Обсуждение:Мухаммад: различия между версиями

Материал из Академия Корана
Перейти к навигации Перейти к поиску
← Предыдущая правкаСледующая правка →
ВизуальныйВики-текст
Нет описания правки
Нет описания правки
Строка 445: Строка 445:


Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research. For instance, in traditional Muslim belief Muhammad is the «last and greatest of the prophets», a concept that is most likely based on a later interpretation of the expression «seal of the prophets» (khdtam al-nabiyyin) that is applied to Muhammad in sura XXXIII, 40. Also, he is regarded not as a «founder» but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham. It should not be surprising that it was at the very time when these concepts were being proclaimed by the Kurgan, during the early years after the Hidjra, that historians see the emergence of a new religious community and tradition founded by Muhammad, a man of extraordinary perception and skills. In particular, the opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews' rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This decisive change in the course of Islam occurred in the second year of the Hidjra (July 623-June 624), and was signaled by the much discussed «change of the kibla» from Jerusalem to the ancient sanctuary of the Ka c ba in Mecca, which is treated at some length in the Kur’an (II, 142-50). Muhammad’s native town thus became the centre of true religion, the focal point for the daily prayer rituals and the much desired object of the annual pilgrimage, adopted in theory fairly early in the Medinan years, but not performed as an Islamic ritual until the Prophet’s last years. At the same time Muhammad was emancipated from the ridicule and protestations of the religious communities that he regarded as having been founded by his self-proclaimed models, Moses and Jesus.
Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research. For instance, in traditional Muslim belief Muhammad is the «last and greatest of the prophets», a concept that is most likely based on a later interpretation of the expression «seal of the prophets» (khdtam al-nabiyyin) that is applied to Muhammad in sura XXXIII, 40. Also, he is regarded not as a «founder» but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham. It should not be surprising that it was at the very time when these concepts were being proclaimed by the Kurgan, during the early years after the Hidjra, that historians see the emergence of a new religious community and tradition founded by Muhammad, a man of extraordinary perception and skills. In particular, the opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews' rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This decisive change in the course of Islam occurred in the second year of the Hidjra (July 623-June 624), and was signaled by the much discussed «change of the kibla» from Jerusalem to the ancient sanctuary of the Ka c ba in Mecca, which is treated at some length in the Kur’an (II, 142-50). Muhammad’s native town thus became the centre of true religion, the focal point for the daily prayer rituals and the much desired object of the annual pilgrimage, adopted in theory fairly early in the Medinan years, but not performed as an Islamic ritual until the Prophet’s last years. At the same time Muhammad was emancipated from the ridicule and protestations of the religious communities that he regarded as having been founded by his self-proclaimed models, Moses and Jesus.
This nationalisation of Islam gave Muhammad a certain legitimation and broadened his authority as he came forward as the restorer of the religion of Abraham (millat Ibrahim) that had been distorted by the Jews and Christians. Abraham, claimed by Jews and Christians alike as the progenitor of their faith, now became the great hanif[q. v. ] and first muslim («a person fully surrendered to the one true God»), in contrast not only to the polytheists but now also to the People of the Book: «Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian; he was an upright person, a muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists» (sura III, 67; cf. II, 135; III, 95; VI, 161, and XVI, 123, all of which, contrary to some traditional views, appear to date from the early Medinan years; see Bell-Watt, 99, 119). Abraham and his son Ishmael, regarded as the ancestor of the Arabs, were then said to have founded the Meccan sanctuary and the rites celebrated there (II, 125 ff.; XXII, 26 ff.) and it was Muhammad’s task to restore the ancient rites to their original monotheistic state, since they had been corrupted by the polytheists. Whether this identification of Abraham as the first monotheist (an idea that met with opposition from the People of the Book according to sura III, 65) originated in the context of Muhammad’s dispute with the Jews in Medina or was already in existence, for example among Arabicised Jews, remains uncertain. One point that can be accepted, contrary to modern defenders of the traditional dating and interpretations of the relevant verses of the Kurgan (e.g. Fazlur Rahman, Major themes of the Qur^dn, Minneapolis 1980, 142 f.), is that it is highly unlikely that Muhammad was acquainted with the idea of the connection between Abraham and the Ka c ba before the Hidjra since this relationship occurs nowhere in the numerous Meccan passages that treat the significance of the Kaba.
At the same time that these important developments were occurring in Islamic rituals, Muhammad’s personal position was being gradually changed by the altered conditions. According to the already mentioned Constitution of Medina, all important matters were to be laid before God and His Messenger. It thus became a fundamental duty of the believers to be obedient to God and to Muhammad (III, 132; IV, 13 f., 59 [where it is added: '«and to those among you who have to exercise authority»]; V, 92; XXIV, 52, 54), and those who are disobedient are threatened with the tortures of hell (IX, 63). Alongside of the required belief in God now appeared «belief in His Messenger» (XLVIII, 9; LXIV, 8 etc.). God is his protector, as is Gabriel; and the angels are at his disposal (LXVI, 4).
3. The accounts of Muhammad’s expeditions
The elevation of Mecca to be the centre of Islam imposed on Muhammad a new task that he surely foresaw. When visiting the holy places in and around Mecca became a duty of the Muslims, it became inevitable that some way would have to be found for them to gain entrance to the sacred territory from which they were excluded (XXII, 25 f.). Since some peaceful agreement appeared most unlikely, the result was the inevitable necessity of forcing admission to Mecca. The Prophet also had an account to settle with the Meccans, for by expelling him they had trium- phed over him in the eyes of the world and the punishment repeatedly threatened upon them, partly in the form of the stereotyped retribution of the godless in the «punishment stories», had not materialised. This led to a new divine command, referred to in the Sim literature as «permission to fight» the polytheists. The Helpers had pledged themselves to defend Muhammad only if he were attacked, and the merchants of Mecca were not inclined to oblige him by initiating hostilities. The Emigrants had not pledged to fight, and it went very much against their feelings as Meccans to fight members of their tribe and blood relations. How much their resistance vexed Muhammad can be seen in the Kur D an where vigorous reproaches are made against his followers in this connection (II, 216; XXII, 38 ff. etc.). After he had sent different men with small armed forces who did not succeed in encountering the enemy, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Nakhla [q.v.] (Ibn Hisham, 423-7; Watt, Medina, 5-9), where they succeeded in capturing a caravan. One of the Meccans was killed, however, and, although possibly unplanned, the fighting took place during the month of Radjab, one of the sacred months in which all fighting was forbidden. The rich plunder was taken to Medina, where in the meanwhile a storm of indignation had broken out. The people eventually accepted the tragedy, after being calmed by the revelation of II, 217.
The success of this coup had such an effect in Medina that not only the Emigrants but also a number of Helpers offered their services when Muhammad appealed for followers in Ramadan 2 A.H. in a new raid, which he himself was to lead. He had learned that a rich Meccan caravan was on its way south from Syria and he decided to ambush it at Badr [q.v.}. The very cautious Abu Sufyan [q.v.] who was leading the caravan got wind of his plan, however, and sent messengers on a swift journey to Mecca for help. By the time the force of Meccans arrived and camped near Badr, the caravan had reached Mecca safely by following a diversion route along the coast. The angered Meccans, under the leadership of Abu Djahl [q.v.], one of the most prominent men of Mecca, had an army that is said to have been three times the size of Muhammad’s forces, said to have been about 300 men, and he was unwilling to let the opportunity of properly chastising his troublesome enemy escape. Soon after the Meccans camped near Badr, Muhammad arrived with his men, expecting to meet Abu Sufyan’s helpless caravan. When the Muslims and their supporters discovered that the caravan had escaped and that a military confrontation with the Meccans and their allies was imminent, they were filled with fear (VIII, 5 ff.; cf. the continuation of c Urwa’s account in al-Tabarf, i, 1284 f.). The Prophet, however, saw in the encounter a portentous dispensation of God, who wished to force the polytheists into battle. Muhammad’s charisma and remarkable power of suggestion were able to inspire his men so that they completely routed the far more numerous enemy. A number of the Meccans, including Abu Djahl, were slain and several, including Muhammad’s uncle, al- c Abbas, were captured as prisoners and taken to Medina. Muhammad had two of them, al-Nadr and c Ukba b. Abi Mu c ayt, put to death, while the others were held for ransom (Ibn Hisham, 457-61).
The battle of Badr, which might seem small and insignificant from a modern perspective, must be judged in light of the conditions of Muhammad’s time. See the observations by Doughty (Travels, ii, 378) and Glubb (Muhammad, 179 ff.), both of whom knew the country well. This battle became of the utmost significance for the history of Islam. Muhammad saw in the victory a powerful confirmation of his belief in the one true God (VIII, 17, 65; III, 123; cf. Ka c b b. Malik, in Ibn Hisham, 520 f.) and in his own call. Also, because the commercial city of Mecca enjoyed such great prestige in Arabia, anyone who was able to defeat its forces in battle was bound to attract all eyes to himself. He therefore displayed even greater energy and was able to utilise the advantages he had won. After completing the arrangement for ransom for the Meccan prisoners, Muhammad began to besiege the Jewish tribe of Kaynuka c in their forts. The Munafikun [q.v.] did not dare to oppose him seriously by openly supporting the Kaynuka c, and the other Jewish groups left their co-religionists in the lurch (cf. LIX, 14) so that this first Jewish tribe was forced to leave their longtime home in Medina and move north to other Jewish settlements. In order to protect himself and his followers from attacks from other foes in the northern part of the Hidjaz [q. v. ], Muhammad at this time adopted a plan that is a further proof of his outstanding political ability. He concluded alliances with a number of Bedouin tribes in which the two parties pledged them-selves to assist one another. (For examples of two such treaties made by Muhammad, along with a brief analysis and references to the Arabic sources, see Watt, Medina, 362-5.)
In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr. An army said to number 3,000 men was equipped and set out for Medina with much display under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, who was clearly the most prominent leader in Mecca after the death of Abu Djahl at Badr. Although several of his followers advised Muhammad to make his defence within the Medinan settlement, he decided to go out with his forces, which at the last moment were much reduced by the departure of the Munafikun, and took up a position on the lower slopes of the hill of Uhud [q.v.]. In spite of the numerical superiority of the Meccans, the fighting at first went in favour of the Muslims, until a number of archers who had been placed to defend his flank left their position, against Muhammad’s express orders, to pursue some of the Meccan fighters who appeared to be retreating. This at once enabled the keen military strategist, Khalid b. al-Walid, to secure a superior position on the slopes of Uhud. The tables were now turned and many of the Muslims began to flee, especially when the rumour spread that the Prophet had fallen (cf. sura III, 144). In reality he was only wounded and escaped with a few faithful followers through a ravine on the south side of the hill. Fortunately for him, the Meccans were unwilling to follow up their victory and, thinking that Muhammad had been punished enough and their honour had been reestablished, they turned quietly back to Mecca. The Prophet was thus saved from the worst, but he had to lament many fallen friends including his uncle, Hamza. His newly acquired prestige naturally suffered. With all the eloquence in his power he endeavoured to raise the morale of his followers by exhortation and censure alike (cf. Ibn Hisham, 592—606, and sura III, 118 f., 139-60, 165-80). In this strategy he succeeded since the expected negative consequences of his setback at Uhud did not materialise in Medina.
Some of the Jews in Medina who had taken no part in the fighting made no secret of their delight at his misfortune. It was thus all the more necessary to make an example, and a second Medinan Jewish tribe, the Banu '1-Nadir, obliged Muhammad by providing justification for his action against them. Tradition imputes all sorts of crimes to them, but their actual offences are difficult to determine. The Kur’an says simply that they defied God and his Messenger (LIX, 4). After a siege of several weeks (al-Tabari, i, 1850) they were expelled from Medina and forced to immigrate to Khaybar and other Jewish settlements in the north. They left behind them their weapons and their gold and silver as a rich booty, the distribution of which on this occasion Muhammad reserved for himself (LIX, 6 ff.). While Muhammad was endeavouring to restore his weakened authority, a new and threatening storm came upon him and Medina from Mecca. The Kuraysh, whose caravans were being continually harassed by him (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 16 f.) and who were urged on by the Jews of Khaybar. recognised that the victory at Uhud had not seriously weakened Muhammad’s position, and they realised the necessity of occupying Medina, which they had then neglected to do. Conscious of their slight military skill, being city merchants with little experience in warfare, they negotiated vigorously with various Bedouin tribes and thus raised a large army—said to have been about 10,000 men—with which they set out against Medina some time in the year 5/626-7. The varying accounts of the season of the year (sometimes said to have been a month after the barley harvest, sometimes during cold winter storms, the latter in agreement with sura XXXIII, 9; cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 14) could be reconciled only by the unlikely assumption that the siege lasted for a considerable length of time.
The advance of this imposing army produced great consternation in Medina, which was further increased by the vacillating attitude of the Munafikun and by the discovery, or perhaps only the suspicion, that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy (XXXIII, 10 ff, 26). Muhammad in order to strengthen the defences had a trench (khandak, a Persian word) dug in front of the unprotected parts of the settlement (Ibn Hisham, 670). Nowhere does Ibn Ishak in the recension by Ibn Hisham attribute the idea of building the trench to Salman the Persian (al-Farisi). According to other accounts, however, this trench is said to have been a Persian military tactic suggested to Muhammad by Salman (e.g. Ibn Sa c d, ii/1, 47). Modest as these defences must have been, they imposed a sufficient deterrent upon the enemy, who had little experience in such military tactics, and the siege gradually dragged on. Muhammad used the time for secret negotiations with the Ghatafan and cleverly stirred up distrust among his opponents. When weather conditions became unfavourable the besieging forces lost heart and gradually began to retire, so that the last effort of the Kuraysh to defeat Muhammad by force came to nothing.
For one group among the inhabitants of Medina, the largely uneventful «War of the Trench» became a bloody tragedy. Hardly had the Meccans and their allies retired than the Prophet declared war on the last Jewish tribe of any size in Medina, the Kurayza [</.y.], and began to besiege their forts. Once the Jews realised the seriousness of their predicament, they no doubt hoped to escape under terms similar to those of the Banu Kaynuka c and the Banu '1-Nadir, especially since their allies, the once powerful tribe of Aws, were very actively trying to induce Muhammad to clemency. This third Jewish tribe, however, was not to be allowed the leniency shown to the other two. According to one account given by Ibn Hisham, all of the men, numbering between 600 and 900 according to the varying accounts, were beheaded in compliance with a judgment given by Sa c d b. Mu c adh [q. v.] of the tribe of Aws, and «the property was divided [among the Muslims] and the women and children were taken as captives» (689 f.). In another account Ibn Hisham says «The Messenger of God ordered that every adult [male] of Banu Kurayza be killed … and then he divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Kurayza among the Muslims» (692). Tradition endeavoured to put the responsibility for the massacre of the Kurayza on Sa c d b. Mu c adh (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 167), who asserts Sa c d’s sincerity), but there are various indications that it was the Prophet himself who was responsible for the decision. The expulsion or elimination of these three Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organising an umma strictly on a religious basis. Some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina (cf. Ibn Hisham, 895; al-Wakidl/Wellhausen, 264, 309, 393; Hassan b. Thabit, no. 133). The failure of the Meccan siege of Medina and the elimination of this last major Jewish tribe became one of the main turning points in the life of Muhammad and the rise of the Muslim community. From about six months after his arrival in Medina, when he sent out the first Muslim raiding party under the command of his uncle Hamza, until the time of the Meccan failure in their siege of Medina, Muhammad dispatched a steady stream of raiding parties against Meccan caravans (see Watt, Medina, 339-41, for a complete list and for references in Ibn Hisham and al-Wakidf/Wellhausen). This practice ceased after al-Khandak and the elimination of the Kurayza (about a year before Muhammad agreed to a ten-year truce with the Meccans at al-Hudaybiya), and the Prophet turned his major attention towards the north. Muhammad led two of these expeditions himself, one against the Banu Lihyan, early in the year 6 A.H. (mid-627 A.D.), which ended without any fighting, and the more famous expedition against the Banu Mustalik, which is of interest for several reasons. It was on the return trip to Medina on this latter expedition that the celebrated adventure involving c A 3 isha [q. v. ] occurred that might have cost her her position as a wife of the Prophet except that Muhammad received a revelation (XXIV, 4-5, 11-20) that exonerated her. More _significantly for the early history of Islam, the c A 3 isha affair gave rise to a serious conflict within the ranks of the leaders of the Emigrants and also caused a breach between the Emigrants and the Helpers that continued well into the period after Muhammad’s death. The political upheaval that arose after the raid on the Banu Mustalik might explain why this is the one significant expedition led by Muhammad on which the sources present widely differing opinions regarding its date. Ibn Hisham (725) states explicitly that this expedition occurred in the eighth month (Sha c ban) of the year 6 A.H., after Muhammad’s raid on Dhu Karad (some-times called the raid of al-Ghaba), usually listed as his nineteenth personal expedition (see, e.g., Ibn Hisham, 972 f., and al-Taban, i, 1575). Ibn Sa c d (ii/1, 45), on the other hand, following al-Wakidi (Wellhausen, 175 ff.) states just as clearly that the expedition against the Banu Mustalik took place in Sha c ban of the year 5 A.H., after Muhammad’s raid on Dumat al-Djandal that is usually listed as his fifteenth expedition (Ibn Hisham and al-Taban, locc. cit.). This discrepancy serves as just one example of the difficulty or impossibility of reconstructing a precise chronology of the life of Muhammad even for the well-documented Medinan period.
Towards the end of the year 6 A.H., Muhammad thought that his position in Medina was so firmly established that he could risk a step that would bring him nearer to his desired goal. He and the Emigrants were still excluded from Mecca and its holy places, but through contacts in Mecca, including probably his uncle al- c Abbas [#.".], he knew that attitudes towards him in his native city were gradually becoming more favourable (cf. XLVIII, 25; LX, 7). In Dhu 'l-Kada of the year 6 (March 628) he gave orders to his followers to provide themselves with sacrificial animals and undertake a pilgrimage (an ^umra [q. v. ]) with him to Mecca, saying that in a vision God had promised him fulfillment of this long-held goal (XLVIII, 27). In Mecca many were inclined to meet his wishes but the belligerent party was still strong enough to get a body of armed men sent to meet him and prevent him from entering the town. He therefore encamped at al-Hudaybiya [q.v. ] where he began to negotiate with some leaders of Mecca. When these discussions failed Muhammad sent c Uthman, who was protected by his family connections, into the town as his representative. When c Uthman did not return after several days, a rumour that he had been murdered spread among the Muslims. The situation became critical and Muhammad dropped all negotiations, collected his followers under a tree, possibly one long held sacred, and made them swear to fight for him to the last, which nearly every man did with enthusiasm (XLVIII, 10, 18).
A short time later a number of Meccans arrived with c Uthman and offered a compromise according to which the Muslims would return to Medina without fulfilling their goal that year, but the Meccans promised to allow Muhammad and his followers to perform an c umra the following year. He agreed to the proposal and also concluded a ten years' truce with the Kuraysh, further promising to return to the Meccans any of their dependents who sought refuge in Medina. Some of Muhammad’s followers who had been determined to force their claim and perform the pilgrimage rituals inside Mecca that year became angry when they heard the conditions to which the Prophet had agreed. Muhammad calmly ordered the sacrificial animals brought with them to be slain, which was to have been done at an c umra in the town (see Lane, Lexicon, s.v. mahill), and had his hair cut, and by his authority forced his grumbling followers to do the same. Only later did they discover that the so-called Treaty of al-Hudaybiya represented a brilliant act of diplomacy on the part of Muhammad, in that he had induced the Meccans to recognise him as an equal, had concluded a peace with them that promised well for the future, and had gained the admiration of many Meccans by incorporating their ancient religious rituals into his nascent religion. There is also evidence that a number of the leaders in Mecca were ready to abandon their polytheistic practices and adopt monotheism.
At the beginning of the year 7/628-9 Muhammad and those who had pledged themselves to him under the tree at al-Hudaybiya received ample compensation for the unfulfilled c umra by the capture of the fertile oasis of Khaybar that was inhabited by Jews. This was the first actual conquest by the Prophet, and on this occasion he instituted a practice that set the precedent for future terms involving Jews or Christians who accepted the rule of the Muslims: he did not put the people to death or banish them but let them remain as tenants, as it were, with the stipulation that they had to pay a tribute (later called the djizya [q.v.]) every year. This expedition, which also brought the Jewish colonies of Wad! '1-Kura into his power, made the Muslim community wealthy for the first time (XLVIII, 18-21).
At about this time (the exact dates are given variously in the sources) tradition puts the despatch of letters from the Prophet to Mukawkis [q. v. ] the governor of Alexandria, the Negus of Abyssinia [see AL-NADJASHI], Heraclius the Byzantine emperor, the Persian king, and a number of others, in which he demanded that they adopt Islam (cf. al-Taban, i, 1560-75). In the form in which these letters have come down to us they cannot be accepted as authentic, since they contain details that reflect a later period in the rise and power of Islam. Even if we disregard certain details that could have been inserted later, the substance of these letters hardly deserves the faith most people have put in them (see, for instance, M. Hamidullah, Six originaux des lettres du Prophete de l-Islam, Paris 1985). It is very unlikely that so sober a politician and diplomat as Muhammad would have engaged in so presumptuous a venture before the conquest of Mecca. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that he sent letters to surrogates of the Byzantine and Persian emperors who lived on the northern fringes of the Arabian peninsula and also in the Yemen, and it can be accepted without hesitation that he maintained correspondence with the Negus of Abyssinia.
While it is true that passages of the Kurgan that date from Muhammad’s Medinan years do go beyond the earlier concept that he was sent as a prophet to the Arabs, even those verses that are so often cited as proof that he regarded his mission as universal hardly hold up to close scrutiny, but require a broader interpretation than their literal meaning. It is very doubtful that Muhammad ever thought of the socioreligious community he founded in Medina as a universal religion, as is assumed for example by Noldeke (WZKM, xxi, 307), Goldziher (Vorlesungen uber den Islam, 25 = Introduction to Islamic theology and law, 27 f.) and T. W. Arnold (The preaching of Islam, 27-31). The conclusions reached by Snouck Hurgronje (Mohammedanism, 48 ff.) and H. Lammens (Etudes sur le regne du calife Mo^dwia, i, 422) are much more consistent with the evidence from the Kurgan. (For a close analysis of the relevant verses of the Kur D an and references to other European literature on this issue, see Welch, Muhammad’s understanding, 47-51.) At the height of his power Muhammad never demanded from Jews or Christians living in the Arabian peninsula that they should adopt Islam. He was content with political subjection and the payment of tribute. The soundest conclusion is thus to reject in their present form those stories that assert that Muhammad sought to convert to Islam the Byzantine and Persian emperors and other great rulers outside of Arabia, and to seek the real historical basis in negotiations of a more political nature, e.g. with the friendly Mukawkis of Egypt who is said to have been the person who gave to Muhammad Mariya the Copt [q.v.], who bore him a son named Ibrahim who unfortunately died as an infant just a few months before Muhammad’s death. On the other hand, the character of the genuine letters of the Prophet to the Arab tribes changed at this time, for he was no longer content with a purely political agreement but, relying on his now consolidated power, he also demanded that they should adhere to his religion, which involved performing the saldt and paying zakdt (cf. Ibn Sa c d, 1/ii, 15-38). In his eagerness to win the Arab tribes to Islam, Muhammad is even said to have given the Djudham [q. v. ] on the Syrian coast a respite (amdn) of two months after which they were to decide (see Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 82 f. and Watt, Medina, 108 ff.).
Late in 7 A.H. (early 629 A.D.) Muhammad performed the «fulfilled pilgrimage» (Ibn Hisham, 788-90), actually simply an c umra involving rituals at and near the Ka c ba within the sanctuary (now the Sacred Mosque) of Mecca, that was part of the agreement in the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya. For him, having been driven out of his native city almost seven years before, it must have been a time of great satisfaction to be able to visit Mecca as the acknowledged lord of Medina. One important task Muhammad accomplished while in Mecca was a reconciliation with his family, the clan of Hashim, sealed through marriage with Maymuna bt. al-Harith [q.v. ], a sister of the wife of the Prophet’s uncle, al- c Abbas, who was currently chief of the clan. Some of the sources allege that even before this time al- c Abbas had become a secret ally of Muhammad. Also of great significance for the later history of Islam, a few of the most important Meccans, such as the military genius Khalid b. al-Walld and_another military man almost his equal, c Amr b. al- c As [q. vv. ], who later conquered Egypt during the caliphate of c Umar, became Muslims. These men in Mecca must have recognised that Muhammad was the man of the future in Arabia and they openly joined him. Muhammad’s uncle al-Abbas and Abu Sufyan, the most prominent leader in Mecca at that time, took another tack, endeavouring through secret negotiations to prepare in the most favourable way for the inevitable surrender of Mecca.
In the meanwhile Muhammad continued his military expeditions. His forces suffered a serious reverse in the first considerable effort to extend his authority over the Arabs on Byzantine soil in Transjordania, when at battle at Mu^ta [q.v.] Muhammad suffered the loss of his beloved adopted son, Zayd b. Haritha [<?.£>.], who had been given command of a force said to have had 3,000 men. Also killed at this disastrous battle against the Byzantines at Mu D ta was another potential leader within the early Muslim community, Dja c far b. Abl Talib [<7-fl.], c All’s brother who had only recently joined the Muslims in Medina after remaining in Abyssinia with Muhammad’s followers who had moved there from Mecca almost fifteen years earlier and remained (on Mu D ta see Ibn Hisham, 791—802, where a number of poems on this battle are given). Despite the defeat at Mu^ta, several Bedouin tribes began to see some of the advantages they would procure by joining Muhammad, and even some of the large tribes such as the Sulaym [q.v.] voluntarily adopted Islam and placed themselves under the Prophet’s banner.
Much against the advice of Abu Sufyan, the belligerent party in Mecca decided to support one of their client clans, the Bakr [^.y.], against the Khuza c a [q.v.], who were allied to Muhammad. This, according to the custom among the Arabs at that time, was seen on both sides as breaking the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya, freeing Muhammad to attack Meccan caravans or even the city itself. In Ramadan 8/ December 629 he set out at the head of an army of Emigrants, Helpers and Bedouins. The news produced considerable anxiety in Mecca where the number of those who wanted to fight shrank daily so that the more prudent now could take control. Abu Sufyan, who went out with several others (including the Khuza c l Budayl b. Warka 3 who was a friend of the Prophet’s), met Muhammad not far from the town, paid homage to him and obtained an amnesty for all the Kuraysh who abandoned armed resistance (cf. c Urwa, in al-Tabari, i, 1634 f.). Thus the Prophet was able to enter his native city practically without a struggle and almost all its inhabitants adopted Islam. He acted with great generosity and endeavoured to win all hearts by rich gifts (ta?lij al-kulub, a new use of the alms; cf. IX, 60, and AL-MU^ALLAFA KULUBUHUM). He demanded only the destruction of all idols in and around Mecca. Sura CX and XLVIII, 1 f. seem to capture some of the exaltation with which this victory filled Muhammad. It is striking that both of these unusually touching passages mention the forgiveness of Muhammad’s sins after declaring that God has given him a clear victory (fath), suggesting that in some way the fulfillment of one of Muhammad’s major goals, the peaceful surrender of his native city, served as a direct sign that God had forgiven him all his sins (cf. CX, 3 and XLVIII, 2).
Muhammad had no time to rest upon his laurels, for soon after the surrender of Mecca the Hawazin [q. v. ] tribes in Central Arabia began preparing for a decisive fight and the town of Ta°if, which was closely associated with Mecca, was still unsubdued. Muhammad’s forces fought the Hawazin and their allies at Hunayn [q.v.] on the road to Ta°if. At first the Prophet’s forces seemed threatened with a fatal disaster, mainly because of the unreliability of a number of the new converts, but then some of his followers succeeded in recalling the fugitives and routing the enemy (IX, 25 f.). On the other hand, his inexperienced troops were unable to take Ta^if with its defences. It was almost a year later, after Muhammad’s successful expedition to Tabuk [q.v.] with nearly 30,000 men, that the people of Ta^if finally accepted their fate and sent emissaries to Medina to surrender to the Prophet and adopt Islam. After raising the siege on the well-fortified city of Ta°if early in 630, Muhammad returned to al-Dji c rana to supervise the distribution of the booty of Hunayn. The Helpers, who as soon as Muhammad entered Mecca had expressed the fear that he would take up his residence again in his native town, became very indignant about the rich gifts that he made to his former opponents in order «to win their hearts», while they themselves went empty-handed (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 31), but he spoke so kindly to them that they are said to have burst into tears and declared themselves satisfied (see Watt, Medina, 73-7).
The characteristic feature of the year 9/630-1 in the memory of the Muslims was the many embassies that came to Medina from different parts of Arabia to submit to the conqueror of Mecca on behalf of their tribes (cf. CX, 2). In the autumn of that year, Muhammad made up his mind to conduct a campaign against northern Arabia on a considerable scale, probably because the defeat at Mu 3 ta required to be avenged if he were to maintain the respect he had so far earned. Also, the Ghassanid king was reported to have adopted a hostile attitude towards Muhammad and his followers (cf. Ibn Hisham, 911; BukharT, Maghdzi, bdbs 78, 79). Somewhat surprisingly to Muhammad after the Muslim victory at al-Hunayn, but probably also influenced by their defeat at Mu D ta, his appeal for followers met with little support. The Emigrants as well as a number of Bedouins held back and even among his devoted followers there were some who put forward all sorts of objections, for instance the fear that a campaign so far away in the burning heat would be difficult and potentially hazardous (cf. IX, 45, 81-90, 98 ff.). Muhammad seems to have faced considerable opposition in Medina at this time (IX, 58-82, 125), so that he had to have recourse to his earlier method of intimidation and his words recall in a remarkable way the period of passion in Mecca (e.g. IX, 70, 128 f.).
In spite of all opposition, Muhammad was able to carry through with his grand plan. When, however, after great hardships the 30,000 Muslims and their allies reached Tabuk, on the frontier with the land of the Byzantines, the campaign was indecisive (Ibn Hisham, 894—906). Muhammad’s prestige had, however, become so great by this time that the petty Christian and Jewish states in the north of Arabia submitted to him during his stay in Tabuk, e.g. the Christian king Yuhanna in Ayla [<?. fl. ], the people of Adhruh [q.v.] and the Jews in the port of Makna. The Prophet is said to have stayed in Tabuk for ten nights (Ibn Hisham, 904). Khalid b. al-Walld also occupied the important centre of Dumat al-Djandal [q. v. ] during the Tabuk expedition (Ibn Sa c d, ii/1, 119 f.). 4. The period from Tabuk to Muhammad’s death Unfortunately we do not know how the matters that were rapidly coming to a head in Medina actually developed; but we may safely assume that the death of c Abd Allah b. Ubayy, which took place not long after the expedition to Tabuk, must have contributed to slacken the tension. These years showed a marked increase in the prestige of Muhammad in regions outside the area immediately surrounding Medina. With Mecca in his hands there was a noticeable inclination among the Bedouins in several places to submit to the will of the conqueror of this town in order to be safe against his attacks and to have a share in his rich booty. This was the case for example regarding the group of tribes of c Amir b. Sa c sa c a [q.v.] (Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 51 f.) with portions of the great tribe of Tamfm and the neighbouring Asad [q. vv. ] (cf. Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 39-41) and further north with the Bakr and Taghlib [q.v.] (cf. Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 55). Even in regions so far away from Medina as Bahrayn (Bahrain) and c Uman (Oman) within the Persian sphere of influence (see Watt, Medina, 131 ff.) and among the chiefs of South Arabia, the new teaching and order of things penetrated and found ardent followers in some places. But we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the representations of the historians, from which it appears as if all the people in these lands adopted Islam. Caetani has shown that these accounts are not in keeping with reality and that it was only little groups that submitted, while there was a not inconsiderable number who rejected the Prophet’s demands. See Watt, Medina, 78-150, for a discussion of the major tribes in areas surrounding Mecca and Medina and also those farther to the north and south, along with an appraisal of the extent of Muhammad’s success in winning over the major tribes of Arabia and, in some cases, the motives, whether political, social or religious, for the tribes' alliances with Medina.
In addition to the Jews who had already felt his strength, there were also a considerable number of Christians and some Zoroastrians [see MADJUS] in the eastern and southern districts of the Arabian peninsula, who posed a problem of a different sort for Muhammad. While in the earlier teachings of the Kur D an Muhammad is presented only as God’s prophet to the Arabic-speaking people, this situation changed in the later Medinan years. Sura IX, 29 ff., for example, includes the Christians and the Jews among the polytheists, who gave God a son and honoured men as lords beside God. In contrast to such utterances, V, 82 mentions the Christians very sympathetically because they, unlike the Jews, showed kindness towards Muhammad and were not arrogant. Christian priests and monks are mentioned in particular; a more negative appraisal is given in LVII, 27, and yet the Christians of Nadjran [q.v.] are said to have received preferable treatment by Muhammad (Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 84 f.). Tor Andrae

Версия от 09:29, 22 января 2018

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

Мухаммад

Библиография Мусульманский Пророк, к которому было отброшено Божье откровение (nuzzila, q 47: 2, см. Пророки и пророчество, откровение и вдохновение). В трех случаях за ним следует название «посланник» (q.v .; rasul), то есть посланник Бога (q 3: 144; 33:40; 48:29).

¶ Имена и наименования

Когда, однако, Коран обращается к Пророку непосредственно во втором человеке, его не называют «Мухаммадом», но он называется различными наименованиями, которые указывают на его отношение к Богу. Здесь, помимо расула, чаще всего используется название «пророк» (q 8:64, 66: 8 и т. Д.). Апелляция «слуга» (q.v .;'abd) Бога также используется, скорее всего, со ссылкой на Пророка (см. 17: 1, 25: 1, 39:36, 72:19). Другие эпитеты ссылаются на цели его миссии, наиболее частые из которых — башир, «диктор» и надхир, «warner» (qv, например q 2: 119 и т. Д.), А также мудхаккир, «напоминание» (q 88 : 21). В п. 33: 45-6 приводится серия названий: шахид, «свидетель» (см. Свидетельствование и свидетельствование), мубашшир, «носитель добрых вестей» (см. Хорошие новости), надхир, дай, "тот, кто называет [ к Богу] "(см. приглашение), и сирадж мунир, " светильник "(см. свет, лампа).

Более конкретные обозначения выводятся из его состояния во время адреса (см. Случаи откровения). Таким образом, Коран обращается к нему как к альмузмаммилу, «обернутому» (q 73: 1) и альмуддатхиру, «окутанному» (q 74: 1), побуждая его встать и выполнить свою миссию. Эта пара наименований, вероятно, символизирует уход и нежелание. См. Также имена пророка.

Откровение

Откровение божественного послания, которое должен доставить предсказатель qur'ānic, описывается в различных терминах, изображающих содержание, а также процесс откровения. То, что открыто Пророку, чаще всего называют qur'ān (например, q 6:19, 20: 2 и т. Д.), Которое Пророк должен «читать» (li-taqra’ahu, q 17: 106, atluwa, q 27 : 92, см. Гласность, декламация qur'ān) или «chant» (rattil, q 73: 4). Но последняя команда также может быть понята в другом смысле (Парет, Мохаммед, 492). Коран не только провозглашается Пророком, но также читается ему во время откровения (q 75:18, ср .: q 87: 6).

Откровение, полученное Пророком, чаще всего описывается как kitāb, «книга» (q.v .; q 4: 105; 5:48 и т. Д.). Он читается ему во время откровения (д. 28: 2-3), и он, в свою очередь, должен прочесть его (см. 18:27, 29:45). Множественное, кутуб («книги») также появляется как что-то прочитанное Пророком (ятлу) и содержащееся на очищенных страницах (ṣuḥuf muṭahhara, q 98: 2-3, см. Письменные и письменные материалы). В этом случае «книги», вероятно, являются отдельными единицами откровения.

В самом деле, Коран не раз ссылался на отдельные части откровения. Имя, наиболее часто используемое для них, — это āyāt, «знаки» [q.v .; Бога], которые составляют часть kitāb (q 10: 1 и т. д., см. также стихи). Они также выступают за то, что ему открыто (q 2:99), или читали (natlūhā) ему (q 2: 252; 3: 108; 45: 6, ср., 3:58) и Пророк, для его часть, также ожидается, будет читать (ятлу) их для своей аудитории (см. q 2: 129, 151; 3: 164; 28:45; 62: 2; 65:11).

Ещё одна единица, которую, как ожидают, пророк процитирует, — это наба' (пл. Анба), «отчет, весть» (см. Новости). Этот термин обычно означает рассказы о прошлых поколениях (q.v.), в основном библейского происхождения (см. Повествования). Например, Пророку поручено читать (utlu) наба’а двух сыновей Адама (см. 5:27, см. Адам и канун, каин и авель), наба’а Ноя (qv; q 10:71) и Авраам (qv; q 26:69). Опять же, такие истории также передаются Пророку после его раскрытия, как в случае с набами Моисея (q.v .; q 28: 3). Эти единицы также «связаны» (naquṣṣu) с ним при открытии (q 7: 101; 11: 100, 120; 18:13, 20:99). Они также упоминаются как анба-аль-гайб: «истории о невидимом» (см. Скрытые и скрытые), потому что Пророк не видел их лично (д. 3:44 от Марии [qv]; q 11:49 от Ноя, q 12: 102 от Иосифа [qv]).

Истории прошлых поколений, провозглашенные Пророком, также могут быть описаны как дхикр, как и история Дху-Карнайна (q 18:83, см. Александр). Эта форма — инфинитив дхакары, «упоминание» или «напоминание», так что зикр является «намеком» на историю (см. Память). Тем не менее, этот же термин также является именем всего откровения (q 16:44 и т. Д.), Вероятно, потому, что он довольно часто ссылается на истории прошлых поколений. Фактически, запрет udhkur fī l-kitāb, «упоминание в книге», часто используется в отрывках, побуждающих пророка qur’annic рассказывать истории о предыдущих пророках (q 19:16, 41 и т. Д.).

Основной этап откровения, предшествующий публичному декламации текстов, представлен глаголом awḥā, который часто используется в Коране для описания акта передачи Божественных текстов Пророку. Кита сообщается ему таким образом (см. 35:31), а также Коран (q 12: 3) и рассказы о невидимом (анба аль-гайб, ср., Например, 3:44, 11:49; 12: 102). То, что глагол awḥā описывает начальную стадию откровения, указывается в нескольких отрывках, в которых Пророк должен будет прочитать то, что было открыто (awḥaynā; ūḥiya) ему (q 13:30, 18:27, 29:45), что означает, что интимный процесс откровения предшествует фактическому чтению. Инструкции о том, как следует получить откровение, даны Пророку в 20: 114, где ему советуют не «спешить» (lā t’jal) с Кораном до завершения откровения (waḥy). Более конкретные направления даны в § 75: 16-9, где ему дается указание не шевелить языком (откровением), чтобы ускорить его, и ждать с его декламацией, пока он не будет прочитан ему (в полном объёме).

Откровения, полученные в результате Пророка, происходят от человека, ангела (qv), который описывается как «ужасный в силе», который стоял на «высшем горизонте», а затем приближался и приближался (см. 53: 4-10) , В другом месте он описывается как «обладающий силой, с лордом престола (см. Престол бога) безопасным, повинующимся, кроме того, надежным», и Пророк «видел его» (ра’аху) в ясном горизонте (стр. 81: 20-1, 23). Сердце (q.v .; al-fu'ād) Пророка однажды «увидело» (ра’а) этого могущественного человека возле (небесного?) Лота дерева, называемого сидрат аль-мунтах (см. 53: 11-8, см. Сельское хозяйство и растительность).

Однако наиболее распространенные глаголы, описывающие передачу текстов Пророку, представляют собой различные производные от nzl, «чтобы спуститься». Например, в п. 17: 106 Пророк, как ожидается, произнесет Коран, который был послан подряд (nazzalnāhu) ему. То, что было послано к нему таким образом, называется в одном случае furqān (q 25: 1, см. Имена qur'ān), что также является именем того, что было дано Моисею (д. 2:53). Процесс покончить с сердцем Пророка («калабика») и осуществляется посредником по имени Джибриль, ангелом Гавриилом (qv; q 2:97) или аль-ал-амином, «верным духом» (q 26: 193-4); в другом месте он называется ру-аль-qudus, «святой дух» (см. 16: 102, см. святой дух).

Начало процесса отправки откровения, как представляется, указано в п. 44: 2-3, где говорится, что китаб был отправлен во время «благословенной ночи». В другом месте эта ночь называется laylat al-qadr (q 97: 1, см. Ночь власти), а в ещё одном отрывке говорится, что посылка Корана произошла в месяц Раманана (qv; q 2: 185). Посылание хитабана восхваляется как великое проявление Божьей щедрости (см. Благословение) Пророку, который дал ему знание (см. Знание и учение), которого у него не было (q 4: 113; 42:52). Пророк, он-я, не просил об этом благосклонности (д. 28:86), и если бы не Божья милость (q.v.), он мог бы полностью отозвать откровение (см. 17: 86-7). Однако божественная доброжелательность, которая исходит из откровения книги, также обволакивает верующих (см. Веру и неверие). Ожидается, что Пророк научит их книге, тем самым предоставив им знания о том, что их ещё нет (q 2: 151; 3: 164; 62: 2). Книга также является средством, с помощью которого Пророк, как ожидается, примет решение в вопросах, по которым верующие не согласны (см. Решение), и направляют их на правильный путь (q 16:64, 89, см. Путь или путь, сбиты с пути). Поэтому посылка книги указывает на их сострадание (raḥma) к ним (п. 16:89), а также отправление самого Пророка как посланника ко всем существам (см. 21: 107).

Цели миссии

Миссия пророка qur'ānic имеет доминирующий апокалиптический аспект, поскольку его роль состоит в том, чтобы предупредить неверующих об их эсхатологическом наказании (см. Апокалипсис, эсхатология, вознаграждение и наказание). Этот аспект раскрывается в параграфах, описывающих цели откровения. Таким образом, в q 38:70 сущность раскрытого (yūḥā) Пророку сосредоточена на его миссии в качестве воина (надхир). В q 6:19 Пророк говорит, что Коран был раскрыт (ḥḥiya) ему, чтобы он «мог вас предупредить», а в q 21:45 он говорит, что предупреждает только о себе. Аналогично, книга (al-kitāb), как говорят, была отправлена ​​так, чтобы Пророк мог её предупредить (q 6:92, 7: 2 и т. Д.). О том, что он должен предупредить, это час (например, q 79: 42-5 и т. Д.) Или день суда (см. Последнее суждение), что Коран называет различными именами (например, q 14:44, 19:39 , 40:18 и т. Д.). В некоторых отрывках явно не упоминается эсхатологическое будущее и вместо этого сосредоточены на примерах из истории некоторых вымерших общин (см. «История и qur'ān, география»). Здесь Пророку предлагается предупредить своих современников о бедствии, которое постигло народы: (q.v.) и Thamūd (q.v, например, q 41: 13-6 и т. Д.).

Другие отрывки, в которых обращается Пророк, непосредственно вызывают монотеистическое послание в его миссии. Он требует провозгласить (iqra') имя своего господина (qv; q 96: 1) или похвалить (sabbiḥ) его имя (д. 56:96, 69:52, 87: 1, увидеть хвалебную славу, прославление бога) или объявить (udhkur) его (q 73: 8; 76:25). В других отрывках ему поручено не поклоняться идолам отдельно от Бога (см. 17:22, 39, 26: 213, 28:88) и не быть одним из мушрикунов, то есть теми, кто связывает других божеств с Богом (q 12 : 108, 28:87 и т. Д., См. Кумиры и изображения, идолопоклонство и идолопоклонники, многобожие и атеизм).

Объём миссии

Объём миссии пророка qur'ānic изменяется между универсальным и местным. Последнее высказывается в проходах, в которых Пророк должен предупреждать своих людей (qawm) на своем языке (билисаника), а именно арабском, что делает его сообщение понятным (q 19:97, см. Также q 44 : 58). Локальная миссия Пророка ещё более очевидна в заявлении о том, что каждый посланник был отправлен для обращения к своему народу (qawm) на их родном языке (q 14: 4). То же самое подразумевается и в том, что Пророк был отправлен в кавм, которому никогда не отправляли воинство (q 28:46, 32: 3, 36: 6, см. Также q 34:44). Его аудитория ещё меньше в отрывке, приказав ему предупредить его ближайший клан ('ashīra, q 26: 214). В другом отрывке он, как говорят, был отправлен в сообщество (умму), которому предшествовали другие народы (д. 13:30), что, по-видимому, означает, что его аудитория является арабской и отличается от предыдущих наций (евреи и христиане). Более того, в q 62: 2 он представлен ¶ как посланник, принадлежащий ummiyyūn, т. Е. Язычникам, которым он был отправлен, чтобы научить книгу и мудрость (q.v.). Это соответствует дальнейшим проходам, в которых он представлен как одна из его собственной аудитории (минкум, мин anfusikum, см. Q 2: 151, 9: 128 и т. Д.). Прежде всего, он, как говорят, получил арабский Коран, чтобы он мог предупредить Умм аль-Кору (q 42: 7, см. Также q 6:92, 90: 1-2), что, вероятно, является Меккой (qv) и тех, кто живёт вокруг него. Сам Бог, которому Пророку приказано поклоняться, описывается как местный, а именно: «господин этого города, который он сотворил святым» (д. 27:91). Это снова может быть ссылкой на Мекку.

С другой стороны, другие отрывки, имеющие четкую универсальную ориентацию, подразумевают, что Пророк был послан в качестве посланника или предупредил и принесет добрую весть всему человечеству (лилнам) или всем существам (lil-'ālamīn) или людей (башар), не ограничивая аудиторию определённой группой (q 4:79, 7: 158, 21: 107, 25: 1, 34:28, 74:36). Тем не менее, когда указывается конкретная группа, это Люди Книги (q.v.), к которым пришел Пророк, чтобы предупредить и показать много вещей, которые они скрывали от книги (п. 5:15). Он пришел к ним после перерыва (халры) между посланниками (п. 5:19) и, как ожидается, будет судить их согласно книге, которая была ему открыта (q 5: 42-3, 48, 49; см. также q 4:65, 105). Это основано на идее, что Коран может разъяснить детям Израиля (q.v.) большинство вопросов, которые они оспаривают (q 27:76). Помимо людей, Коран также затрагивает демонов (джиннов), которые слушают его чтение и становятся верующими (q 46: 29-31; 72: 1-2).

Вера пророка qur'ānic

Пророка qur'ānic был первым из его людей, который стал мусульманином, тот, у кого опустевшая ширка (т. Е. Поклонение богам, кроме Бога, считается его «соратниками»). Это указано в п. 6:14: "Скажи: " Я возьму себе в качестве защитника, кроме Бога, создателя небес (см. Небо и небо) и земли (qv, см. Также создание), тот, кто питается и не кормили? "Скажи: " Мне приказано быть первым из тех, кто стал мусульманином (аслама) «. Не будь вы из ассоциаторов (lā takūnanna mina l-mushrikīna)». Битва против уклона, лежащего в основе монотеистическая тяга Пророка также возникает в q 6: 162-3: "Скажи: " Моя молитва (qv), моя ритуальная жертва (qv), моя жизнь, моя смерть — все принадлежит Богу, господину всего существа. У него нет помощника (шарик). Таким образом, я был приказан, и я первый из тех, кто стал мусульманами ". Отказ от ширка означает очищение (ikhlāṣ) своей веры (q.v.); именно это сделало пророка мусульманином: "Скажи: " Мне приказано служить Богу, очищая мою религию (qv) для него, и мне приказано быть первым из тех, кто стал мусульманами "(q 39 : 11-2).

Пророк и предыдущие пророки qur'ānic

Хотя Пророк является первым мусульманином среди его людей, предыдущие пророки также описываются как борьба с уклоном и поэтому обозначаются как мусульмане. Так обстоит дело с Ноем, который является одним из «тех, кто стал мусульманами» (q 10:72), а Моисей — «первый из тех, кто стал верующим» (q 7: 143). Это показывает, что Пророк является связующим звеном в цепочке пророков, посланных в предыдущие общины. Фактически, он является заключительным звеном, как указано в названии хатам аль-набийинь, «печать пророков», в которой Коран обозначает Мухаммада (см. 33:40). Мухаммад, так говорит Коран, является только посланником, следующим за другими посланниками, которые скончались перед ним (д. 3: 144). В этом отношении он подобен любому другому посланнику в этой цепочке, например, Иисусу (q.v.), о котором также говорится, что другие посланники скончались перед ним (q 5:75). В качестве ссылки в последовательной цепочке Пророк появляется в списке пророков, с которыми Бог заключил завет (qv; q 33: 7), и здесь, помимо самого Пророка, упомянуты другие пророки: Ной, Авраам, Моисей и Иисус.

Сродство между Пророком и предыдущими вытекает из идеи, что все они испытали тот же процесс откровения. Это указано в п. 4: 163: "Мы открыли вам (awḥaynā ilayka), как мы показали Ною и пророкам после него, и [как] мы открыли Аврааму, Измаилу (qv), Исааку (qv), Иаков (qv) и племена (см. Израиль), Иисус и Иов (qv), Иона (qv) и Аарон (qv) и Соломон (qv), и мы дали псалмы (qv) Давиду (qv) … ". книга, которая была открыта Пророку, также не уникальна для него, поскольку другие пророки также были отправлены с «книгой», которая была предназначена для руководства и разрешения их споров (д. 2: 213). Цели откровения также распространены для всех пророков, включая Пророка. Он был отправлен, чтобы предупредить, а также добрую весть (башшир) верующим (например, q 2:25 и т. Д.), И то же самое применимо к предыдущим посланникам, которые также были отправлены, чтобы предупредить злодеев и принести добрую весть праведники (д. 6:48 и т. д., видят добрые дела, злые дела, добро и зло). Модель предыдущих пророков продолжается в карьере Пророка, и это наиболее ярко проявляется в так называемых «рассказах о наказаниях» (q.v .; для которых см., Например, Watt-Bell, Introduction, 127 f.). Они описывают события в жизни пророков, таких как Ṣāliḥ (q.v.) в терминах, идентичных тем, которые использовались для опыта Пророка (там же, 133-4). В одном случае (q 73:15) параллелизм явно нарисован, где указано, что Бог послал Пророка так же, как посланник (т. Е. Моисей) был отправлен, чтобы предупредить Фараона (q.v.).

¶ В результате близости между Пророком и другими пророками религия, открытая для всех, одна и та же (q 42:13). Следовательно, Коран призывает мусульман верить во все, что было отправлено каждому из пророков, и не разделять никого из них (д. 2: 136, 285, 3:84). Из этого следует, что послание книги, которое было открыто Пророку, по существу такое же, как и книги, показанные предыдущим посланникам. Поэтому Коран несколько раз утверждает, что книга, которая была отправлена ​​Пророку, «подтверждает (мудхаддик), что было до него» (д. 35:31, ср. 3: 3; 5:48, 6:92). В одном случае арабское происхождение книги Пророка объявлено (q 46:12, см. Арабский язык, арабский язык), и здесь в Коране указывается конкретная книга, предшествовавшая арабскому, а именно книга Моисея (см. Также q 46:30). Точно так же говорят, что Иисус подтвердил Тору (q.v.), которая была раскрыта перед ним (см. 3:50, 5:46, 61: 6).

Мессианская позиция пророка qur'ānic

Однако в некоторых отрывках Пророк занимает выдающееся положение среди пророков, и Бог завета, заключенный с ними, вращается исключительно вокруг его собственной личности, которая таким образом приобретает мессианскую позицию. Начнем с того, что в д. 3:81 Бог устанавливает завет с пророками о том, что, когда приходит посланник и подтверждает книгу, которая с ними, они должны верить в него и поддерживать его. Это означает, что все пророки, а также их соответствующие народы должны присоединяться к Пророку всякий раз, когда он появляется. Более того, описание куранского посланника, как говорят, было написано в Священных Писаниях евреев и христиан (см. Священные Писания и qur'ān, коррупция, подлог), а именно Тора и Евангелие (qv), где он описан (см. Рубин, Глаз, 23-30, см. умми, неграмотность), и обетование Божие обещано тем, кто следует за ним (см. 7: 157) 8). Более конкретное имя куранского посланника, описанное в Священных Писаниях предыдущих пророков, — это Ашмад, о котором Иисус приносит детям Израиля добрую весть (см. 61: 6). Взятые вместе, эти отрывки создают мессианский образ Пророка, позади которого человечество должно объединиться как одна община верующих (см. Сообщество и общество в qur'ān).

Религия Авраама

Универсальное звено Пророка, основанного на личности сообщения, которое он разделяет с пророками детей Израиля или людей Книги, отсутствует в других местах, которые устанавливают прямую связь между Пророком и Авраамом. Таким образом, в q 3:68 говорится, что «те, кто ближе всего к Аврааму, являются теми, кто следовал за ним и этим Пророком, и теми, кто верит». Пророку qur'ānic прямо поручено следовать так называемой «религии» (милла) Авраама, и такие отрывки, несомненно, исключают религию еврейских и христианских пророков из сферы веры Пророка (см. Евреи и иудаизм, христиане и христианство). Сам Авраам объявлен предшествовавшим откровению Торы и Евангелия (д. 3:65) и не был ни иудеем, ни христианином, но ханиф (qv), мусульманин, а не мушрик, «ассоциатор» (q 3:67). Поскольку последнее обозначение предназначено главным образом для арабских политеистов (см. Южноарабию, религия в пре-исламском), то согласно религии Авраама означает диссоциацию не только от еврейского и христианского религиозного наследия, но и от арабского. Пророк явно требует следовать религии Авраама в 16: 123, в то время как остальным верующим приказано сделать то же самое в § 3:95. В ¶ q 2: 135 верующие, придерживающиеся религии Авраама, таким образом воздерживаются от становления евреями или христианами. В другом отрывке Пророку просто поручено стать ḥanīf, и здесь требование предназначено для того, чтобы Пророк не был мушриком (q 10: 105). Хотя имя Авраама явно не упоминается, спрос снова, вероятно, следует за моделью Авраама. То же самое относится к q 30:30, когда Пророку настоятельно рекомендуется стать ḥanīf и придерживаться религии, которая является «первоначальным творением Бога» (fiṭra), на котором он создал человечество. Связь между идеей «оригинальной» религии и Авраамом ясна из других мест, описывающих естественный монотеизм Авраама (q 6:79).

Партикулярное направление отрывков, которые создают прямую связь между Авраамом и Пророком, похоже, ограничивает сферу послания Пророка арабской сфере, потому что сам Авраам, связанный с Пророком, имеет четко локальный контекст. Это имеет место в q 2: 127-9, где Авраам и Измаил «поднимут» основы дома (Кааба [qv]), а затем Авраам молится Богу послать из своих потомков пророка, который будет учить их книга и мудрость.

Пророка qur'ānic между Богом и человеком

Как посланник Бога, Пророк — избранный человек, потому что Бог «выбирает (яфафи) посланников ангелов и человечества» (q 22:75). Поэтому Коран описывается как «речь (q.v.) благородного посланника» (q 69:40). Как избранный посланник Бога, Пророк является получателем не только своего откровения, но и своего бесконечного надзора, сострадания и защиты (q.v.). Это отмечается в таких отрывках, как Бог, который, как говорят, никогда не покидал Пророка (д. 93: 3) и возвысил свою славу (д. 94: 4), или поднял его до похвальной позиции (макам maḥmūd, q 17:79). Сострадание Бога к Пророку проявляется в утверждении, что сам Бог, а также ангелы молятся о мире Пророка (см. 33:56). Со своей стороны, Пророку поручено просить о помиловании Бога (см. 4: 106, 47:19, см. Прощение) и на самом деле предоставляется полное прощение за все грехи (д. 48: 2, см. Грех, майор и минор) , Руководство Бога также обеспечено для Пророка (д. 93: 7), а также его благодеяния. Таким образом, Бог улучшил социально-экономический статус Пророка (д. 93: 6, 8) и дал ему «изобилие» (алькавтар, д. 108: 1), а также «повторение» (qv; mathānī) и великий Коран (п. 15:87). Бог также облегчил ему бремя страхов и беспокойств (q 94: 1-3). Божественное руководство также проявляется в ритуальной сфере (см. Ритуал и qurān), и именно он инструктирует Пророка о том, когда молиться (например, q 20: 130, 40:55, 50: 39-40) и о том, что направление молитвы (qibla [qv]) должно быть (q 2: 144). Тот факт, что Пророк стал первым мусульманином среди его общины, является результатом Божьего ритуального руководства. Пророку приказано сказать (q 6: 162-3): "Моя молитва, моя ритуальная жертва, моя жизнь, моя смерть — все принадлежит Богу, властелину всего бытия. Никакой помощник не имеет, поэтому мне было дано указание, и я первый из тех, кто стал мусульманами "(см. Q 6:14).

Пророк и верующие qur'ānic

Божья милость Пророка распространяется на сообщество, которое должно следовать за Пророком и поддерживать его, и именно Бог укрепил верующих за Пророком. Пророк не мог этого достичь (q 8:63). Божья милость Пророка порождает милость Пророка для верующих или как указано в ¶q 3: 159: «По милости Божьей вы были нежны к ним …». В последующей части того же отрывка Бог советует посланник, чтобы помиловать верующих и просить у них прощения, и проконсультироваться с ними в его делах. Соответственно, Пророк описывается как "посланник из вас самих; ваши страдания (q.v.) очень печальны для него, и он беспокоится о вас, нежный и сострадательный к верующим "(q 9: 128). Особенно подчеркивается прощение грехов, которое исходит от присутствия Пророка. Таким образом, в q 4:64 говорится: «… Если, когда они обидели себя, они пришли к вам и молились о прощении Бога, и посланник молился о прощении за них, они бы нашли Бога прощающим, сострадательным» (см. бог и его атрибуты). Милосердие Пророка к верующим проявляется также в его функции «свидетеля» (шахид) для его общины (д. 2: 143, 22:78). Это похоже на эсхатологическую роль, о чём говорится в параграфах, описывающих последнее суждение, в котором Пророк является свидетелем его общины, в то время как другие общины имеют своих свидетелей, своих пророков (см. Q 4:41, 16:89; см. также q 16:84, 28:75). Его роль шахида, вероятно, означает, что он дает доказательства в отношении личности как праведников среди его людей, так и злодеев. Со своей стороны, верующие, как ожидается, возьмут Пророка в качестве своей модели (uswa) в своей преданности Богу и в надежде на его награду на последнем суде (д. 33:21). Их любовь к Богу является причиной того, почему они должны следовать Пророку, что является единственным способом обрести Божью любовь и милость в ответ (см. 3:31, увидеть любовь и привязанность). Из этой близости между Богом и его посланником следует необходимость повиноваться им (см. 3:32, 4:59), потому что подчиняться Пророку означает повиноваться Богу (q 4:80, см. Послушание). Точно так же обещание (bay’a) Пророку означает обязательство Бога (q 48:10), и Бог действительно доволен теми, кто поклялся в верности своему Пророку (см. 48:18, см. Контракты и союзы). Женщины также обязались преданность ему, и когда они это делают, они должны следовать строгим религиозным и моральным законам и подчиняться ему (q 60:12, видеть этику и qur'ān, добродетели и пороки, командовать и запрещать, женщины и qur'ān). Кроме послушания, верующие, как ожидается, будут более лояльны к своему Пророку, чем к самим себе (д. 33: 6), и относятся к нему с должным уважением (см. Лояльность). Это означает, что, когда они находятся в его присутствии, они не могут уйти, не спросив прежде всего свой отпуск (д. 24: 62-3), и им не разрешено поднимать свои голоса выше его (стр. 49: 1-5, 7; см. Социальные взаимодействия). Как образец преданности верующих, Пророк также является источником своего закона, который он дает им через откровение (см. Закон и qur'ān). Таким образом, в q 6: 151-3 ему приказано сказать им: «Придите, я расскажу, что запретил ваш господин (qv) вам …». Далее следует список правовых и моральных правил (см. Границы и предписания) ,

Коран не только имеет дело с обязанностью подчиняться Пророку, но и своим собственным индивидуальным статусом среди верующих. Это проявляется главным образом в стихах, определяющих его долю в трофеях войны по сравнению с долями остальных верующих (см. Добычу). В § 59: 7 трофеи принадлежат Богу и его посланнику, а также его родственникам (см. Семью пророка, людям дома) и нуждающимся мусульманам (см. Бедность и бедные), а Пророку дают полную власть раздавать добычу: "Что бы ни дал вам посланник, возьмите; независимо от того, что он запрещает вам, сдайтесь ". Аналогичным образом, в q 8: 1 говорится, что трофеи (anfāl) принадлежат Богу и ¶ посланнику. Однако в q 8:41 только пятая часть добычи принадлежит Пророку и нуждающимся, а остальная часть распределяется среди участвующих воинов.

Также упоминается статус жен Пророка среди верующих (см. Жены пророка). Они провозглашены равными по статусу матерям верующих, а это значит, что они не могут стать женами верующим после Пророка (см. 33: 6). Особые моральные обязательства предписываются им как жены Пророка, и их поведение должно быть безупречным. Если они хотят оставаться его женами и не разведены (см. Брак и развод), они должны взять на себя обязательство вести себя неприлично, оставаться в своих домах, не проявлять их наряды, как это было в первой эпохе невежества (qv; jāhiliyya), и они должны молиться и подавать милостыню (см. милостыню) и повиноваться Богу и его посланнику. Бог вознаградит их дважды за все это (см. 33: 28-34). Также указаны указания верующим о том, как вести себя в доме Пророка. Верующие не должны звонить незваным и не задерживаться после еды. Они должны спросить своих жен за любой предмет, который они хотят, только стоя за занавеской (см. 33:53, см. Завесу, барьер). Тем не менее, намекаются также на некоторые неясные внутренние проблемы, которые Пророк имел с двумя из его жен (q 66: 1-5), а также с группой лиц, которые «пришли с клеветой (ifk)» (q 24 : 11 f, см. Сплетни). Характер клеветы не раскрывается в Коране, но мусульманская традиция связывает его с «Эйши» (см.'ā'isha bint abī bakr). В отличие от куранского провозглашения, что жены Пророка являются матерями верующих, Коран заявляет, что Мухаммад не является отцом ни одного из верующих (д. 33:40), что означает, что он может жениться на своих женщинах после них. Это заявление сделано в связи с делом Заида (б. Ḥāritha), усыновленного сына Мухаммада, единственного современника Мухаммада — помимо самого Пророка, — который упоминается в его имени в Коране. Утверждается, что после того, как Зайд совершил то, что он сделал бы с женой, Бог дал ей брак с Пророком, и Коран утверждает, что верующим является законным жениться на жену их усыновленных сыновей (см. 33:37; см. Законное и незаконным).

Пророка qur'ānic и неверующих

Отношения между Пророком и неверующими занимают основную часть куранских отрывков, касающихся его пророческой миссии, и описаны многие аспекты негативной реакции неверующих на его послание (см. Оппозицию мумаммаду). Их недоверие изображено в некоторых главах как отказ слушать его. В одном отрывке неверующие говорят: «Наши сердца завуалированы от того, к чему вы нас зовите, и в наших ушах есть тяжесть (см. Слух и глухота), а между нами и вами есть завеса» (п. 41: 5). В другом случае они почти сбивают его взглядом, когда они слышат, как он проповедует (q 68:51). Пренебрежительные реакции также характерны, когда Пророк упрекает их в поклонении божествам, кроме Бога (д. 21:36, 25: 41-2, см. Насмешку). Коран подчеркивает упрямство неверующих (см. Наглость и упрямство), заявляя, что даже если Бог послал Пророку «книгу о пергаменте, которую они могут касаться своими руками», они все равно не поверили бы в него (д. 6: 7).

Неверие часто сосредоточено на конкретной статье о вере, проповедуемой Пророком, а именно о воскресении (qv) и последнем суде, которое неверующие обычно отвергают как невозможный процесс (см. 17:49, 98, 21:38 и т. Д.), , Неверующие также предъявляют особые требования в качестве условия для их веры в Пророка qur'ānic. В ¶ q 10:15 они просят его изменить содержание своих откровений и сделать их более приятными, а в q 2: 120 (см. Также q 2: 135) евреи и христиане просят его следовать своей религии. Неверие евреев или людей Книги особенно осуждается. Они отвергли Пророка, несмотря на то, что книга, открытая ему, подтверждает их собственные писания. Их обвиняют в преднамеренном игнорировании предписаний своей собственной книги [т. верить в Пророка] (q 2:89, 91, 101, см. также q 4:47).

Активное преследование неверующих также рассматривается в Коране, особенно их угроза изгнания (ахраджа) Пророка с его родины (п. 17:76). В q 8:30 это один из ряда других возможных вариантов, таких как ограничение его или даже убийство. В q 9:13 схема изгнания посланника сочетается с нарушением клятв, принятых неверующими, двумя правонарушениями, которые оправдывают ведение войны с ними (см. Нарушение трестов и контрактов). Угроза высылки повторяется в рассказах о предыдущих пророках (q 14:13), таких как Шуайб (qv; q 7:88) и Лот (qv; q 7:82; 26: 167; 27:56), где она снова формируется основной компонент преследования. Однако изгнание — это не просто угроза, но также является свершившимся фактом, который возникает в отношении «вашего города, который изгнал вас» (см. 47:13). Пророк и верующие подвергаются изгнанию с родины, как указано в q 60: 1. Здесь "высылка посланника и вас (т. верующие] ", является одним из преступлений неверующих, а в q 2: 217 изгнанными являются жители священной мечети (q.v .; см. также священные участки). Изгнание их и отказ им в свободном доступе к священной мечети осуждаются как преступления, которые хуже, чем борьба (q.v.) в течение запрещенных месяцев (q.v.). Верующим, которые были изгнаны, приказано убить своих врагов «куда бы вы ни пришли на них и изгнать их из того места, где они изгнали вас …» (д. 2: 191), что снова делает изгнание причиной войны (q.v.). То же преступление принудительной высылки также является причиной того, что верующие отделяются от неверующих, виновных в этом преступлении, или за помощь другим в этом (q 60: 9).

Коран не только ссылается на существование неверия, но также раскрывает различные причины этого, которые исходят из разных источников. В одном случае его происхождение — страх; неверующие говорят, что если они последуют за Пророком, они будут схвачены с их земли (д. 28:57). Те, кто здесь говорит, вероятно, являются людьми Мекки, которым Бог немедленно отвечает, что он установил для них «безопасное святилище (шаранский амин), в которое приносят плоды всего» (q 28:57, ср. Q 8 : 26, 29:67). Послание Пророка здесь резко контрастирует с арабскими ценностями, на которых покоилась безопасность людей Мекки. Неверие современников Пророка часто связано с сомнениями в подлинности его послания, то есть действительно ли он является посланником Бога. Эти сомнения возникают с предполагаемыми недостатками в его личности и послании. Личные обвинения против Пророка часто основаны на утверждении, что он всего лишь человек, и Бог обычно не посылает людей в качестве своих посланников, а только ангелов (см. 17:94, 21: 3). Иудеи также придерживались этого мнения против него (q 6:91), и аналогичные оговорки были сделаны и в отношении предыдущих пророков их современниками (например, q 11:27, Noah, q 26: 154, Ṣāliḥ, q 26: 186, Shu’ayb) , Социальный статус Пророка даже как человек не достаточно высок, чтобы быть пророком (см. Социальные отношения). Это утверждение неверующих указано в п. 43:31: "Они говорят: " Почему этот Коран не был отправлен какому-то выдающемуся («мужику») из двух городов? "

В результате представления о том, что посланник Бога должен быть ангелом, требование часто возникает неверующими, что Пророк производит знаки с неба, то есть чудеса (см. Чудо). Его попросят либо изготовить неуказанный знак (āya) (q 7:20), либо послать к нему от Бога (п. 13: 7, 27). В q 11:12 ему предлагается сокровище, посланное к нему, или ангел, сопровождающий его (см. Также 6: 8-9, 25: 7-8). В q 17: 90-3 требуется пролонгированная серия конкретных знаков: чтобы поток был подан (см. Источники и фонтаны); что он производит сад (q.v.) из ладоней и виноградных лоз с протекающими через него реками; что он заставляет небо падать; принести Бога и ангелов в качестве поручителя; производят украшения из золота (q.v.); поднимитесь на небеса и снимите книгу, которую можно прочитать. Люди Книги (q 4: 153) также просят настоящую книгу с неба, и евреи ожидают увидеть жертву, которая будет поглощена огнем (qv, как знак её принятия Богом, q 3: 183).).

В случае неспособности предъявить доказательства своего божественного человека, Пророка обвиняют в том, что он колдун (q 10: 2, 11: 7 и т. Д., См. Магия) и поэт, которому обладают джинны (qv; majnūn, q 37:36; 44 : 14, см. Также безумие, поэзия и поэты). Его пророческое послание тоже не воспринимается как божественное и отвергается как «горячая пауза» (q 21: 5, см. Мечты и сон). Неверующие обычно упоминают такие недостатки, отказываясь отказаться от поклонения своим божествам (п. 37:36). Его сообщения часто отвергаются как кованные (q 11:35, 46: 8) или плагиат (см. Подлог). В последнем случае его проповеди осуждаются как «сказки о древних», которые были продиктованы ему (q 25: 4-6, см. Также q 6: 25-6 и т. Д.), Или были получены из человеческий хозяин (q 74:25, см. также q 44:14), происхождение которого считается неарабским (q 16: 103, см. информанты, см. также Аренс, Мухаммед, 42-4). Они тоже, как утверждают неверующие, могут сделать то же самое (q 8:31). Его послание, однако, также осуждается как нововведение, ранее не имеющее аналогов в других религиях (д. 38: 7), которое отличается от религии предков (q 34:43). Критика в этом отношении в основном направлена ​​против явной несходства между структурой проповедей Пророка и проповедями предыдущих пророков. Таким образом, в q 28:48 неверующие удивляются, почему Пророк не получил откровения, подобного Моисею, и в q 25:32 они спрашивают, почему Коран не был открыт Пророку сразу.

Божественная защита

В Коране выделено большое пространство для защиты Бога Пророком от различных аспектов отказа, что обеспечивает основную основу, на которой находится статус Пророка как посланника Бога. В общем, Коран утверждает абсурдность неверия, подчеркивая, что он возник, несмотря на оригинальное стремление неверующих к руководству. Таким образом, в q 35:42 неверующие клянутся, что, если к ним придет привратник, они будут более справедливо руководствоваться, чем любая другая нация, и в q 6: 157 они клянутся, что если бы им была открыта божественная книга, они были бы более справедливо ориентированы чем любая другая нация (см. также § 37: 167-70). Бог намеревается узаконить авторитет своего посланника как исключительный источник руководства, и для этого множество аргументов изложены в защиту подлинности его послания. В ответ на нападки на умственную целостность Пророка Бог обращается к неверующим, говоря: «Твой товарищ не сбивается с пути, и он не ошибается (см. Ошибку), и он не говорит о капризе» (стр. 53: 2-3) , Призывая его «твой товарищ» (ṣāḥibukum), Пророк становится одним из своих, чья целостность должна быть хорошо известна им. Таким образом, Бог также обращается к неверующим в § 34:46, говоря им, что «нет безумия (джинна) в вашем товарище» (см. Q 7: 184), и снова в q 81:22: "Твой товарищ не (майнун). "

¶ Происхождение целостности и умственной пригодности Пророка — это милосердие Бога (нима), которое мешает ему быть кахином, «прорицателем» или обладать (q 52:29), и действительно Бог неоднократно утверждает, что он не является ни кахином, ни поэт или обладал (q 68: 2; 69: 40-2 и т. д.). В этом контексте, по-видимому, также входит частая настойчивость в том, что Пророк не ожидает вознаграждения или заработной платы (аджр) за свои сообщения (например, q 25:57, 34:47, 38:86), что означает, что он доставляет Слово Божье, а не его собственное. Более простое утверждение об аутентичности его откровения повторяется в многочисленных отрывках, утверждающих, что Пророк был отправлен «с истиной» (bi-l-ḥqqq, cf.q 2: 119, 252; 4: 170; 9:33; 35:24 и т. Д., См. Правду), и что Бог и ангелы свидетельствуют об истине его послания (д. 4: 166, 13:43 и т. Д.). Тот факт, что Коран подтверждает предыдущие Священные Писания, и в основном рассказы о более ранних пророках, также вызывается в подтверждение его подлинности (q 12: 110-1). Точно так же, когда Пророк сам сталкивается с сомнениями относительно подлинной природы того, что ему было открыто, ему советуют проконсультироваться с теми, кто хорошо разбирается в предыдущих писаниях, — и, следовательно, знать, что Коран и эти писания одинаковы (q 10:94).

Коран также отвечает на более конкретные аспекты сомнений, выдвигаемых неверующими в отношении подлинности послания Пророка. В обязанности плагиата отвечает Бог, указывая на арабский язык Корана, который исключает возможность того, что неарабский учитель проповедовал Пророку, как навязанный его противниками (п. 16: 103). Арабский язык делает Коран понятным для аудитории (q 12: 2, 41: 3), который не принял бы неарабское откровение, которое не могло быть понято (q 26: 195, 198-9, 41:44) , Возможно, утверждение о том, что Пророк не читал какую-либо книгу до открытия Корана или не записывал её (q 29:48), также предназначен для опровержения обвинения в плагиате. Человеческая природа Пророка, которая удерживается против него его противниками, признается самим Богом, который приказывает своему посланнику сказать, что он всего лишь человек, который (тем не менее) получает откровения (см. 18: 110, 41: 6). , см. также безупречность). Бог подчеркивает, что смертность Пророка не мешает ему быть посланником Бога, и, чтобы доказать это, Бог говорит своему Пророку напомнить неверующим, что другие пророки были смертными. Таким образом, Бог советует своему Пророку сказать, что Моисей получил откровения как человека (д. 6:91), и что посланники в более старшие общины были также просто людьми (rijāl, q 12: 109 и т. Д.). Те же аргументы следуют, когда Коран утверждает, что Пророк не является новшеством среди других посланников (q 46: 9). Более того, посланник Бога всегда остается смертным, и ему не разрешают, чтобы другие люди поклонялись ему как богу (п. 3:79). Хотя человеческая природа Пророка признается, однако, подчеркивается божественность его послания. Чтобы доказать это, Бог советует Пророку бросить вызов неверующим, которые утверждают, что Коран создан для производства одной или десяти глав (сур), похожих на куранские, если они могут (q 10:38, 11:13), или история (ḥadīth) нравится (см. стр. 52: 33-4, см. неразумность, провокацию). Из-за божественности Корана человеческий qur'ānic Пророк не контролирует его содержание и время его откровения. Этот момент возникает, когда люди требуют, чтобы он изменил свое послание на более приятное, на что ему было предложено сказать: "Я не могу изменить его по своему усмотрению; Я ничего не слежу, кроме того, что мне открылось … Если бы Бог пожелал этого, я бы не сказал вам это … Я жил среди вас всю жизнь до этого … "(q 10: 15-6).

Постоянная человеческая природа Пророка не позволяет ему выполнить требования о чудесах, и когда это требование будет сделано, Бог повелевает своему посланнику сказать, что невидимый (гхайб) принадлежит только Богу (п. 10:20). Это означает, что он всего лишь смертный посланник, который не может совершать сверхъестественные поступки по собственной воле. Только Бог обладает способностью производить знаки, поскольку сам Коран говорит в другом месте (д. 6:37 и т. Д.), И он должен решить, кого он хочет вести (см. 13:27). Предыдущие пророки ставятся в ту же ситуацию, когда им приказано производить знаки, и они тоже отвечают, что они всего лишь смертные и что они могут творить чудеса только с разрешения Бога (см. 14: 10-11). Кроме того, Коран говорит, что неверующие имели возможность извлечь урок из предыдущих писаний, которые они знают (и не дожидаться новых знаков, см. Q 20: 133). Тот же ответ, а именно, что Пророк не знает о невидимом, дается, когда требования предъявляются к знакам приближающегося часа, то есть к концу мира, о котором Коран предупреждает довольно часто (q 7: 187-8 , 72: 25-7). Требование произвести знаки, посланные Богом, может принять форму просьбы снести с неба письменный текст (kitāb), который может прочитать человечество (см. Выше). На это Пророк снова направляется, чтобы сказать: «Я всего лишь смертный, посланник» (п. 17:93). В другом месте ему советуют сказать, что он не ангел, который также кажется в ответ на просьбу о знаках (q 6:50, ср., Например, 11:31, Ной). Тем не менее, сам Пророк получает шанс увидеть Божьи знамения, как указано в п. 17: 1: "Слава тому, кто несла своего слугу ночью из священной мечети в дальнейшую мечеть, которую мы благословили повсюду, что мы может показать ему некоторые из наших знаков … "

Помимо защиты его подлинности в глазах неверующих, Бог непосредственно помогает самому Пророку, который призван поощрять его и предлагать ему различные виды комфорта и моральной поддержки (см. Утешение). Начнем с того, что утешение обеспечивается через утверждение, что Бог освобождает Пророка от ответственности за неверующих, заявляя, что его миссия состоит в том, чтобы доставить сообщение (q 5:99) и что он не должен быть хранителем неверующие (q 6: 107; 10: 108; 17:54 и т. д.). Сам Бог берет на себя ответственность за них (п. 42: 6). Чтобы подчеркнуть этот момент, Бог говорит, что Пророк не может вести мертвых (см. Смерть и мертвых), слепых (см. Видение и слепота) и глухих (д. 27: 80-1; 30: 52-3; 35:22), и он не может заставить их (покаяться, q 50:45, увидеть терпимость и принуждение, покаяние и покаяние). Чтобы утешить Пророка и поощрять его, Бог говорит ему, что он осознает то, что слова неверующих вызвали его (п. 15:97), и советует ему не пускать его душу в растерянности для неверующих (q 35: 8). Несмотря на то, что Пророк стремится поглотить себя от страха по поводу своего неверия (см. 18: 6, 26: 3), Бог говорит ему не позволять неверующим терзать его тем, что они делают или говорят (q 3: 176; 5:41; 10 : 65, 15:88, 16: 127, 27:70). Бог утверждает, что Коран не был открыт ему, чтобы сделать его несчастным (д. 20: 2), и не беспокоить его сердце (q 7: 2). В серии отрывков Бог побуждает Пророка терпеливо терпеть (ибр) тяготы и придерживаться его пророческой миссии (см. Доверие и терпение). Например, в q 10: 109 ему настоятельно рекомендуется терпеть свои страдания терпеливо и следить за тем, что ему открывается (см. Q 43:43). В q 20: 130 ему говорят терпеливо терпеть то, что говорят неверующие, и продолжают провозглашать похвалу Господу день и ночь (см. Также § 52: 48-9 и т. Д.). В других отрывках Бог требует, чтобы Пророк терпеливо переносил свои страдания вместе с теми, кто обращается к своему господину утром (qv) и вечером (qv) и не уступает искушениям мирских удовольствий ¶ (q 18:28; ср. q 20: 131). Призывая своего Пророка терпеть тяготы, часто приводят пример предыдущих пророков. Таким образом, в п. 46:35 он умолял быть таким же терпеливым, как ранее были другие пророки, и в q 38:17 ему говорят проявлять терпение с тем, что ему говорят, и помнить Давида о человеке могущественного. И наоборот, ему говорят, что он терпелив и избегает плохих примеров, таких как «человек кита» (Yūnus, то есть Jonah, q 68: 48-50).

Пример предыдущих посланников играет центральную роль в поощрении Пророка (q 11: 120, см. Q 23:44, 51: 52-4). Они также, как говорит Бог, были отвергнуты как лжецы их соответствующими народами (см. 3: 184; 6: 33-4; 35: 4; 41:43), и когда они были почти настигнуты отчаянием (qv), Бог спас их, и неверующие пострадали от его возмездия (12: 110, 38:14). Аналогичным образом, предыдущие посланники были издевались (q 6:10, 13:32, 21:41) и имели врагов (q.v.), но Бог был их спасителем (см. 25:31). Что касается знаков, требуемых от него неверующими, Бог говорит, что такие знаки были бы бесполезны, поскольку они были бесполезны для предыдущих пророков, которым было приказано их производить (д. 2: 118, 21: 5-6). Пророк может, конечно, попытаться найти дыру в земле или лестницу на небесах, если он огорчен, потому что неверующие отвернулись от него, но, в конце концов, только Бог может превратить их в верующих (q 6:35).

Во многих местах Бог советует Пророку, как оставаться на своем собственном пути, находясь под давлением из разных сторон. В некоторых случаях Пророку просто рекомендуется разделить компанию с неверующими, чтобы избежать открытой конфронтации. Таким образом, в q 73:10 Бог говорит ему «отказаться от них (wauhjurhum) любезно», и в q 43:89 ему говорят отворачиваться от них (iṣfaḥ'anhum), и то же самое предлагается ему в других местах (q 51:54, tawallā'anhum; q 15:94; ¶ 32:30, a’riḍ; q 15: 3; 43:83, dharhum). В некоторых случаях Бог побуждает его говорить неверующим о том, что его собственная религия будет отличаться от той, которую они следуют, например, в 10: 104: «Я не поклоняюсь тем, кого вы поклоняетесь, кроме Бога» (см. Религиозный плюрализм и Коран). Аналогичным образом, в q 10:41 Бог говорит: "Если они говорят, что вы лжете, скажите им: " У меня есть работа, и у вас есть ваша работа. Вы не имеете никакого отношения к тому, что я делаю, и я не имею никакого отношения к тому, что вы делаете "(см. Также q 26: 216). Та же политика тишины предлагается Пророку в отрывках, советующих ему полагаться на Бога и ждать его окончательного решения. Таким образом, в q 22: 68-9 Бог говорит ему: "И если они будут спорить с вами, скажите: " Бог хорошо знает, что вы делаете, Бог будет судить между вами в день воскресения … ". В другом месте он посоветовал сказать, когда люди повернутся к нему спиной: «Бога для меня достаточно, нет Бога, но он, в нём я уповаю» (д. 9: 129, ср. q 27:79; 33: 48). Точно так же ему советуют спорить с неверующими нежным и утонченным способом (q 16: 125, 23:96, см. Дебаты и диспут).

Когда неверующие требуют от Пророка, чтобы он оставил свою религию и последовать за ними, Бог снова советует ему, как оставаться твердым. В одном конкретном случае Пророку и его последователям бросают вызов стать евреями и христианами, и в этом случае они остаются твердыми, следуя религии Авраама (д. 2: 135). В более общем плане неверующие хотели бы, чтобы Пророк следовал своим «злым наклонностям» (ахва), и здесь Бог побуждает его не следовать своим ахва и придерживаться своего собственного шари’а (см. 45:18, 5: 48-9 , см. также q 42:15). В более ясных терминах Бог требует, чтобы он «не слушался» неверующих и мунафикун, «лицемеров» (см. Лицемеры и лицемерие) и только следил за тем, что ему открывается (д. 33: 1-2).

Единственный случай — это 17: 73-5, в котором неверующие приближаются к соблазну Пророка от того, что было ему открыто, подстрекая его к более приятному откровению, после чего они возьмут его как своего друга (видеть друзей и дружбу). Только благодаря вмешательству Бога он остается твердым, и Коран утверждает, что если бы он склонился к ним, Бог бы наказал его строго. Аналогичная ситуация с искаженным откровением описана в п. 22:52 со ссылкой на предыдущих пророков: каждый из них подвергся искушению сатаны, которая произнесла свои слова в своих декламациях. Однако Коран утверждает, что Бог аннулирует то, что сатана бросает и подтверждает свои собственные признаки.

В других местах Божья защита его посланника более активна, что подразумевает более боевое столкновение между Пророком и неверующими. Начнем с того, что в q 5:67 Бог предоставляет ему иммунитет от людей, чтобы помочь ему безопасно доставить свое сообщение. Когда неверующие изгоняют Пророка, Бог посылает ему свою сечину (q.v .; sakīnatahu) и поддерживает его невидимыми легионами. Это событие происходит, когда Пророк и его спутник прячутся в пещере (q.v.), и он успокаивает своего друга, что Бог с ними (q 9:40). Чтобы помочь Пророку выдержать его изгнание, Бог обещает ему особое видение (ru’yā), что он и верующие войдут в священную мечеть и совершают ритуалы (см. 48:27). Подобное обещание, возможно, сделано в q 28:85: «Тот, кто наложил на вас Коран, обязательно вернет вас к месту, которое будет дома». В прямых военных столкновениях с неверующими Бог действительно борется за него (q 8: 17), и дает ему победу (qv; fatḥ, q 48: 1). Божья защита и помощь исходят от его милости и щедрости к Пророку, которые предотвращают все попытки ранить его (q 4: 113), и в результате этого Бог избавил его от тех, кто издевается над ним (q 15:95), и обещает избавить его от тех, кто не верит (q 2: 137). Его враги явно предупреждены о Божьем гневе, как в п. 17:76, где тех, кто замышляет выдворить его с земли, предупреждают о быстром разрушении. Подобным же образом Бог отомстил врагам предыдущих пророков (п. 30:47). Боевые ангелы причиняют Божью ярость врагам Пророка, поражая их выше шеи (д. 8: 12-13). Ангел Гавриил (q.v.) тоже является его защитником, рядом с праведниками среди верующих и других ангелов (q 66: 4). Но возмездие Бога обычно ждет врагов в аду (см. Ад и адский огонь). Судьба ада ждет тех, кто нападает на Пророка во время молитвы (q 96: 9-19), и тех, кто совершает с ним нарушение (q 4: 115, 59: 4, ср., Например, 47:32). В ответ на такую ​​оппозицию, Коран устанавливает явные пределы Божьей милости, исходящие от Пророка, и явно исключает неверующих из неё. Таким образом, в q 9: 113 говорится, что "Пророк и верующие не просят прощения за товарищей, хотя они могут быть близкими родственниками (см. Родство), после чего им стало ясно, что они будут быть жителями ада «. Со своей стороны, Пророку приказано вести святую войну с неверующими, как указано в п. 9:73 и в п. 66: 9:» О Пророк, борьба (джахид) против неверных и лицемеры и быть суровыми с ними; их прибежище — ад — злое возвращение на родину "(см. также q 25:52, см. jihād). Божья помощь Пророку также охватывает всю общину верующих, и поэтому его помощь описывается в нескольких отрывках, которые распространяются на них вместе. Таким образом, в q 8:26 Бог говорит: "Помните, когда вы были малочисленны и унижены на земле (см. Угнетенные на земле), и боялись, что народ отдержит вас; но он дал вам убежище и помог вам с его помощью и предоставил вам «хорошие вещи, за которые вы могли бы быть благодарны». Божественная помощь обычно предоставляется верующим на поле битвы, как это имеет место в q 3:13: "У вас уже был знак для двух компаний, столкнувшихся друг с другом, одна компания сражалась на пути Бога и другого неверующего; они видели их вдвое больше, чем они, как видит глаз, но Бог помогает с его помощью, кем он будет … «. Особое обозначение места, в котором Бог помогал верующим, приведен в § 3: 123:» Бог помог вам в Бадре (qv), когда вы были в ужасе … "

Сира Корана и Мухаммада

Коран содержит многочисленные намеки на события в жизни Пророка, не ставя их в конкретный контекст. Помимо упомянутых выше вопросов есть ещё много намеков на инциденты и переживания, большинство из которых приобретают свой контекст за пределами Корана, в области сиры, т. Е. Биографии Мухаммеда. Здесь циранические намеки на жизнь Пророка и пророческий опыт вновь появляются в ясной хронологической последовательности событий. Здесь невозможно рассмотреть все куранские аллюзии, которые встречаются в сире; только некоторые из них будут выделены.

Один из самых ранних сборников сиры, в которых существует огромное количество аюрвистов qur'ānic, принадлежит Ибн Исхаку, чья сира Мухаммада доступна в нескольких рецензиях, самым известным из которых является Ибн Хишэм (д. 218/833). Здесь общая повествовательная структура, которая сохраняется во всех других биографиях Мухаммада, такова: жизнь Пророка делится на две основные фазы: Меккан и Мединан, что соответствует традиционному разделению Корана на Меккан и Мединаны , Период Мекки простирается от рождения Мухаммеда до его эмиграции (q.v.) до Медины (q.v.). Эпизоды, охватывающие этот этап ¶, описывают его рождение и его ранние годы в Мекке, его первое откровение, начало его публичной проповеди, его преследование со стороны своих собратьев-курайшитов и его эмиграцию в Медину. Мединанский период состоит из эпизодов, описывающих его прибытие туда, укрепления его отношений с местными арабскими племенами, его борьбы против местных евреев и прежде всего его походов и сражений (махаджи) против Мекки (см. Экспедиции и битвы). Эти столкновения завершились падением Мекки и, в конечном счете, распространением ислама на всей Аравии. Эта последовательность событий имеет хорошо установленную хронологическую структуру: период Мекки начинается с так называемого «Года слона», в котором, согласно большинству традиций, Мухаммад, как говорят, родился (со ссылкой на sūra 105 , «Слон», см. Абраха). Его первое откровение, как говорят, произошло, когда ему было сорок, его эмиграция датируется десятью годами позже (622 года), а падение Мекки датируется 8/630, а смерть Муψаммада, как говорят, произошла в 11 / 632.

Период Мекки

В течение периода Меккан сира использует куранские отрывки, которые были включены в традиции, описывающие первое откровение Мухаммеда, первые наставления и особенно его преследование неверующими (подробнее см. Рубин, Глаз, 103-66). Для первого откровения наиболее распространенным отрывом, который был выбран, является q 96: 1-5: «Прочитайте от имени вашего господина, который создал …». Для последующего события временного истечения откровения было выбрано q 93: 3 : «Ваш господин не оставил вас и не ненавидит [вас]». В своей первой публичной проповеди, приведенной в § 26: 214, было сказано: «И предупредите ваши ближайшие отношения …». В описаниях сиры преследования Мухаммеда появляются несколько куранических пассажей Мекканцы, например sūra 111, в котором проклят Абу Лахаб ¶ и обещал наказание в аду. Абу Лахаб — это назначение дяди Мухаммада, а в сире он ведет сильную оппозицию Пророку, для которой эта глава, как говорят, была раскрыта как божественное возмездие. Другие отрывки, которые появляются в контексте преследования, описывают обмен обвинениями между Пророком и его противниками (например, q 41: 3-4, 13:31, 25: 7-8; 17: 90-3; 16: 103). Один из них, д. 38: 4-8, встроен в традиции, описывающие роль Абулалиба, другого дяди Пророка, помогая своему племяннику противостоять неверующим. Отрывок про Пророка и его спутника в пещере (п. 9:40) появляется в описаниях путешествия Мухаммада (хиджра) из Мекки в Медину, спутник — Абу Бакр (см. Спутников пророка).

Мединанский период

Мединанский период вращается вокруг кампаний Мухаммеда против Меккан, а также против евреев, и в некоторых случаях связи между ними и Кораном очевидны, потому что имена некоторых кампаний явно упоминаются в Священных Писаниях. Это относится к Бадру (2/624), о котором говорится в отрывке, описывающем ангелов, помогающих бойцам (q 3: 123-8) и Ḥunayn (q.v .; 8/630). Последнее место упоминается в отрывке, в котором описывается, как сечина, а также невидимые легионы (ангелов) помогают бойцам (q 9: 25-6). В других случаях связь раскрывается только через традиции (см. Ḥadīth и qur'ān), в то время как в Коране отсутствуют явные ссылки. Таким образом, в Бадре есть дополнительные отрывки, связанные в традициях с Бадром, главным образом q 8: 1-19, в которых обсуждается разделение добычи, а помощь ангелов, поражающих неверующих, описана ещё раз. Связь с другими кампаниями раскрывается только в рамках традиций. Например, проходы, связанные с битвой при Удуде (3/625), — это q 3: 121-2, в которых Пророк помещает верующих в свои канавы для битвы, а «две стороны» верующих — собирается потерять сердце. Похвала мучеников (q.v .; shuhadā'), которых Коран описывает как «живущих со своим господином» и радующихся в своей щедрости (см. Стр. 3: 169-71), также связана с верующими, которые упали на Ухуд. Сообщается об изгнании еврейского племени аль-Нахир (см. Naḍīr, banū al-) из Медины со ссылкой на q 59: 1-3, в котором описывается изгнание неверующих людей Книги из их обитателей. Они думали, что их крепости будут защищать их, но Бог победил их в конце. Ссылка на битву за канаву (см. Людей в канаве) и последующая кампания против еврейского племени Курайны (q.v .; 5 / 626-7) встречается в традициях около 33: 9-27. Здесь Коран описывает хозяев конфедератов (aḥzāb), приходящих против верующих, которых Бог побеждает с помощью ветров (см. Воздух и ветер) и невидимых легионов (ангелов).

Особая ссылка делается на роль лицемеров (мунафикун) в распространении сомнений среди верующих Медина, «людей Ясриба» и побуждения их отступить. Верных верующих, которые остались твердыми, хвалят, и отрывок завершается поражением народа Книги, который поддерживал конфедератов. Они сбиты со своих крепостей, и верующие убивают некоторых из них и забирают других в плен. Бог завещал свои земли и имущество верующим. Иудеям Курайи также связаны стихи q 8: 55-8, в которых те, кто нарушил их договор с Пророком, подвергаются серьезной критике. Дело аль-Шудейбия (6/628) и последующая кампания против евреев Хайбара связаны с основной частью суры 48. В ней верующие обязуются преданность Пророку «под деревом», и Бог вознаграждает их быстрая победа и много трофеев.

Среди оставшихся qur'ānic аллюзий в сире, sūra 9 также можно упомянуть. Это связано с событиями, которые произошли во время кампании Мухаммада в Табуке (9/630), а также во время паломничества Абу Бакра (q.v.) в Мекку (9/631). Проблемы с противоположными группами в Медине (во главе с Абу’Амир и др.) Также связаны с этой сурой, главным образом с q 9: 107, в которой делается ссылка на "тех, кто принял мечеть в оппозиции и неверии и разделить верующих … "(см. Мечеть раздора). Заключительные этапы его карьеры, когда большинство языческих арабов стали мусульманами, а делегации со всей Аравии взяли на себя обязательство Пророка в Медине, связаны с q 110 (Сурат аль-Наур, «Суккор»). В нём (q 110: 2) Пророк видит, что «люди входят в религию Бога в толпе». Прощальная проповедь Мухаммада, которую он произнес во время своего последнего паломничества в Мекку (10/632, см. Прощальное паломничество), за несколько месяцев до его смерти, также много ссылок qur'ānic, например q 5: 3: «Сегодня я усовершенствовал вашу религию для вас, и я завершил свое благословение от вас, и я одобрил ислам для вашей религии».

Хронология откровения

Связь между Кораном и жизнью Мухаммада, установленная в сире, предоставила Корану конкретный контекст откровения или асбаб аль-нузул, так как это стало известно среди мусульманских эксуктов Корана. С середины 19-го века, т. Е. Ученые, изучающие историю Корана, следовали структуре сиры, которую приобрел Коран, и разработали традиционный асбаб аль-нузул в сложную хронологию откровения (см. Хронологию и qur'ān). Они разделили куранские отрывки не только на периоды Меккан и Мединан, но также на «ранний Меккан», «поздний Меккан» и т. Д. Не все ученые проявили ту же степень зависимости от исламской традиции, и некоторые, например, Белл, придавали больший вес текстовым соображениям стиля и формы (см. Форму и структуру qur'ān, язык и стиль qur'ān). Однако все они рассматривали Коран как пророческое творение исторического Мухаммада и как ключ к изучению его собственного духовного развития. Однако связь между текстом qur'ānic и историческим Мухаммедом ещё далека от ясности. Некоторые, как Джон Вансбро, даже не приняли арабского происхождения Корана. Прежде всего, следует особенно помнить, что традиции сиры и асбаба аль-нузула являются частью материала ḥadīth, историческая достоверность которого была очень проблематичной. Поэтому реконструированная хронология откровения, основанная на этом материале, должна приниматься с предельной осторожностью.

Muḥammad

Bibliography The Muslim Prophet to whom God’s revelation was «sent down» (nuzzila, q 47:2; see prophets and prophethood; revelation and inspiration). On three occasions the name is followed by the title «messenger» (q.v.; rasūl), i.e. God’s messenger (q 3:144; 33:40; 48:29).

¶ Names and appellations

When, however, the Qurʾān addresses the Prophet directly in the second person, he is not referred to as "Muḥammad, " but is called by various appellations that indicate his relation to God. Here, apart from rasūl, the title most frequently used is al- nabī, «prophet» (q 8:64; 66:8, etc.). The appellation «servant» (q.v.; ʿabd) of God is also used most probably with reference to the Prophet (q 17:1; 25:1; 39:36; 72:19). Other epithets allude to the purposes of his mission, the most frequent being bashīr, "announcer, " and nadhīr, «warner» (q.v.; e.g. q 2:119, etc.), as well as mudhakkir, «reminder» (q 88:21). In q 33:45-6, a series of titles is provided: shāhid, «witness» (see witnessing and testifying), mubashshir, «bearer of good tidings» (see good news), nadhīr, dāʿī, «one who calls [unto God]» (see invitation), and sirāj munīr, «light-giving lamp» (see light; lamp).

More particular designations are derived from his state at the time of the address (see occasions of revelation). Thus the Qurʾān addresses him as al- muzzammil, «the enwrapped» (q 73:1) and al- muddaththir, «the shrouded» (q 74:1) when prompting him to rise and accomplish his mission. This pair of appellations probably symbolizes withdrawal and reluctance. See also names of the prophet .

Revelation

The revelation of the divine message, which the qurʾānic Prophet is supposed to deliver, is described in a variety of terms depicting the content as well as the process of revelation. What is revealed to the Prophet is most frequently called qurʾān (e.g. q 6:19; 20:2, etc.), which the Prophet is supposed to «recite» (li-taqraʾahu, q 17:106; an atluwa, q 27:92; see orality; recitation of the qurʾān), or «chant» (rattil, q 73:4). But the latter command may also ¶ be understood in a different sense (Paret, Mohammed, 492). The Qurʾān is not only recited by the Prophet but is also being recited to him during revelation (q 75:18; cf. q 87:6).

The revelation received by the Prophet is most frequently described as a kitāb, a «book» (q.v.; q 4:105; 5:48, etc.). It is recited to him during revelation (q 28:2-3) and he, in turn, is supposed to recite it (q 18:27; 29:45). The plural, kutub («books»), also appears as something recited (yatlū) by the Prophet, and as contained in purified pages (ṣuḥuf muṭahhara, q 98:2-3; see writing and writing materials). In this case the «books» are probably separate units of revelation.

Indeed, the Qurʾān refers more than once to separate units of revelation. The name most frequently used for them is āyāt, «signs» [q.v.; of God], which form part of the kitāb (q 10:1, etc.; see also verses). They also stand for something that is revealed to him (q 2:99), or recited (natlūhā) to him (q 2:252; 3:108; 45:6; cf. 3:58), and the Prophet, for his part, is also expected to recite (yatlū) them to his audience (see q 2:129, 151; 3:164; 28:45; 62:2; 65:11).

Another unit, which the Prophet is expected to recite, is nabaʾ (pl. anbāʾ), «report, tidings» (see news). This term usually signifies stories about past generations (q.v.), mainly of biblical origin (see narratives). For example, the Prophet is instructed to recite (utlu) the nabaʾ of the two sons of Adam (q 5:27; see adam and eve; cain and abel), the nabaʾ of Noah (q.v.; q 10:71) and of Abraham (q.v.; q 26:69). Again, such stories are also recited to the Prophet upon being revealed to him, as is the case with the nabaʾ of Moses (q.v.; q 28:3). These units are also being «related» (naquṣṣu) to him upon being revealed (q 7:101; 11:100, 120; 18:13; 20:99). They are also referred to as anbāʾ al-ghayb: «stories of ¶ the unseen» (see hidden and the hidden), because the Prophet did not witness them in person (q 3:44 of Mary [q.v.]; q 11:49 of Noah; q 12:102 of Joseph [q.v.]).

Stories of past generations recited by the Prophet may also be described as dhikr, as with the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn (q 18:83; see alexander). This form is the infinitive of dhakara, to "mention, " or to "remind, " so that dhikr is an «allusion» to a story (see memory). Nevertheless, the same term is also the name of the entire revelation (q 16:44, etc.), probably because it alludes quite frequently to stories of past generations. In fact, the injunction udhkur fī l- kitāb, "mention in the book, " is frequently used in passages prompting the qurʾānic Prophet to recount stories about previous prophets (q 19:16, 41, etc.).


The primary stage of revelation that precedes public recitation of texts is represented by the verb awḥā, which is frequently used in the Qurʾān to describe the act of communicating divine texts to the Prophet. The kitāb is communicated to him in this way (q 35:31), as well as the Qurʾān (q 12:3) and the stories of the unseen (anbāʾ al-ghayb, cf. q 3:44; 11:49; 12:102). That the verb awḥā describes the initial stage of revelation is indicated in several passages in which the Prophet is expected to recite what has been revealed (awḥaynā; ūḥiya) to him (q 13:30; 18:27; 29:45), which means that an intimate process of revelation has preceded actual recitation. Instructions as to how revelation should be received are given to the Prophet in q 20:114, where he is advised not to «hasten» (lā taʿjal) with the Qurʾān before the completion of revelation (waḥy). More specific directions are given in q 75:16-9 where he is instructed not to move his tongue with (revelation) to hasten it, and wait with its recitation till it is recited to him (in full).


The revelations received as waḥy by the ¶ Prophet originate in a person, an angel (q.v.), described as "terrible in power, " who stood on the «higher horizon» and then drew nearer and nearer (q 53:4-10). Elsewhere he is described as "having power, with the lord of the throne (see throne of god) secure, obeyed moreover trusty, " and the Prophet «saw him» (raʾāhu) in the clear horizon (q 81:20-1, 23). The heart (q.v.; al- fuʾād) of the Prophet once «saw» (raʾā) this mighty person near a (celestial?) lote-tree called sidrat al-muntahā (q 53:11-8; see agriculture and vegetation).


The most prevalent verbs, however, which describe the imparting of texts to the Prophet are various derivatives of n-z-l, «to come down.» For example, in q 17:106 the Prophet is expected to recite the Qurʾān that was sent down successively (nazzalnāhu) to him. What was sent down to him this way is called in one instance furqān (q 25:1; see names of the qurʾān), which is also the name of what was given to Moses (q 2:53). The process of sending down ends at the Prophet’s heart (ʿalā qalbika), and is carried out by an intermediary called Jibrīl, the angel Gabriel (q.v.; q 2:97), or al- rūḥ al-amīn, «the faithful spirit» (q 26:193-4); elsewhere he is called rūḥ al-qudus, «the holy spirit» (q 16:102; see holy spirit).

The beginning of the process of sending down revelation seems to be indicated in q 44:2-3 where it is stated that the kitāb was sent down during a «blessed night.» Elsewhere this night is called laylat al-qadr (q 97:1; see night of power), and in yet another passage, the sending down of the Qurʾān is said to have taken place in the month of Ramaḍān (q.v.; q 2:185). The sending down of the kitāb is praised as a grand manifestation of God’s bounty (see blessing) to the Prophet, which has provided him with knowledge (see knowledge and learning) that he did not have before (q 4:113; 42:52). The Prophet him-¶ self has not asked for this favor (q 28:86), and had it not been for God’s mercy (q.v.), he might have withdrawn the revelation altogether (q 17:86-7). God’s benevolence, however, which emanates from the revelation of the book, also envelops the believers (see belief and unbelief). The Prophet is expected to teach them the book, thus providing them with knowledge that they do not have yet (q 2:151; 3:164; 62:2). The book is also the means by which the Prophet is expected to decide in matters on which the believers are disagreed (see judgment) and guide them to the right path (q 16:64, 89; see path or way; astray). Therefore the sending down of the book indicates God’s compassion (raḥma) unto them (q 16:89), as does also the sending of the Prophet himself as a messenger to all beings (q 21:107).

Aims of the mission

The mission of the qurʾānic Prophet has a dominant apocalyptic aspect, as his role is to warn the unbelievers of their eschatological punishment (see apocalypse; eschatology; reward and punishment). This aspect comes out in passages describing the aims of revelation. Thus in q 38:70, the essence of what is revealed (yūḥā) to the Prophet is focused on his mission as a warner (nadhīr). In q 6:19, the Prophet says that the Qurʾān was revealed (ūḥiya) to him so that he "may warn you thereby, " and in q 21:45, he says that he warns only by the waḥy. Likewise, the book (al- kitāb) is said to have been sent down so that the Prophet may warn by it (q 6:92; 7:2, etc.). What he is expected to warn of is the hour (e.g. q 79:42-5, etc.), or the day of judgment (see last judgment) that the Qurʾān calls by various names (e.g. q 14:44; 19:39; 40:18, etc.). Some passages do not explicitly refer to the eschatological future and focus instead on examples from the history of some extinct communities (see ¶ history and the qurʾān; geography). Here the Prophet is requested to warn his contemporaries of the calamity that befell the peoples of ʿĀd (q.v.) and Thamūd (q.v.; e.g. q 41:13-6, etc.).

Other passages in which the Prophet is addressed directly bring out the monotheistic message in his mission. He is demanded to proclaim (iqraʾ) the name of his lord (q.v.; q 96:1), or praise (sabbiḥ) his name (q 56:96; 69:52; 87:1; see laudation; glorification of god) or declare (udhkur) it (q 73:8; 76:25). In other passages he is instructed not to worship idols apart from God (q 17:22, 39; 26:213; 28:88), and not to be one of the mushrikūn, i.e. those who associate other deities with God (q 12:108; 28:87, etc.; see idols and images; idolatry and idolaters; polytheism and atheism).

Scope of the mission

The scope of the mission of the qurʾānic Prophet changes between universal and local. The latter comes out in passages in which the Prophet is supposed to warn his own people (qawm) in his own language (bi- lisānika), namely Arabic, thus making his message easy to understand (q 19:97; see also q 44:58). The local scope of the Prophet’s mission is further evident in the statement that every messenger was sent to address his people (qawm) by their own language (q 14:4). The same is implied in the idea that the Prophet has been sent to a qawm to which a warner was never sent before (q 28:46; 32:3; 36:6; see also q 34:44). His audience is even smaller in a passage commanding him to warn his closest clan (ʿashīra, q 26:214). In another passage he is said to have been sent to a community (umma) that has been preceded by other nations (q 13:30), which seems to mean that his audience is Arabian, and is different from previous nations (Jews and Christians). Moreover, in q 62:2 he is presented ¶ as a messenger belonging to the ummiyyūn, i.e. the gentiles, to whom he has been sent to teach the book and the wisdom (q.v.). This corresponds to further passages in which he is presented as one of his own audience (minkum, min anfusikum; see q 2:151; 9:128, etc.). Above all, he is said to have received an Arabic Qurʾān so that he may warn Umm al-Qurā (q 42:7; see also q 6:92, 90:1-2), which is probably Mecca (q.v.), and those who dwell around it. God himself, whom the Prophet is commanded to worship, is described as local, namely, «the lord of this town which he has made sacred» (q 27:91). This again may be a reference to Mecca.


On the other hand, other passages, of a clear universal orientation, imply that the Prophet has been sent as a messenger, or to warn and bear good tidings, to all humankind (lil- nās), or all beings (lil- ʿālamīn) or human beings (bashar), without confining the audience to a specific group (q 4:79; 7:158; 21:107; 25:1; 34:28; 74:36). When a specific group is nevertheless indicated, it is the People of the Book (q.v.), to whom the Prophet has come in order to warn and display many things that they have been concealing of the book (q 5:15). He has come to them after an interval (fatra) between the messengers (q 5:19), and is expected to judge them according to the book that has been revealed to him (q 5:42-3, 48, 49; see also q 4:65, 105). This is based on the idea that the Qurʾān can clarify for the Children of Israel (q.v.) most of the matters they dispute (q 27:76). Apart from human beings, the Qurʾān also affects the demons (jinn), who listen to its recitation and become believers (q 46:29-31; 72:1-2).

The faith of the qurʾānic Prophet

The qurʾānic Prophet was the first of his people to become a Muslim, one who has deserted shirk (i.e. the worship of deities ¶ other than God, considered as his «associates»). This is stated in q 6:14: «Say: ‘Shall I take to myself as protector other than God, the originator of the heavens (see heaven and sky) and of the earth (q.v.; see also creation), he who feeds and is not fed?’ Say: ‘I have been commanded to be the first of them that became a Muslim (aslama).’ Be you not of the associators (lā takūnanna mina l- mushrikīna).» The battle against shirk that underlies the Prophet’s monotheistic thrust also emerges in q 6:162-3: «Say: ‘My prayer (q.v.), my ritual sacrifice (q.v.), my living, my dying — all belongs to God, the lord of all being. He has no associate (sharīk). Thus have I been commanded and I am the first of those who have become Muslims.’» The abandonment of shirk means the purification (ikhlāṣ) of one’s faith (q.v.); it is this that has made the Prophet a Muslim: «Say: I have been commanded to serve God, purifying my religion (q.v.) for him, and I have been commanded to be the first of those who have become Muslims» (q 39:11-2).

The qurʾānic Prophet and previous prophets

Although the Prophet is the first Muslim among his people, previous prophets are also described as fighting against shirk and are hence designated as Muslims. This is the case with Noah who is one of «those who became Muslims» (q 10:72), while Moses is the «first of those who became believers» (q 7:143). This reveals the notion that the Prophet is a link in a chain of prophets sent to previous communities. In fact, he is the final link, as indicated in the title khātam al-nabiyyīn, "seal of the prophets, " by which the Qurʾān designates Muḥammad (q 33:40). Muḥammad, so the Qurʾān states, is only a messenger following other messengers who passed away before him (q 3:144). In this respect he is like any other messenger in that chain, for example, Jesus (q.v.), about whom it is also ¶ stated that other messengers passed away before him (q 5:75). As a link in a successive chain, the Prophet appears in the list of prophets with whom God made a covenant (q.v.; q 33:7) and here, apart from the Prophet himself, the other prophets mentioned are Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.


The affinity between the Prophet and the previous ones comes out in the idea that all of them experienced the same process of revelation. This is stated in q 4:163: «We have revealed to you (awḥaynā ilayka) as we revealed to Noah and to the prophets after him, and [as] we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael (q.v.), Isaac (q.v.), Jacob (q.v.), and the tribes (see israel), Jesus and Job (q.v.), Jonah (q.v.) and Aaron (q.v.) and Solomon (q.v.) and we gave psalms (q.v.) to David (q.v.)….» The book that was revealed to the Prophet is not unique to him either, as other prophets were also sent with «the book» that was designed to guide them and resolve their disputes (q 2:213). The goals of revelation are also common to all prophets, including the Prophet. He was sent to give warning as well as good tidings (bashshir) to the believers (e.g. q 2:25, etc.), and the same is applicable to the previous messengers who were also sent to warn the evildoers and bear good tidings to the righteous (q 6:48, etc.; see good deeds; evil deeds; good and evil). The model of the previous prophets is continued in the career of the Prophet, and this comes out most clearly in what is known as the «punishment stories» (q.v.; for which see e.g. Watt-Bell, Introduction, 127 f.). They describe the events in the lives of prophets such as Ṣāliḥ (q.v.) in terms identical to those used for the experience of the Prophet (ibid., 133-4). In one case (q 73:15), the parallelism is explicitly drawn, where it is stated that God sent the Prophet in the same manner as a messenger (i.e. Moses) was sent to warn Pharaoh (q.v.).


¶ As a result of the affinity between the Prophet and the other prophets, the religion revealed to all of them is one and the same (q 42:13). Hence the Qurʾān urges the Muslims to believe in all that was sent down to each one of the prophets and not make division among any of them (q 2:136, 285; 3:84). It follows that the message of the book that was revealed to the Prophet is essentially the same as that of the books revealed to previous messengers. Therefore, the Qurʾān asserts several times that the book that was sent down to the Prophet «confirms (muṣaddiq) what was before it» (q 35:31; cf. 3:3; 5:48; 6:92). In one case, the Arabian provenance of the Prophet’s book is declared (q 46:12; see arabs; arabic language) and here the Qurʾān points out a specific book that has preceded the Arabian one, namely, the book of Moses (see also q 46:30). In the same way, Jesus is said to have confirmed the Torah (q.v.) that had been revealed before him (q 3:50; 5:46; 61:6).

The messianic position of the qurʾānic Prophet

In some passages, however, the Prophet occupies a distinguished position among the prophets, and the covenant God makes with them revolves exclusively around his own person, which thus acquires a messianic position. To begin with, in q 3:81 God establishes a covenant with the prophets to the effect that when a messenger comes and confirms the book that is with them, they should believe in him and support him. This seems to mean that all prophets, as well as their respective peoples, must join the Prophet whenever he appears. Moreover, the description of the qurʾānic messenger is said to have been written in the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians (see scripture and the qurʾān; corruption; forgery), namely, the Torah and the Gospel (q.v.), where he is described as al- nabī al-ummī, «the gentile ¶ prophet» (cf. Rubin, The eye, 23-30; see ummī; illiteracy), and God’s mercy is promised to those among them who follow him (q 7:157-8). A more specific name of the qurʾānic messenger as described in the scriptures of the previous prophets is Aḥmad, about whom Jesus brings to the Children of Israel the good tidings (q 61:6). Taken together, these passages build up a messianic image of the Prophet behind whom humankind is supposed to unite as one community of believers (see community and society in the qurʾān).

The religion of Abraham

The universal link of the Prophet, which is based on the identity of the message he shares with the prophets of the Children of Israel, or the People of the Book, is absent from other passages that establish a direct connection between the Prophet and Abraham. Thus in q 3:68 it is declared «those standing closest to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet, and those who believe.» The qurʾānic Prophet is explicitly instructed to follow what is called the «religion» (milla) of Abraham, and such passages surely exclude the religion of the Jewish and Christian prophets from the scope of the Prophet’s faith (see jews and judaism; christians and christianity). Abraham himself is declared to have preceded the revelation of the Torah and the Gospel (q 3:65), and to have been neither Jewish nor Christian, but a ḥanīf (q.v.), a Muslim and not a mushrik, «associator» (q 3:67). As the latter designation stands mainly for Arabian polytheists (see south arabia, religion in pre-islamic), following the religion of Abraham means dissociation not only from the Jewish and Christian religious legacy but also from the Arabian one. The Prophet is explicitly demanded to follow the religion of Abraham in q 16:123, while the rest of the believers are ordered to do the same in q 3:95. In ¶ q 2:135 the believers who adhere to the religion of Abraham are thus refraining from becoming Jews or Christians. In another passage the Prophet is merely instructed to become a ḥanīf and here the demand is designed to prevent the Prophet from being a mushrik (q 10:105). Although Abraham’s name is not explicitly mentioned, the demand again is probably to follow Abraham’s model. The same applies to q 30:30 where the Prophet is urged to become a ḥanīf and adhere to the religion which is God’s «original creation» (fiṭra), upon which he created humankind. The relation between the idea of the «original» religion and Abraham is clear from other passages describing Abraham’s natural monotheism (q 6:79).

The particularistic trend of the passages which create a direct connection between Abraham and the Prophet again seems to confine the scope of the message of the Prophet to the Arabian sphere, because Abraham himself, when linked to the Prophet, features in a clearly local context. This is the case in q 2:127-9, where Abraham and Ishmael «raise up» the foundations of the house (the Kaʿba [q.v.]), and then Abraham prays to God to send from among his descendants a prophet who will teach them the book and the wisdom.

The qurʾānic Prophet between God and man

As a messenger of God, the Prophet is a chosen person, because God «chooses (yaṣṭafī) messengers of the angels and of humankind» (q 22:75). The Qurʾān is therefore described as the «speech (q.v.) of a noble messenger» (q 69:40). As God’s chosen messenger, the Prophet is the recipient not only of his revelation but also of his infinite supervision, compassion and protection (q.v.). This is noted in passages such as that in which God is said to have never forsaken the Prophet (q 93:3), and to ¶ have exalted his fame (q 94:4), or raised him up to a laudable position (maqām maḥmūd, q 17:79). God’s compassion towards the Prophet comes out in the statement that God himself, as well as the angels, pray for the Prophet’s peace (q 33:56). For his part, the Prophet is instructed to ask for God’s pardon (q 4:106; 47:19; see forgiveness), and is in fact granted complete forgiveness for all sins (q 48:2; see sin, major and minor). God’s guidance is also secured for the Prophet (q 93:7), as well as his benefaction. God thus has improved the socio-economic status of the Prophet (q 93:6, 8), and gave him «abundance» (al- kawthar, q 108:1), as well as the «oft repeated» (q.v.; mathānī) and the great Qurʾān (q 15:87). God has also alleviated from him the burden of fears and anxieties (q 94:1-3). God’s guidance is also manifest in the ritual sphere (see ritual and the qurān), and it is he who instructs the Prophet on when to pray (e.g. q 20:130; 40:55; 50:39-40), and on what the direction of prayer (qibla [q.v.]) should be (q 2:144). The fact that the Prophet has become the first Muslim among his community is the result of God’s ritual guidance. The Prophet is ordered to say (q 6:162-3): «My prayer, my ritual sacrifice, my living, my dying — all belongs to God, the lord of all being. No associate has he, so I have been instructed, and I am the first of those who have become Muslims» (cf. q 6:14).

The qurʾānic Prophet and the believers

God’s mercy on the Prophet is extended to the community that is supposed to follow the Prophet and support him, and it is God who has consolidated the believers behind the Prophet. The Prophet could not have achieved this alone (q 8:63). God’s mercy for the Prophet generates the Prophet’s mercy for the believers, or as stated in ¶ q 3:159: «It was by God’s mercy that you were gentle to them….» In the subsequent part of the same passage, God advises his messenger to pardon the believers and ask forgiveness for them, and to consult them in his affairs. Accordingly, the Prophet is described as «a messenger from among yourselves; your suffering (q.v.) is grievous to him, and he is anxious for you, gentle and compassionate to the believers» (q 9:128). Forgiveness of sins, which emanates from the Prophet’s presence, is particularly emphasized. Thus in q 4:64 it is stated: «…If, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you and prayed for God’s forgiveness, and the messenger had prayed for forgiveness for them, they would have found God forgiving, compassionate» (see god and his attributes). The Prophet’s mercifulness towards the believers is also manifest in his function as a «witness» (shahīd) for his community (q 2:143; 22:78). This seems to be an eschatological role, as is indicated in passages describing the last judgment in which the Prophet is a witness for his community while the other communities have their own witnesses, their prophets (cf. q 4:41; 16:89; see also q 16:84; 28:75). His role as a shahīd probably means that he gives evidence as to the identity of both the righteous among his people, and of the evildoers. For their part, the believers are expected to take the Prophet as their model (uswa) in their devotion to God and in hoping for his reward at the last judgment (q 33:21). Their love for God is the reason why they must follow the Prophet, which is the only way to gain God’s love and mercy in return (q 3:31; see love and affection). From this affinity between God and his messenger follows the need to obey them both (q 3:32; 4:59), because to obey the Prophet means obeying God (q 4:80; see obedience). Similarly, pledg-¶ ing allegiance (bayʿa) to the Prophet means pledging allegiance to God (q 48:10) and God is indeed pleased with those who pledge allegiance to his Prophet (q 48:18; see contracts and alliances). Women, too, pledge allegiance to him and when they do they must follow strict religious and moral codes and obey him (q 60:12; see ethics and the qurʾān; virtues and vices, commanding and forbidding; women and the qurʾān). Apart from obedience, the believers are expected to be more loyal to their Prophet than to their own selves (q 33:6), and treat him with due respect (see loyalty). This means that when they are in his presence they cannot withdraw without first asking his leave (q 24:62-3), and they are not permitted to raise their voices above his (q 49:1-5, 7; see social interactions). As the believers' model of devotion, the Prophet is also the source of their law, which he gives to them through a revelation (see law and the qurʾān). Thus in q 6:151-3 he is commanded to tell them: «Come, I will recite what your lord has forbidden (q.v.) you….» This is followed by a list of legal and moral regulations (see boundaries and precepts).

The Qurʾān does not only deal with the duty to obey the Prophet but also with his own individual status among the believers. This is apparent mainly in verses defining his share in the spoils of war as compared with the shares of the rest of the believers (see booty). In q 59:7 the spoils belong to God and his messenger, as well as to his kinsmen (see family of the prophet; people of the house) and needy Muslims (see poverty and the poor), and the Prophet is given complete authority to distribute the booty: «Whatever the messenger gives you, take; whatever he forbids you, give up.» Similarly, in q 8:1 it is stated that the spoils (anfāl) belong to God and ¶ the messenger. In q 8:41, however, only one-fifth of the booty belongs to the Prophet and the needy, and the rest is distributed among the participating warriors.

Reference is also made to the status of the Prophet’s wives among the believers (see wives of the prophet). They are proclaimed as equal in status to the mothers of the believers, which means that they cannot become wives to the believers after the Prophet (q 33:6). Special moral obligations are prescribed to them as wives of the Prophet, and their conduct must be immaculate. If they wish to remain his wives and not be divorced (see marriage and divorce), they must undertake not to behave indecently, remain in their homes, not display their finery, as was the custom in the first Age of Ignorance (q.v.; jāhiliyya) and they have to pray and give alms (see almsgiving) and obey God and his messenger. God will reward them twice over for all this (q 33:28-34). Instructions to the believers as to how to behave in the Prophet’s household are also specified. The believers should not call uninvited, nor linger after meals. They have to ask his wives for any object they want only while standing behind a curtain (q 33:53; see veil; barrier). Nevertheless, allusion is made also to some obscure domestic problems that the Prophet had with two of his wives (q 66:1-5), as well as to a group of persons who «came with the slander (ifk)» (q 24:11 f.; see gossip). The nature of the slander is not disclosed in the Qurʾān, but Muslim tradition associates it with ʿĀʾisha (see ʿāʾisha bint abī bakr). In contrast to the qurʾānic proclamation that the Prophet’s wives are the mothers of the believers, the Qurʾān declares that Muḥammad is not the father of any of the believers (q 33:40), meaning that he can marry their women after them. This statement is made in connection with the ¶ affair of Zayd (b. Ḥāritha), Muḥammad’s adopted son, the only contemporary of Muḥammad — apart from the Prophet himself — who is mentioned by his proper name in the Qurʾān. It is stated that after Zayd accomplished what he would of his wife, God gave her in marriage to the Prophet, and the Qurʾān asserts that it is lawful for the believers to marry the wives of their adopted sons (q 33:37; see lawful and unlawful).

The qurʾānic Prophet and the unbelievers

The relationship between the Prophet and the unbelievers occupies the bulk of the qurʾānic passages dealing with his prophetic mission, and many aspects of the negative reaction of the unbelievers to his message are described (see opposition to muḥammad). Their disbelief is depicted in some chapters as a refusal to listen to him. In one passage the unbelievers say: «Our hearts are veiled from what you call us to, and there is heaviness in our ears (see hearing and deafness), and between us and you there is a veil» (q 41:5). In another instance they almost strike him down with their glances when they hear him preach (q 68:51). Scornful reactions are also typical when the Prophet reproaches them for worshipping deities other than God (q 21:36; 25:41-2; see mockery). The Qurʾān emphasizes the unbelievers' stubbornness (see insolence and obstinacy) when stating that even if God sent the Prophet "a book on parchment which they can touch with their hands, " they would still not believe in him (q 6:7).

Disbelief is often focused on a specific article of the faith preached by the Prophet, namely resurrection (q.v.) and the last judgment, which the unbelievers usually reject as an impossible process (q 17:49, 98; 21:38, etc.). The unbelievers also make specific demands as a condition for their belief in the qurʾānic Prophet. In ¶ q 10:15 they ask him to change the contents of his revelations and make them more agreeable, and in q 2:120 (see also q 2:135) the Jews and the Christians ask him to follow their religion. The disbelief of the Jews, or the People of the Book, is especially condemned. They have rejected the Prophet despite the fact that the book revealed to him confirms their own scriptures. They are accused of deliberately ignoring the injunctions of their own book [i.e. to believe in the Prophet] (q 2:89, 91, 101; see also q 4:47).

Active persecution by the unbelievers is also addressed in the Qurʾān, particularly their threat to expel (akhraja) the Prophet from his homeland (q 17:76). In q 8:30 this is one of a series of other options contemplated, such as confining him or even killing him. In q 9:13 the scheme to expel the messenger is coupled with the violation of oaths taken by the unbelievers, two offences that justify waging war on them (see breaking trusts and contracts). The threat of expulsion recurs in stories about previous prophets (q 14:13) such as Shuʿayb (q.v.; q 7:88) and Lot (q.v.; q 7:82; 26:167; 27:56), where it again forms a major component of persecution. Expulsion, however, is not merely a threat but is also an accomplished fact that emerges in the reference to «your city which has expelled you» (q 47:13). The Prophet and the believers suffer expulsion from the homeland, as indicated in q 60:1. Here, «expelling the messenger and you [i.e. the believers]» features as one of the offences of the unbelievers, and in q 2:217 those expelled are the inhabitants of the sacred mosque (q.v.; see also sacred precincts). Expelling them and denying them free access to the sacred mosque are denounced as offences worse than fighting (q.v.) during the forbidden months (q.v.). The believers who have been expelled are ordered to kill their foes «wherever you come upon them and expel ¶ them from where they have expelled you…» (q 2:191), which again makes expulsion a cause for war (q.v.). The same offence of forced expulsion is also a reason for the believers to dissociate from unbelievers guilty of this offense, or of assisting others in it (q 60:9).


Not only does the Qurʾān refer to the existence of disbelief but it also reveals the various reasons for it, which stem from different sources. In one case its origin is fear; the unbelievers say that if they follow the Prophet they will be snatched from their land (q 28:57). Those who speak here are probably the people of Mecca, to whom God immediately answers that he has established for them a «secure sanctuary (ḥaraman āminan), into which are brought the fruits of everything» (q 28:57; cf. q 8:26; 29:67). The message of the Prophet stands here in clear contrast to the Arabian values on which the security of the people of Mecca rested. The disbelief of the contemporaries of the Prophet is often coupled with doubts as to the authenticity of his message, i.e. whether he truly is the messenger of God. These doubts originate with presumed faults in his personality and message. The personal accusations against the Prophet are often based on the claim that he is but human, and God does not usually send humans as his messengers, only angels (q 17:94; 21:3). The Jews also held this point against him (q 6:91), and similar reservations were also held about previous prophets by their contemporaries (e.g. q 11:27, Noah; q 26:154, Ṣāliḥ; q 26:186, Shuʿayb). Even as a human being the social status of the Prophet is not elevated enough to be a prophet (see social relations). This claim by the unbelievers is indicated in q 43:31: «They say: ‘Why was this Qurʾān not sent down to some distinguished (ʿaẓīm) man of the two cities?’»


As a result of the notion that a messenger of God must be an angel, the demand is ¶ often raised by the unbelievers that the Prophet produce signs from heaven, i.e. miracles (see miracle). He is asked either to produce an unspecified sign (āya) himself (q 7:203), or have one sent down to him from God (q 13:7, 27). In q 11:12 he is requested to have a treasure sent down to him, or an angel escorting him (see also q 6:8-9; 25:7-8). A prolonged series of specific signs is required in q 17:90-3: that a stream be made to gush forth (see springs and fountains); that he produce a garden (q.v.) of palms and vines with rivers flowing through it; that he make heaven fall; bring God and the angels as a surety; produce a house of gold (q.v.) ornamentation; go up to heaven and bring down a book that can be read. The People of the Book (q 4:153) also ask for a real book from heaven, and the Jews expect to see a sacrifice that will be devoured by fire (q.v.; as a sign of its acceptance by God; q 3:183).

Failing to produce proofs of his divine person, the Prophet is accused of being a sorcerer (q 10:2; 11:7, etc.; see magic) and a poet possessed by jinn (q.v.; majnūn, q 37:36; 44:14; see also insanity; poetry and poets). His prophetic message, too, is not accepted as divine, and is rejected as a «hotchpotch of dreams» (q 21:5; see dreams and sleep). The unbelievers usually mention such faults when refusing to abandon the worship of their deities (q 37:36). His messages are often rejected as forged (q 11:35; 46:8) or plagiarized (see forgery). In the latter case, his sermons are denounced as «fairy-tales of the ancients» that have been dictated to him (q 25:4-6; see also q 6:25-6, etc.), or have been learnt from a human master (q 74:25; see also q 44:14), whose origin is said to be non-Arab (q 16:103; see informants; see also Ahrens, Muhammed, 42-4). They too, so the unbelievers claim, can do the same (q 8:31). His message, however, is also denounced as being an innovation previously ¶ unheard of in other religions (q 38:7), one which deviates from the forefathers' religion (q 34:43). The criticism in this respect is mainly directed against the clear dissimilarity between the structure of the Prophet’s sermons and those of previous prophets. Thus in q 28:48 the unbelievers wonder why the Prophet has not received a revelation like that of Moses, and in q 25:32 they ask why the Qurʾān was not revealed to the Prophet all at once.

Divine protection

A large space is allotted in the Qurʾān to God’s defense of the Prophet against the various aspects of rejection, providing the main basis on which rests the status of the Prophet as a messenger of God. In general, the Qurʾān asserts the absurdity of disbelief by stressing that it arose in spite of the unbelievers' original desire for guidance. Thus in q 35:42 the unbelievers swear that if a warner came to them they would be more rightly guided than any other nation, and in q 6:157 they swear that if a divine book was revealed to them they would be more rightly guided than any other nation (see also q 37:167-70). God sets out to legitimize the authority of his messenger as an exclusive source of guidance, and for this a variety of arguments are set forth in defense of the authenticity of his message. In response to attacks on the mental integrity of the Prophet, God addresses the unbelievers saying: «Your comrade is not astray, neither does he err (see error), nor does he speak out of caprice» (q 53:2-3). In calling him «your comrade» (ṣāḥibukum), the Prophet is made one of their own kind, whose integrity must be well-known to them. In this manner God also addresses the unbelievers in q 34:46, telling them that «no madness (jinna) is in your comrade» (cf. q 7:184), and again in q 81:22: «Your comrade is not possessed (majnūn).»


¶ The origin of the Prophet’s integrity and mental fitness is God’s mercy (niʿma) which prevents him from being a kāhin, "soothsayer, " or possessed (q 52:29), and indeed God repeatedly asserts that he is neither a kāhin, nor a poet or possessed (q 68:2; 69:40-2, etc.). To this context seems also to belong the frequent qurʾānic insistence that the Prophet is not expecting a reward or a wage (ajr) for his messages (e.g. q 25:57; 34:47; 38:86), which means that he is delivering the word of God and not his own. A more straightforward statement about the authenticity of his revelation is repeated in numerous passages asserting that the Prophet was sent «with the truth» (bi-l- ḥaqq; cf. q 2:119, 252; 4:170; 9:33; 35:24, etc.; see truth), and that God and the angels bear witness to the truth of his message (q 4:166; 13:43, etc.). The fact that the Qurʾān confirms the previous scriptures, and mainly the stories about earlier prophets, is also invoked in support of its authenticity (q 12:110-1). Similarly, when the Prophet is himself beset by doubts as to the genuine nature of what has been revealed to him, he is advised to consult those who are well versed in previous scriptures — and thus know that the Qurʾān and those scriptures are alike (q 10:94).


The Qurʾān also answers more specific aspects of the doubts raised by the unbelievers as to the authenticity of the Prophet’s message. To the charge of plagiarism God responds by pointing to the Arabic language of the Qurʾān, which excludes the possibility of a non-Arab master teaching the Prophet, as insinuated by his opponents (q 16:103). The Arabic language renders the Qurʾān clear to the audience (q 12:2; 41:3) who would not have accepted a non-Arabic revelation that could not have been understood (q 26:195, 198-9; 41:44). Perhaps the assertion that the Prophet did not read any book before the ¶ revelation of the Qurʾān or write it down (q 29:48) is also designed to refute the charge of plagiarism. The human nature of the Prophet, which is held against him by his opponents, is admitted by God himself, who orders his messenger to say that he is merely a human being who (nevertheless) receives revelations (q 18:110; 41:6; see also impeccability). God stresses that the mortality of the Prophet does not prevent him from being a messenger of God, and to prove this, God tells his Prophet to remind the unbelievers that other prophets were mortals too. Thus God advises his Prophet to say that Moses received revelations as a human being (q 6:91), and that messengers to older communities were also merely humans (rijāl, q 12:109, etc.). The same argument is followed when the Qurʾān asserts that the Prophet is not an innovation among other messengers (q 46:9). Moreover, a messenger of God always remains mortal, and he is not permitted to have other people worship him as a god (q 3:79). While the human nature of the Prophet is acknowledged, however, the divinity of his message is emphasized. To prove this, God advises the Prophet to challenge the unbelievers who claim that the Qurʾān is forged to produce one or ten chapters (sūras) similar to the qurʾānic ones, if they can (q 10:38; 11:13), or a story (ḥadīth) like it (q 52:33-4; see inimitability; provocation). Due to the Qurʾān’s divinity the human qurʾānic Prophet has no control over its contents, nor of the time of its revelation. This point is made when people demand that he change his message into a more agreeable one, to which he is prompted to say: «It is not for me to alter it of my own accord; I follow nothing except what is revealed to me… Had God willed it, I would not have recited it to you… I have been living among you a lifetime before it…» (q 10:15-6).

The constant human nature of the ¶ Prophet prevents him from complying with the demands for miracles, and when this demand is made, God commands his messenger to say that the unseen (ghayb) belongs to God alone (q 10:20). This seems to mean that he is but a mortal messenger who cannot perform supernatural acts of his own volition. Only God has the power to produce signs, as the Qurʾān itself states elsewhere (q 6:37, etc.), and it is for him to decide whom he wishes to guide (q 13:27). Previous prophets are put in the same situation when commanded to produce signs, and they too answer that they are but mortals and that they can only produce miracles with God’s permission (q 14:10-11). Besides, the Qurʾān says that the unbelievers had a chance to draw a lesson from previous scriptures which they know (and not wait for fresh signs; cf. q 20:133). The same reply, namely, that the Prophet has no knowledge of the unseen, is given when demands are made for signs of the approaching hour, i.e. the end of the world, about which the Qurʾān warns quite often (q 7:187-8; 72:25-7). The demand to produce signs sent by God may take the form of a request to bring down from heaven a written text (kitāb) that humankind can read (see above). To this the Prophet is again directed to say: «I am but a mortal, a messenger» (q 17:93). Elsewhere he is advised to say that he is not an angel, which also seems to be in response to the request for signs (q 6:50; cf. q 11:31, Noah). Nevertheless, the Prophet himself does get a chance to see God’s signs, as stated in q 17:1: «Glory be to him who carried his servant by night from the sacred mosque to the further mosque which we have blessed all around, that we might show him some of our signs….»


Apart from defending his authenticity in the eyes of the unbelievers, God directly helps the Prophet himself, which is designed to encourage him and offer him ¶ various kinds of comfort and moral support (see consolation). To begin with, comfort is offered through the statement that God exempts the Prophet from responsibility for the unbelievers, saying that his mission is only to deliver the message (q 5:99), and that he is not supposed to be the guardian of the unbelievers (q 6:107; 10:108; 17:54, etc.). God himself undertakes the responsibility for them (q 42:6). To emphasize this point God says that the Prophet cannot guide the dead (see death and the dead), the blind (see vision and blindness) and the deaf (q 27:80-1; 30:52-3; 35:22), neither can he force them (to repent; q 50:45; see tolerance and compulsion; repentance and penance). To comfort the Prophet and encourage him, God tells him that he is aware of the distress that the words of the unbelievers have caused him (q 15:97), and advises him not to let his soul be wasted in regrets for the unbelievers (q 35:8). Although the Prophet tends to consume himself with anguish over their disbelief (q 18:6; 26:3), God tells him not to let the unbelievers torment him by what they do or say (q 3:176; 5:41; 10:65; 15:88; 16:127; 27:70). God states that the Qurʾān has not been revealed to him to make him miserable (q 20:2), nor to disquiet his heart (q 7:2). In a series of passages God encourages the Prophet to bear patiently (iṣbir) the hardships and adhere to his prophetic mission (see trust and patience). For example, in q 10:109 he is urged to endure his sufferings patiently and to follow what is being revealed to him (cf. q 43:43). In q 20:130 he is told to bear patiently what the unbelievers say, and continue proclaiming the lord’s praise day and night (see also q 52:48-9, etc.). In other passages God demands that the Prophet patiently endure his sufferings along with those who call to their lord in the morning (q.v.) and evening (q.v.), and not yield to the temptations of worldly pleasures ¶ (q 18:28; cf. q 20:131). When urging his Prophet to endure the hardships, the example of previous prophets is often adduced. Thus, in q 46:35 he is entreated to be as patient as other prophets previously were, and in q 38:17 he is told to exercise patience with what is being said to him and remember David the man of might. Conversely, he is told to be patient and avoid bad examples such as that of the «man of the whale» (Yūnus, i.e. Jonah; q 68:48-50).


The example of previous messengers plays a central role in the encouragement of the Prophet (q 11:120; cf. q 23:44; 51:52-4). They too, God says, were rejected as liars by their respective peoples (q 3:184; 6:33-4; 35:4; 41:43), and when they were almost overtaken by despair (q.v.), God rescued them, and the unbelievers suffered his retribution (q 12:110; 38:14). Likewise, previous messengers were mocked (q 6:10; 13:32; 21:41) and had enemies (q.v.), but God was their savior (q 25:31). As for the signs demanded from him by the unbelievers, God says that such signs would be useless just as they were useless to previous prophets who were commanded to produce them (q 2:118; 21:5-6). The Prophet can, of course, try and seek out a hole in the ground or a ladder in heaven if he were distressed because the unbelievers have turned away from him, but in the end it is God alone who can turn them into believers (q 6:35).

In many passages God advises the Prophet how to remain on his own path when under pressure from different quarters. In some cases the Prophet is simply advised to part company with the unbelievers to avoid open confrontation. Thus in q 73:10 God tells him to "forsake them (wauhjurhum) graciously, " and in q 43:89 he is told to turn away from them (iṣfaḥ ʿanhum), and the same is suggested to him in other passages (q 51:54, tawallā ʿanhum; q 15:94; ¶ 32:30, aʿriḍ; q 15:3; 43:83, dharhum). In some instances God prompts him to tell the unbelievers that his own religion will remain different from the one they follow, as for example in q 10:104: «I do not worship those you worship apart from God» (see religious pluralism and the qurʾān). Similarly, in q 10:41 God says: «If they say that you lie, tell them: ‘I have my work and you have your work. You have nothing to do with what I do, and I have nothing to do with what you do’» (see also q 26:216). The same quietist policy is suggested to the Prophet in passages advising him to rely on God and await his final judgment. Thus in q 22:68-9 God tells him: «And if they should dispute with you, say: ‘God knows very well what you are doing, God shall judge between you on the day of resurrection….’» Elsewhere he is advised to say, when the people turn their backs on him: «God is sufficient for me, there is no God but he, in him I have put my trust» (q 9:129; cf. q 27:79; 33:48). Similarly, he is advised to debate with the unbelievers in a gentle and a refined manner (q 16:125; 23:96; see debate and disputation).


When the unbelievers demand of the Prophet that he abandon his religion and follow them instead, God again advises him on how to stay firm. In one particular instance the Prophet and his followers are challenged to become Jews and Christians, in which case, staying firm means following the religion of Abraham (q 2:135). In more general terms, the unbelievers would like to see the Prophet following their «evil inclinations» (ahwāʾ), and here God encourages him not to follow their ahwāʾ and adhere to his own sharīʿa (q 45:18; 5:48-9; see also q 42:15). In more explicit terms, God demands that he «not obey» the unbelievers and the munāfiqūn, «hypocrites» (see hypocrites and hypocrisy), and only follow what is being revealed to him (q 33:1-2).

¶ A unique case is q 17:73-5 in which the unbelievers come near to tempting the Prophet away from that which has been revealed to him, inciting him to forge a more agreeable revelation, following which they will take him as their friend (see friends and friendship). It is only thanks to God’s intervention that he remains firm, and the Qurʾān asserts that if he had inclined to them God would have punished him severely. A similar situation of a distorted revelation is described in q 22:52 with reference to previous prophets: Each one of them was subjected to the temptation of Satan who cast words of his own into their recitation. The Qurʾān, however, asserts that God annuls what Satan casts and confirms his own signs.

In other passages God’s protection of his messenger is more active which implies a more militant clash between the Prophet and the unbelievers. To begin with, in q 5:67 God grants him immunity from the people to help him deliver his message safely. When the unbelievers expel the Prophet, God sends him his sechina (q.v.; sakīnatahu) and supports him with unseen legions. This event occurs when the Prophet and a companion of his are hiding in a cave (q.v.) and he reassures his friend that God is with them (q 9:40). To help the Prophet endure his expulsion, God promises him in a special vision (ruʾyā) that he and the believers will enter the sacred mosque and there perform the rituals (q 48:27). A similar promise is perhaps made in q 28:85: «He who imposed the Qurʾān on you will surely restore you to a place which will be home.» In direct military clashes with the unbelievers, God actually fights for him (q 8:17), and grants him victory (q.v.; fatḥ, q 48:1). God’s protection and aid emanate from his mercy and bountifulness towards the Prophet, which avert all attempts at injuring him (q 4:113), and as a result of this God has rid ¶ him of those who mock him (q 15:95), and promises to rid him of those who do not believe (q 2:137). His foes are explicitly warned about God’s wrath, as in q 17:76, where those who plot to expel him from the land are warned of a swift destruction. Likewise, God took vengeance on the foes of previous prophets (q 30:47). Fighting angels inflict God’s wrath on the Prophet’s foes, smiting them above the necks (q 8:12-13). The angel Gabriel (q.v.) too is his protector, alongside the righteous among the believers and the other angels (q 66:4). But God’s retribution usually awaits the foes in hell (see hell and hellfire). The fate of hell awaits those who assault the Prophet during prayer (q 96:9-19), and those who make a breach with him (q 4:115; 59:4; cf. q 47:32). In response to such opposition, the Qurʾān sets clear limits to God’s mercy as emanating from the Prophet, and explicitly excludes the unbelievers from it. Thus in q 9:113 it is stated that «It is not for the Prophet and the believers to ask pardon for the associators, even though they may be near kinsmen (see kinship), after that it has become clear to them that they will be the inhabitants of hell.» For his part, the Prophet is commanded to wage holy war on the unbelievers, as stated in q 9:73 and in q 66:9: «O Prophet, struggle (jāhid) against the infidels and the hypocrites and be harsh with them; their refuge is hell — an evil homecoming» (see also q 25:52; see jihād). God’s help to the Prophet also encompasses the entire community of believers, and his help is therefore described in several passages as being extended to them collectively. Thus in q 8:26 God says: «Remember when you were few and abased in the land (see oppressed on earth, the), and were fearful that the people would snatch you away; but he gave you refuge and assisted you with his help, and provided you with ¶ the good things, for which you might be haply thankful.» Divine help is usually given to the believers on the battlefield, as seems to be the case in q 3:13: «There has already been a sign for you in the two companies which encountered each other, one company fighting in the way of God and another unbelieving; they saw them twice the like of them, as the eye sees, but God assists with his help whom he will….» A specific designation of the place in which God helped the believers is provided in q 3:123: «God helped you at Badr (q.v.) when you were abject….»

The Qurʾān and Muḥammad’s sīra

The Qurʾān contains numerous allusions to events in the Prophet’s life without placing them in a concrete context. Apart from issues already mentioned above there are many more allusions to incidents and experiences, most of which gain their context outside of the Qurʾān, in the realm of the sīra, i.e. Muḥammad’s biography. Here the qurʾānic allusions to the Prophet’s life and prophetic experience reappear as embedded in a clear chronological sequence of events. It is impossible to survey here all the qurʾānic allusions that are found in the sīra; only some of them will be highlighted.

One of the earliest sīra compilations in which a massive presence of qurʾānic allusions exists is by Ibn Isḥāq, whose sīra of Muḥammad is available in several recensions, the most famous of which is Ibn Hishām’s (d. 218/833). Here the general narrative framework — which is retained in every other biography of Muḥammad — is as follows: The life of the Prophet is divided into two major phases, Meccan and Medinan, which corresponds to the traditional division of the Qurʾān into Meccan and Medinan periods. The Meccan period spans from Muḥammad’s birth until his emigration (q.v.) to Medina (q.v.). The episodes covering this phase ¶ describe his birth and his early years in Mecca, his first revelation, the beginning of his public preaching, his persecution by his fellow Quraysh tribesmen, and his emigration to Medina. The Medinan period consists of episodes describing his arrival there, the consolidation of his relations with the local Arab tribes, his struggle against the local Jews, and primarily his campaigns and battles (maghāzī) against Mecca (see expeditions and battles). These clashes culminated in the fall of Mecca, and in the eventual spread of Islam throughout Arabia. This sequence of events has a well-established chronological framework: The Meccan period begins with what is known as the " Year of the Elephant, " in which, according to most traditions, Muḥammad is said to have been born (with reference to sūra 105, «The Elephant»; see abraha). His first revelation is said to have occurred when he was forty, his emigration is dated to ten years later (622 c.e.), and the fall of Mecca is dated to 8/630, while Muḥammad’s death is said to have taken place in 11/632.

The Meccan period

For the Meccan period the sīra uses qurʾānic passages that have been embedded in traditions describing Muḥammad’s first revelation, first admonitions, and especially his persecution by the unbelievers (for details see Rubin, Eye, 103-66). For the first revelation the most prevalent passage that has been selected is q 96:1-5: «Recite in the name of your lord who created….» For the subsequent event of the temporary lapse of revelation, q 93:3 was chosen: «Your lord has not forsaken you nor does he hate [you].» For his first public sermon, q 26:214 was adduced: «And warn your nearest relations….» Several qurʾānic passages appear in sīra descriptions of Muḥammad’s persecution by the Meccans, e.g. sūra 111 in which Abū Lahab is cursed ¶ and promised punishment in hell. Abū Lahab is the designation of an uncle of Muḥammad and in the sīra he leads a strong opposition against the Prophet for which this chapter is said to have been revealed as divine retribution. Other passages that appear in the context of persecution describe the exchange of accusations between the Prophet and his opponents (e.g. q 41:3-4; 13:31; 25:7-8; 17:90-3; 16:103). One of them, q 38:4-8, is embedded in traditions describing the role of Abū Ṭālib, another of the Prophet’s uncles, in helping his nephew confront the unbelievers. The passage about the Prophet and his companion in the cave (q 9:40) appears in the descriptions of Muḥammad’s journey (hijra) from Mecca to Medina, the companion being Abū Bakr (see companions of the prophet).

The Medinan period

The Medinan period revolves around Muḥammad’s campaigns against the Meccans as well as against the Jews, and in some cases the links between them and the Qurʾān are obvious, because the names of some campaigns are explicitly mentioned in scripture. This applies to Badr (2/624), which is mentioned in a passage describing angels assisting the fighting believers (q 3:123-8), and to Ḥunayn (q.v.; 8/630). The latter location is mentioned in a passage again describing how the sechina as well as unseen legions (of angels) help the fighting believers (q 9:25-6). In other cases the link is only revealed through the traditions (see ḥadīth and the qurʾān), while in the Qurʾān explicit links are missing. Thus there are additional passages linked in traditions to Badr, mainly q 8:1-19 in which the division of spoils is discussed, and the help of angels smiting the unbelievers is described yet again. The connection with other campaigns is revealed through traditions only. Passages that are ¶ linked to the battle of Uḥud (3/625), for example, are q 3:121-2, in which the Prophet lodges the believers in their ditches for the battle, and «two parties» of the believers are about to lose heart. The praise of martyrs (q.v.; shuhadāʾ), whom the Qurʾān describes as «living with their lord» and rejoicing in his bounty (cf. q 3:169-71) is also linked to the believers who fell at Uḥud. The expulsion of the Jewish tribe of al- Naḍīr (see naḍīr, banū al-) from Medina is reported with reference to q 59:1-3 which describes the expulsion of the unbelieving People of the Book from their habitations. They thought that their fortresses would defend them but God defeated them in the end. A link to the Battle of the Ditch (see people of the ditch) and the subsequent campaign against the Jewish tribe of Qurayẓa (q.v.; 5/626-7) is found in traditions about q 33:9-27. Here the Qurʾān describes hosts of confederates (aḥzāb) coming against the believers whom God defeats by means of winds (see air and wind) and unseen legions (of angels).

Special reference is made to the role of the hypocrites (munāfiqūn) in spreading doubts among the Medinan believers, "people of Yathrib, " and in inducing them to retreat. The faithful believers who have remained firm are praised, and the passage concludes with the defeat of the People of the Book who supported the confederates. They are brought down from their fortresses and the believers slay some of them and take others as captives. God bequeaths their lands and possessions to the believers. To the Jews of Qurayẓa are also linked the verses of q 8:55-8 in which those who have broken their compact with the Prophet are severely criticized. The affair of al-Ḥudaybiya (6/628) and the subsequent campaign against the Jews of Khaybar are linked to the bulk of sūra 48. In it the believers pledge allegiance to the Prophet ¶ "under the tree, " and God rewards them with a swift victory and many spoils.

Among the remaining qurʾānic allusions in the sīra, sūra 9 may also be mentioned. It is connected to events that took place during Muḥammad’s campaign to Tabūk (9/630) as well as during Abū Bakr’s pilgrimage (q.v.) to Mecca (9/631). Problems with opposing groups within Medina (led by Abū ʿĀmir and others) are also connected to this sūra, mainly to q 9:107 in which reference is made to «those who have taken a mosque in opposition and unbelief, and to divide the believers…» (see mosque of the dissension). The final stages of his career, when most of the pagan Arabs became Muslims and delegations came from all over Arabia to pledge allegiance to the Prophet in Medina, are connected to q 110 (Sūrat al-Naṣr, «Succor»). In it (q 110:2) the Prophet sees «men entering God’s religion in throngs.» Muḥammad’s farewell sermon which he delivered during his last pilgrimage to Mecca (10/632; see farewell pilgrimage), a few months before his death, has also many qurʾānic links, e.g. q 5:3: «Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed my blessing of you and I have approved Islam for your religion.»

The chronology of revelation

The link between the Qurʾān and the life of Muḥammad as established in the sīra has provided the Qurʾān with a concrete context of revelation, or asbāb al-nuzūl, as this came to be known among Muslim Qurʾān exegetes. Since the mid-19th century c.e., scholars investigating the history of the Qurʾān have followed the sīra framework which the Qurʾān has acquired, and developed the traditional asbāb al-nuzūl into an elaborate chronology of revelation (see chronology and the qurʾān). They divided the qurʾānic passages not only into Meccan and Medinan periods, but also ¶ into "early Meccan, " "late Meccan, " and so on. Not all of the scholars have shown the same degree of dependence on Islamic tradition and some, like Bell, gave more weight to textual considerations of style and form (see form and structure of the qurʾān; language and style of the qurʾān). All of them, however, have treated the Qurʾān as the prophetic creation of the historical Muḥammad, and as a key to the study of his own spiritual development. The relationship between the qurʾānic text and the historical Muḥammad is, however, far from clear. Some, like John Wansbrough, have not even accepted the Arabian provenance of the Qurʾān. Above all, it should especially be borne in mind that the sīra and the asbāb al-nuzūl traditions are all part of ḥadīth material, the historical authenticity of which has been shown to be very problematic. A reconstructed chronology of revelation based on this material must therefore be taken with the utmost caution.

Primary
  • (The following is a list of only the most noted of the qurʾānic commentaries and biographies of Muḥammad. The commentaries should be consulted for their commentary on the relevant qurʾānic passages cited in the article. See Jones, Maghāzī and Kister, Sīra for further details on the primary sources. // Ниже приводится список только самых примечательных комментариев qur'ānic и биографий Мухаммада. В комментариях следует проконсультироваться за их комментарии к соответствующим кораническим отрывкам, указанным в статье. См. Jones, Maghāzī и Kister, Sīra для получения дополнительной информации об основных источниках):
  • al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā, Ansāb al-ashrāf, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1936-8 (incomplete ed.), facs. repr. Baghdad 1964 [?]
  • Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra
  • Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr
  • Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt
  • Ṭabarī, Tafsīr
  • id., Taʾrīkh
Secondary
  • K. Ahrens, Muhammed als Religions-stifter, Leipzig 1935
  • T. Andræ, Die Person Muhammeds in Lehre und Glauben seiner Gemeinde, Uppsala 1917 (see 23-91 for a discussion of the «legend» of the Prophet; 92-123 for the «miracles» of Muḥammad)
  • Eng. trans. Th. Menzel, Mohammed, the man and his faith, London 1936
  • R. Bell, Mohammed’s call, in mw 24 (1934), 13-9
  • id., Muhammad and previous messengers, in mw 24 (1934), 330-40
  • id., Muhammad’s pilgrimage proclamation, in jras (1937), 233-44
  • id., Muhammad’s visions, in mw 24 (1934), ¶ 145-54
  • H. Birkeland, The legend of the opening of Muhammed’s breast, Oslo 1955
  • id., Lord
  • R. Blachère, Le problème de Mahomet, Paris 1952
  • Buhl, Das Leben
  • id., Fasste Muḥammed seine Verkündigung als eine universelle, auch für Nichtaraber bestimmte Religion auf? in Islamica 2 (1926-7), 135-49
  • L. Caetani, Annali dell’Islam, vols. i-ii, Milan 1905-7
  • M. Cook, Muhammad, Oxford 1983
  • F. Gabrieli, Mahomet, Paris 1965
  • M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Mahomet, Paris 1957
  • C.L. Geddes, An analytical guide to the bibliographies on Islam, Muḥammad, and the Qurʾān, Denver 1973
  • A. Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judentum aufgenommen? Leipzig 1902 (repr.)
  • trans. F.M. Young, Judaism and Islam, New York 1970 (re-published by Moshe Pearlman)
  • C. Gilliot, Les ‘informateurs’ juifs et chrétiens de Muḥammad. Reprise d’un problème traité par Aloys Sprenger et Theodor Nöldeke, in jsai 22 (1998), 84-126
  • id., Muḥammad, le Coran et les ‘contraintes de l’histoire,’ in Wild, Text, 3-26
  • H. Grimme, Mohammed, 2 vols., Munster 1892-
  • M. Hamidullah, Le prophète de l’Islam, 2 vols., Paris 1959
  • M.Ḥ. Haykal, Ḥayāt Muḥammad, Cairo 1963 (eighth repr.)
  • J. Horovitz, Zur Muḥammad legende, in Der Islam 5 (1914), 41-53
  • Eng. trans., The growth of the Mohammed legend, in mw 10 (1920), 58
  • J.M.B. Jones, The maghāzī literature, in A.F.L. Beeston et al. (eds.), Arabic literature to the end of the Umayyad period, Cambridge 1983, 344-51 (for details on the primary literature)
  • M.J. Kister, The sīra literature, in A.F.L. Beeston et al. (eds.), Arabic literature to the end of the Umayyad period, Cambridge 1983, 352-67 (for details on the primary literature)
  • H. Lammens, L'âge de Mahomet et la chronologie de la Sīra, in ja [tenth series] 17 (1911), 209-50
  • Lecker, Muslims
  • H. Motzki (ed.), The biography of Muḥammad. The issue of the sources, Leiden 2000
  • W. Muir, The life of Mohammad from original sources, ed. T.H. Weir, Edinburgh 1912
  • R. Paret, Der Koran als Geschichtsquelle, in Der Islam 37 (1961), 24-42
  • id., Mohammed und der Koran, Stuttgart 1957
  • F.E. Peters, Muhammad and the origins of Islam, Albany 1994
  • H. Reckendorf, Mohammed und die Seinen, Leipzig 1907
  • M. Rodinson, Mohammed, trans. Anne Carter, New York 1971
  • U. Rubin, The eye of the beholder. The life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims, Princeton 1995
  • id. (ed.), The life of Muḥammad (The formation of the classical Islamic world: Vol. 4), Aldershot 1998 (full bibliography)
  • id., Pre-existence and light. Aspects of the concept of Nūr Muḥammad, in ios 5 (1975), 62-119
  • id., The shrouded messenger.
  • On the interpretation of al-muzzammil and al-mudaththir, in jsai 16 (1993), 96-107
  • A. Schimmel, And Muhammad is his messenger. The veneration of the Prophet in Islamic piety, Chapel Hill ¶ 1985
  • Sprenger, Mohammed
  • Wansbrough, qs
  • id., The sectarian milieu. Content and composition of Islamic salvation history, Oxford 1978
  • W.M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953
  • id., Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956
  • id., Muhammad’s Mecca. History in the Qurʾān, Edinburgh 1988
  • Watt-Bell, Introduction
  • A.T. Welch, Muhammad’s understanding of himself.
  • The koranic data, in R.G. Hovannisian and S. Vryonis (eds.), Islam’s understanding of itself. Eighth Giorgio Levi Della Vida Biennial Conference, California 1983, 15-52
  • S. Wild, ‘We have sent down to thee the book with truth…’. Spatial and temporal implications of the qurʾānic concepts of nuzūl, tanzīl and inzāl, in Wild, Text, 137-56
  • M. Zwettler, A mantic manifesto.
  • The sūra of ‘The Poets’ and the qurʾānic foundations of prophetic authority, in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and prophecy. The beginnings of literary tradition, Ithaca 1990, 75-231
Rubin, Uri, «Muḥammad», in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00126>

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

MUHAMMAD, the Prophet of Islam.

1. The Prophet’s life and career. 2. The Prophet in popular Muslim piety. 3. The Prophet’s image in Europe and the West. 1. The Prophet’s life and career. Belief that

Muhammad is the Messenger of God (Muhammad un rasulu 'lldh) is second only to belief in the Oneness of God (Id ildha ilia 'lldh) according to the shahdda [q.v.], the quintessential Islamic creed. Muhammad has a highly exalted role at the heart of Muslim faith. At the same time the Kurgan and Islamic orthodoxy insist that he was fully human with no supernatural powers. That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded cannot be seriously questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose Muhammad as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other empirical evidence: Muhammad had remarkable leadership skills and a charismatic personality that enabled him to attract other strong leaders who were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the early success of the Muslim community. These two views of Muhammad—one as the ideal person, the exemplar for Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and the other as the historical person, who first appears as a somewhat shadowy figure whose early life is little known, but who then gradually emerges into the light of history—are not necessarily incompatible, but they involve two separate inquiries, each pursuing its own path of investigation, each following its own methods of analysis. While the theologian and other believers seek to understand the role of God acting through the Prophet, the historian seeks the measure of the man himself. The theological answer is obvious and indisputable for the believer, but, if taken alone as the explanation of the Prophet’s success, it runs the risk of diminishing Muhammad’s greatness as a man by making him a mere agent of divine action. The purpose of the first section of this article is to seek the historical Muhammad.

I. THE HISTORICAL MUHAMMAD

A. The Sources

The sources for the life of Muhammad fall into overlapping categories that call for a variety of methods of analysis. By far the most trustworthy source, but at the same time the most difficult to utilise as a historical source, is the Kur D an [#.#.], most if not all of which is contemporary with the life of Muhammad. A characteristic feature of this unique work is that it responds constantly and often candidly to Muhammad’s changing historical circumstances and contains a wealth of hidden data that are relevant to the task of the quest for the historical Muhammad, although any use of the Kurgan as a historical source is clearly ancillary to its primary purpose and main functions in Muslim life. Historians and biographers of Muhammad past and present have only begun to tap this rich source, which requires specialised knowledge and a variety of historical and literary critical methods in order to reach sound conclusions and plausible hypotheses.

The earliest attempts to report events of Muhammad’s life could hardly be called biographies in the modern sense. They include what are called maghdzi [q.v.] works that treat Muhammad’s military expeditions and campaigns, which from an early date were merged with sira [q. v. ] works that sought to preserve stories about the Prophet, tafsir [q.v.] writings that sought to preserve traditional interpretations of verses of the Kur D an, and eventually hadith [q.v.] accounts that sought to preserve sayings of and about Muhammad. Early works in all of these categories contain what can be classified as mutawdtir (handed down successively) or mashhur (well-known or widely known) material that was transmitted by oral tradition for generations before it was written down. None of these types of writings in its early forms, including the maghdzi and sira works, had as its purpose the recording of the life of Muhammad. Each report or story must thus be evaluated in terms of its purpose, and as many versions of the same story and similar stories as possible need to be consulted, since most of the accounts occur in numerous, often widely differing forms.

The most widely used sources for the life of Muhammad, in addition to the Kur D an, date from the 3rd and 4th centuries of the Islamic era. Among these the most highly respected is the Maghdzi or Sira of Ibn Ishak (d. 151/768), which is not extant in its original form, but has been preserved in at least two recensions, one by Ibn Hisham (d. 218/833) that is widely used, and another by Yunus b. Bukayr (d. 199/814-15) that exists only in manuscript form (for a description and summary of the contents of Yunus’s recension, see Alfred Guillaume, New light on the life of Muhammad, Manchester n.d.). We also have extensive quotations from Ibn Ishak’s work, including sections that Ibn Hisham and Yunus b. Bukayr omitted, in historical works that cover much more than just the life of the Prophet. Among these the most valuable is the Ta^rikh al-rusul wa 'l-muluk by al-Tabarl (d. 310/922-3), which contains other material on the life of Muhammad, notably reports from c Urwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/712-13), a very early source (cf. Watt, Mecca, 180-2). Alfred Guillaume has provided an English translation of an attempted reconstruction of Ibn Ishak’s work, produced largely by translating what Ibn Hisham reports from Ibn Ishak, adding quotations from the latter that are included by al-Tabarl (mainly the material that Ibn Hisham omitted) and placing Ibn Hisham’s comments on Ibn Ishak’s work in the back of the translation in a section called «Ibn Hisham’s Notes» (pp. 691—798). These page numbers suggest that Ibn Hisham’s comments constitute about 15 % of his recension of Ibn Ishak’s work, but it should be kept in mind that he may have omitted this amount or more of the original. After Ibn Ishak’s work the sources most widely used are the Maghdzi by al-Wakidl (d. 207/822-3), which is often criticised by Muslim writers who claim that the author is unreliable, and the Kitdb al-Tabakdt al-kabir by al-Wakidi’s secretary, Ibn Sa c d (d. 230/844-5), who appears to be more highly respected than his employer. See Bibl. for editions and translations of these works. Other useful sources for the life of Muhammad include the Sahih by al-Bukharl (d. 256/870), the $ahth by Muslim (d. 261/875), and the Musnad by Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855).

B. Muhammad in Mecca

1. His early life

The very first question a biographer has to ask, namely when the person was born, cannot be answered precisely for Muhammad. We have no certain chronological data for the Meccan period of his life. His activity in Medina covered approximately ten years, from the Hidjra [q.v.] in 622 A.D. until his death in 632. Most of the sources say his activity as a prophet in Mecca also lasted ten years, but there is considerable difference of opinion on this question. A statement in a poem ascribed sometimes to Abu Kays b. Abi Anas and sometimes to Hassan b. Thabit (ed. Hirschfeld, no. 19) says that his prophetic activity in Mecca lasted «ten and some years». Muhammad’s biographers usually make him 40 or sometimes 43 years old at the time of his call to be a prophet, which, taken with the statements on the length of the Meccan and Medinan periods of his prophetic activity and his age at the time of his death, would put the year of his birth at about 570 A.D. When, however, tradition says that he was born in the «Year of the Elephant» (alluded to in sura CV) this cannot be accepted, since Abraha’s attack on Mecca must have taken place considerably before 570. There is better reason to believe that he may have been born later in the 570s. Since the traditional accounts differ widely and also contain elements that are clearly based on later legend, it is best to leave open the question of the year of Muhammad’s birth. For the period of his life before he came forth as a religious reformer the Kurgan has only the indefinite expression ^umr, in sura X, 16: «I lived among you an ^umr before it», where the term is usually interpreted «a lifetime» and could just as well mean 35 as 40 or 43 years.

The name «Muhammad» is reported to have occurred previously among the Arabs (e.g. Ibn Durayd, ed. Wiistenfeld, 6 f.; Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 111 f.) and therefore need not be regarded as an epithet adopted later in life by the Prophet. It should be noted, however, that the brief section on such persons given by Ibn Sa c d has the heading, «Account of those who were named Muhammad in the days of the djahiliyya [q.v.] in the hope of being called to prophethood which had been predicted», which indicates the tendentious nature of some of these accounts. The fact that the sources say frequently that in his youth Muhammad was called Amln, a common Arab name meaning «faithful, trustworthy», suggests the possibility that this could have been his given name, a masculine form from the same root as his mother’s name, Amina. The name Muhammada for women occurs several times in the Syrian Book of the Himyarites.

As to Muhammad’s descent several old poems (e.g. Hassan b. Thabit, ed. Hirschfeld, no. 25; A c sha in Ibn Hisham, 256; cf. also on Dja c far: Hassan b. Thabit, no. 21; Ka c b b. Malik in Ibn Hisham, 800; on Hamza: Ibn Hisham, 630; on Abu Lahab: Hassan b. Thabit, no. 217) support the statement of tradition that he belonged to the Banu Hashim [#.0.], apparently one of the better class families of Mecca (cf. Ibn Hisham, 539, 821), which was related to the Banu Muttalib (Ibn Hisham, 536). On the other hand, the Meccan enemies of the Prophet say in sura XLIII, 31 that they would believe in him more readily if he had been «one of the prominent men of the two cities» (Mecca and al-Ta°if). The Hashim family in any case could not compare with the most prominent families such as the Makhzum and Umayya [q.vv.]. What is recorded of the needy circumstances of Muhammad and some of his relatives suggests that the Banu Hashim were not prosperous during his early lifetime. His father, who is said to have died before the Prophet’s birth, is quite a colourless figure in the sources. His name c Abd Allah is perhaps only a later improvement on a polytheist name (see the names of his brothers below). Muhammad’s grandfather is called Shayba or c Abd al-Muttalib. The connection between these two names is as obscure as is their relationship to the Banu Shayba (Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 94, ii/1, 124) and the often mentioned family of Muttalib (Hassan b. Thabit, no. 184; Ibn Hisham, 230, 536). On his mother’s side he had connections, which are not entirely clear, with Medina. We know little more that is definite about his ancestry, since most of what is related is heavily influenced by later legend. The first tangible historical figures among his relatives are his uncles: Abu Talib [q. v. ], whose name was c Abd Manaf, al- c Abbas [q.v.], Hamza [q.v.] and c Abd al- c Uzza [see ABU LAHAB].

In the well-known Surat al-Duha, a personal passage addressed to the Prophet, the Kur D an affirms that Muhammad grew up as an orphan (XCIII, 6). Little else about his early life is known. The sources contain many colourful stories with settings from before his birth up to the time of the Hidjra. These accounts are important historical sources for understanding early stages in Muslim perceptions of the Prophet, which developed rapidly well beyond his portrayal in the Kurgan, but they have little value as sources for the historical Muhammad (as distinct from the Muhammad of Muslim faith). As Birkeland has shown, the story of the opening of Muhammad’s breast, which occurs in a variety of forms set in different parts of his lifetime (e.g., Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 96 f.), is a later exegetical materialisation of XCIV, 1 (The Legend of the opening of Muhammed’s breast, Oslo 1955). It would also be wiser to set aside Muhammad’s alleged trading journeys into Syria, said to have occurred when he was a child under the care of his uncle Abu Talib and later in the service of his future wife, Khadidja [q. v. ]. The sources contain several versions of each of these stories, all of which have as their central theme predictions or affirmations regarding Muhammad’s future prophethood. Some of the versions of the story of the «first journey» involve a Christian monk named Bahlra [q.v. ] (Ibn Ishak as reported in Ibn Hisham, 115-17 and in al-Tabari, i, 1123-6; Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 76 f, 99-101), while others say Abu Talib stopped at two convents where the unnamed «master of the convent» at each affirmed Muhammad’s future prophethood and insisted that the boy’s father could not be living (Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 98 f). The main theme of most versions of the story of Muhammad’s «second journey to Syria» is the same as the first, that is, affirmation or announcement by a Syrian Christian monk, in this case named Nastur, that Muhammad will be a prophet (Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 101 f). It is curious that most modern biographers of Muhammad depict this story as something of a test of his business skills and as an episode that serves largely as a prelude to an account of his marriage to Khadidja, since this is not a major theme of the story and does not even occur in some versions. In the form in which these stories are given they have distinctly apolegetic themes. Equally little confidence is to be placed in the story of the part said to have been played by Muhammad in rebuilding the Ka c ba (Ibn Hisham, 122-6; Tabarl, i, 1134-9; with an interesting variation in Ibn Sa c d, i/1, 93 f.). Verse 8 of Surat al-Duha may allude to Muhammad’s marriage to the wealthy widow, KhadTdja: «Did He not find you poor (C a 3 i/) and then enrich [you]?» Muhammad and Khadidja are said to have had four daughters, who played various roles in the early history of Islam, and several sons all of whom died in infancy (Ibn Hisham, 121). Except for the names of some of his children the sources tell us virtually nothing about Muhammad’s life from the time of his marriage to KhadTdja, when he is said to have been 25 years old, until shortly before he began to have visions and hear mysterious voices, when he is said to have been 40 or 43.

2. His emergence as a religious reformer Because of the nature of the sources and the complexities involved in interpreting them, questions concerning Muhammad’s emergence as a religious reformer are among the most difficult to answer. That he originally shared some of the religious conceptions of his milieu is in every way the most natural assumption. The verse in Surat al-Duha between the two cited above asks Muhammad: «Did He not find you going astray (ddll an } and then guide [you]?» (XCIII, 7). It is the plural form of this same crucial word, ddll, that occurs at the end of the well-known Fatiha, the prayer that serves as the first sura of the Kur’an: «Guide us on the straight path … not that of those who go astray (al-ddllin).»" Further support for this assumption is found in other verses of the Kur D an, such as XLII, 52: «You did not know what the Book or belief was», and in the Sira reports that Muhammad gave a polytheistic name, c Abd Manaf, to one of his sons (who, however, could simply have been named after Muhammad’s uncle and guardian who is better known by his kunya, Abu Talib [q. v. ]) and that two of his daughters were married to sons of his uncle c Abd al-'Uzza (Abu Lahab [q. v. ]), who is consistently said to have been an ardent defender of polytheism. One of the clearest examples of traditional Arabian beliefs that Muhammad retained after he began speaking publicly as a prophet of the God of the Jews and the Christians involves the ajinn [q.v.], who are mentioned frequently in Meccan portions of the Kurgan. He was certainly influenced by the manner of the old Arab, ^"mn-inspired (maajnun [q. v. ]) soothsayers and their peculiar form of speech called sadf [q.v.}, with its mysterious oaths and rhymed prose (see KAHIN, KURGAN, at vol. V, 421 f.; also Gesch. des Qpr., i, 36 ff.; Blachere, Lift., 222; and M. Zwettler, The Oral tradition of classical Arabic poetry, Columbus, Ohio 1978, 157 ff.)

Mecca with its sanctuary must have been a sanctified place in Muhammad’s eyes even before it was connected with Abraham and Ishmael, for the Kur D an accepts it as such from an early stage in his public recitations (XXVIII, 91; XXVIII, 57; XXIX, 67; CV, 1 ff; CVI, 1 ff). He must have accepted the sacrifices offered there (CVIII, 2), and his followers took part in the ancient Meccan pilgrimage rituals before he combined them to form the great Islamic Hadjdj [q.v.]. A fascinating verse that reveals the uncertain state of the old rituals before Muhammad’s Farewell Pilgrimage is II, 158, which seems to answer a question put to the Prophet: «Al-Safa and al-Marwa are among the landmarks (sha^ir) of God, so there is no fault in circumambulating them for those who make a pilgrimage to the House [the Ka c ba] or perform an’wrara.» This verse gives permission for Muhammad’s followers to perform the ancient sa^y before it acquired an Islamic meaning and was made obligatory for Muslims performing the Hadjdj. (For the customs and most likely meanings of the rituals involving al-Safa and al-Marwa in Muhammad’s time, see SA C Y.)

What one can deduce in this way from the Kur*an about Muhammad’s development is supplemented in an important way by tradition, according to which he was not alone in his search for a monotheistic religion. Various individuals are named who, dissatisfied with the old Arab polytheism, were seeking a more intellectual faith (cf. Ibn Hisham, 143-9). One in particular, Khadidja’s cousin, Waraka b. Nawfal [q.v.], who is mentioned in several interesting stories about Muhammad in the Stra literature, most likely played a larger role in the rise of Islam than is acknowledged in the sources. In addition there are the HanTfs [</•#•] of whom the traditions have preserved only a very hazy picture, and Umayya b. Abi '1-Salt whose poems often have points of contact with the Kurgan, which would be of great importance if they could even in part be regarded as genuine [see also MUSAYLIMA]. To what extent Muhammad was influenced by the various monotheistic ideas and movements that existed in Arabia in the early 7th century A.D. is difficult to determine. What is certain is that something happened that transformed his whole consciousness and filled him with a spiritual strength that decided the whole course of his life. He felt himself compelled to proclaim the revelations that were communicated to him in a mysterious way. Caetani has argued that Muhammad’s emergence as a religious reformer developed gradually and involved extended periods of meditation and reflection, referred to in the Sira literature as tahannuth (cf. Watt, Mecca, 44). Islamic tradition, on the other hand, also relates other stories, some involving the archangel Gabriel, that give the impression that Muhammad had a sudden «prophetic call» at some precise moment in his life. Several verses in the Kurgan, such as XLIV, 1-4, XCVII, 1, and II, 185, have been interpreted in such a way as to support this latter view (cf. Ibn Hisham, 155), but these verses are ambiguous and in fact contain no clear reference to a first revelation.

The traditional stories that identify either sura XCVI, 1 ff. or LXXIV, 1 ff. as the first revelation are highly suspect for several reasons. These stories interpret one or the other of these passages as the original command from God to Muhammad to begin reciting the revelation or warning the people. At the same time tradition claims that there was a fatra («pause») of three years between the time he received these «first revelations» and the time he began his public ministry. Taking these two claims together would mean that Muhammad waited for three years before carrying out the divine command. (For more substantive arguments based on a critical analysis of the history of the text of the KuPan, see Gesch. des Qor., i, 78-88; Watt, Mecca, 46-9.) This alleged fatra has not been fully explained and remains somewhat of an enigma. The concept of a fatra of three years in the revelations may have originated in the attempts of Muhammad’s biographers to construct an exact chronology of his life out of the conflicting reports of his age at the time of certain key events and of the lengths of his Meccan and Medinan periods of prophetic activity. One must also reckon with the possibility that the very earliest revelations were not written down or memorised by Muhammad’s followers and thus have been lost.

The Kurgan gives only a few hints about the manner of these inspirations. Perhaps the wrapping up (LXXIII, 1; LXXIV, 1) refers to a preparation for the reception of the revelations in the manner of the old Arab kdhins. We are taken further in an indirect way by the often recurring accusation of his enemies that Muhammad was ^'raw-possessed (madjnun [q. v. ]), a soothsayer (kdhin [q.v.]}, or a magician (sdhir), for they show that in his moments of inspiration he made an impression similar to those figures well known in ancient Arabia. The graphic descriptions of his condition in such moments may be regarded as genuine, since they are unlikely to have been invented by later Muslims. These mysterious seizures must have afforded to those around him the most convincing evidence for the superhuman origin of his inspirations. Whether he had such experiences before he began to see himself as a prophet of the God of the Jews and the Christians and, if so, how long he had had these experiences remains uncertain. The Sira accounts that affirm that at first Muhammad did not recognise these experiences as indications that he was being called to be a prophet may be an example of historical foreshortening or telescoping, i.e. reducing into a short time span what in fact lasted for a much longer period.

3. His public ministry in Mecca

Probably over a period of several years a new world of ideas began to fill him to an ever increasing extent, until he was finally compelled with irresistible force to come forth and proclaim them. Parts of the Kur D an that exemplify Muhammad’s early public recitations exhibit a passionately excited inspiration that is rarely matched in later parts of his career. These early recitations are based not on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal, which, however, was bound in Muhammad’s circumstances in Mecca to lead to a breach with the polytheists. Key themes in these early recitations include the idea of the moral responsibility of man who was created by God and the idea of the judgment to take place on the day of resurrection. To these are added vivid descriptions of the tortures of the damned in the hellfire and the pleasures of the believers in Paradise. Another major theme of Muhammad’s early preaching, before the onset of strong opposition from the powerful merchant families of Mecca, involves the signs of God in nature that should convince people who will take the time to reflect that there is a power greater than man’s, and that the wise will acknowledge this power and cease their greed and suppression of the poor. There is also a stress on the wonders of everyday life, especially the marvellous phenomenon of man (cf. Watt, Mecca, 62-72).

The religious duties that the Kur D an imposed on Muhammad and his followers during the Meccan years were simple and few in number: one should believe in God, appeal to Him for forgiveness of sins (XXIII, 1-11), offer prayers frequently, including long night vigils (XI, 114; LXXIII, 20; cf. LXXVI, 25 f.), assist others (especially those who are in need), free oneself from the love of delusive wealth and— what is significant for the commercial life of Mecca— from all forms of cheating (XXVI, 182 f.; cf. LV, 7-9), lead a chaste life, and not expose new-born girls to die in the desert, a barbarous custom that was sometimes practiced in Arabia in Muhammad’s time (for reasons of poverty according to VI, 151 and XVII, 31). These are some of the qualities of the truly pious person who in the Kur’an is sometimes called a muslim (LXVIII, 35; XXI, 108, etc.) sometimes a hamf (X, 105; XXX, 30; XCIII, 5; cf. VI, 79 and the article), but more frequently simply a believer (mu^miri).

At first Muhammad met with no serious opposition and in not a few cases his preaching fell on fruitful soil. In the words addressed to Salih in sura XI, 62 we may find a hint that Muhammad had at first aroused considerable expectations among the Meccans. In addition to Khadldja, who is consistently said to have been the first believer, and several men including Abu Bakr, the manumitted slave Zayd b. Haritha, Zubayr b. al- c Awwam, Talha b. c Ubayd Allah, c Abd al-Rahman b. c Awf, Sa c d b. Abi Wakkas, and Muhammad’s cousin C AH [q.vv. ], who are also said to have been among the early followers of Muhammad, the sources mention a number of other converts in Mecca, the majority of whom appear to have been young or of no great social standing, while the well-to-do and influential held back (XIX, 73; XXXIV, 31 ff; LXXIII, 11; LXXX, 1 ff; for a detailed analysis of the social standing and the tribal affiliations of the Meccan converts, see Watt, Mecca, 88-96). This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad’s preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town. Up until this point most Meccans appear to have had little interest in devotional meetings, and thus had been rather indifferent to Muhammad’s activities.

He was only gradually led to attack on principle the gods of Mecca (see Welch, Allah and other supernatural beings, 734-43). The Meccan sanctuary, he said, belonged to the one true God, «Allah», whom the Meccans also recognised as the High God (XXXI, 25; XXXIX, 38; XIII, 12 where «Allah» is the lord of the Ka c ba) and he will protect and bless his sanctuary, if they submit to him (XXVII, 91; XXVIII, 57; XXIX, 67; CVI, 1 ff). Meccan merchants then discovered that a religious revolution might be dangerous to their fairs and their trade. That this was the salient feature of their resistance to Muhammad is evident from the fact that the Kurgan frequently endeavours to calm the fears of the Kuraysh on this point. The merchants of Mecca tended to have conservative attitudes about religious beliefs and practices, and they let their animosity to Muhammad’s new and fantastic ideas be known, particularly regarding belief in a physical resurrection of the dead. Muhammad’s strength lay in the consciousness that he lived in a higher intellectual world that was closed to the polytheists and that he proclaimed ideas, «the equal of which neither men nor djinn with combined efforts could produce» (XVII, 88). Very pertinently he often points to the lack of logic in his enemies, when they recognise «Allah» as the real true God but will not draw the logical deductions from this. But even his most crushing arguments rebounded from the impregnable wall of their prejudices that were based on their material interest. This circumstance now began to influence the matter of his preaching in a very remarkable way. When his opponents mocked him because the divine judgment threatened by him did not come (XXXVIII, 16; LXX, 1 ff.) he began to describe in an increasing degree how the contemporaries of earlier prophets had met them with incredulity and had therefore brought on their heads dreadful punishments (Bell-Watt, 127-34). That this threat of terrestrial punishment was not part of the earliest revelations is evident from the fact that Muhammad’s preaching, according to the already mentioned credible tradition, at first gave no offence, and indeed this feature is lacking in the suras that appear to be the oldest.

The new religious ideas that Muhammad proclaimed are associated in the Kurgan with the People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), an expression that refers to the Jewish and Christian communities. That Muhammad was conscious of this association is clear from the repeated statements in the Kur D an that emphasise the agreement between its teachings and those of the Jews and the Christians. In a significant passage, sura X, 94, the Kur D an even challenges Muhammad’s opponents to consult the People of the Book for irrefutable evidence of the truth of his message: «If you are in doubt about what We have revealed, ask those who read the Book before you.» During the Meccan years it is quite evident that Muhammad had no thought of founding a new religion. His task was only to be a «warner» (nadhir [q.v.]) (LI, 50; LXXIV, 2; LXXIX, 45; LXXX, 11; LXXXVIII, 21 ff; and Welch, Muhammad’s understanding, 41 ff), charged with the task of informing the Arabs, to whom no prophet had been sent before (VI, 157; XXVIII, 46; XXXII, 3; XXXIV, 44; XXXVI, 6), that the day of judgment was approaching. This warning, which previously was not directly accessible to the Arabs, was now proclaimed as a clear Arabic recitation (kur^dn c arabi) so that Muhammad’s people could be saved from the divine wrath. The Jews and Christians must thus also testify to the truth of his preaching (X, 94; XVI, 43; XXI, 7; XXVI, 197; XXVIII, 52, etc.), since the same revelation had been sent down to them previously.

It is in this context that the meaning of the often discussed term ummT[q.v.] is best understood. As applied to Muhammad in sura VII, 157, the term appears to mean «one who has not previously been given the Book of God» and is the antithesis of the People of the Book, that is, those who already had versions of the Book of God (kitdb Allah) in their own languages. Muhammad was the Mraraf-prophet only during the period before he began to prepare a written scripture for his community (see AL-KUR D AN, at 403-4). This interpretation does not affect the question as to whether or not Muhammad was able to read and write, except as the term might have had connotations of his inability to read the Jewish and Christian scrip- tures (see Wensinck, in AO, i/1, 191). As a merchant he must have had some knowledge of reading and writing Arabic. In a key passage on this question, XXV, 4-6, Muhammad’s opponents are quoted as saying that «he has written down» (iktatabd) «stories of the ancients … that are recited to him morning and evening», and the Kur D an (in verse 6) does not deny this accusation, but simply affirms that what Muhammad was reciting had been inspired by God. It was only in later theological circles that the term ummi acquired the now common meaning, «illiterate», as scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the miracle of Muhammad’s reception of the revelation from God through Gabriel (cf AL-KUR^AN, at 403; Gesch. des Qpr., i, 14; Bell-Watt, 33 f.; and, for comments on the European literature on the meaning ummi and its plural form ummiyyun in the Kurgan, Paret, Kommentar, 21 f).

Traditions record at great length the persecution and ill-treatment that Muhammad and his followers suffered at the hands of the Meccan polytheists (e.g., Ibn Hisham, 205-7). These reports play a significant role in several episodes that are presented in the Sira literature as major events in the life of Muhammad in his Meccan period, but are unfortunately more or less obscure and may be interpreted in various equally uncertain ways. In addition to the inevitable differences in the biographical sources, one other key factor makes it difficult to reconstruct with any confidence the main stages in Muhammad’s life before the Hidjra. While the Kurgan refers frequently to major events in the life of Muhammad and the Muslim community that occurred in Medina after the Hidjra, often treating these events in some detail, it is virtually silent on the episodes that the Sim reports as major events in Muhammad’s Meccan years. In light of the fact that the Kurgan responds constantly and candidly to Muhammad’s historical situation (see K. Gragg, The event of the Qur^dn, London 1971, and Welch, Muhammad’s understanding, 15-52), its silence on these allegedly major Meccan events is significant. One example involves the various accounts of the emigration of some of Muhammad’s followers from Mecca to Abyssinia. Ibn Sa c d reports and discusses two separate events: «the first hidjra to Abyssinia» (i/1, 136-8) and «the second hidjra to Abyssinia» (i/1, 138 f.). He says that most of the emigrants in the first group returned to Mecca before the Hidjra to Medina, while most of the second group were still in Abyssinia at the time of the Hidjra, so that when they left there they went directly to Medina. Ibn Hisham (205-17) speaks of only one migration of Muslims from Mecca to Abyssinia, as does al-Tabarf (i, 1180-4), who, after discussing the circumstances and giving the names of the first ten to go, concludes his account by saying: "Then Dja c far b. Abf Talib emigrated, and after that there was a steady stream of Muslims. These accounts agree that persecution in Mecca played a major role in Muhammad’s decision to suggest that a number of his followers seek refuge among the Christians in Abyssinia. Watt (Mecca, 109-17) has shown, however, that the episode was far more complex than is suggested by the traditional accounts. He concludes that there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca. According to the well-known letter of c Urwa (preserved in al-Taban, i, 1180 ff.) most of these emigrants returned to their native town when Islam had become strengthened by the accession to its ranks of a number of individuals of position in Mecca, such as c Umar b. al-Khattab [q.v.] (Ibn Hisham, 224-31) and Muhammad’s uncle, Hamza [q. v. ] (al-Tabarl, i, 1187f).

At the same time there is a quite different story on their return to Mecca that has been much discussed. Al-Tabarf (i, 1192-6) relates that Muhammad was reciting Surat al-Nadjm (LIII) on an occasion when a number of Meccan polytheists were present «in the mosque» [?] and that when he came to the names of three of their favourite deities, al-Lat, al- c Uzza and Manat [q. v. ] (who are mentioned by name in what are now verses 19 and 20), Satan «cast on his tongue» two short verses: «These are the high-flying ones (ghardnik, lit. „cranes“) / whose intercession is to be hoped for.» Taking these verses to mean that Muhammad had accepted their goddesses as divine beings whose intercession with God (who for them was a High God) was effectual, the polytheists who were present prostrated with the Muslims when the Prophet came to the last verse of the sura, which says «So prostrate yourselves before God and serve him.» According to the story this led to a general reconciliation between Muhammad and the Meccans, and the Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia began to return home. By the time they arrived, however, the archangel Gabriel had informed Muhammad that the two ghardnik verses were not part of the revelation, but had been inserted by Satan. The returning Muslims thus had to make arrangements for clan protection before they could re-enter Mecca.

This curious story, which is also found in Ibn Sa c d (i/1, 137 f.) but not in Ibn Hisham and presumably not in Ibn Ishak, is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention. Most European biographers of Muhammad, on the other hand, accept it as historical on the assumption that it is inconceivable that later Muslims could have invented it (e.g., Watt, Mecca, 103). This reason, however, is in itself insufficient. The story in its present form (as related by al-Taban, al-Wakidf, and Ibn Sa c d) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons given in AL-KUR^AN, at 404. This does not rule out the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story. It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad’s contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad’s gradual «emergence as a religious reformer» and with evidence from the Kur D an that a strict monotheism arose in stages over an extended period of time during Muhammad’s Meccan years (cf. Welch, Allah and other supernatural beings, 736-43).

It is just as difficult to elucidate another episode of the Meccan period, the story of the boycott of the Banu Hashim. Muhammad’s whole position during his struggle with the Meccans was made possible only by the support given him by his own family, the clan of Hashim. Most members of the family chivalrously fulfilled their duty in this respect, even though only a few of them believed in his prophetic call. His uncle, c Abd al- c Uzza [Abu Lahab] appears to be the only influential member of the family who staunchly opposed him. This opposition became so severe that Abu Lahab came to be perpetually damned in the Kurgan along with his wife in sura CXI. It would thus not be unnatural in itself for the Meccans in the end to attempt to make the whole family innocuous without bringing on themselves the guilt of bloodshed by an open attack. The part of the story, however, that tells how they forced the Banu Hashim to withdraw into their own part of the town and pledged them-selves to refrain from intermarriage or commerce with them is probably much exaggerated. That the effort finally failed in its primary objective is conceded by the story itself. On the other hand, it is quite possible that Khadfdja’s fortune may have suffered considerably from Muhammad’s obligations to his needy followers and from the enmity of the influential merchant princes. Here again the Kur D an is silent on an episode that the Sira presents as a major event in Muhammad’s life, and we are left with more questions than answers.

4. His last years in Mecca before the Hidjra The sources are somewhat fuller for the major events during Muhammad’s last years in and around Mecca before the Hidjra, although late tendentious historiography has coloured much in the traditions. According to c Urwa’s account, Muhammad did succeed in winning a few notables in Mecca (including probably c Umar) for his teaching, after the emigration of a number of his followers to Abyssinia. On the whole, however, his attempt at a religious reform of his native city must be regarded as having failed. When his wife KhadTdja and his uncle and guardian Abu Talib died within a short period of time, his position gradually became more and more hopeless. He could now have consoled himself with the thought that he had done his duty as a «warner» and could regard it as the will of God that his people were not to be saved (cf. X, 99; XLIII, 89). But the consciousness of being a chosen instrument of God had gradually become so powerful within him that he was no longer able to sink back into an inglorious existence with his objective unachieved. He then made an attempt to establish himself in Ta°if, but according to the reports this effort failed and indeed brought him into physical danger. After this unsuccessful journey to Ta°if, the Sira accounts say he obtained protection from a Meccan man named Mut c im b. c AdI, who is said to have taken the discouraged prophet under his wing, thereby providing safety so he could re-enter his native city. (This report is corroborated in a poem by Hassan b. Thabit, no. 88.)

It is at this low point in Muhammad’s life that some Sira accounts place the famous Night Journey and Ascension. Ibn Sa c d relates his versions of the mi c radl [q.v.] (i/1, 142 f.) and then the wro D (i/l, 143-5) as two separate events that occurred after Muhammad’s visit to Ta°if. He even gives exact dates for these two events, saying that Muhammad’s Ascension to heaven from near the Ka c ba («between the Makam Ibrahim and Zamzam»} occurred «on the night of Saturday, 27 Ramadan, eighteen months before the Hidjra», and that his Night Journey from the sanctuary in Mecca to the sanctuary in Jerusalem (bayt al-mukaddas) occurred on «the seventeenth night of [the last] Rabi*- I before the Hidjra». As is well known, in later tradition these two stories came to be combined into one. It should also be noted that other Sira accounts place these events at different times in Muhammad’s prophetic career. Ibn Hisham reports accounts of the Night Journey first (263-8) and then the Ascension to heaven (268-71), and he places these accounts before the deaths of Khadidja and Abu Talib. Al-Tabarl (i, 1157-9) includes only the story of Muhammad’s Ascension from the sanctuary in Mecca to «the earthly heaven», where Gabriel led the Prophet through each of the seven heavens, «and then he took him to Paradise», where Gabriel picked up a handful of «its earth» and it had the fragrance of musk. Al-Tabari places this story before the beginning of Muhammad’s public ministry, between his account of Khadldja becoming «the first to believe in the Messenger of God» and his account of «the first male to believe in the Messenger of God». Eventually these two events were combined so that the terminus of the Night Journey was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where Muhammad led the earlier prophets in a performance of the saldt, made his Ascension to heaven from the raised stone protrusion that is now enclosed within the famous Dome of the Rock, and then Gabriel and Muhammad returned to Mecca, completing the Night Journey. It is Muhammad’s association with the Temple Mount in this two-part story that makes Jerusalem the third holiest city, after Mecca and Medina, for Muslims [see AL-KUDS and AL-MASDJID AL-AKSA].

Despite the harsh reception he received in Ta°if, but possibly buoyed by the Ascension experience, if indeed it occurred at this time, and even if it was a vision or a dream (for we know that personalities such as his can have emotionally powerful vision and dream experiences), Muhammad persevered in his search for a new sphere of activity outside of Mecca. The large number of tribes who came to Mecca for the spring and fall fairs and market days and also to perform the pilgrimage rituals at the Ka c ba provided excellent opportunities for Muhammad to attempt to arrange for a new home for himself and his followers. After several unsuccessful negotiations he found favourable soil for his hopes with some men from Yathrib (later called Medina). The fact that he had relations there may have made the task of reaching an agreement easier. Fortunately we know something about conditions in Medina just before the rise of Islam, but our knowledge is still meagre and much of importance is still conjectural. We may safely assume that the large number of Jews who lived there had contributed towards making the Arab population somewhat familiar with monotheistic ideas (cf. Ibn Hisham, 178; Wensinck, Jews of Medina, 6-38; and Newby, Jews of Arabia, 49-77).

There is however no question that the Medinans did not so much want to attract an inspired preacher to themselves as to get a political leader, who could re-adjust their political relations, which had been shattered in recent tribal conflicts that culminated in the battle of Bu c ath [q. v. ]. The responsibility Muhammad contemplated was awesome, for it would mean his taking responsibility for the safety and welfare of his followers, who would be breaking the links that bound them to their tribes and families. Muhammad would have to assume not only the immense responsibilities of a tribal chief, in relation to his followers who would emigrate with him, but also the challenge of settling disputes among largely unknown tribes who had longstanding grievances among one another.

With this we are faced with one of the most difficult problems in the biography of Muhammad, the double personality that he presents to us so clearly in the sources. The inspired religious enthusiast, whose ideas mainly centred around the coming last judgment, who had borne all insults and attacks, who only timidly touched on the possibility of active resistance (XVI, 126) and preferred to leave everything to God’s intervention, now with his migration to Medina enters upon a secular stage and at one stroke shows himself a brilliant political genius. The decisive point however is that the Medinans would certainly not have thought of seeking in him a saviour from their social and political difficulties if they had not been much impressed by his abilities in this direction. After Muhammad had entered into relations with some Medinans who had come as pilgrims to Mecca in 621, the latter began to spread Islam in their native town along with men whom he had sent there, and thus he was able after a preliminary conference in al-c Akaba [q. v. ] to conclude at the pilgrimage next year (622) at the same place a formal agreement with a considerable number of Medinans, in which they pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to take him into their community and to protect him as one of their own citizens, which, as later history shows, was also to hold for his Meccan followers if they moved to Medina. Tradition, and no doubt rightly, mentions here only the promise of the Medinans to take Muhammad under their protection, without any further obligations.

These negotiations, which could not remain unknown to the Meccans, produced great bitterness, and a second fitna, as c Urwa says, began for the believers, which would have confirmed them even more in their determination to migrate to Medina. They are reported to have slipped away in large and small groups, so that finally only Muhammad and Abu Bakr, with the latter’s servant, were left. (Other accounts, possibly Sh^T, say C A1I also remained in Mecca until the last moment.) That the Prophet did not go with the others was most likely part of his plan to keep the Hidjra as unobtrusive as possible. Just how successful the Meccan leaders could have been if they had wanted to prevent the departure of Muhammad and his followers is difficult to say. It seems most likely that at the time of the Hidjra the Meccans did not see Muhammad as a threat to them whether he was in Mecca or in Medina. The traditional story, which in any case is embellished with later legendary details, that has Muhammad and Abu Bakr remain- ing in Mecca until all the other Muslims had safely left and then hiding out in a cave may have some support from the well-known verse in the Kurgan that begins "If you do not help him (Muhammad), yet God has helped him already when the unbelievers (of Mecca) drove him forth with a companion, and the two of them were in the cave when he (Muhammad) said to his companion (Abu Bakr): 'Do not be afraid, for God is with us' " (IX, 40). On the other hand, since this verse is so ambiguous without the interpolations, it is just as feasible that the story about the Prophet and Abu Bakr hiding out in a cave is a later exegetical materialisation of this Kur 3 anic verse.

C. Muhammad in Medina

The year of the great migration, Hidjra [q. v. ], of the Prophet and his followers from his native town of Mecca to Yathrib [q.v.], later called Medina (from madinat al-nabi, «the city of the Prophet»), was with good reason chosen as year 1 of the Islamic calendar, for it marks the beginning of the ten-year period in the life of Muhammad when he led in the establishment of a new religious community that in a remarkably short time developed into one of the great civilisations of world history. According to the usual calculation, he arrived in Kuba°, a suburb of Medina, on 12 Rabf c I 1/24 September 622. The tasks that awaited him called for extraordinary diplomatic and organising skills, and he demonstrated that he was in every way equal to the challenge.

1. The initial political situation

At first Muhammad could rely with confidence only on those who had emigrated with him from Mecca, the so-called Emigrants (muhadjirun [q. v. ]). These ardent followers, who maintained their support of Muhammad and their belief in his cause during the difficult Meccan years, came to have a special rank among the Muslims. Some Medinans accepted Islam before Muhammad arrived there, but they formed only a small portion of the inhabitants of the Prophet’s adopted city. Slowly at first and then in larger numbers the Medinans adopted Islam. Those who became Muslims during Muhammad’s lifetime, called Helpers (ansdr [q. v. ]), also came to have a special rank within the community second only to the Emigrants. Among the Arab tribes of Medina, Muhammad encountered direct opposition only from a few families, such as the Aws Allah. There were others who did not oppose him openly, but accepted the new relations reluctantly. Among these a particularly troublesome group gathered around a man of the Khazradj tribe named c Abd Allah b. Ubayy [q.v.], who managed to let slip away every occasion on which he might have successfully weakened Muhammad’s position. A further danger lay in the fact that an old and bitter feud between the two main Arab tribes of Medina, the Aws and the Khazradj [q. vv.], continued and could have broken out into the open at any time. In addition to the Arab tribes of Medina there were a number of Jewish groups, the most prominent being the so-called kahinan, i.e. the tribes of al-Nadfr and Kurayza(cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 216; Ibn Hisham, 660). Among the other Jewish groups the Kaynuka c tribe appears to have been the most important. These three Jewish tribes played a significant part in Medina because of their wealth and the support they had among the Jewish colonies in Khaybar [q.v,] and other settlements to the north. During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there in the hope that as native Arabic speakers they would accept his claim to be God’s one true prophet to the Arabs. His relations with any Christians who may have been in Medina (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 133) can only be surmised from references in the Kurgan. After it became clear that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad’s claim to prophethood, the Kurgan gives the impression that his opinion of the Christians also gradually deteriorated (V, 82; LVII, 27). Muhammad’s task was to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements. The first problem to be tackled was how to procure the necessary means of subsistence for the Emigrants, who for the most part were without resources of their own. This difficulty was alleviated at least temporarily through an arrangement by which Muhammad ordered a relationship of «brotherhood» to be created between each Emigrant and a man of Medina [see MU^AKHAT]. Sura XXXIII, 6, dating from some time after the battle of Badr, is usually interpreted as abolishing this «brotherhood» arrangement, at least in matters of inheritance (cf. Ibn Hisham, 344-6; Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 1). A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from Muhammad’s first year in Medina, as is some-times claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and Muhammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved (cf. R. Serjeant, The Sunnah Jami c ah, pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the tahrfm of Yathrib: analysts and translation of the documents comprised in the so-called 'Constitution of Medina', in BSOAS, xli [1978], 1-42). The provisions stipulated in this document appear to have had little practical importance. It is nowhere mentioned in the KuPan, although some commentators interpret sura VIII, 56 as referring to it. In any case, it was soon rendered obsolete by the rapidly and radically changing conditions in Medina.

2. Establishing a theocracy in Medina

Evidence of Muhammad’s political wisdom and personal determination to establish his position as God’s one true prophet to the Arabic-speaking people is seen in his early endeavours in Medina to attract the Jewish people there to his cause by adopting some features of their worship and customs. For instance, he made the tenth of Muharram a fast day for Muslims, apparently a one-day twenty-four hour fast, like Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) that the Jewish community observes on the tenth of Tishri (in the Jewish calendar). That this temporary Islamic practice, which apparently was kept for only one year, was based on _the Jewish custom is seen clearly even in its name, ^Ashuro? [q.v.], derived from the Aramaic and used by some Jews in Arabia for Yom Kippur (cf. Watt, Medina, 198 f. for a brief discussion of the major Arabic sources). The Jewish practice of having three daily prayer rituals appears to have been a factor in the introduction of the Islamic midday saldt, referred to in sura II, 238 as «the middle prayer ritual» (al-saldt al-wusta), which was added to the morning and evening saldts kept by Muhammad and at least some of his followers in Mecca before the Hidjra. The Islamic weekly community worship service in the early afternoon on Fridays, which may have been instituted before Muhammad’s arrival in Medina, was most likely influenced indirectly by the Jewish «day of preparation» for the Sabbath, which begins on Friday evenings at sundown. Friday in Medina during Muhammad’s time was thus the main weekly market day when the largest number of Muslims from the surrounding areas came to town, providing an ideal time for the Islamic weekly congregational worship service (cf. Ibn Sa c d, iii/1, 83, and S.D. Goitein, The origin and nature of the Muslim Friday worship, in MW, xlix [1959], 185 = Studies in Islamic history and institutions, Leiden 1966, 113).

Whether the adoption of the Jewish practice of facing north towards Jerusalem when performing the daily prayers, a practice that was discontinued after Muhammad’s first year in Medina, was part of his campaign to win the Medinan Jews to Islam is uncertain, since the statements about the kibla [q.v.] of the Muslims in Mecca before the Hidjra differ. It is unlikely that Muhammad and his followers faced towards the Ka c ba in Mecca before the Hidjra, since it would then be difficult to explain how the varying stories about the Muslim practice there could have arisen. If Muhammad and his followers did use Jerusalem as their kibla before the Hidjra, this practice need not necessarily mean a borrowing from the Jews, since this direction of prayer was used also by other groups in the Near East, such as the Ebionites and the Elkesaites (cf. H.J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (1969); Tor Andrae, Mohammed, 100 ff.) In Mecca the Muslims may have turned to the east like some Christian groups, or they may have had no kibla at all. The Kur D an is silent on this crucial point in the life of Muhammad and the rise of Islam. The balance of probability is in favour of the assumption that the Muslim use of the Jerusalem kibla during Muhammad’s first year in Medina was just one among several temporary practices that appear to have been adopted as part of the Prophet’s attempt to win over the flourishing Jewish community there.

If some writers have seen in the immediate construction of a place of prayer (Ibn Hisham, 336) an imitation of the Jewish synagogues, Caetani has with weighty reasons argued that this was not a building definitely assigned to the worship of God, since the alleged masdjid was also used for all kinds of secular purposes, because in reality it was simply the courtyard (ddr) occupied by Muhammad and his family, while the assemblies for regular worship were held on the musalld [q.v. and AL-MADINA]. On the other hand, the so-called «mosque of opposition» (masdjid dirdr), mentioned in sura IX, 107 (see below), does seem to have been an actual building recalling the Jewish synagogue.

In spite of these overtures to the Jews in Medina, it soon became obvious that Muhammad’s goal of winning them over was not going to be realised. Although they may have cherished lively expectations (Ibn Hisham, 286, 373 f.) they were not willing to recognise an Arab as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, and Muhammad soon had reason to lament that only a few among them believed in him (sura III, 110). In particular, the lack of agreement between what he recited as the Book of God, said to be identical with the Book previously sent down to the prophet Moses, and what the Jews in Medina knew of their scriptures aroused Jewish ridicule and thus brought him into an unfortunate position. His convic- tion of the divine origin of his mission and his position among the believers would not allow him to believe he was mistaken regarding the identity of the versions of the Book of God sent down to Moses, Jesus, and now to him. At the same time, he had too often appealed to the testimony of those to whom the Book had been sent down previously, the People of the Book, to be able to ignore this criticism. The issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the Muslims by the assertions in the Kurgan that the Jews had received only a portion of the revelation (IV, 44; cf. Ill, 119) and that even this included a number of special laws adapted to an earlier age (IV, 160; VI, 146; XVI, 118). Still he challenged them to produce their scriptures (III, 93; cf. Ill, 181 ff. and IV, 46). Muhammad’s Jewish opponents in Medina were then accused of concealing from him parts of their holy scriptures (II, 42, 146, 159, 174; III, 77, etc.) and even of fabricating verses and then claiming they were in their scriptures (II, 59; IV, 46; V, 13,47; VII, 162; cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 96). He also came to believe that the Christian scriptures did not preserve the actual message and teachings of the Prophet Jesus [see TAHRIF].

Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research. For instance, in traditional Muslim belief Muhammad is the «last and greatest of the prophets», a concept that is most likely based on a later interpretation of the expression «seal of the prophets» (khdtam al-nabiyyin) that is applied to Muhammad in sura XXXIII, 40. Also, he is regarded not as a «founder» but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham. It should not be surprising that it was at the very time when these concepts were being proclaimed by the Kurgan, during the early years after the Hidjra, that historians see the emergence of a new religious community and tradition founded by Muhammad, a man of extraordinary perception and skills. In particular, the opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews' rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This decisive change in the course of Islam occurred in the second year of the Hidjra (July 623-June 624), and was signaled by the much discussed «change of the kibla» from Jerusalem to the ancient sanctuary of the Ka c ba in Mecca, which is treated at some length in the Kur’an (II, 142-50). Muhammad’s native town thus became the centre of true religion, the focal point for the daily prayer rituals and the much desired object of the annual pilgrimage, adopted in theory fairly early in the Medinan years, but not performed as an Islamic ritual until the Prophet’s last years. At the same time Muhammad was emancipated from the ridicule and protestations of the religious communities that he regarded as having been founded by his self-proclaimed models, Moses and Jesus.

This nationalisation of Islam gave Muhammad a certain legitimation and broadened his authority as he came forward as the restorer of the religion of Abraham (millat Ibrahim) that had been distorted by the Jews and Christians. Abraham, claimed by Jews and Christians alike as the progenitor of their faith, now became the great hanif[q. v. ] and first muslim («a person fully surrendered to the one true God»), in contrast not only to the polytheists but now also to the People of the Book: «Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian; he was an upright person, a muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists» (sura III, 67; cf. II, 135; III, 95; VI, 161, and XVI, 123, all of which, contrary to some traditional views, appear to date from the early Medinan years; see Bell-Watt, 99, 119). Abraham and his son Ishmael, regarded as the ancestor of the Arabs, were then said to have founded the Meccan sanctuary and the rites celebrated there (II, 125 ff.; XXII, 26 ff.) and it was Muhammad’s task to restore the ancient rites to their original monotheistic state, since they had been corrupted by the polytheists. Whether this identification of Abraham as the first monotheist (an idea that met with opposition from the People of the Book according to sura III, 65) originated in the context of Muhammad’s dispute with the Jews in Medina or was already in existence, for example among Arabicised Jews, remains uncertain. One point that can be accepted, contrary to modern defenders of the traditional dating and interpretations of the relevant verses of the Kurgan (e.g. Fazlur Rahman, Major themes of the Qur^dn, Minneapolis 1980, 142 f.), is that it is highly unlikely that Muhammad was acquainted with the idea of the connection between Abraham and the Ka c ba before the Hidjra since this relationship occurs nowhere in the numerous Meccan passages that treat the significance of the Kaba.

At the same time that these important developments were occurring in Islamic rituals, Muhammad’s personal position was being gradually changed by the altered conditions. According to the already mentioned Constitution of Medina, all important matters were to be laid before God and His Messenger. It thus became a fundamental duty of the believers to be obedient to God and to Muhammad (III, 132; IV, 13 f., 59 [where it is added: '«and to those among you who have to exercise authority»]; V, 92; XXIV, 52, 54), and those who are disobedient are threatened with the tortures of hell (IX, 63). Alongside of the required belief in God now appeared «belief in His Messenger» (XLVIII, 9; LXIV, 8 etc.). God is his protector, as is Gabriel; and the angels are at his disposal (LXVI, 4).

3. The accounts of Muhammad’s expeditions

The elevation of Mecca to be the centre of Islam imposed on Muhammad a new task that he surely foresaw. When visiting the holy places in and around Mecca became a duty of the Muslims, it became inevitable that some way would have to be found for them to gain entrance to the sacred territory from which they were excluded (XXII, 25 f.). Since some peaceful agreement appeared most unlikely, the result was the inevitable necessity of forcing admission to Mecca. The Prophet also had an account to settle with the Meccans, for by expelling him they had trium- phed over him in the eyes of the world and the punishment repeatedly threatened upon them, partly in the form of the stereotyped retribution of the godless in the «punishment stories», had not materialised. This led to a new divine command, referred to in the Sim literature as «permission to fight» the polytheists. The Helpers had pledged themselves to defend Muhammad only if he were attacked, and the merchants of Mecca were not inclined to oblige him by initiating hostilities. The Emigrants had not pledged to fight, and it went very much against their feelings as Meccans to fight members of their tribe and blood relations. How much their resistance vexed Muhammad can be seen in the Kur D an where vigorous reproaches are made against his followers in this connection (II, 216; XXII, 38 ff. etc.). After he had sent different men with small armed forces who did not succeed in encountering the enemy, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Nakhla [q.v.] (Ibn Hisham, 423-7; Watt, Medina, 5-9), where they succeeded in capturing a caravan. One of the Meccans was killed, however, and, although possibly unplanned, the fighting took place during the month of Radjab, one of the sacred months in which all fighting was forbidden. The rich plunder was taken to Medina, where in the meanwhile a storm of indignation had broken out. The people eventually accepted the tragedy, after being calmed by the revelation of II, 217.

The success of this coup had such an effect in Medina that not only the Emigrants but also a number of Helpers offered their services when Muhammad appealed for followers in Ramadan 2 A.H. in a new raid, which he himself was to lead. He had learned that a rich Meccan caravan was on its way south from Syria and he decided to ambush it at Badr [q.v.}. The very cautious Abu Sufyan [q.v.] who was leading the caravan got wind of his plan, however, and sent messengers on a swift journey to Mecca for help. By the time the force of Meccans arrived and camped near Badr, the caravan had reached Mecca safely by following a diversion route along the coast. The angered Meccans, under the leadership of Abu Djahl [q.v.], one of the most prominent men of Mecca, had an army that is said to have been three times the size of Muhammad’s forces, said to have been about 300 men, and he was unwilling to let the opportunity of properly chastising his troublesome enemy escape. Soon after the Meccans camped near Badr, Muhammad arrived with his men, expecting to meet Abu Sufyan’s helpless caravan. When the Muslims and their supporters discovered that the caravan had escaped and that a military confrontation with the Meccans and their allies was imminent, they were filled with fear (VIII, 5 ff.; cf. the continuation of c Urwa’s account in al-Tabarf, i, 1284 f.). The Prophet, however, saw in the encounter a portentous dispensation of God, who wished to force the polytheists into battle. Muhammad’s charisma and remarkable power of suggestion were able to inspire his men so that they completely routed the far more numerous enemy. A number of the Meccans, including Abu Djahl, were slain and several, including Muhammad’s uncle, al- c Abbas, were captured as prisoners and taken to Medina. Muhammad had two of them, al-Nadr and c Ukba b. Abi Mu c ayt, put to death, while the others were held for ransom (Ibn Hisham, 457-61).

The battle of Badr, which might seem small and insignificant from a modern perspective, must be judged in light of the conditions of Muhammad’s time. See the observations by Doughty (Travels, ii, 378) and Glubb (Muhammad, 179 ff.), both of whom knew the country well. This battle became of the utmost significance for the history of Islam. Muhammad saw in the victory a powerful confirmation of his belief in the one true God (VIII, 17, 65; III, 123; cf. Ka c b b. Malik, in Ibn Hisham, 520 f.) and in his own call. Also, because the commercial city of Mecca enjoyed such great prestige in Arabia, anyone who was able to defeat its forces in battle was bound to attract all eyes to himself. He therefore displayed even greater energy and was able to utilise the advantages he had won. After completing the arrangement for ransom for the Meccan prisoners, Muhammad began to besiege the Jewish tribe of Kaynuka c in their forts. The Munafikun [q.v.] did not dare to oppose him seriously by openly supporting the Kaynuka c, and the other Jewish groups left their co-religionists in the lurch (cf. LIX, 14) so that this first Jewish tribe was forced to leave their longtime home in Medina and move north to other Jewish settlements. In order to protect himself and his followers from attacks from other foes in the northern part of the Hidjaz [q. v. ], Muhammad at this time adopted a plan that is a further proof of his outstanding political ability. He concluded alliances with a number of Bedouin tribes in which the two parties pledged them-selves to assist one another. (For examples of two such treaties made by Muhammad, along with a brief analysis and references to the Arabic sources, see Watt, Medina, 362-5.)

In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr. An army said to number 3,000 men was equipped and set out for Medina with much display under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, who was clearly the most prominent leader in Mecca after the death of Abu Djahl at Badr. Although several of his followers advised Muhammad to make his defence within the Medinan settlement, he decided to go out with his forces, which at the last moment were much reduced by the departure of the Munafikun, and took up a position on the lower slopes of the hill of Uhud [q.v.]. In spite of the numerical superiority of the Meccans, the fighting at first went in favour of the Muslims, until a number of archers who had been placed to defend his flank left their position, against Muhammad’s express orders, to pursue some of the Meccan fighters who appeared to be retreating. This at once enabled the keen military strategist, Khalid b. al-Walid, to secure a superior position on the slopes of Uhud. The tables were now turned and many of the Muslims began to flee, especially when the rumour spread that the Prophet had fallen (cf. sura III, 144). In reality he was only wounded and escaped with a few faithful followers through a ravine on the south side of the hill. Fortunately for him, the Meccans were unwilling to follow up their victory and, thinking that Muhammad had been punished enough and their honour had been reestablished, they turned quietly back to Mecca. The Prophet was thus saved from the worst, but he had to lament many fallen friends including his uncle, Hamza. His newly acquired prestige naturally suffered. With all the eloquence in his power he endeavoured to raise the morale of his followers by exhortation and censure alike (cf. Ibn Hisham, 592—606, and sura III, 118 f., 139-60, 165-80). In this strategy he succeeded since the expected negative consequences of his setback at Uhud did not materialise in Medina.

Some of the Jews in Medina who had taken no part in the fighting made no secret of their delight at his misfortune. It was thus all the more necessary to make an example, and a second Medinan Jewish tribe, the Banu '1-Nadir, obliged Muhammad by providing justification for his action against them. Tradition imputes all sorts of crimes to them, but their actual offences are difficult to determine. The Kur’an says simply that they defied God and his Messenger (LIX, 4). After a siege of several weeks (al-Tabari, i, 1850) they were expelled from Medina and forced to immigrate to Khaybar and other Jewish settlements in the north. They left behind them their weapons and their gold and silver as a rich booty, the distribution of which on this occasion Muhammad reserved for himself (LIX, 6 ff.). While Muhammad was endeavouring to restore his weakened authority, a new and threatening storm came upon him and Medina from Mecca. The Kuraysh, whose caravans were being continually harassed by him (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 16 f.) and who were urged on by the Jews of Khaybar. recognised that the victory at Uhud had not seriously weakened Muhammad’s position, and they realised the necessity of occupying Medina, which they had then neglected to do. Conscious of their slight military skill, being city merchants with little experience in warfare, they negotiated vigorously with various Bedouin tribes and thus raised a large army—said to have been about 10,000 men—with which they set out against Medina some time in the year 5/626-7. The varying accounts of the season of the year (sometimes said to have been a month after the barley harvest, sometimes during cold winter storms, the latter in agreement with sura XXXIII, 9; cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 14) could be reconciled only by the unlikely assumption that the siege lasted for a considerable length of time.

The advance of this imposing army produced great consternation in Medina, which was further increased by the vacillating attitude of the Munafikun and by the discovery, or perhaps only the suspicion, that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy (XXXIII, 10 ff, 26). Muhammad in order to strengthen the defences had a trench (khandak, a Persian word) dug in front of the unprotected parts of the settlement (Ibn Hisham, 670). Nowhere does Ibn Ishak in the recension by Ibn Hisham attribute the idea of building the trench to Salman the Persian (al-Farisi). According to other accounts, however, this trench is said to have been a Persian military tactic suggested to Muhammad by Salman (e.g. Ibn Sa c d, ii/1, 47). Modest as these defences must have been, they imposed a sufficient deterrent upon the enemy, who had little experience in such military tactics, and the siege gradually dragged on. Muhammad used the time for secret negotiations with the Ghatafan and cleverly stirred up distrust among his opponents. When weather conditions became unfavourable the besieging forces lost heart and gradually began to retire, so that the last effort of the Kuraysh to defeat Muhammad by force came to nothing.

For one group among the inhabitants of Medina, the largely uneventful «War of the Trench» became a bloody tragedy. Hardly had the Meccans and their allies retired than the Prophet declared war on the last Jewish tribe of any size in Medina, the Kurayza [</.y.], and began to besiege their forts. Once the Jews realised the seriousness of their predicament, they no doubt hoped to escape under terms similar to those of the Banu Kaynuka c and the Banu '1-Nadir, especially since their allies, the once powerful tribe of Aws, were very actively trying to induce Muhammad to clemency. This third Jewish tribe, however, was not to be allowed the leniency shown to the other two. According to one account given by Ibn Hisham, all of the men, numbering between 600 and 900 according to the varying accounts, were beheaded in compliance with a judgment given by Sa c d b. Mu c adh [q. v.] of the tribe of Aws, and «the property was divided [among the Muslims] and the women and children were taken as captives» (689 f.). In another account Ibn Hisham says «The Messenger of God ordered that every adult [male] of Banu Kurayza be killed … and then he divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Kurayza among the Muslims» (692). Tradition endeavoured to put the responsibility for the massacre of the Kurayza on Sa c d b. Mu c adh (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 167), who asserts Sa c d’s sincerity), but there are various indications that it was the Prophet himself who was responsible for the decision. The expulsion or elimination of these three Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organising an umma strictly on a religious basis. Some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina (cf. Ibn Hisham, 895; al-Wakidl/Wellhausen, 264, 309, 393; Hassan b. Thabit, no. 133). The failure of the Meccan siege of Medina and the elimination of this last major Jewish tribe became one of the main turning points in the life of Muhammad and the rise of the Muslim community. From about six months after his arrival in Medina, when he sent out the first Muslim raiding party under the command of his uncle Hamza, until the time of the Meccan failure in their siege of Medina, Muhammad dispatched a steady stream of raiding parties against Meccan caravans (see Watt, Medina, 339-41, for a complete list and for references in Ibn Hisham and al-Wakidf/Wellhausen). This practice ceased after al-Khandak and the elimination of the Kurayza (about a year before Muhammad agreed to a ten-year truce with the Meccans at al-Hudaybiya), and the Prophet turned his major attention towards the north. Muhammad led two of these expeditions himself, one against the Banu Lihyan, early in the year 6 A.H. (mid-627 A.D.), which ended without any fighting, and the more famous expedition against the Banu Mustalik, which is of interest for several reasons. It was on the return trip to Medina on this latter expedition that the celebrated adventure involving c A 3 isha [q. v. ] occurred that might have cost her her position as a wife of the Prophet except that Muhammad received a revelation (XXIV, 4-5, 11-20) that exonerated her. More _significantly for the early history of Islam, the c A 3 isha affair gave rise to a serious conflict within the ranks of the leaders of the Emigrants and also caused a breach between the Emigrants and the Helpers that continued well into the period after Muhammad’s death. The political upheaval that arose after the raid on the Banu Mustalik might explain why this is the one significant expedition led by Muhammad on which the sources present widely differing opinions regarding its date. Ibn Hisham (725) states explicitly that this expedition occurred in the eighth month (Sha c ban) of the year 6 A.H., after Muhammad’s raid on Dhu Karad (some-times called the raid of al-Ghaba), usually listed as his nineteenth personal expedition (see, e.g., Ibn Hisham, 972 f., and al-Taban, i, 1575). Ibn Sa c d (ii/1, 45), on the other hand, following al-Wakidi (Wellhausen, 175 ff.) states just as clearly that the expedition against the Banu Mustalik took place in Sha c ban of the year 5 A.H., after Muhammad’s raid on Dumat al-Djandal that is usually listed as his fifteenth expedition (Ibn Hisham and al-Taban, locc. cit.). This discrepancy serves as just one example of the difficulty or impossibility of reconstructing a precise chronology of the life of Muhammad even for the well-documented Medinan period.

Towards the end of the year 6 A.H., Muhammad thought that his position in Medina was so firmly established that he could risk a step that would bring him nearer to his desired goal. He and the Emigrants were still excluded from Mecca and its holy places, but through contacts in Mecca, including probably his uncle al- c Abbas [#.".], he knew that attitudes towards him in his native city were gradually becoming more favourable (cf. XLVIII, 25; LX, 7). In Dhu 'l-Kada of the year 6 (March 628) he gave orders to his followers to provide themselves with sacrificial animals and undertake a pilgrimage (an ^umra [q. v. ]) with him to Mecca, saying that in a vision God had promised him fulfillment of this long-held goal (XLVIII, 27). In Mecca many were inclined to meet his wishes but the belligerent party was still strong enough to get a body of armed men sent to meet him and prevent him from entering the town. He therefore encamped at al-Hudaybiya [q.v. ] where he began to negotiate with some leaders of Mecca. When these discussions failed Muhammad sent c Uthman, who was protected by his family connections, into the town as his representative. When c Uthman did not return after several days, a rumour that he had been murdered spread among the Muslims. The situation became critical and Muhammad dropped all negotiations, collected his followers under a tree, possibly one long held sacred, and made them swear to fight for him to the last, which nearly every man did with enthusiasm (XLVIII, 10, 18).

A short time later a number of Meccans arrived with c Uthman and offered a compromise according to which the Muslims would return to Medina without fulfilling their goal that year, but the Meccans promised to allow Muhammad and his followers to perform an c umra the following year. He agreed to the proposal and also concluded a ten years' truce with the Kuraysh, further promising to return to the Meccans any of their dependents who sought refuge in Medina. Some of Muhammad’s followers who had been determined to force their claim and perform the pilgrimage rituals inside Mecca that year became angry when they heard the conditions to which the Prophet had agreed. Muhammad calmly ordered the sacrificial animals brought with them to be slain, which was to have been done at an c umra in the town (see Lane, Lexicon, s.v. mahill), and had his hair cut, and by his authority forced his grumbling followers to do the same. Only later did they discover that the so-called Treaty of al-Hudaybiya represented a brilliant act of diplomacy on the part of Muhammad, in that he had induced the Meccans to recognise him as an equal, had concluded a peace with them that promised well for the future, and had gained the admiration of many Meccans by incorporating their ancient religious rituals into his nascent religion. There is also evidence that a number of the leaders in Mecca were ready to abandon their polytheistic practices and adopt monotheism.

At the beginning of the year 7/628-9 Muhammad and those who had pledged themselves to him under the tree at al-Hudaybiya received ample compensation for the unfulfilled c umra by the capture of the fertile oasis of Khaybar that was inhabited by Jews. This was the first actual conquest by the Prophet, and on this occasion he instituted a practice that set the precedent for future terms involving Jews or Christians who accepted the rule of the Muslims: he did not put the people to death or banish them but let them remain as tenants, as it were, with the stipulation that they had to pay a tribute (later called the djizya [q.v.]) every year. This expedition, which also brought the Jewish colonies of Wad! '1-Kura into his power, made the Muslim community wealthy for the first time (XLVIII, 18-21).

At about this time (the exact dates are given variously in the sources) tradition puts the despatch of letters from the Prophet to Mukawkis [q. v. ] the governor of Alexandria, the Negus of Abyssinia [see AL-NADJASHI], Heraclius the Byzantine emperor, the Persian king, and a number of others, in which he demanded that they adopt Islam (cf. al-Taban, i, 1560-75). In the form in which these letters have come down to us they cannot be accepted as authentic, since they contain details that reflect a later period in the rise and power of Islam. Even if we disregard certain details that could have been inserted later, the substance of these letters hardly deserves the faith most people have put in them (see, for instance, M. Hamidullah, Six originaux des lettres du Prophete de l-Islam, Paris 1985). It is very unlikely that so sober a politician and diplomat as Muhammad would have engaged in so presumptuous a venture before the conquest of Mecca. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that he sent letters to surrogates of the Byzantine and Persian emperors who lived on the northern fringes of the Arabian peninsula and also in the Yemen, and it can be accepted without hesitation that he maintained correspondence with the Negus of Abyssinia.

While it is true that passages of the Kurgan that date from Muhammad’s Medinan years do go beyond the earlier concept that he was sent as a prophet to the Arabs, even those verses that are so often cited as proof that he regarded his mission as universal hardly hold up to close scrutiny, but require a broader interpretation than their literal meaning. It is very doubtful that Muhammad ever thought of the socioreligious community he founded in Medina as a universal religion, as is assumed for example by Noldeke (WZKM, xxi, 307), Goldziher (Vorlesungen uber den Islam, 25 = Introduction to Islamic theology and law, 27 f.) and T. W. Arnold (The preaching of Islam, 27-31). The conclusions reached by Snouck Hurgronje (Mohammedanism, 48 ff.) and H. Lammens (Etudes sur le regne du calife Mo^dwia, i, 422) are much more consistent with the evidence from the Kurgan. (For a close analysis of the relevant verses of the Kur D an and references to other European literature on this issue, see Welch, Muhammad’s understanding, 47-51.) At the height of his power Muhammad never demanded from Jews or Christians living in the Arabian peninsula that they should adopt Islam. He was content with political subjection and the payment of tribute. The soundest conclusion is thus to reject in their present form those stories that assert that Muhammad sought to convert to Islam the Byzantine and Persian emperors and other great rulers outside of Arabia, and to seek the real historical basis in negotiations of a more political nature, e.g. with the friendly Mukawkis of Egypt who is said to have been the person who gave to Muhammad Mariya the Copt [q.v.], who bore him a son named Ibrahim who unfortunately died as an infant just a few months before Muhammad’s death. On the other hand, the character of the genuine letters of the Prophet to the Arab tribes changed at this time, for he was no longer content with a purely political agreement but, relying on his now consolidated power, he also demanded that they should adhere to his religion, which involved performing the saldt and paying zakdt (cf. Ibn Sa c d, 1/ii, 15-38). In his eagerness to win the Arab tribes to Islam, Muhammad is even said to have given the Djudham [q. v. ] on the Syrian coast a respite (amdn) of two months after which they were to decide (see Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 82 f. and Watt, Medina, 108 ff.).

Late in 7 A.H. (early 629 A.D.) Muhammad performed the «fulfilled pilgrimage» (Ibn Hisham, 788-90), actually simply an c umra involving rituals at and near the Ka c ba within the sanctuary (now the Sacred Mosque) of Mecca, that was part of the agreement in the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya. For him, having been driven out of his native city almost seven years before, it must have been a time of great satisfaction to be able to visit Mecca as the acknowledged lord of Medina. One important task Muhammad accomplished while in Mecca was a reconciliation with his family, the clan of Hashim, sealed through marriage with Maymuna bt. al-Harith [q.v. ], a sister of the wife of the Prophet’s uncle, al- c Abbas, who was currently chief of the clan. Some of the sources allege that even before this time al- c Abbas had become a secret ally of Muhammad. Also of great significance for the later history of Islam, a few of the most important Meccans, such as the military genius Khalid b. al-Walld and_another military man almost his equal, c Amr b. al- c As [q. vv. ], who later conquered Egypt during the caliphate of c Umar, became Muslims. These men in Mecca must have recognised that Muhammad was the man of the future in Arabia and they openly joined him. Muhammad’s uncle al-Abbas and Abu Sufyan, the most prominent leader in Mecca at that time, took another tack, endeavouring through secret negotiations to prepare in the most favourable way for the inevitable surrender of Mecca.

In the meanwhile Muhammad continued his military expeditions. His forces suffered a serious reverse in the first considerable effort to extend his authority over the Arabs on Byzantine soil in Transjordania, when at battle at Mu^ta [q.v.] Muhammad suffered the loss of his beloved adopted son, Zayd b. Haritha [<?.£>.], who had been given command of a force said to have had 3,000 men. Also killed at this disastrous battle against the Byzantines at Mu D ta was another potential leader within the early Muslim community, Dja c far b. Abl Talib [<7-fl.], c All’s brother who had only recently joined the Muslims in Medina after remaining in Abyssinia with Muhammad’s followers who had moved there from Mecca almost fifteen years earlier and remained (on Mu D ta see Ibn Hisham, 791—802, where a number of poems on this battle are given). Despite the defeat at Mu^ta, several Bedouin tribes began to see some of the advantages they would procure by joining Muhammad, and even some of the large tribes such as the Sulaym [q.v.] voluntarily adopted Islam and placed themselves under the Prophet’s banner.

Much against the advice of Abu Sufyan, the belligerent party in Mecca decided to support one of their client clans, the Bakr [^.y.], against the Khuza c a [q.v.], who were allied to Muhammad. This, according to the custom among the Arabs at that time, was seen on both sides as breaking the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya, freeing Muhammad to attack Meccan caravans or even the city itself. In Ramadan 8/ December 629 he set out at the head of an army of Emigrants, Helpers and Bedouins. The news produced considerable anxiety in Mecca where the number of those who wanted to fight shrank daily so that the more prudent now could take control. Abu Sufyan, who went out with several others (including the Khuza c l Budayl b. Warka 3 who was a friend of the Prophet’s), met Muhammad not far from the town, paid homage to him and obtained an amnesty for all the Kuraysh who abandoned armed resistance (cf. c Urwa, in al-Tabari, i, 1634 f.). Thus the Prophet was able to enter his native city practically without a struggle and almost all its inhabitants adopted Islam. He acted with great generosity and endeavoured to win all hearts by rich gifts (ta?lij al-kulub, a new use of the alms; cf. IX, 60, and AL-MU^ALLAFA KULUBUHUM). He demanded only the destruction of all idols in and around Mecca. Sura CX and XLVIII, 1 f. seem to capture some of the exaltation with which this victory filled Muhammad. It is striking that both of these unusually touching passages mention the forgiveness of Muhammad’s sins after declaring that God has given him a clear victory (fath), suggesting that in some way the fulfillment of one of Muhammad’s major goals, the peaceful surrender of his native city, served as a direct sign that God had forgiven him all his sins (cf. CX, 3 and XLVIII, 2).

Muhammad had no time to rest upon his laurels, for soon after the surrender of Mecca the Hawazin [q. v. ] tribes in Central Arabia began preparing for a decisive fight and the town of Ta°if, which was closely associated with Mecca, was still unsubdued. Muhammad’s forces fought the Hawazin and their allies at Hunayn [q.v.] on the road to Ta°if. At first the Prophet’s forces seemed threatened with a fatal disaster, mainly because of the unreliability of a number of the new converts, but then some of his followers succeeded in recalling the fugitives and routing the enemy (IX, 25 f.). On the other hand, his inexperienced troops were unable to take Ta^if with its defences. It was almost a year later, after Muhammad’s successful expedition to Tabuk [q.v.] with nearly 30,000 men, that the people of Ta^if finally accepted their fate and sent emissaries to Medina to surrender to the Prophet and adopt Islam. After raising the siege on the well-fortified city of Ta°if early in 630, Muhammad returned to al-Dji c rana to supervise the distribution of the booty of Hunayn. The Helpers, who as soon as Muhammad entered Mecca had expressed the fear that he would take up his residence again in his native town, became very indignant about the rich gifts that he made to his former opponents in order «to win their hearts», while they themselves went empty-handed (cf. Hassan b. Thabit, no. 31), but he spoke so kindly to them that they are said to have burst into tears and declared themselves satisfied (see Watt, Medina, 73-7).

The characteristic feature of the year 9/630-1 in the memory of the Muslims was the many embassies that came to Medina from different parts of Arabia to submit to the conqueror of Mecca on behalf of their tribes (cf. CX, 2). In the autumn of that year, Muhammad made up his mind to conduct a campaign against northern Arabia on a considerable scale, probably because the defeat at Mu 3 ta required to be avenged if he were to maintain the respect he had so far earned. Also, the Ghassanid king was reported to have adopted a hostile attitude towards Muhammad and his followers (cf. Ibn Hisham, 911; BukharT, Maghdzi, bdbs 78, 79). Somewhat surprisingly to Muhammad after the Muslim victory at al-Hunayn, but probably also influenced by their defeat at Mu D ta, his appeal for followers met with little support. The Emigrants as well as a number of Bedouins held back and even among his devoted followers there were some who put forward all sorts of objections, for instance the fear that a campaign so far away in the burning heat would be difficult and potentially hazardous (cf. IX, 45, 81-90, 98 ff.). Muhammad seems to have faced considerable opposition in Medina at this time (IX, 58-82, 125), so that he had to have recourse to his earlier method of intimidation and his words recall in a remarkable way the period of passion in Mecca (e.g. IX, 70, 128 f.).

In spite of all opposition, Muhammad was able to carry through with his grand plan. When, however, after great hardships the 30,000 Muslims and their allies reached Tabuk, on the frontier with the land of the Byzantines, the campaign was indecisive (Ibn Hisham, 894—906). Muhammad’s prestige had, however, become so great by this time that the petty Christian and Jewish states in the north of Arabia submitted to him during his stay in Tabuk, e.g. the Christian king Yuhanna in Ayla [<?. fl. ], the people of Adhruh [q.v.] and the Jews in the port of Makna. The Prophet is said to have stayed in Tabuk for ten nights (Ibn Hisham, 904). Khalid b. al-Walld also occupied the important centre of Dumat al-Djandal [q. v. ] during the Tabuk expedition (Ibn Sa c d, ii/1, 119 f.). 4. The period from Tabuk to Muhammad’s death Unfortunately we do not know how the matters that were rapidly coming to a head in Medina actually developed; but we may safely assume that the death of c Abd Allah b. Ubayy, which took place not long after the expedition to Tabuk, must have contributed to slacken the tension. These years showed a marked increase in the prestige of Muhammad in regions outside the area immediately surrounding Medina. With Mecca in his hands there was a noticeable inclination among the Bedouins in several places to submit to the will of the conqueror of this town in order to be safe against his attacks and to have a share in his rich booty. This was the case for example regarding the group of tribes of c Amir b. Sa c sa c a [q.v.] (Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 51 f.) with portions of the great tribe of Tamfm and the neighbouring Asad [q. vv. ] (cf. Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 39-41) and further north with the Bakr and Taghlib [q.v.] (cf. Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 55). Even in regions so far away from Medina as Bahrayn (Bahrain) and c Uman (Oman) within the Persian sphere of influence (see Watt, Medina, 131 ff.) and among the chiefs of South Arabia, the new teaching and order of things penetrated and found ardent followers in some places. But we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the representations of the historians, from which it appears as if all the people in these lands adopted Islam. Caetani has shown that these accounts are not in keeping with reality and that it was only little groups that submitted, while there was a not inconsiderable number who rejected the Prophet’s demands. See Watt, Medina, 78-150, for a discussion of the major tribes in areas surrounding Mecca and Medina and also those farther to the north and south, along with an appraisal of the extent of Muhammad’s success in winning over the major tribes of Arabia and, in some cases, the motives, whether political, social or religious, for the tribes' alliances with Medina.

In addition to the Jews who had already felt his strength, there were also a considerable number of Christians and some Zoroastrians [see MADJUS] in the eastern and southern districts of the Arabian peninsula, who posed a problem of a different sort for Muhammad. While in the earlier teachings of the Kur D an Muhammad is presented only as God’s prophet to the Arabic-speaking people, this situation changed in the later Medinan years. Sura IX, 29 ff., for example, includes the Christians and the Jews among the polytheists, who gave God a son and honoured men as lords beside God. In contrast to such utterances, V, 82 mentions the Christians very sympathetically because they, unlike the Jews, showed kindness towards Muhammad and were not arrogant. Christian priests and monks are mentioned in particular; a more negative appraisal is given in LVII, 27, and yet the Christians of Nadjran [q.v.] are said to have received preferable treatment by Muhammad (Ibn Sa c d, i/2, 84 f.). Tor Andrae

Источник — https://ar.wiki-staging.holyquran.wiki/index.php?title=Обсуждение:Мухаммад&oldid=53085