the bulk of the analysis for this chapter (other verses will be alluded to where relevant). Solomonâs encounter with the Queen of Sheba features in both scriptural texts. However, there are significant differences in the accounts. The Queen of Sheba constitutes a significant proportion of the Solomon story in the QurʾÄn. In the Bible, she is devoted a short section in the Book of Kings. This excerpt is repeated almost verbatim in Chronicles. Each excerpt is 13 verses long and largely recounts her meeting with Solomon.
On the other hand, in the QurʾÄn, the Solomon story is narrated in full in Q 27, al-Naml, over a stretch of 29 verses: 27:15â44 of which 25â29 are based on the Queen of Sheba. Given the significant number of verses about the Queen of Sheba and her people elsewhere in the QurʾÄn, what could be a para-narrative priority might actually be to present Solomonâs encounter with her in a different light to the one presented in the Bible. The central QurʾÄnic excerpt that recounts Solomonâs meeting with the Queen of Sheba foregrounds Solomonâs prophetic status alongside his kingship. The most important theme running through the entirety of the excerpt is tawḥīd.
The theme of divine empowerment continues in the following excerpt of 11 verses in sÅ«ra 34, from which the first 4 verses explore David and Solomonâs many favors of divine empowerment (faá¸l). The remaining 7 explore how God had blessed the people of Sabaʾ and how they turned away in disbelief and ingratitude and so were made to face punishment from God (Q 34:15â21). Neuwirth refers to such narratives as âretribution legendsâ (Neuwirth 2006, 105).
The final references to Solomon and David in the QurʾÄn can be found in sÅ«ra 38, over a stretch of 21 verses. Here, the first ten verses continue the recurring theme of recounting the story of David and how God had blessed him in various ways. It also recounts how God tested him. The remaining 11 verses recount the story of Solomon. It also describes how God tested him and explores the extraordinary forms of divine empowerment he benefited from and received during his life. This sÅ«ra sheds light on a rather important dimension of Solomon and Davidâs careers as prophets-cum-kings. Here, God recounts some apparent âlapsesâ in their moral praxis. Therefore, Solomonâs distraction from the remembrance of God as a consequence of viewing light-footed horses (Q 38:32) and Davidâs metaphorical taking of his brotherâs only ewe (Q 38:24) construe father and son as fallible prophetic agents. However, despite being momentarily distracted from the remembrance of God by the âgood things of the worldâ (Q 38:32) and being momentarily beguiled by his [David] desire (Q 38:26) they nevertheless represent excellent exemplars of continuously turning back to God in gratitude and repentance. There are hence numerous QurʾÄnic verse references to David and Solomonâs gratitude to God (Q 27:15, 27:19, 27:36, and 27:40) as God Himself tries them to see if they are thankful or not (Q 34:13). There are also frequent QurʾÄnic references to David and Solomonâs repentance (Q 38:17â35). The central point, however, is that it is their repentance and continuous turning back to God that âsavesâ them in the end. Thus, we have a critical appraisal of both prophetic agents in the QurʾÄn. It is these qualities of theirs that are frequently emphasized in the QurʾÄn as invoking Godâs grace, forgiveness, and exaltation. Therefore, they are presented in the QurʾÄn as acclaimed role models for emulation for believing men and women.
4 Thematic Analysis
In the biblical telling of the narrative, the central themes of the Solomon story are: Solomonâs acquisition of the throne; his dedication and commitment to building the Temple of the Lord; his splendor, riches, and extraordinary kingdom; his mighty rule and worldwide fame for his wisdom and knowledge. There appear to be significantly more references to Solomonâs splendor in the Bible than in the QurʾÄn. In the Bible, he is depicted as enjoying for his own sake whereas in the QurʾÄn he is represented as holding disdain for the opulent gifts sent from the Queen on account of already having wealth and power like no other king living before or after him (Q 38:35). As such he is depicted as not letting it overcome him (Q 27:36).
There are also frequent references to his passion for building palaces and other things. 42% of all references to Solomon in the Bible recount his many grandeur plans and architectural genius in relation to building palaces and temples. It took him 7 years to complete the temple of the Lord (1 Kings 6:38) and almost twice that time to build his own royal palace (1 Kings 7:1). He also built a palace for his wife, the pharaohâs daughter (1 Kings 7:8), and terraces for his wives and temples for their gods (1 Kings 11:7). In the QurʾÄn, there are occasional references to his construction work, such as the glass palace which he shows the Queen of Sheba (Q 27:44) and another reference to his passion for building palaces (Q 34:14). Whilst these confirm what is expounded in the Bible, any explicit mention of the building of the temple is absent in the QurʾÄn, as are his other many building projects in various villages as enumerated in the Bible (1 Kings 9). The building of the temple is significant in the Bible and references to it constitute a third of the total references to Solomon in the book of Kings and Chronicles. It goes without saying of course that even today he is best known for the Temple of Solomon. Although there are numerous verses describing Solomonâs sources of divine empowerment, in the Bible, these are largely connected to material wealth and worldwide riches which he is depicted as receiving in large quantities (1 Kings 3). It is connected to his extraordinary kingdomâboth in size and scope as well as what he was able to achieve during his forty-year reign. At some level, his acquisition of these material riches is also connected to his well-sought-after wisdom and knowledge which kings and leaders came to benefit from, bringing with them generous gifts each time (1 Kings 4:34). The Queen of Sheba is also depicted as partaking in this latter practice.
But in the QurʾÄn, we are presented with a very different picture. The sources of divine empowerment (tafá¸Ä«l) are clearly identified, and described in greater detail and more frequently than in the Bible. Importantly, these sources go beyond material wealth, riches, and even cognitive abilities like wisdom and insight as enumerated in the Bible. They explicitly denote mastery over the earthâs elements, natural resources, and its creatures. Moreover, Solomonâs empowerment is derived from God, not from other kings and Queens who are drawn to him on account of his wisdom and knowledge (1 Kings 4:34). In fact, verses recounting the empowerment of both David and Solomon constitute a significant proportion of all references to Solomon in the QurʾÄnic telling of the story. 54% of all references to the story of Solomon recount the various extraordinary means of divine empowerment of David, such as having control over the birds (Q 34:10, 38:19, 21:79); hills and mountains (Q 34:10, 38:18, 21:79); iron was made soft for him so that he could build armor for battle (Q 34:10; 21:80); an abundance of wealth (Q 27:16); knowledge and wisdom from God to judge rightly amongst the people (Q 27:15, 2:251, 21:79) and of course, prophethood (Q 38:26); kingship (Q 2:246â2:251) as well as exaltation over many prophetic agents and kings (Q 17:55, 2:253, 27:15).
Similarly, Solomon is represented as having control over the winds (Q 21:81, 34:12, 38:36); knows the languages of birds Q 27:16, 27:22â28, animals, and insects (Q 27:18); possesses control over people as well as the jinn (Q 21:82, 34:12â13, 38:37); possesses extensive knowledge (Q 27:15, 21:79) and wisdom (Q 21:78â79); control over iron (Q 34:12); is honored with prophethood (Q 2:253; 4:163); has an abundance of all things (Q 27:16, 27:36, 38:31); owns a matchless army (Q 27:17â18, 27:37) and a unique sovereignty (Q 38:35).
Incidentally, the Queen of Sheba is also depicted as receiving divine empowerment as is clearly implicated in Q 27:23 âand she hath been given (abundance) of all thingsâ in addition to possessing a magnificent throne (Q 27:23, 27:38), an abundance of material wealth (Q 27:23, 27:36) and a mighty army (Q 27:33).
In the QurʾÄnic telling there is a huge emphasis on the extent of Godâs divine empowerment of both Solomon and David, through the frequency of descriptions of extraordinary powers and blessings. The frequent construal of Godâs tafá¸Ä«l and divine backing or support of Solomon and David was strategically important in countering allegations of sorcery and magic against Solomon. Where Solomon is depicted as getting the jinn to help him in his various projects: military expeditions (Q 27:17); to bring him the throne of Sheba (Q 27:39); building projects (Q 21:82, 34:12, 34:13, 38:37, 34:14); diving for pearls and other treasures in the ocean (Q 38:37, 21:82) as well as other work. Implied in these references are phrases explicitly stating that Solomonâs power over the jinn was by the leave of God (Q 34:12) and that He, was ever watchful and witness to all that Solomon and David did (Q 34:11). His divine backing and support were not limited to empowering them through various means, but entailed constant supervision, guidance, and checking to ensure it was used for the correct purposes.
Other important themes in the biblical telling include his righteousness and wholehearted devotion to Godâat least for the main part of his rule (1 Kings 8). However, the percentages of these verses are higher in the QurʾÄn (18%) compared to the Bible (11%). As such, alongside building the Temple of the Lord (1 Kings 6) and having an eye to detail for every part of the Templeâs construction and decor (1 Kings 7:13â51), and reinstating the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kings 8), he is represented as generously and frequently offering sacrifices to God (1 Kings 8:62â66, 9:25, 3:4, 15; 1 Chronicles 29:21, 1:3 and so forth). Godâs encounter with Solomon, via waḥy (divine revelation) is not described in detail in the QurʾÄn as it is in the Bible (2 Chronicles 1:7â12, 7:12â22). However, there are numerous references to his being a righteous man of God (Q 27:15, 38:30, 6:84, 27:19). Tawḥīd is thus a central theme in both tellings. There are frequent references to Solomonâs great sacrifices to God, their generosity and frequency and acceptance by God in the Bible, but merely a passing verse in Q 34:13 in which such actions are implicated in the form of âbasons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places),â albeit, the purpose is to reinforce his power over the jinnânot his frequent and generous sacrificial rituals. In the Bible, Solomonâs practice of burning incense when sacrificing to God is implied as looked down uponâpossibly because it seems to imitate the polytheists/idol worshippers of his time, e.g., his wives who did this when offering sacrifices to their gods (1 Kings 9:24).
However, despite repeated counsels and reminders from his father David (1 Kings 2:2â4) and God, Himself (1 Kings 3:10â14, 6:11â13), who spoke to him twice, towards the latter part of his life, Solomon is represented in the Bible, as no longer fully devoted to God as David, his father had been (1 Kings 11:1â11). On account of his love for his wives, some of whom were idol worshippers, Solomon left the way of his father and became an idol worshipper. There are thus frequent references to Solomon worshipping idols in the Bible (1 Kings 9:6, 9). God thus became angry and destroyed his kingdom and the Temple very soon after his death. In the Bible, God is depicted as bringing about Solomonâs downfall by raising adversaries against him. This is by way of punishing him for worshipping other gods. In the same way that he became Davidâs heir through the help of prophet Nathan, his adversaries are helped by prophet Ahijah and are given the kingdom in his stead after his death (1 Kings 11:25). It is, however, delayed till later his death, because of Godâs love and appreciation of Davidâs righteousness (1 Kings 11:37â39).
Apart from Q 38:34, which Muslim exegetes have long grappled with and put forward various contentious interpretations that they have drawn from isrÄʾīliyyÄt material, in the QurʾÄn, Solomon is almost always depicted as an upright, righteous man of God who seeks to bring others (the Queen and her people) to the monotheistic religion of God. In the Muslim exegetical sources, as part of their interpretation of this ambiguous verse Q 38:34, Solomon is depicted as either committing a wrong on account of instructing the jinn to build a life-size idol of her father for one of his idolatrous wives; seeking help from magicians instead of God for his chronic illness; seeing an image of his own life-less body resting on his throne or being tested for forgetting to say if-God-wills in his quest to impregnate all his wives and concubines so that they can all give birth to sons who will go on to fight alongside him in the path of God. In contrast to the biblical account where he appears to slip away from the path of David, in the QurʾÄnic account, Solomon, though not completely faultless, is nevertheless portrayed as constantly turning back to God in repentance over his faults and expressing gratitude for all his blessings.
In many ways the biblical account is an implicit condemnation of Solomon: God gave him so much and yet, despite of this, he too was overcome by human weaknesses. It was a woman who is depicted as bringing him down (Nehemiah 13:26). He is the reason for the destruction of the Israelites and the ultimate destruction of the temple and the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kings 9: 7â9). Thus, in the Bible, we have the story of the rise and fall of a great king. Solomonâs transgression is a theme that cannot be negated in the biblical telling. The full breadth of his story is recounted in the Bible: beginning with his birth to the destruction of his kingdom shortly after his death. Solomonâs prophetic status is neither implicitly nor explicitly alluded to in the Bible as prophecy is understood differently in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although there are references both to his kingship and to his being a man of God in both the QurʾÄn and the Bible, in the QurʾÄn, it is his prophet status that is emphasized and foregrounded as an inextricable dimension of his role as divinely authorized king.
In what is to now follow, I will critically examine and compare Solomonâs meeting with the Queen of Sheba in the QurʾÄnic and biblical versions of the narrative using Van Leeuwenâs Social Actors Approach. The motivation for doing so is to unpack how Solomon and the Queen have been represented in both telling so that we can deduce from these construals, what are the plausible para-narrative aims behind the QurʾÄnic telling.
5 Construal of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba in the QurʾÄn and Hebrew Bible
Not only do QurʾÄnic narratives shape consciousness and perception, but they also guide action. Young maintains that the worldâs sacred texts are âpotent sources of inspiration and behaviourâ (Young 1993, xii; see also Clifford Geertz, cited in Stowasser 1994, 4). One such paradigm of faith is the âlessons the QurʾÄn imparts to the believers by way of narratives and legislation on its female charactersâ (Stowasser 1994, 4). As such, âpeople are guided to act in certain ways, and not others, on the basis of the projections, expectations, and memoriesâ derived from socially circulating religious narratives such as those of the QurʾÄn and the Bible (Lawler 2002, 250). Lawler argues that âpublic narratives are powerful in structuring the kinds of things which can be said (and, conversely, foreclosing certain kinds of story)â (Lawler 2002, 250). As such, âcertain things become âsaturated with meaningâ and thus symbolize/resonate with public narratives thereby constructing coherence between personal and public narrativesâ (Lawler 2002, 252). This is because people âinevitably construct their identities ⦠by locating themselves or being located within a repertoire of emplotted storiesâ (Lawler 2002, 252). In this way, not only do actual believers experience their various identities through the vehicle of QurʾÄnic narrative, but they also seek to construct their identities based upon the blueprints provided by the prophetic role models for emulation, whose lives and experiences are explored in detail throughout the QurʾÄnic text. Subsequently, it is important that we investigate what kind of ideas, actions, attributions, and inspiration are âsaturated with [gendered/gendering] meaningâ within these narratives to theorize their potential sexual-textual impact on the lives of actual believing men and women. This is particularly important in the case of female QurʾÄnic characters like the Queen of Sheba who is not only presented as enjoying equality with men, but is depicted as personally empowered and as a political authority in her own right (Bauer 2009, 638).
Subsequently, this section entails a critical exploration of the various ways in which Solomon and the Queen of Sheba have been identified in the two telling of the Solomon narrative using Van Leeuwenâs Social Actor categories of nomination,4 functionalization,5 âidentification,â6 ârelational identification,â7 âpersonalization,â8 ââimpersonalization,âââassociation,â9 ââassimilation,â10 âexaltationâ11 and âdifferentiation.â12 In addition to these, the excerpts will also be explored from the perspective of appraisement.13 Each telling will be explored in turn, first to draw inter-narrative comparisons between the two tellings of the narrative.
5.1 Naming and Identification
Noticeably, we can detect a stringent naming mechanism operating, which means that only divine/prophetic agents are actually represented by their âunique identityâ (Van Leeuwen 2008, 52). Solomon and David are named. We can detect a similar mechanism in place in the biblical telling of the story too, as here only Solomon is actually named. As the central protagonist of his stories in the scriptural texts, identifying Solomon in this way denotes a sense of familiarity with the audiences of these texts as well as honing attention on his person.
5.2 Categorization
In the functional categorization of actors, what is notable is that while the Queen of Sheba refers to Solomon as a King (Q 27:34), he does not reciprocate this title for the Queen. Instead, he always refers to her collectively, as a part of the people of Sheba using third-person plural forms of address such as âthem,â âtheir,â âthoseâ and so forth (Q 27:36â37). A plausible explanation for this is that it is not her status as a legitimate Queen that Solomon finds troubling; rather, it is the collective state of disbelief that he finds disconcerting.
Moreover, Hoopoe (Solomonâs bird) refers to her as âa womanâ who is ruling over them (people of Sheba) (Q 27:23), using a simplistic, gendered classification when reporting back to Solomon, which may reflect the novelty of having a female monarch in that particular socio-cultural context. Her functional role as a monarch is thus implicated in this formulation. Here functionalisation is salient in depicting both actors as leaders of their people.
Apart from frequent nominal references to Solomon, in the Bible, both he and the Queen have been identified via functional honorifics such as âKing Solomon,â âthe Kingâ and âthe Queen of Shebaâ or âthe Queen.â These forms of identification help to locate Solomon as the focal protagonist of the narrative, while establishing the authoritative role of both monarchs. Thus, similar patterns of identification occur in both texts. Some modern feminist scholars have taken the Queenâs Qurʾanic depiction as a legitimate and powerful leader to not only resist the aversion of classical and modern exegetes to female political leadership, but also to argue in favor of female agency and leadership more broadly (Jalalzai 2021, 211).
5.3 Other Forms of Categorisation
5.3.1 Association
In direct opposition to the Bible, where in which the Queenâs visit is motivated by curiosity to see for herself all that she had heard about him (1 Kings 10:7), and a desire to benefit from Solomonâs wisdom (Matthew 12:42), in the QurʾÄnic telling of the encounter, the meeting between both monarchs is purely largely religious on Solomonâs side (Q 27:27) although political domination is implied and largely political on the Queenâs side (to protect herself and her people against Solomonâs invasion) (Q 27:34). Solomon is not disconcerted by hearing about the existence of a powerful female monarch: what he does find disconcerting is rather her state of disbelief (Q 27:24â28). Solomonâs letter to the Queen on the surface appears to be aggressive in its message of political surrender: âExalt not yourselves against me but come unto me as those who surrenderâ (Q 27:31). However, the inclusion of the basmala (in the name of AllÄh, the most merciful, the most beneficent) at the beginning of the letter sets the tone for the unfolding message as being connected to a higher purpose, one that is inextricably in line with his tawḥīdic (monotheistic) mission to encourage the Queen to come to him as âthose who surrenderâ not to him but to the Deity who is fore-grounded in the letter. Thereby, it problematizes the idea of Solomonâs message as being purely political. As such, his apparently threatening invocation to â[E]xalt not yourselves against meâ can now be reinterpreted as a compassionate entreaty on his part, to prevent unnecessary shame and abasement (Q 27:37). In the Bible, Solomon is depicted as confidently and competently impressing the Queen with his knowledge, wisdom and splendor (1 Kings 10:4â7). The Queenâs faith in the God of Solomon is implicated in the use of the definite article before Lord in âthe Lordâ which is repeated twice in her declaration:
Praise be to the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the Lordâs eternal love for Israel, he has made you king to maintain justice and righteousness.
1 Kings 10:9
The use of âassociationâ in the opening verse of the excerpt âhis relationship to the Lordâ (1 Kings 10:1) denotes that part of Solomonâs fame lay in his acclaimed status as a man of God. Perhaps this is why she had come to hear his wisdom and see his wealth for herself. Indeed, she is overwhelmed by his wisdom and riches. She is convinced by what she has seen and her confidence in Solomon and the Lordâs wisdom is reinforced and strengthened.
Interestingly, in the QurʾÄnic version of the Solomon narrative, we find that the most dominant form of actor categorization is religious classification. Here, the good, rational, monotheistic religion of Solomon is pitched against the misguided sun-worshipping religion of the Queen of Sheba and her people, in a binary construction that implies that both protagonists are metonymically used as figureheads of their respective religions. Importantly however, this is not done to degrade the Queen and her people; rather it is done to emphasize the purity of Solomonâs intentions in propagating Godâs religion to the Queen, by problematizing their misguided choice of faith, thereby underscoring his genuine prophetic status.
5.3.2 Assimilation
Solomon and David relationally identify themselves as belonging to the group of âHis believing servantsâ (Q 27:15). Solomon further identifies himself as striving to become one of Godâs âpious servantsâ (Q 27:19). In addition, he describes himself as already âhaving submittedâ to God (Q 27:42). Collectively, these reflect and underscore his commitment to the religion of God. Elsewhere in the QurʾÄn, he is positively appraised by God as âHow excellent a slave!â (Q 38:30), and as having âfavorâ with God âand a happy journeyâs endâ (Q 38:40), thereby reinforcing his status as a genuine righteous man of God.
Later, the Queen of Sheba is represented as actively associating herself with King Solomon in her conversion to his religion (Q 27:44), thereby assimilating herself and her people into the group of believers. We do not see such forms of assimilation in the biblical account.
5.3.3 Cognitive and Power Identification
Solomon has been identified in relation to his knowledge (Q 27:15, 42); the language of birds (27:16, 22â28), the language of ants (Q 27:18â19), and the language of the jinn (Q 27:39). The theme of knowledge continues in other references to Solomon and David beyond sÅ«ra 27 such as in Q 21:78â82, thereby constituting signs Solomonâs and Davidâs legitimate king-cum-prophetic status and their moral paradigmatic excellence as role models for emulation.
According to the biblical version of the narrative, however, it is the Queen who takes the initiative to visit Solomon. Like many other kings and leaders, she is drawn to him on account of hearing so much about his fame, achievements, wisdom, and wealth (1 Kings 10:6â7). Thus, in this regard, we have seven references to his wisdom. Here, the Queen is depicted as arriving âto test Solomon with hard questionsâ and speaking to him about âall that she had on her mindâ (1 Kings 10:1â2). In the Bible she is thus depicted as agentive and independent: she comes of her own accord; she appears to lead the direction of the conversation. The use of the verb âtest,â together with the qualifier âhardâ portrays the Queen as an intelligent, critical thinking, and independent woman who revels in challenge. Her gender is not called into question and her status as Queen is not deemed to be peculiar or extraordinary.
In the QurʾÄn, however, Solomon first learns about the Queenâs existence, from his bird Hoopoe. According to the QurʾÄnic telling, prior to Hoopoeâs discovery, both sovereigns are oblivious to one another. Having been informed about her, Solomon initiates the meeting with the Queen with a letter. Not only is Hoopoe intrigued by her gender, her magnificent throne, and her abundance of wealth, but he is also stunned by the fact that the people of Sabaʾ choose to worship the Sun instead of the Creator of the Sun.
In the QurʾÄn, Solomon takes the initiative and remains in control before and during the meeting. The Queen is therefore portrayed as active and responsive but relatively less agentive. Moreover, here it is Solomon who seeks to test the Queen using a series of âmind gamesâ to check her ability to discern the truth from deception. The penultimate test is to âsee if she can recognize the truth regarding her throneâ, which is used as a âmetaphor that foreshadows her ability to recognize her worldly throne as metaphorically subservient to the throne of Godâ (Ibrahim 2020, 97). The sequential unfolding of the mind games which are initiated almost always by Solomon constitute the bulk of the QurʾÄnic telling of the Queenâs visit.
The tension between knowing and not knowing and the limitations of not knowing are frequently recounted. Solomonâs knowing is directly connected to God and to the knowledge that God has taught him. This gives him the edge in all matters. In this narrative, since Solomon and the Queen are âequalsâ in their roles and social status as monarchs in their respective kingdoms, knowledge, and physical power take on renewed meaning and become the âauthoritativeâ yardsticks (because they are construed as divinely ordained) by which Solomon is able to impose the legitimacy of his belief in God over that of the Queenâs disbelief. Since knowledge is perceived to be powerful; knowledge of divine origin becomes an even more powerful means with which to overpower oneâs rival.
5.3.4 Appraisal
Social actor appraisal is an important strategy by which we can understand how male and female actors in the narrative have been represented. Appraisal is a key element of QurʾÄnic and biblical narratives as it is central in conveying the moral or theological message of the narrative. It is a salient form of actor representation. In this section, I will explore positive and negative forms of appraisal that occur in both scriptural texts and will use these findings to extrapolate the broader narrative agendas behind the telling.
The QurʾÄnic telling of the Solomon narrative is fundamentally dialogicâthis is a structural characteristic common to most QurʾÄnic narratives. The narrative reporting by the Divine is frequently intercepted by the re-presented speech of a range of social (and non-human) actors. The perspective from which the narrative is recounted thus also shifts depending on whose speech is being foregrounded. Appraisal of self and other human and non-human actors is hence also an important element of QurʾÄnic narrating. Thus, in the Solomon excerpt, we find that Solomon and the Queen have been appraised by a range of actors, thereby constructing a particular image(s) of these actors that is multi-dimensional. Which dimensions of their identities are foregrounded and which are backgrounded; thus become imbued with meaning particularly for believing communities who seek to emulate celebrated prophetic agents.
In contrast to this, the biblical passage is largely recounted through reported speech. There is little if any Divine appraisal. The account of the visit is told from the perspective of the Queen, i.e., it is focalized entirely from her point of view and we have a short re-presentation of her speech in this excerpt. Thus, the biblical telling is both mono-dimensional (only one actorâs views are presented) and monologic. The excerpt recounts the Queenâs overwhelmingly positive appraisal of King Solomon.
5.3.5 Exaltation
A common representational strategy that carries with it evaluative meanings and is used in both scriptural texts is âexaltation,â which denotes preference/tafá¸Ä«l over others. As such, the use of this strategy constructs an implicit/explicit hierarchical configuration that positions certain key social actors, like Solomon and the Queen at the top. In this regard, from the perspective of the Queen, Solomon in the Bible is exalted on the grounds of his fame, accomplishments, and his connection to God. Beyond these, there are frequent references to the Queenâs feeling of being overwhelmed at the sight of his splendor, wisdom, and accomplishments (1 Kings 10:4â8). The use of the mental affective reaction âoverwhelmedâ depicts the Queen as passive and no longer in agentic control of the situation.
In the biblical account, the Queen is already depicted as knowing about Solomonâs special ârelationship to the Lordâ and is already depicted as being a woman of faith who praises the Lord for having chosen Solomon to be the king. The motivating factors for her visit are primarily to see for herself, his wisdom and splendorânot his religion. As a token of appreciation for her visit, Solomon gives the Queen âall that she desired and asked forâ in addition to what he had already given her âout of his royal bounty.â Despite being âoverwhelmedâ this visit was very much a meeting of two âequalsâ in faith, status, and wealth. She offers him generous gifts in the form of âa very great caravanâwith camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stonesâ (1 Kings 10:2), which Solomon is implied as happily receiving.
Here we have a qualifier in the form of âveryâ and the adjective âgreatâ to describe the opulence of gifts in her caravan which are presented in a list format. Here the repeated use of the quantifier âlarge quantitiesâ also serves to convey that the gifts she brought were âgreatâ in quantity as well as rarity. This is confirmed by the verse âNever again were so many spices brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomonâ (1 Kings 10:10).
Conversely, in the QurʾÄn, the Queenâs visit is a means to convince her to accept the monotheistic faith of Solomon on account of viewing his many extraordinary powers. Thus, it is the Queen who seeks to test and appease Solomon by displaying her wealth in the form of gifts, before she arrives at the palace. However, unlike in the Bible where the exchange of gifts between the two monarchs is presented as customary, in the QurʾÄn, Solomonâs lack of need for material wealth is strikingly clear and he is implied as insulted by her attempts to appease him in this way (Q 27:36). The Queen thus quickly learns that Solomon is no ordinary king. It is not her wealth that interests him; rather, he has a higher purpose: to get her to think and reflect on her choice of god. It is to convince her by recourse to drawing on his many forms of divine empowerment and support, that the true god is not the sun but the Creator of the sun.
Essentially, this QurʾÄnic narrative recounts the Queenâs journey from her sun-worshipping religion to that of the religion of God. The mind games and tests, such as Solomonâs letter, the Queenâs material gifts, and Solomonâs acquisition of the Queenâs throne constitute the milestones on this journey of conversion. The Queenâs political state visit and witnessing of the illusion of the palaceâs architecture characterize the culmination of her conviction in the truth of Solomonâs message and the sincerity of his prophetic mission. As Mir rightly points out, the Queenâs conversion is âbut a logical culmination of a process of change of heart the Queen had been undergoing long before her visit to Solomonâs palaceâ (Mir 1993, 43). In converting to his monotheistic religion, she is not represented as being defeated nor is Solomon depicted as being victorious over her. As Osman rightly points out; âit cannot be said that BilqÄ«s [the Queen of Sheba] is portrayed as a vanquished leader, but a victorious soulâ (Osman 2015, 72).
Rather, Satan, who prevented the Queen and her people from seeing the Truth, is implicated as being defeated by both monarchs together, thus restoring the victory of good over evil (Q 27:24). It is also important to point out that the Queen is not represented as submitting to Solomon. Rather she is represented as submitting with Solomon to the Lord of the worlds, âthus putting herself shoulder to shoulder with the kingâ (Osman 2015, 69) and thereby underscoring her continued independence and autonomy as a rightful leader and reflecting her newly-found identity as a believing woman. The Queenâs meeting with Solomon and the subsequent exchange of ideas adds to her person; she loses nothing because of her conversion. More importantly, in this way, she illustrates the essence of tawḥīd: submission to none except God.
5.3.6 Negative Appraisal
Solomon is negatively appraised in the QurʾÄn by the female ant by way of magnifying the impact of Solomonâs mighty army (Q 27:18). The theme of Solomonâs great might and matchless army is then continued by the Queenâs negative evaluation of kings as ruining the places they invade and shaming the elite inhabiting these places (Q 27:34). Her suspicions are confirmed by Solomon himself in Q 27:37, in which he threatens to do exactly that. Interestingly, the Queen here is demonstrated as having an affinity with the female who reflects similar kinds of protective tendencies towards her people (Ibrahim 2020, 97). The juxtaposition of Solomonâs authoritarian, invasive, and terror-inducing rule with the diplomatic, maternalistic, and protective rule of the Queen reflects the overwhelming power of Solomon. His threat to punish Hoopoe for his absence also reinforces a picture of Solomon as a ruthless and formidable king (Q 27:21). In the Bible, the Queen comes and goes by her own willâin the QurʾÄn, she is coerced into coming to visit Solomon against the threat of a mighty invasion. The removal of her throne from her palace denotes much more than simply an opportunity for Solomon to demonstrate the extent of his âreachâ and powers from God. The Queen and her mighty throne are hostage until she surrenders to Solomonâs monotheistic religion.
Any negative construal of the Queen is not personal: it is primarily a negative appraisal of her choice of faith. Thus, both Hoopoeâs and Solomonâs critique of the Queen concerns itself with âher and her people worshipping the sun instead of AllÄhâ (Q 27:24, 25, 43). Her illusion concerning the choice of faith is mirrored back to her when she mistakes the floor of the glass palace to be running water (Q 27:44). She is momentarily unable to âsee past the deceptive nature of material realities in order to perceive transcendent onesâ (Ibrahim 2020, 97). This ultimately leads to her conversion to the monotheistic faith of Solomon. Otherwise, she is implicitly celebrated for her ability to discern the standing and nobility of a king from his letter (Q 27:29); her diplomatic leadership style which evokes a strong sense of loyalty and faith in her judgment from her nobles (Q 27:33); an accurate insight into the psyche and destructive practices of conventional kings (Q 27:34) and a courageous and creative ability to discern the kind of King Solomon might be by sending him opulent gifts to learn his actual intention for forwarding her his letter (Q 27:35). Her ability to discern truth from illusion is also demonstrated in her ability to recognize her throne when she sees it (Q 27:42) and to recognize the truth of Solomonâs monotheistic faith. The Queen of Sheba thus âemerges as a commendable figure, not only for her skillful diplomacy but also, ultimately, for the power of her perception,â which enables her to see beyond the deception of materiality and accept the Truth (Ibrahim 2020, 97).
6 The Para-narrative Aim of Vindicating Solomon
Having briefly explored the two versions of the narrative and analyzed them to construct a more nuanced understanding of the QurʾÄnic telling of Solomonâs meeting with the Queen of Sheba, in this section, I will now interpret the findings from the analyses in light of the QurʾÄnâs broader narrative agendas.
Undoubtedly, the findings demonstrate that the most important theological narrative agenda behind recounting the Solomon story in the QurʾÄn is to portray Solomonâs divinely authorized prophetic status. One of the striking findings concerning naming practices within the QurʾÄnâs narratives is that only certain prophetic agents whose stories were being related were actually named. Regardless of gender or religio-spiritual differences, these prophetic agents of QurʾÄnic revelation were all informally identified by their first names, which denote the target audienceâs familiarity with these archetypal prophetic figures from the âsacred pastâ (Stowasser 1994, 3). The only exception is Mary, the mother of Jesus who has also been named alongside male prophets. Interestingly, the Queen also remains unnamed in the biblical account. I argue that the selection of their narratives at the expense of others may also reflect the theological significance of their persons during the sociocultural context of QurʾÄnic revelation.
Thus, in accordance with the QurʾÄnâs complex and undeniably strategic para-narrative aims of narrating, these morally paradigmatic, role model actors were highlighted as the deliberate theological âpoints of identificationâ (Van Leeuwen 1996, 53) for the believing community for whom âQurʾÄnic narratives serve as powerful teaching devicesâ (Stowasser 1994, 3â4). Using this strict naming mechanism, the divine Narrator thus simultaneously draws attention to them as well as directs the readerâs focus to understand the story from their perspective.
Apart from these excerpts of varying length and detail, which relate to the Solomon story, there are other free-standing QurʾÄnic references (Q 2:102, 4:163 and 6:84) to him, which hold important clues as to how he is perceived by the Divine, how he was misunderstood by his own people, and, therefore, why the telling of his story was so important. Without acknowledging these contextually significant references, the larger periscopes appear, on the surface, to lack any strategically motivated objective or purpose. Q 2:102 is perhaps the most important of them all; it clearly explicates the QurʾÄnic/divine stance on King Solomon:
And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, HÄrÅ«t and MarÅ«t.
What this verse is indicating, according to the most common view held by Muslim exegetes, is the evil books of magic that Solomon had taken from the jinn and devils, who sought to spread disbelief and corruption in the land. On Solomonâs orders, the magic was collated and buried under his throne, to eliminate and curtail its evil effects, knowing that none dared to access it from that place. After his death, however, the devils slandered him by claiming that Solomon was not a real prophet; he had used these very books of magic as the source of his great powers to subjugate men, animals, birds, and jinn for his own greed for ultimate power. Essentially then, one of the primary para-narrative aims of the story of Solomon in the QurʾÄn was to vindicate him from these allegations of disbelief and sorcery levelled at him. Solomon then, far from being a magician or a disbeliever, has been depicted in the QurʾÄn as an established prophetic agent to whom God had sent divine waḥy (revelation) just as He had revealed to others like him (Q 4:163). Subsequently, the predicates used to describe him are strategically important in reinstating his legitimate status as a genuine prophet-cum-king (see also Lassner 1993, 41; Osman 2015, 68). For instance, he is depicted as receiving the same prestige that other chosen prophetic agents received, which meant that he, like them, was also divinely empowered in a way to prove his rightful place amongst the chosen ones. Moreover, he has been frequently attributed/implicated with a profound sense of gratitude to the Divine for these favors, which consistently humble/inspire him to become ever more God-conscious and supplicate for the ability to enact more good deeds that will be âpleasing to Godâ (Q 27:19) and facilitate his assimilation amongst Godâs pious servants. The fact that elsewhere he has been praised for being âan excellent slaveâ (Q 38:30) and the verses emphasizing his profound gratitude to God and continuous repentance not only reinforce his sincerity of commitment to the divine plan but also reinstate him as a valid role model for all believers.
6.1 Celebration of (Non-)Prophetic Agents
The findings nevertheless implicate a more complex picture. Just because only prophetic agents are named does not negate the possibility that other actors may also have role model potential. The fact that all other actors, regardless of their gender or social/occupational background and import in the narrated context, are identified by other non-specific means, underscores the prevailing moral dimension of QurʾÄnic narrating (Stowasser 1994, 21). This is because it is not the detail but the moral message that ultimately matters, but, importantly, the detail is nevertheless required to construct and convey the import of the message. However, as opposed to Van Leeuwenâs (2008, 53) argument that unnamed social actors play âpassing roles in narrativesâ and do not become âpoints of identificationâ for readers, or Wadudâs claim that this is reflective of the QurʾÄnâs normative way of representing marginal social actors in that they are merely required for purposes of narrative coherence (Wadud 1999, 32), the findings have shown that both these assertions are far too simplistic. This is because non-prophetic actors such as the Queen are not merely used to âclarify the role of the main characterâ (Wadud 1999, 32), but have been given, through elements of speech representation and focalization, the discursive space to present themselves in a way that not only implicates divine sympathy but also creates a space for reader sympathy. In effect, the Queen is given discursive space to recount her story âin her own words.â In so doing, the primarily tawḥīdic purpose of his invitation to the Queen is also reinforced.
The very fact that her journey to faith is explored in such detail, may also be indicative of her function as a worthy role model, in a similar fashion to the male prophetic agent with whom she is connected. However, in light of the QurʾÄnâs para-narrative aims, it is clear that religious identity construction, development, and transformation are the primary dimensions of a believerâs identity that the QurʾÄn seeks to shape and mold through the mathal (example) of both male and female actors. The social aspects of their identity are thus backgrounded considerably and identified only in relation to how it intersects with the primary âorganizing principleâ of religio-spiritual identity.
7 Conclusion
To conclude, this chapter has demonstrated that there are many para-narrative agendas in the recounting of the various fragments of the QurʾÄnic Solomon narrative. These comprise emphasising Solomon as a prophet-cum-king with extraordinary powers and means of empowerment which all originated from the Divine. Thus, in the QurʾÄn, we have an extensive description of various forms of empowerment by way of exonerating him from allegations of sorcery. In addition, the frequent attribution of key character traits and ethical practices like humility, gratitude, and repentance establish him (and David) as exemplary paradigmatic role models. Moreover, contrary to the Hebrew Bible, where the Queen of Sheba is already implicated as a woman of faith, the primary agenda of the QurʾÄnic telling is to emphasize the fundamentally religious purpose behind meeting the Queen. As such, establishing tawḥīd conceptually (an idea) as well as in practice (through conversion) is aptly demonstrated by the Queen. Perhaps this is why she remains one of the rare (if not only) figures whose conversion story is recounted in the QurʾÄn. To reiterate then, although the various fragments of the Solomon story might be ultimately connected to one prophetic agent, the purposes behind each telling may seek to strategically transmit different moral, theological, and edificatory messages.
These findings have been made apparent primarily based on the critical discourse analytical perspective from which dispersal, thematic, and socio-semantic analyses were performed. Moreover, a holistic approach allowed for the close unpacking of Solomonâs meeting with the Queen of Sheba in the QurʾÄn and Hebrew Bible. Against the backdrop of locating these narrative excerpts in the entirety of the Solomon story in both scriptures by way of a close comparative approach, the better discerning of the para-narrative agendas of the QurʾÄnic telling has been fruitful. The âphenomenon of recurring narrativesâ in the QurʾÄn, to which Neuwirth refers, deserves to be studied as much more than âas testimonies of the consecutive stages of the emergence of a communityâ (Neuwirth 2006, 107). This chapter has demonstrated that by adopting a holistic approach to QurʾÄnic narratives; one that interprets the narrative in light of all other QurʾÄn-internal narratives and singular references, we are able to develop a more nuanced understanding of the narrative in question. Because of the apparent irrelevance of singular references to the verses that precede them, the reader is compelled, by a process of hermeneutical âshockâ to sharpen their focus, thus refreshing the readerâs attention (Campbell 2009, 11). In this way, not only are the agendas of QurʾÄnic narrating foregrounded and therefore easier to identify, but they are more likely to shape and mold the readerâs interpretative engagement with the fragments of the (whole) narrative. As such, vindicating Prophetic figures and even significant non-prophetic agents like the Queen of Sheba is a key facet of the QurʾÄnâs theological edificatory process of the Abrahamic faith communities.
This chapter also calls into question the extent to which a comparative approach to the Bible is useful in terms of enabling us to develop a nuanced understanding of the QurʾÄnic versions of certain narratives. Reynolds rightly states that âwithout knowledge of the biblical account, the audience is left in a state of bewildermentâ (Reynolds 2010, 234); however, there are no references to Solomonâs use of magic, for example, in the Bible, which implies that such allegations are post-biblical. This calls for an approach that goes beyond even the scriptural texts, to explore post-biblical commentaries, in order to better understand the meaning of verses like Q 2:102 and Q 34:14.
Bibliography
Albayrak, Ä°smail. 2000. âQurʾanic Narratives and IsrÄʾīliyyÄt in Western Scholarship and in Classical Exegesis.â PhD diss., The University of Leeds.
Arkoun, Mohammed. 2001. âIntroduction: An Assessment of and Perspectives on the Study of the QurʾÄn.â In The Qurʾan: Style and Contents, edited by Andrew Rippin, 291â332. London: Routledge.
Arkoun, Mohammed. 2007. âThe Answers of Applied Islamology.â Theory, Culture & Society 24(2): 21â38. DOI: 10.1177/0263276407074993.
Bauer, Karen. 2009. âThe Male Is Not Like the Female (Q 3:36): The Question of Gender Egalitarianism in the QurʾÄn.â Religion Compass 3: 637â654. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2009.00147.x.
Campbell, Robert A. 2009. Reading the Qurʾan in English: An Introductory Guide. Sydney: Cape Breton University Press.
Hassan, Abla. 2020. Decoding the Egalitarianism of the QurʾÄn: Retrieving Lost Voices of the QurʾÄn. London: Lexington Books.
Ibn KathÄ«r, AbÅ« al-FidÄʾ IsmÄÊ¿Ä«l. 1999. TafsÄ«r al-QurʾÄn al-Ê¿AáºÄ«m, 6 vols. Riyad: Dar al-Ṭayyiba.
Ibrahim, Celene. 2020. Women and Gender in the QurʾÄn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jalalzai, Sajida. 2021. âMuslim Chaplaincy and Female Religious Authority in North America.â In The Routledge Handbook of Islam and Gender, edited by Justine Howe. London: Routledge.
Johns, Anthony H. 1993. âThe Quranic Presentation of the Joseph Story: Naturalistic or Formulaic Language?â In Approaches to the QurʾÄn, edited by Gerald R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, 37â70. London: Routledge.
Lassner, Jacob. 1993. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawler, Steph. 2002. âNarrative in Social Research.â In Qualitative Research in Action, edited by Tim May, 242â258. London: Sage.
Mir, Mustansir. 1993. âThe SÅ«ra as a Unity: A Twentieth Century Development in QurʾÄn Exegesis.â In Approaches to the QurʾÄn, edited by Gerald R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, 211â224. London: Routledge.
Neuwirth, Angelica. 2006. âStructural, Linguistic, and Literary Features.â In The Cambridge Companion to the QurʾÄn, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 97â114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Osman, Rawand. 2015. Female Personalities in the Qurʾan and Sunna: Examining the Major Sources of Imami Shiʿi Islam. London: Routledge.
al-Qurá¹ubÄ«, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. 1935. Al-JÄmiÊ¿ li-AḥkÄm al-QurʾÄn, 16 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-RisÄla.
al-RÄzÄ«, Fakhr al-DÄ«n. 1985. MafÄtīḥ al-Ghayb, vol. 24. Beirut: DÄr al-Fikr.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. 2010. The QurʾÄn and Its Biblical Subtext. London: Routledge.
Saeed, Abdullah. 2006. Interpreting the QurʾÄn. London: Routledge.
Sunderland, Jane. 2004. Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stowasser, Barbara. 1994. Women in the Qurʾan, Traditions, and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Leeuwen, Theo and Ruth Wodak. 1999. âLegitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.â Discourse Studies 1(1): 83â118.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1995. âRepresenting Social Action.â Discourse & Society 6(1): 81â106.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. âThe Representation of Social Actors.â In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 32â70. London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practise: New Tools for Critical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wadud, Amina. 1999. Qurʾan and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Womenâs Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wodak, Ruth and Markus Rheindorf. 2017. ââWhose Story?â Narratives of Persecution, Flight, and Survival Told by the Children of Austrian Holocaust Survivors.â In Diversity and Super-Diversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspectives, edited by Anna De Fina, Didem Ikazoglu and Jeremy Wegner. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer. 2009. âCritical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology.â In Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer. London: Sage.
Young, Serenity. 1993. An Anthology of Sacred Texts by and about Women. New York: Crossroads.
al-ZamakhsharÄ«, MaḥmÅ«d b. Ê¿Umar. 2009. Al-KashshÄf. Beirut: DÄr al-MaÊ¿rifa.
In several other cases the QurʾÄn introduces its reflections on Biblical traditions with the imperative udhkur (recalling, remembering, or reminder) (Reynolds 2010, 235).
This means that the SAA recognizes that different cultures have different ways of representing the social world and hence have different ways of mapping the different semiotics onto this range.
By retroductable, I mean that if the same analysis was implemented again or by a different researcher, the same set of results would be produced.
Nomination refers to how social actors have been named.
Functionalization refers to how social actors have been identified by recourse to the occupational roles or functions that they carry out in society, e.g., king, teacher, doctor, etc.
Identification refers to other forms of representing social actors through other means such as by recourse to oneâs religion, e.g., a Muslim man, a Hindu woman, and so forth.
Relational identification refers to representing social actors by recourse to their kinship or intimate relations, e.g., Pharaohâs wife.
This refers to whether social actors have been depicted personally as individuals, e.g., Solomon, or impersonally as The King.
This refers to denoting a link or point of connection between one actor and another, one group and another.
This category refers to construing social actors as part of a social group, e.g., She became part of the Avon family recently.
This refers to the phenomenon of constructing a hierarchical construct whereby one social actor or social group is depicted as superior or exalted over another.
Differentiation refers to highlighting what is different about a social actor, e.g., She was a sun worshipper. Often this constructs an Us vs. Them binary opposition in the text which can carry ideological undertones that denote the superiority of one social group over another.
This refers to how social actors have been evaluated, positively or negatively in a text.