Обсуждение:Мухаммад
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 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.
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 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).
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 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….»
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).
¶ 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
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 explains these apparent inconsistences by pointing to the differences between the Monophysites and the Nestorians, saying that the former aroused his unqualified displeasure by their Christology, while the latter, who were then predominant in the Persian sphere of influence, attracted him much more (Mohammed the man and his faith, 89-93).
On the other hand, statements in the Kur D an about the Jews gradually become more severe after Muhammad’s first year in Medina, and passages dating from near the end of his lifetime appear to make little distinction between those Jews and Christians who rejected his prophethood. As People of the Book, however, who are assumed to worship the one true God, they were allowed to retain their religion if they recognised the political suzerainty of the Prophet by paying a tax (djizya [q. v.]). If they did not pay the djizya they were to be fought without mercy. The memory of the agreement between Muhammad’s recitations and the beliefs of the People of the Book that was emphasised in the earlier parts of the Kurgan must have contributed to this inconsistent treatment of the groups that were coming under Muhammad’s control. In addition, there was the fact that treating the Jews and Christians as tax-paying tenants and allowing them to practise their religion, as had already been done at Khaybar, was much more practical for the Muslims than fighting them till they gave in. A further favourable settlement with the «People of the Book» was that believers were allowed to marry their daughters and to eat food prepared by them (sura V, 5). According to a report in Ibn Sa c d (i/2, 19) Muhammad included the Zoroastrians among the «People of the Book» in a letter he sent to a group of them (called Magians) in Hadjar. Muslims were forbidden, however, to marry their women and eat meat killed by them. This extended application of the expression «People of the Book» does not occur in the Kurgan. With these exceptions, the Prophet approached nearer to his objective of forming an umma on a strictly religious basis, for the inhabitants of a number of parts of Arabia were now actually bound together by religion, at least in the eyes of Muhammad. The old differences between the tribes with their endless feuds, their blood-vengeance and their lampoons that continually stirred up new quarrels, were supposed to disappear, and all believers were to feel themselves brethren (IX, 11; XLIX, 10). There was to be no distinction among believers except in their degree of piety (XLIX, 13).
This very rapid extension of Muhammad’s sphere of influence through various types of treaties and other agreements naturally led to situations in which the new «converts» had little knowledge of the teachings and practices of Islam. Alongside the older adherents, who were really inspired by Muhammad’s recitations and whose faith had been tried by privations and dangers, there were now many new converts who had been gained mainly by political alliances, sometimes inspired by fear of Muhammad’s growing power. In spite of the teachers sent out to them there could be no question of any immediate deep-seated religious conversion among these Arabs. How the old Arab spirit continued to flourish among them unweakened is shown, for example, by the boasting and abuse in the poems included in Ibn Hisham (934 ff.). The Kur’an itself in XLIX, 14, states clearly that the newly converted Bedouins were far from the true faith: they could say that they had adopted Islam, but they could not say that they were yet true believers. Instructions on religious beliefs and practices that constitute such a major theme of the early Medinan parts of the Kur D an gradually gave way in striking fashion to social and political regulations in later parts of the Kur 3 an, when the Islamic sphere of influence was spreading so rapidly. Finally, all was prepared and at the end of the year 10 (March 632) Muhammad was able to carry through the first truly Islamic pilgrimage (the «Farewell Pilgrimage» or the «Pilgrimage of Islam»), which became the standard for all time. The regulations regarding the various ceremonies of the annual Great Pilgrimage appear only in fragments in the Kur D an, forcing pilgrims to depend for their proper performance on the Hadith collections and various Hadjdj manuals that are prepared by the leaders of each madhhab [q. v. ]. The modern form of the main rituals is undoubtedly based on what the Prophet laid down on this memorable occasion [see HADJDJ]. The Farewell Pilgrimage is said to have included an address, of which somewhat variant versions have been handed down, that marks the culminating point in his career. His feelings at that time are probably expressed in God’s words in sura V, 3: «Today I have perfected your religion, and completed my favours for you and chosen Islam as a religion for you.» There is therefore a touch of the dramatic in the fact that his life ended just a few months later.
That Muhammad did not foresee how soon death would take him can be seen in the fact that only a month before his death he began preparations for a great expedition to Transjordania that he intended to lead himself. In the end he placed the expedition, said to have numbered about 3,000 men, under the command of the young Usama [q. y.], apparently in order to avenge the death of his father Zayd b. Haritha, Muhammad’s adopted son and long-time companion. Several of the leading Muslims complained to Muhammad regarding his choice to place an army with so difficult a mission under the command of such a young man, but the Prophet was determined to allow Usama the opportunity to avenge the Muslim defeat at Mu D ta, which also took the life of Muhammad’s cousin, Dja c far b. Abl Talib. In several parts of Arabia the appearance of rival «prophets» provoked disturbances at about this time [see AL-ASWAD, TULAYHA and MUSAYLIMA]. Then Muhammad suddenly fell ill, presumably of the ordinary Medina fever (al-Farazdak, ix, 13); but this was dangerous to a man physically and mentally over-wrought. He rallied a little but then died on the bosom of his favourite wife, c A D isha, reportedly on 13 RabT^ I of the year 9 (8 June 632). Only this date suits the statement in Hassan b. Thabit (no. 133) and all traditionists that it was a Monday. He left no legal successor, so that the leaders within the inner circle of his followers were obliged to choose a leader in the traditional manner among Arab tribes. The young Ibrahim, whom the Coptic slave Mariya bore to him, probably early in 630, had died earlier in 632. It is said that Muhammad was buried under the dirt floor of c A D isha’s apartment (al-Taban, i, 1817; Ibn Sa c d, ii/2, 57 ff, 71).
The great difficulty that the modern biographer of Muhammad feels on every page is this, that the real secret of his career, the wonderful strength of his personality and his power of influencing those around him by suggestion, is not recorded in the early sources and indeed could not have been, since the early, devout Muslim biographers proceeded with the assumption that his great feats and extraordinary successes were not the acts of a man, but were super-natural proofs that the Prophet was acting in the service of God. From the Kur’an, it is true, one becomes acquainted with his earliest remarkable inspirations that continue to bring awe to the pious just as they no doubt did when Muhammad first recited them. Also, his eminent political gifts seen so often during the Medinan years are obvious to modern historians. Who could doubt that the commander at the battle of Badr or that the negotiator at Hudaybiya was a man of intellectual superiority and extraordinary diplomatic skill? These insights into Muhammad’s genius that are unmistakable in the sources are, however, only isolated flashes. For the most part we have to read the essentials between the lines.
The really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling. His real personality was revealed quite openly with its limitations: his human strength and his knowledge were limited; the ability to perform miracles was denied him; and the Kurgan speaks quite frankly of his faults (XXXIV, 50; XL, 55; XLVII, 19; XLVIII, 1 f.; LXXX, 1 ff; IX, 43). Later tradition made the very revelation of the Kurgan, the inimitable speech of God (kaldm Allah), to a supposedly illiterate Arabian orphan his sole miracle. This belief contains in itself the assumption that Muhammad was fully human, without supernatural powers. The Kurgan repeatedly says that he was a man like any other, and several times reiterated to his followers that he would die when his time came (XXXIX, 30; XXI, 34 f.; Ill, 144). It was exactly this point about the Prophet that left his later devout followers dissatisfied, so that quite early, driven no doubt in part by their disputations with Christians, they wove around the person and life of the Prophet a network of superhuman features (see 2. below).
2. The Prophet in popular Muslim piety. A visitor listening to a good kawwdli in the Indian subcontinent or attending a mevlut (mawlud) party in Turkey will always be impressed by the deep and loving veneration shown to the Prophet of Islam. Stories about him, his life and his intercession have permeated popular Muslim thought and poetry everywhere, and although Muhammad never claimed to have performed any miracle, traditional folk poetry, be it in the mountains of Citral or in West Africa, in Turkey or in Indonesia, indulges in extensive description of his marvellous attributes and actions.
Some miracles are inspired by Kur D anic expressions. The «Splitting of the moon» (sura LIV, 1) forms a favourite topic of poets, especially in India. There, even the conversion of one King Farmad at the Konkan coast is attributed to his having witnessed how the moon was split; after realising that this event had happened that very night in Mecca, he converted to Islam. A 19th-century miniature from the Hindu court of Kotah still shows this miracle. Even more important for popular mystical trends is the Kur^anic term ummi which was given to the Prophet and interpreted as «illiterate». The conviction that the Prophet had to be illiterate in order to remain an immaculate vessel for the «inlibration» of the Divine word in the Kur D an is central to Muslim piety. The folk mystics then extended this concept by claiming that it is enough to know only the alif, because this first letter of the alphabet contains the meaning of the four sacred books, and similar to the ummi Prophet, the true mystic is simply a vessel for divine inspiration. That is why whole groups of Turkish folk singers in the late Middle Ages adopted the soubriquet ummi (e.g. Ummi Kemal, Ummi Sinan).
Perhaps the most beautiful elaboration of a Kur’anic remark about the Prophet is found in the concept of rahma (sura XXI, 107). In Oriental countries, rain is often called rahmat «mercy», and from this it was only one step to imagine the Prophet as a rain cloud dispensing blessing and stretching from Istanbul to Lucknow or whichever cities the poet had in mind (a 19th-century Baluci poet enumerates 141 places where his mercy is operative, beginning with England!). The finest examples of this imagery come from Indo-Muslim poetry. Thus the Sindhi poet Shah c Abd al-Latlf (d. 1752) uses the concept of the cloud of mercy most ingeniously in his Risdlo to show how the Prophet’s coming revives the dead hearts, just as rain revives the seemingly dead earth. Mirza Ghalib’s (d. 1869) Abr-i gawharbdr «The jewel-carrying cloud» in honour of the Prophet is another good example of this imagery.
A favourite of high and popular piety is the Prophet’s mi^rdd^ [q.v.] which is described in everincreasing details by poets in Turkey, India, and Africa. The story offered innumerable possibilities to sing of the radiant Prophet on his swift mount Burak. In the course of time, Burak became a kind of protective symbol, so that nowadays numerous representations of this creature with a woman’s head and a peacock’s tail are found on the rear of trucks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as if Burak were to carry the driver as safely through the rugged roads of the Hindukush as he once carried the Prophet into the Divine Presence. On such pictures, Muhammad appears today usually as a white cloud or rose above the saddle, while former artists showed him in full, though usually with his face covered.
Other miracles have no basis in the Kur’an, but belong to the general folk tradition. The Prophet’s washing water was filled with baraka, charismatic power, he performed miracles connected with food (like milking Umm Ma c shar’s barren sheep) and the pebbles in his hand and the doors and walls of the house greeted him. Trees bowed before him, and a cloud protected him from the sun. But perhaps the best-known story telling of love of inanimate things for him is that of the hanndna, the «sighing» palm trunk on which Muhammad used to lean while preaching; when the first minbar [q.v.} was built and the old piece of wood was no longer needed, it began to sigh intensely because it missed the touch of the Prophet’s hand.
His relationships with animals are often described, whether it be Abu Hurayra’s cat which killed a venomous snake to save the Prophet’s life and was therefore caressed by him (that is why cats never fall on their back), whether wolf and lizard attested his prophetship or whether the gazelle spoke. The story of the gazelle was a favourite with popular poets; in Sindhi alone, 13 versions of this story have been noted down. According to it, Muhammad found a trapped gazelle who was longing to feed her kids; sending her off, he himself entered the trap to bail her out. The plight of the faithful animal and the amazement of the infidel hunter offer a wonderful topic for touching ballads.
It is remarkable how many stories and concepts trickled down from high mystical circles to the folk level, even as far down to lullabies. The Divine saying lawldka «But for thy sake I would not have created the spheres», makes many singers call Muhammad simply «the lord of lawldk»; the idea of the primordial light that was the first thing created is reflected in many songs, and legends tell of his «shadowless» presence. Legends about his birth «when the whole world was filled with light» abound, and from early times onward the day was celebrated by illuminations. To listen to stories or poems about his birth (mawlud} [see MAWLID, MAWLIDIYYA] is considered most meritorious. Yunus Emre [q. v. ] sings, around the year 1300, in Anatolia that those who recite mawluds will be called on Doomsday to enter Paradise immediately, and similar ideas are expressed in Swahili mawlud poems. This goes together with the firm belief in the Prophet’s intercession (shqfd c a [q. v. ]), a privilege granted to him during his heavenly journey when he was promised in the Divine Presence that he would be allowed to intercede for his community. Therefore it is often told that Muhammad will appear on Dooms-day with his green flag (the liwd^ al-hamd, «flag of praise») and call out ummati ummati «My community!» while all other humans ask only help for themselves. Descriptions of this scene are frequent in popular ballads from early times.
One way to secure his intercession is to recite the salawdt sharifa (or durud) for him, the blessing formula mentioned in sura XXXIII, 56. The salawdt has developed in popular piety to the most important formula besides the shahdda and the basmala, and many people will not begin their work unless they have uttered the durud, which often is used also as a dhikr formula. It is believed that the Prophet is present in meetings devoted to the recitation of blessings for him, and some pious people claim to have been visited by the Prophet who «wanted to kiss the mouth that blesses him». In folk tradition, the humming of the bees is interpreted as their uttering the salawdt, and in countries as far apart as mediaeval Anatolia and Sind one says that honey becomes sweet when the bees hum the salawdt while entering the beehive. Likewise, the human heart will become sweet when following this custom. The conviction that the Prophet is indeed alive and can visit those who are devoted to him leads to the custom of addressing him in the second person during dhikr meetings; many stories tell how he stretched out his hand from his rawda in Medina to greet or to vindicate some of his descendants. Even more, the fact that there are so many relics of the Prophet’s hair in various places leads some people to believe that his hair can grow and multiply because he is fully alive. He can therefore also appear in dreams to console, exhort, or inform his friends, and since Satan cannot take on his shape, these dreams are always true.
The numerous songs and stories told and retold among the people serve to establish a personal relationship with the Prophet, and this very warm feeling is something few outsiders realise. The Prophet appears like the venerable elder member of the family who should be obeyed and imitated; the clinging to his sunna has (or had) nothing abstract to it, but expressed this feeling of belonging to his spiritual family. Connected with this relationship is the custom of naming boys after the Prophet, for according to a tradition, everyone by the name of Muhammad will be called to enter Paradise. In order not to spoil the baraka of this name, it is often vocalised differently, such as Mehmed in Turkey, Muh in North Africa, or else the child is given another name of the Prophet (who has 99 asmd^ sharifa, corresponding to the 99 names of God). Among these names Mustafa, Ahmad (cf. sura LXI, 5), Tdhd, Ydsin as well as Mumr, Sirdd^, Muddaththir, etc., are often used. For one knows: Your name is beautiful, you yourself are beautiful, Muhammad, as Yunus Emre says. Thus descriptions of his over-whelming beauty and kindness occur frequently; he may be addressed, as often in Sindhi poetry, as «bridegroom» or simply as the «sweet prince», miUhd mir.
This devotion to Muhammad on the mysticallytinged popular level seems to intensify in the course of the centuries, and the poets would express their wish to be a dog at his threshold or claim that they were not worthy of singing his praise even though they might have cleansed their mouth with rose water a thousand times. They dreamt of visiting his rawda in Medina (there is a whole genre of popular poetry in the various regional languages expressing their longing for the Prophet’s city), and despite the reminders by some theologians that not the Prophet but the Kurgan is the veritable centre of Islam, the devotion to him was, and in most cases still is, the strongest binding power among Muslims, in whichever way they may interpret his role: as the trustworthy intercessor or as the primordial light, as gentle friend of humans and animals or as political leader of his community, as «cloud of mercy» or as the seal of prophethood who united in himself the stern, law-giving character of Moses and the loving kindness of Jesus to become the model for humanity in general. Ikbal has voiced the general opinion about the position of the Prophet in his daring verse in the Djawid-ndma (1932): You can deny God but you cannot deny the Prophet.
A. The image in the Latin Middle Ages
In the learned, Latin circles of the Middle Ages in Europe (ca. 800—1400 A.D.), a remarkable amount of concrete data about the life of the Prophet Muhammad was known and available. (In the following we have limited ourselves exclusively to these; Islam as a religion is left aside, although the separation cannot always be maintained.) Even if the knowledge about Muhammad’s life which is at the disposal of an historian of Islam in our days is taken into account, it might be maintained with some justice that a historically reliable life of the Prophet, in its essential features, could have been written in mediaeval Europe when based on a selective choice of the correct knowledge then available. The main themes of the following section are the characterisation of the knowledge about Muhammad in mediaeval Europe, remarkably precise to some extent, and the answer to the question why it was yet completely impossible to compose an objective life of the Prophet.
First there follows here a survey of the concrete knowledge about Muhammad’s life (until ca. 1400). The time of his life and work could be fixed quite accurately on the basis of the respective data of the reigning period of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. By classifying the Islamic Prophet within the genealogical line «Hagar/Ismael», there was at least an accord with the self-evidence of Muslim genealogy. (The fact that the latter too was a fiction, is a matter of secondary importance here.) About Muhammad’s milieu, Arabia, the following information was after all available: a lack of political structures; warlike, predatory activities considered characteristic for the way of life; a manifold idolatry as religious expression (i.e. the essential marks of Arabian tribalism); and also the settlement of Christian and Jewish groups in Arabia. As for Muhammad’s pre-prophetic period, it was known that Mecca was his native town, that he grew up as an orphan with foster-parents, that his kindred was not connected with the important ones in Mecca, that Mecca itself was active in trade and that in this context Muhammad’s first wife was Khadidja, which fact, among other things, led to extensive journeys. Mediaeval tradition was also aware of possible contacts, during such journeys, with homines religiosi, who transmitted to the later Prophet elements of monotheistic religiosity, such as the Bahlra story or his contact with «seekers after righteousness (Aanz/s)», known in Muslim tradition; these contacts were like-wise considered as forming the connection with the themes of the Old and New Testaments of later Kur’anic revelations.
Muhammad’s comparatively late call was known as such, as was the fact that he experienced it as having taken place partly under strong physical or psychological pressure, and that he perceived Gabriel as the transmitter of divine messages. The knowledge that Muhammad was conscious of being an exclusive transmitter (missus, nuntius, legatus, apostolus) of divine orders, of being purely human, not endowed with supernatural powers (no miracles), and finally also of being illiterate (ummi) corresponds with historical reality. About the general character of the divine revelations (only this can be discussed here), correct knowledge had been collected, together with numerous fictions: apart from parallels with Old and New Testament traditions, it was known that monotheism (i.e. the explicitly hostile opposition against the surrounding polytheism) played a central role; that judgement would be passed about reward or punishment at a coming Day of Judgement; that the divine precepts also dealt with matters of this world (the Kurgan is therefore often indicated as lex).
Muhammad’s initial failure in Mecca, generally known as such, could be specified with correct details: only a few followers (a certain number of names are given here); assessment by the Meccans that he was a «magician» or was possessed, endeavours on their part to «buy him off» from his divine assignment; his short-lived temptation through the so-called «Satanic Verses»; the temporary emigration of a part of the Muslims to Ethiopia. The fact that it was necessary for the Prophet to migrate to Medina (even the older name Yathrib, in various forms of transcription, may appear here) was also known, as were his ultimate successes there and his intensive warlike activities to conquer the Meccans, successful in the end, and to subdue and oust the Jews of Medina. There was even some correct information circulating about the Prophet’s alleged «polygamy», such as about c A :) isha being Muhammad’s most important consort during the Medina period, including the temporarily rife rumours about her infidelity; also about the delicate Zaynab/Zayd/Muhammad affair and its reflection in the Kur’anic revelation. Finally, Muhammad’s ascension to heaven (isrd^ or mi c rddj [q. v.]) and a number of details corresponding with Muslim tradition about this, were also known; correct statements about the occurrence of his death and further circumstances surrounding it could be made: the Prophet’s quite human (painful) death in c A :> isha’s care, his unpretentious burial, Umar’s refusal to believe that he was dead and the danger that the Muslim community might disintegrate after the Prophet’s death.
This certainly impressive knowledge of mediaeval Europe about the life of the Islamic Prophet (the preceding enumeration, by the way, does not claim completeness) should, however, be assessed in its historical context, i.e. put in perspective. With this, the quality of that knowledge is lost almost completely, even if, on its face value, it may appear as positive since we are dealing in a historiographical way with unfamiliar material. In this context, three aspects have to be considered and explained.
1. The knowledge presented here has been brought together during a very extended course of time and partly along extraordinarily tortuous paths. The single elements of knowledge, increasing gradually, were recognised as «true» and given preference over other «tarnished» information by the first authors only, but not by their later followers. Moreover, the fact that at first fragments and later complete knowledge was at hand, did not in any way entail general diffusion and availability. Hence not one of the mediaeval authors who tried to describe the life of Muhammad, rendered the state of knowledge which was theoretically possible at any given time; how much correct information appeared at any time in a writer’s representation depended more or less on chance.
2. Correct information about Muhammad’s life obviously originated ultimately from genuine Islamic sources. But it was spread in Europe by non-Muslim transmitters, who had lived in the Islamic environment for a longer period of time or permanently (and almost without exception were versed in Arabic). However, as non-Muslims under Islamic domination or in Islamic surroundings, they were, as a rule, not concerned with the diffusion of an objective, let alone a positive, image of Muhammad. Consequently, in both the selection and the transmission of «true» elements of Muhammad’s biography their emphasis is distant if not polemical.
3. Already coloured in a mildly negative way, the correct assertions about the life of the Islamic Prophet then reached the studies of Christian authors, who were not only complete outsiders to Islam but also intent on using their pens to completely disqualify Islam and thus the Prophet in the first place. With this, these assertions were used selectively and mainly in so far as they were suitable for polemics, which went as far as scornful malignity. Occasionally, these assertions were also changed accordingly, but they were above all interwoven with fictitious elements in such a way that they were often divested completely of their historical value. The most different mixtacomposita of this kind became for a long period the basis of the image of Muhammad in Christian Europe.
The general assertions given under 2. and 3. have to be illustrated and specified in the following by concrete data about the most important authors and the dominant motives of the mediaeval Muhammad biographies. First we shall deal with the transmitters and the transmission of the biographical material. The essential starting-points for the traditions knowledge about Muhammad’s life (until ca. 1400). The time of his life and work could be fixed quite accurately on the basis of the respective data of the reigning period of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. By classifying the Islamic Prophet within the genealogical line «Hagar/Ismael», there was at least an accord with the self-evidence of Muslim genealogy. (The fact that the latter too was a fiction, is a matter of secondary importance here.) About Muhammad’s milieu, Arabia, the following information was after all available: a lack of political structures; warlike, predatory activities considered characteristic for the way of life; a manifold idolatry as religious expression (i.e. the essential marks of Arabian tribalism); and also the settlement of Christian and Jewish groups in Arabia. As for Muhammad’s pre-prophetic period, it was known that Mecca was his native town, that he grew up as an orphan with foster-parents, that his kindred was not connected with the important ones in Mecca, that Mecca itself was active in trade and that in this context Muhammad’s first wife was Khadidja, which fact, among other things, led to extensive journeys. Mediaeval tradition was also aware of possible contacts, during such journeys, with homines religiosi, who transmitted to the later Prophet elements of monotheistic religiosity, such as the Bahlra story or his contact with «seekers after righteousness (Aanz/s)», known in Muslim tradition; these contacts were like-wise considered as forming the connection with the themes of the Old and New Testaments of later Kur’anic revelations.
Muhammad’s comparatively late call was known as such, as was the fact that he experienced it as having taken place partly under strong physical or psychological pressure, and that he perceived Gabriel as the transmitter of divine messages. The knowledge that Muhammad was conscious of being an exclusive transmitter (missus, nuntius, legatus, apostolus) of divine orders, of being purely human, not endowed with supernatural powers (no miracles), and finally also of being illiterate (ummi) corresponds with historical reality. About the general character of the divine revelations (only this can be discussed here), correct knowledge had been collected, together with numerous fictions: apart from parallels with Old and New Testament traditions, it was known that monotheism (i.e. the explicitly hostile opposition against the surrounding polytheism) played a central role; that judgement would be passed about reward or punishment at a coming Day of Judgement; that the divine precepts also dealt with matters of this world (the Kurgan is therefore often indicated as lex).
Muhammad’s initial failure in Mecca, generally known as such, could be specified with correct details: only a few followers (a certain number of names are given here); assessment by the Meccans that he was a «magician» or was possessed, endeavours on their part to «buy him off» from his divine assignment; his short-lived temptation through the so-called «Satanic Verses»; the temporary emigration of a part of the Muslims to Ethiopia. The fact that it was necessary for the Prophet to migrate to Medina (even the older name Yathrib, in various forms of transcription, may appear here) was also known, as were his ultimate successes there and his intensive warlike activities to conquer the Meccans, successful in the end, and to subdue and oust the Jews of Medina. There was even some correct information circulating about the Prophet’s alleged «polygamy», such as about c A :) isha being Muhammad’s most important consort during the Medina period, including the temporarily rife rumours about her infidelity; also about the delicate Zaynab/Zayd/Muhammad affair and its reflection in the Kur’anic revelation. Finally, Muhammad’s ascension to heaven (isrd^ or mi c rddj [q. v.]) and a number of details corresponding with Muslim tradition about this, were also known; correct statements about the occurrence of his death and further circumstances surrounding it could be made: the Prophet’s quite human (painful) death in c A :> isha’s care, his unpretentious burial, c Umar’s refusal to believe that he was dead and the danger that the Muslim community might disintegrate after the Prophet’s death.
This certainly impressive knowledge of mediaeval Europe about the life of the Islamic Prophet (the preceding enumeration, by the way, does not claim completeness) should, however, be assessed in its historical context, i.e. put in perspective. With this, the quality of that knowledge is lost almost completely, even if, on its face value, it may appear as positive since we are dealing in a historiographical way with unfamiliar material. In this context, three aspects have to be considered and explained.
1. The knowledge presented here has been brought together during a very extended course of time and partly along extraordinarily tortuous paths. The single elements of knowledge, increasing gradually, were recognised as «true» and given preference over other «tarnished» information by the first authors only, but not by their later followers. Moreover, the fact that at first fragments and later complete knowledge was at hand, did not in any way entail general diffusion and availability. Hence not one of the mediaeval authors who tried to describe the life of Muhammad, rendered the state of knowledge which was theoretically possible at any given time; how much correct information appeared at any time in a writer’s representation depended more or less on chance.
2. Correct information about Muhammad’s life obviously originated ultimately from genuine Islamic sources. But it was spread in Europe by non-Muslim transmitters, who had lived in the Islamic environment for a longer period of time or permanently (and almost without exception were versed in Arabic). However, as non-Muslims under Islamic domination or in Islamic surroundings, they were, as a rule, not concerned with the diffusion of an objective, let alone a positive, image of Muhammad. Consequently, in both the selection and the transmission of «true» elements of Muhammad’s biography their emphasis is distant if not polemical.
3. Already coloured in a mildly negative way, the correct assertions about the life of the Islamic Prophet then reached the studies of Christian authors, who were not only complete outsiders to Islam but also intent on using their pens to completely disqualify Islam and thus the Prophet in the first place. With this, these assertions were used selectively and mainly in so far as they were suitable for polemics, which went as far as scornful malignity. Occasionally, these assertions were also changed accordingly, but they were above all interwoven with fictitious elements in such a way that they were often divested completely of their historical value. The most different mixta-composita of this kind became for a long period the basis of the image of Muhammad in Christian Europe.
The general assertions given under 2. and 3. have to be illustrated and specified in the following by concrete data about the most important authors and the dominant motives of the mediaeval Muhammad biographies. First we shall deal with the transmitters and the transmission of the biographical material. The essential starting-points for the traditions about Muhammad which were circulating in the European Middle Ages were Byzantium, on the one hand, and the Christians in Spain living under Islamic domination (musta^ribun or Mozarabs [q.v.]} on the other. The Oriental Christians, as well as the Crusaders, resident for a longer period in the Orient, do not seem to have contributed much material. Of the Oriental Christians it was above all the very early John of Damascus (7th-8th century) who left distinct traces; from the circles of the Crusaders, William of Tripoli (13th century) should be mentioned in the first place. Through Sir John Mandeville (14th century), who based himself on the latter’s material, it found a really wide diffusion. The well-founded Byzantine knowledge about Muhammad and early Islam became known in the West through Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th century), who copied the Chronographia of Theophanes (8th-9th century). As has been shown recently, Theophanes had access to early Islamic-Arabic tradition (however acquired).
The most important source for information about Muhammad, however, was without any doubt Spain. Already in the 9th century, Eulogius of Cordova, the central figure of the Mozarabic martyrdom movement (forming a front against the ruling Islam as well as against conforming fellow-Christians), had recorded biographical details about Muhammad in his polemic against Islam; they do not however seem to have become known outside southern Spain. On the other hand, the appropriate notes in the dialogi of Petrus Alphonsi or Pedro de Alfonso (llth-12th century), a Spanish Jew who was converted to Christianity, found wider diffusion. The famous «Toledo-Cluny collection» owes its origin to the deliberate intention to gain the most comprehensive knowledge of Islam (including the Prophet). This collection had been ordered by Petrus Venerabilis, Abbot of Cluny (first half of the 12th century) to be translated in Toledo in order to bring about an extensive refutation of the Islamic religion on a solid basis. The treatises Liber generationis Mahumet, Doctrina Mahumet and Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum from this collection, which, as is well known, also contained a Latin translation of the Kurgan, have certainly been important for the later image of Muhammad in Christian Europe. The most considerable influence, however, seems to have been that of the treatise Epistola Saraceni or Rescriptum Christiani, the translation from Arabic of a polemic (risdld) which is dated before the year 1000 and composed by an Oriental Christian (?), whose name c Abd al-MasIh b. Ishak al-Kindl (cf. the name of his Muslim opponent c Abd Allah b. Isma c il al-Hashimf) is undoubtedly a pseudonym. The corresponding passages in the Speculum Historiale of Vincent of Beauvais (13th century) are above all based on this translation. Altogether, in the 13th century there originated then those writings which finally completed in essence the whole knowledge of the European Middle Ages and which—apparently by always going back directly to Arabic-Islamic sources—transmitted a remarkably wide spectrum of correct information: the Quadruplex reprobatio, whose author remains obscure, and the writings concerning Islam of Petrus Paschasius or Pedro Pascual, of Ricoldus de Monte Crucis or Ricoldo da Monte Croce (going back ultimately to a text written in Arabic by a Mozarab, known in Latin as Contrarietas elfolicd), of Ramon Marti, and of Ramon Lull or Raimundus Lullus. Just because of its considerable popularity, mention should finally be made of the «Corozan legend», which describes Muhammad as a great magician in connection with his marriage to a lady from the country «Corozan»; this legend appears for the first time in Hugo of Fleury (beginning of the 12th century). We shall deal now with the most important motives and groups of motives which decisively marked the image of Muhammad in the European Middle Ages and fixed it afterwards for a long time (with offshoots until today).
With very few exceptions, the concept of the mediaeval biography of the Islamic Prophet was dominated by a single tendency, namely to prove that Muhammad, in the way he had lived and acted, could not have been a prophet, that his alleged divine revelations consequently were man’s work and that Islam at the very most is an abstruse heresy of Christianity. Made subservient to this basic concept, there appear in the mediaeval Muhammad biography four kinds of motives, which may perhaps be characterised as follows:
1. Authentic accounts which—hardly or not at all changed—were, according to the mediaeval Christian concept, already as such sufficient to disqualify Muhammad as a Prophet.
2. Authentic accounts which by a little shift of emphasis and/or by inserting them into a false context of history or argumentation, unmasked Muhammad as a pseudo-prophet.
3. Motives which ultimately are based on authentic material but which hardly permit one to recognise this connection because they have been garbled by being shortened, enlarged or contextually placed so as to serve a polemic argumentation (these manipulations can also be found in various combinations or all together).
4. Pure fiction (not very often found).
When we follow Muhammad’s course of life in outline, while characterising the main motives, his origin and conditions of life should be mentioned as the first important group of motives. Muhammad and his contemporaries, the Saraceni, are descendants of the Dondi maid’s (Hagar’s) son Ishmael, for whom already in the Bible (Gen. 16,12; 21,13) an extensive but wild and warlike posterity is predicted. It was not difficult to apply this Ishmael filiation, already used by Isidore of Seville and Bede for a (negative) representation of the Arabes or Saraceni, in a polemical way against Muhammad: as a descendant of a rude, barbarically warlike people, who had neither government nor law and who moreover practised an unrestrained polytheism, he was not exactly predestined to prophethood. Add to this his own low status in his tribe, to which his «illiteracy» could be added as an aggravating and fitful epithet. This quality of ummi, which in the Islamic tradition formed a solid argument in favour of the divine origin of the Kur D anic revelations, thus in the West—where it was known since about 1100—almost served the opposite aim. Being of humble origin in several respects, surrounded by polytheists and, on top of that, «illiterate», Muhammad could evidently easily be misled. To this are linked the manifold versions of his intercourse with doubtful homines religiosi, who passed on to him, in his ignorant naivety, heretical Christian and/or Jewish doctrines as the true religion, a main primary motive which—linking up remotely with Islamic traditions—apparently had already reached the West through John of Damascus. As seducers of this type there appear the Arian-Nestorian monk Sergius or Bahlra (taken directly from Muslim tradition), and also anonymous heretics, who had been forced to flee to the fringes of the Christian oecumene and could only be up to their tricks with the help of Muhammad. The genuine Islamic motive, according to which Muhammad’s prophethood is confirmed by exponents of pre-Islamic religions (who see prophesied signs as being fulfilled by Muhammad), is turned by the very same people into a seduction to prophethood of the ignorant Saracen. Seducer and seduced in the end could, incidentally, melt into one and the same person. The abstruse motive of Muhammad being a Christian cleric, even a cardinal, who through ambition had become an apostate and had fulfilled his aims by founding a new sect, must thus have come into being. For the rest, the entire group of motives of Muhammad being seduced by dubious figures" is the context for the view, predominantly represented in the learned mediaeval West, that Islam is a Christian heresy, while the representation of Muhammad as part of the pantheon of a polytheistic Islam is a persistent element of the «popular» image of Islam in the Middle Ages.
Muhammad’s origin from humble conditions, in combination with the knowledge about his marriage to Khadldja, active in trade (and thus rich), could also be used polemically in another direction: having suddenly become familiar with the so far unknown possibilities of wealth (i.e. social influence), Muhammad was seized by an unrestrained striving for power, which in the end brought him to work his way to be a ruler by means of alleged prophethood. Thus the mediaeval traditions about Muhammad’s experience of his call and his early preaching are dominated by the fact that his transition to prophethood is both proved and qualified as based on deception. The motives used in this can amount to (guiltless) self-deception, but the tendency to make Muhammad appear as a deceitful imposter is predominant. The self-deception is generally depicted as pathological: endeavours of the Kuraysh, which had been transmitted, to interpret Muhammad as a magically-possessed person (madjnun) or also Islamic traditions relating the Prophet’s fainting fits (ghushiya ^alayhi and other such expressions) in connection with the revelations in this context, produced welcome material for the image of a Muhammad who was psychologically ill—the term «epileptic» was a particular favourite—who considered his delusions as divine announcements. By using another motive, it was also maintained that he experienced the instructions of his heretical teachers as messages of the archangel Gabriel (Sergius being somehow identical with Gabriel). The most favourite theme, however, seems to have been that of Muhammad the impostor. Driven by ambition and eagerness for power, and/or provided with magical qualities (this again was an element of Islamic—and Kur D anic—tradition, the Kuraysh see in Muhammad a magician (sdhir)), Muhammad conjures up a divine assignment for prophethood before the Saracens and seduces them into submission under an allegedly divine «law», which in reality, however, is the legalisation of his own power and personal desire, cloaked in a religious guise. In this view, the (in them-selves positive) contents of the Kurgan, such as the summons to strict monotheism, the warning of the Day of Judgement and the command to give alms, lose their proper value; they degenerate into suitable tricks of an impostor. His alleged ascension to heaven (isrd-* or mfrddf) is of course also deceit. These already highly imaginative and imagination-nourishing details of the Islamic tradition, known in the Middle Ages, seem to have had a fascination for the mediaeval authors. However, that Muhammad was a hypocrite and an imposter is above all evident from the fact that he was not able to work wonders, especially as the Kurgan and the Islamic tradition themselves emphasise this explicitly. The purely human qualities of the Prophet, so essential for Islamic theology, constituted for the mediaeval Christian the most conclusive counter-argument, repeated and varied again and again, against Muhammad’s prophethood, and were simply the proof of his being a charlatan.
As for Muhammad’s time in Medina, the mediaeval polemic against him is marked above all by two groups of motives: his conduct of war and his sexual life, both not worthy of a prophet anyhow. Measured by the Christian exhortation to peace, a founder of religion who declared warlike activities to be religiously meritorious—as is again shown extensively by the Kur D an and the Islamic tradition—and who called his followers to battle and acted as commander himself, could not be acceptable. Razzias, with the pseudo-prophet in person as princeps latronum in the vanguard and shamefully declared to be according to God’s directions, were inspired rather by pursuit of power and lust for booty.
Much more, however, than in Muhammad’s positive attitude about war, mediaeval authors were pruriently interested in his sexual life, a central theme already transmitted to Europe by John of Damascus. Many mediaeval representations give the impression right away that the^ real centre of life and the most important movens of the Islamic Prophet had been his excessively strong sexual urge. It is not necessary to enter here into the details of the mediaeval polemic against Muhammad in sexualibus. In any case, the emphasis given to this matter shows that it does not seem unfounded to think that the Christian Middle Ages, prudish and extraordinarily restrictive in sexual matters, could give themselves a somewhat free verbal rein by anathematising an anti-hero. By mediaeval standards, the genuine Islamic information about Muhammad’s attitude, and that of his followers, towards women and marriage (having become known gradually), was already sufficient by itself to provoke great indignation and denial. Polygamy legitimised by the KuPan; Muhammad’s special rights jn this respect; the suspicion of infidelity against c A D isha, Muhammad’s favoured wife; the Zaynab affair vindicated by a Kur D anic revelation; the sensual paradise which finally awaited the believers; all these represented already by themselves enormities and became a welcome basis for imaginative and hedonistic adornments. The polemic against the lascivious lifestyle of the immunditiae totius amator or also carnalibus vitiis totus brutalis often went a step further: the alleged prophethood and the so-called «divine revelations» mainly served to legitimise Muhammad’s abnormal sexual needs (and those of his followers): this was pure blasphemy indeed.
The last group of motives consists of the mediaeval descriptions of Muhammad’s death. In this context also, correct knowledge could be useful for polemics, like the quite normal human death, which did not correspond to the representations of the demise of a holy man, even of_a prophet, and Muhammad’s death in the arms of c A 3 isha, a detail which was gratifying to sexual polemics. Other motives originated from contaminations, such as the fact that Muhammad expected an ascension to heaven (mi^rddf) which did not however occur, or the epilepsy motive was applied again, now as the cause of death. Finally, information according to which Muhammad died of a drinker’s delirium (the Islamic prohibition of wine being in the background) is a malicious fiction, as are also those reports which say that his dead body was torn to pieces by dogs and/or pigs (these animals being certainly known as the most unclean for Islam). This summary may have made it clear that any single group of motives might in fact already have sufficed to disqualify Muhammad as a prophet. If all polemic elements are added up, the image arises of a monstrous anti-prophet, whose doctrine and the religion built upon it automatically lack any truthfulness. (A. NOTH)
Islam and the Muslim World
MUHAMMAD (570–632 C.E.) Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn (henceforth b. meaning the son of ) ʿAbdullah b. ʿAbd al-Muttalib, of the clan of Hashim, of the tribe of Quraysh, is acknowledged by more than one billion Muslims as the last messenger of God. It was through him that the Quranic passages, which his followers believe present the word of God, had been revealed to guide the nascent community through its predicaments. The religion that Muhammad preached is called Islam, meaning submission to God; its creed asserts that there is but one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
- The Life of Muhammad
Recognized before his prophethood as al-Amin (the trustworthy), the Prophet of Islam is largely known to us through the lore of the early Muslim community from oral traditions (hadiths) that were later written down. Though not always in agreement, these traditions come together to tell us about an Arab who was born around the end of the sixth century in the oasis of Mecca, a sanctuary town built around a cubical “house of God,” the Kaʿba. He was nursed in his infancy by Halima, a Bedouin woman of the Banu Saʿd, as was customary among the Quraysh. Muhammad lost his mother, Amina bint (henceforth bt. meaning daughter of) Wahb, a few years after he was reunited with her at the age of six. He was then cared for by his grandfather ʿAbd al-Muttalib and, then by his uncle Abu Talib, who granted him protection and stood by him in troubled times. Interestingly, Abu Talib never converted to Islam.
It was Abu Talib who introduced Muhammad to the camel-caravan trade, which became his occupation. This, in turn, led him to employment by a wealthy widow Khadija bt. Khuwaylid, who, though older than him, was impressed by his personality and subsequently married him. She bore him two sons who died in infancy, and four daughters: Zaynab, Ruqayya, Fatima (who alone survived her father), and Umm Kulthum.
Around age forty (610 C.E.), increasingly troubled by the social conditions of his fellow Meccans, Muhammad began to make regular trips to Mount Hira for prayer and meditation. On one such occasion, he claimed the angel Gabriel came to him with words written upon a banner of brocade. “Recite!” commanded the angel, and Muhammad, feeling an enormous pressure upon his chest, finally pronounced the words:
- Recite in the name of the Lord who created
- Man from blood coagulated.
- Recite! Thy Lord is wondrous kind
- Who by the pen has taught mankind
- Things they knew not. (96)
When Muhammad awoke from this vision, the words seemed to be etched in his heart and he feared he was possessed. For a brief moment he contemplated suicide, but then a voice came to him from the skies, hailing him as the apostle of God. Returning home, Muhammad informed Khadija of what had happened. With the help of her Christian cousin, Waraqa b. Nawfal, who interpreted Muhammad’s vision as a spiritual experience, Khadija persuaded Muhammad to have faith in himself.
At first Muhammad communicated his message only to those very close to him: Khadija; his young cousin, ʿAli b. Abi Talib; his adopted son, Zayd; and Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhafa, a merchant and friend. They are believed to have been the first Muslims. A few years later, Muhammad took his message to the people of Mecca informing them of a life after death and of a just and fair God who would reward humans according to their deeds in this world. ʿUmar b. al-Khattab and ʿUthman b. ʿAffan were two important Meccans who accepted his teachings at this time, though generally it was the less wellto-do youth who were attracted to his call. Most Meccans, however, resented the deprecation of their gods, the gods of their forefathers, and the rejection of their beliefs by the youth that Muhammad’s teachings encouraged. Moreover, the Meccans depended on the income derived from worship at the Kaʿba and feared that Muhammad would destroy the numerous idols that brought the pilgrims there. They opposed Muhammad, and made plans to kill him. Muhammad knew he had to leave Mecca when, in approximately 619 C.E., Abu Talib and Khadija passed away within a year of each other and there was no one left who was willing to grant him the protection and moral support he required.
Meanwhile, the people of Yathrib, unable to reconcile their differences and learning of Muhammad’s fair and honest ways, decided to invite him to live among them as their judge and arbitrator. Muhammad immediately seized the opportunity to leave Mecca, and after sending his followers ahead, secretly followed them with Abu Bakr as his companion. This event, known as the hijra, is believed to have taken place in 622 C.E., a date that was later adopted as the beginning of the Muslim calendar. For Muslims, it marks the dawn of the “Age of Islam,” as distinct from pre-Islamic times, which were termed the “Age of Ignorance,” or jahiliyya. Muhammad now asserted leadership over a community based, not on tribal ties, but on its shared faith in One God. Jews, too, were included in this community. Soon, Yathrib came to be known as Medinat al-nabi (the city of the Prophet) or Medina. The Meccans who emigrated with Muhammad became known as Muhajirun, and the Medinans who welcomed and helped them as the Ansar.
Muhammad was encouraged in his immigration to Medina by the presence of Jews, who, he hoped, as monotheists would approve of his teachings. Even before arriving in Medina, Muhammad explained that he too worshipped the God of Moses and Jesus, and turned to face Jerusalem in prayer. Such was his reverence for Jerusalem that he had a mystical experience that had led him there. When the Jews of Medina rejected his teachings, however, Muhammad decided to distinguish his community from theirs, and changed the direction of prayer towards the Meccan Kaʿba. Then he fought a series of battles against the Meccans and as well as the Medinan Jews, until finally Islam was secure in Medina. At the same time, Muhammad established Medina as his home. He married as many as fourteen wives, and Muhammad’s situation was more complex than the number suggests. Among his wives were ʿAisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, the only virgin he ever married; Hafsa, the widowed daughter of ʿUmar (an early Meccan companion); and Zaynab, bt. Jahsh, a divorcee, previously married to his adopted son, Zayd. Tradition also mentions a concubine, Maria the copt, who bore him a son who died in infancy. It is worth noting that while the Quran permits four wives to every man—provided he treats them all equally—it also informs us that the Prophet was permitted more wives because of his special circumstances. Yet, we are told that Muhammad asked ʿAli, husband to his daughter, Fatima, to refrain from taking a second wife. Polygamy had complex meaning and was not established as a pattern based on the Prophet’s example.
Muhammad decided to venture back to Mecca on pilgrimage to the Kaʿba, which he believed had originally been consecrated by Abraham. At first, Meccan resistance led Muhammad to secure a peace treaty at al-Hudaybiyya (628 C.E.) for a period of ten years. By the terms of this treaty Muhammad agreed to let the Meccans trade freely, while the Meccans consented to let him make the lesser pilgrimage to Mecca (ʿumrah) in the following year. The peace enabled Muhammad to conquer the Jewish fortresses of Khaybar and to conclude a treaty whereby the surrendering Jews handed over all their property in exchange for their lives. They were permitted to continue farming the land in return for half of their produce. The Quranic verse 9:29 corroborates Muhammad’s decision; it commands that monotheist ahl al-kitab (people of the book) be permitted to practice their faith in Islamic lands, on payment of a poll tax.
The following year, Muhammad, learning that Bedouin allies of the Meccans had attacked some of his followers, determined to lead an army against Mecca. Because the Jews were no longer available as allies, the Meccans decided to surrender, and Abu Sufyan, the Qurayshi leader of the Meccans, and his wife Hind, finally acknowledged that Muhammad was God’s prophet. A few weeks later, when several tribes led by the Hawazin decided to challenge Muhammad at Hunayn, the newly converted Meccans joined with Muhammad to defeat them.
Around 632 C.E., Muhammad, having established his authority over the Arabian Peninsula, made the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, circumambulating the Kaʿba, and established the ritual according to which Muslims to this day perform the hajj. It is recognized as the Farewell Pilgrimage. Muhammad died a few days later in Medina, in the house of ʿAisha, where he was buried. Muslims suffered a great loss when Muhammad died. Their deep love and gratitude are reflected in the blessings (tasliya) they ask God to shower upon him whenever they mention his name.
- Religious and Political Influence of Muhammad
The religion that Muhammad taught was called Islam, meaning submission to God. Asserting that “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet,” it commanded that every believer pray five times daily; fast during the month of Ramadan; contribute an annual tithe, or zakat, for the benefit of the poor; and, if possible, make the hajj pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime. Mindful of the ethical purpose of monotheism, it also denied believers the addictive pleasures of alcohol and gambling that had such disastrous effects on family life. Traditions also convey Muhammad’s respect for the ease of the larger community. For example, he wore perfume when he went to the mosque and refrained from taking garlic before attending a gathering.
Muhammad preached that Islam was the original religion brought by Moses and Jesus, but that it had become corrupted by the people. He taught that Jews should recognize Jesus as a prophet, and that Christians should understand that Jesus was neither God, nor His son but, rather, a prophet. Nevertheless, Muhammad held that all monotheists must be permitted to practice their faith, as long as they paid a tax in acknowledgment of Islam’s political dominance. The activism of Islam that was demonstrated by Muhammad in both words and deeds requires a careful investigation as to when aggression might be justified. Importantly, the justification for holy war (often identified with jihad, which means to strive), is usually understood to be defensive. The Quranic declaration, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) suggests an attitude of tolerance.
By acknowledging God’s unique otherness, Muhammad claimed that all humankind, of whatever race, ethnicity, tribe, or color was equal before the Lord, and that each would be judged justly according to his or her deeds at the end of time. While slavery and concubinage were recognized, it was recommended that such persons be set free. Nevertheless, women were not considered equal to men. This is exemplified through the Quranic requirement that the testimony of two women is required to challenge that of one man (2:282). Just as troubling is the permission given to men to reprimand their wives, affirming their dominance.
Islam’s paternalistic attitude towards women is an issue of contention, particularly in the context of today’s feminism. Nevertheless, the consideration granted by Islam to women, in the context of seventh century Arabia, was significant: Islam permitted women to keep control of their property even after marriage and inheritance rights were granted to wives, daughters, mothers, and aunts. Women were not only given a say in their marriages, but their sexual needs and desires were acknowledged. It is perhaps surprising to find listed among the inadequacies of men, for instance, the act of having intercourse with one’s wife “before talking to her and gaining her intimacy, and satisfying his need from her before she satisfied her need from him” (Daylami, Musnad al-firdaws).
Muhammad’s influence on subsequent religious and political life was significant. He had brought monotheism to the Arab world. Both Judaism and Christianity had already visited the Arabian Peninsula, but neither had ever quite captured it. Neither the Old nor the New Testament was in Arabic, nor had they yet been translated into Arabic. Moreover, Orthodox, Byzantine Christianity rejected the Arab Monophysites and Nestorians as heretics, and as for Judaism, there is no evidence of any communication between the rabbinical schools and the Jews of Arabia.
In contrast, the Quran brought by Muhammad was in Arabic; it delivered a message that the people of the region could understand, through a prophet who was one of them. It united the fractious tribes of Arabia, providing them with the political will to go far beyond their boundaries, to travel into North Africa and Spain in the west, and through Syria, Iraq, Persia, and into India, in the east. In a sense, Muhammad had provided the Arabs with inspiration for the making of an Arab empire, within which, for several centuries, Jews, Christians, and Muslims would make Arab culture their own.
- Muhammad’s Succession
There was, however, a problem. The Prophet had never overtly proclaimed his heir. There were two choices. One possibility was Muhammad’s young cousin, ʿAli, roughly thirty years of age, who had lived with the Prophet ever since ʿAli’s father, Abu Talib, had fallen into financial difficulties. ʿAli had fought bravely at the Prophet’s side and, as husband to Fatima, was also father to Muhammad’s beloved grandsons, Hasan and Husayn. Significantly, Muhammad chose ʿAli to pronounce the Quran verses of Baraa, at the conclusion of the pilgrimage in 631 C.E., which put an end to polytheist pilgrimages to the Kaʿba. Unfortunately, ʿAli, who had spent most of his adult years in Medina, had little recognition from the Meccan Quraysh.
The alternative was Muhammad’s dear friend and fatherin-law, Abu Bakr, roughly two years his junior, whom Muhammad had sought to lead the prayers during his last illness. The tradition of Ghadir Khumm, cited in the Musnad of Sunni scholar Ibn Hanbal, has the Prophet declare, “Of whomsoever I am lord, then ʿAli is also his lord.” The Shiʿites claim that this indicates Muhammad’s appointment of ʿAli as his successor. The Sunnis insist, however, that it was merely the Prophet’s way of reconciling ʿAli, who was extremely unpopular at the time, with the community. At Muhammad’s death (632 C.E.), Abu Bakr, with the support of ʿUmar, went forward to be selected as successor to the Prophet (khalifat rasul Allah). The appointment had political ramifications and family ties were rejected as a basis for succession. The precedent that the caliph should be a companion of the Prophet, of the tribe of the Quraysh, and approved by them, was established at that time. Thus, Abu Bakr appointed ʿUmar as his successor, and ʿUmar designated a group of twelve to select one among themselves as his successor.
More serious, however, was Abu Bakr’s insistence that Muhammad had stated that he left no heirs and his rejection of Fatima’s claims to her father’s property. The act effectively isolated Fatima and led her husband, ʿAli, to refuse his consent to Abu Bakr’s authority until after Fatima’ death six months later. This is probably what led to the formation of the Shiat Ali, the partisans of ʿAli, a significant minority who asserted that Abu Bakr’s leadership was illegitimate. It was the cause of a rent so deep in the Muslim community that even today mediation between the two communities is difficult.
- The Denominations of Islam and Their Images of Muhammad
On the basis of Muhammad’s teachings, three broad denominations emerged after his death. The largest group call themselves the ahl al-sunnah wa al-jamaa (also called “Sunni”). They accept the legitimacy of the succession from the Prophet as it developed historically and thus believe in the legitimacy of the prophetic legacy, as preserved by those who succeeded him, as a source for knowing God. The common Sunni position that has evolved regarding Muhammad is that prophets are free from the sins that provoke repugnance and error in the transmission of divine revelation. (Prophets are considered to be susceptible to error in matters unrelated to revelation, however.) Most Sunnis believe that Muhammad did not appoint a successor before his death and they do not give recognition to a priesthood. An imam, for the Sunni, may be a political leader, but he is generally someone who merely leads the community in prayer. The position of Abu Bakr as successor to Muhammad was, importantly, not vested with religious authority.
For the Shiʿites, Muhammad’s position came to be closely linked to that of ʿAli. According to the Imami Shiʿites of Iran, for instance, “Two thousand years before creation, Muhammad and ʿAli were one light before God.” ʿAli is significant not only as successor to the Prophet, but also as the one from whom the Shiʿite imams, who provide religious guidance to the community, descend. The imams alone can interpret the Quran with any degree of certitude. Moreover, special powers of infallibility, sinlessness, and wisdom are believed to have been inherited from, or granted by, God to ʿAli and the imams who succeeded him. Importantly, the Shiʿite traditions usually rely only on the words or actions of one of their imams (Momen, 1985, p. 173).
Finally, the Sufis, or mystics, claim that God is an intimate presence in all of His creation. While Sufism is not incompatible with being either Sunni or Shiʿite, the mindset of the Sufi is quite different—more tolerant, and less legalistic. Sufis believe that humans have an innate knowledge of God within and that the Divine may be experienced through jihad (spiritual striving), such as meditation or by the ritual repetition of God’s names and attributes (dhikr). One who has achieved this goal is known as wali-Allah (friend of God), and through him or her the ordinary believer might hope to negotiate with God. This has led to prayers of intercession at the graves of significant Sufis, including the Prophet, an activity that is condemned by non-Sufis as polytheistic. Like the Sunnis, the Sufis acknowledge the caliphates of the Rashidun (the Rightly Guided), i.e., Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthman, and ʿAli. The first three of these were rejected and even cursed by the Imami Shiʿites. But like the Shiʿites, the Sufis believe that the Quran has both an exoteric and an esoteric message.
- Biographical Literature and the Changing Image of Muhammad
During his lifetime, Muhammad probably did not exaggerate the significance of his person. Certainly, he claimed to be a prophet, indeed, he claimed to be the last of the prophets of God: Khatam al-anbiyaʿ. But there was a fear that his followers might deify him. Thus, theologians emphasized that Muhammad was but a man and that his only miracle was the Quran. To establish the miraculous nature of this achievement the Quranic description of Muhammad as “ummi” (7:157; 7:158; 62:2) was explained by exegetes as meaning that he was illiterate. Moreover, the fallibility of the Prophet is suggested by the Quranic verses that insinuate that he had faltered, as when he turned away from the blind man (80). Another example cited to show his fallibility is more controversial and comes from the tradition narrated by al-Tabari. According to this tradition, Muhammad agreed, for just a brief moment, to acknowledge the goddesses of the Meccans, al-Manat, al-Lat, and al-ʿUzza, as subordinate deities.
There is also the tradition that recalls ʿUmar’s words denying that Muhammad had died, although he was immediately corrected by Abu Bakr. Many early traditions convey the miraculous happenings that punctuated the Prophet’s life. Although the Quran points to Muhammad’s fallibility, it also includes signs that God interfered on his behalf quite readily. Incidents supporting this view include the splitting of the moon (54:1), the journey to the farthest place of prayer (17:1), and Muhammad’s victory at Badr (3:123–24). The very act of being selected prophet can be viewed as a miracle. As time passed, veneration for the Prophet gradually increased. This is reflected in the several steps taken by those in authority to preserve his memory. During the reign of ʿUthman (r. 644–656 C.E.), the Quran was compiled; during the reign of ʿUmar II (r. 717–720 C.E.) traditions (hadiths) concerning the Prophet and the early Muslim community, which had thus far been communicated orally, were also written down and compiled. By the time of al-Shafiʿi (d. 820 C.E.), the practices of the Prophet (conveyed by traditions) were being considered as significant a source as the Quran for the making of Islamic law.
While private collections of traditions from and about the Prophet were probably made during his lifetime, many appear to have been put together according to subject rather than chronology. With the rise of the Abbasids (750 C.E.), who encouraged polemical exchanges with Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, the Muslims had become acutely aware of the lacuna that existed in the recorded life of their prophet. Al-Mansur (r. 755–775 C.E.) therefore commanded Ibn Ishaq (d. c. 773 C.E.) to establish a biography of the Prophet, which in the recension of Ibn Hisham (d. 833 C.E.), under the title Sirat rasul Allah, is the only version that is extant in its entirety today. Ibn Ishaq compiled a narrative that informs us of the life of Muhammad as it unfolded, from his birth until his death. He soon became the most recognized biographer of the Prophet throughout the empire. Selecting traditions that would endorse a prophetic career, Ibn Ishaq shaped a narrative that presented Muhammad as the last and best of Quranic prophets. Placing Muhammad’s birth in the Year of the Elephant (570 C.E.) the compiler affirmed his early life in sixth century Arabia. Intertwining moments of revelation throughout the Prophet’s career, Ibn Ishaq endorses the community’s view that it was through Muhammad alone that the Quran was revealed. According to Ibn Ishaq, an important aspect of his prophetic personality was his performance of miracles. Ibn Ishaq had to take political factors into consideration as well. Al-Mansur, who was of the Sunni denomination, had come to power through a revolution. He therefore desired legitimation of his authority among Muslims, for whom association with the family of the Prophet was required, but also among the numerous Jews and Christians whose One God, the Muslims claimed, had chosen Muhammad as His last prophet. Ibn Ishaq tackled the problem by presenting al- ʿAbbas, the eponym of the Abbasids and an uncle of Muhammad, as one for whom the Prophet had a deep affection and by including hagiographic traditions on Muhammad that paralleled the representation of prophets and patriarchs in the Bible. Although Muhammad had his first revelation when he was around forty years of age (610 C.E.), we are told that even at his birth there were signs of his prophetic mission. Muhammad is said to have had the “seal” of prophethood on his back, and to have been followed by clouds that sheltered him from the burning sun. Indicating Muhammad’s place in the larger scheme of monotheism, Ibn Ishaq establishes Muhammad’s connection to the family of Abraham through Abraham’s son, Ismaʿil, and demonstrates similarities between the families of Abraham and Muhammad. Thus, ʿAbd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather), like Abraham before him, was released from his vow (made when he faced opposition from the Quraysh to his reclaiming of the well named Zamzam) to sacrifice his son. Instead he sacrificed several camels. Muhammad, like Jacob, “dreamed” he ascended a ladder (miraj) to the heavens where he met with God. Like the biblical prophets, Muhammad also performed miracles such turning a handful of dates into a quantity sufficient to feed several companions and healing the foot of one and the eye of another.
One of Ibn Ishaq’s significant contributions is the information concerning a “Constitution of Medina,” according to which the Muslims of Mecca and Medina, along with their Jewish allies in Medina, agreed to support Muhammad and help him against the Meccan polytheists who opposed him. When the Jews broke their agreement, Muhammad not only fought the Meccans, but also considerably reduced the Jewish presence in Medina. The tale regarding the Jews of the Banu Qurayza, whose adult men were executed after their surrender (while their wives and children were sold into slavery), is notorious in this regard. For Ibn Ishaq, the narrative follows the biblical pattern establishing God’s destruction of those who oppose His prophets.
Ibn Ishaq is careful, however. Much of the information on miraculous occurrences is qualified by phrases such as “it is alleged,” or “God only knows.” In the case of Muhammad’s miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, Ibn Ishaq directs the reader to a tradition from ʿAisha in which it was said that only Muhammad’s spirit had journeyed to “the distant place of prayer.” With the passage of time, however, these miracles were revisited without such caution, as in the compilations of al-Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) and Ibn Kathir (d. 1387 C.E.), which indicated an increasing veneration of the Prophet. A growing devotion could also be seen in the activity of the Muslims. Around 780 C.E. for instance, Kahyzuran, the Queen of al-Mahdi (775–785 C.E.), consecrated the birthplace of Muhammad as a mosque. A few years later Quranic scholar al-Naqqas (d. 962 C.E.) mentioned it as a place where a personal prayer of request would be satisfactorily answered by noon each Monday. (Monday was the day of the week on which the Prophet is supposed to have been born, received the first revelation, and emigrated to Medina.) The tomb of the Prophet was visited with similar intent. It compared with the Sufi practice of prayer at tombs of saints or “friends of God,” who were solicited for such benefits as a recovery from illness or the birth of a son. Muhammad’s role as intercessor was clearly seen to be an active one.
The timely protest of Ibn Taymiyya, who recognized in such negotiations a contamination of monotheism, was followed several centuries later by the more radical approach of Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhab (d. 1791), who feared a “regression into unbelief.” His cause was taken up by Saʿud b. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz. Such activity did not affect the rest of the Muslim world (Egypt, India, Turkey, and the like). In those places, Sufi practices and the celebration of the maulid continue to take place to this day. The oil revenues that accrued in Saudi Arabia in the twentieth century have, however, enabled the export of Wahhabism to the developing world, gradually eroding the latter’s more Sufi-istic heritage. Biographical literature on Muhammad in the twentieth century has been more concerned with issues of science and modernization. The representations of Muhammad by three biographers who belong to different nations and generations—Haykal (1888–1956) an Egyptian journalist; Dashti (1896–1982) an Iranian engineer; and Mernissi (b. 1940) a Moroccan sociologist—exemplify a variety of appreciations of the Prophet’s life.
In The Life of Muhammad, Haykal’s concern is to combat nineteenth-century western critics of Islam who portray the Prophet sometimes as an epileptic and at others as a fraud. Haykal insists that the Quran is God’s word, not Muhammad’s, and justifies his belief by claiming that Muhammad was illiterate. Asserting that the Prophet performed no miracles, he explains Muhammad’s journey to Jerusalem, and from there to the heavens, as an experience of the mind rather than the body. As for the story concerning the “satanic verses,” Haykal rejects it, explaining that Muhammad was, as a prophet of God, “infallible,” and therefore not prone to such error.
Regarding the Prophet’s marriages, Haykal is apologetic and unrealistic. He insists that these were not inspired by love but, rather, required by political and social circumstances. Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab, who was previously married to Zayd, his adopted son, is justified on the grounds that the marriage was conducted to make the point that an “adopted” son is not a blood relative, and to establish an inclusive approach to divorcees. More interesting is Haykal’s rejection of polygamy on the basis of Quran (4:123), which requires that a man treat all his wives with equality. For Haykal this was impossible and clearly meant that monogamy is what the Quran advocates.
For Dashti, Muhammad is inexorably human. To him, the Quran is Muhammad’s creation. His interpretation of the satanic verses and his weakness for women are simply the marks of human frailty. According to Dashti, Muhammad’s relations with his wives are a private concern, and should not be included in an evaluation of his leadership. Moreover, the battles of Medina against the polytheists and Jews were necessary, for Islam would not have emerged as it did from Medina if Muhammad had remained the visionary that he was in Mecca. The portrait Dashti paints of Muhammad in Twenty Three Years is one of an extraordinary man concerned for his fellow men.
According to Fatima Mernissi, “being a prophet means pushing people to the utmost, toward an ideal society.” In The Veil and the Male Elite she recognizes that the Prophet, despite his endeavors, held back from granting women equality with men by recommending that women hide their sexuality when going out into the streets and by giving husbands authority over them. These decrees are explained, however, as the consequence of the warring milieu and the chauvinistic attitude of the Prophet’s companions.
Displaying a keen understanding of hadith criticism, Mernissi examines the misogynistic opinions reflected in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, and explains that these were not the opinions of the Prophet, but of al-Bukhari. According to Mernissi, the Prophet, despite his “weakness,” respected women and consulted them in moments of crisis.
Finally, it is important to recognize that Muhammad is not merely the quest of believers, but of historians as well. In this regard a word of caution must be offered concerning the nature of the sources. The hijra (Muslim calendar) was established only during the caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Khattab (r. 634–644 C.E.). Before the hijra, events in Arab life were remembered in relation to more significant happenings of the recent past, such as raids and battles or through the mnemonic of numbers. Traditions in biographical literature that provide a chronology and sequence to the events that constitute the life of Muhammad are therefore suspect. Moreover the Quran, which is not compiled in the sequence in which it was revealed, mentions Muhammad only four times. It gives no information regarding his place of birth or death or the names of his parents, wives, and children. As for archeological remains, the Kaʿba and the Mosque of Medina were completely rebuilt within a hundred years of the Prophet’s death; and, tragically, all buildings consecrated to the memory of the Prophet in Mecca were destroyed by Saʿud b. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz (r. 1803–1814).
Scholarship has moved on, nevertheless. Where once the challenge had been to query the divine authorship of the Quran, today it has shifted to a recognition of its various threads that apparently indicate a composite structure. Where once the Quran seemed to be the inspiration of Muhammad, it is now believed by some to have been the inspiration for Muhammad. Many centuries ago, the bewildered believer came to terms with Muhammad’s death by emphasizing his faith in God. This could well be his response even today. Perhaps more documentation will come to light in the future.
See also: Arabia, Pre-Islamic; Biography and Hagiography; Caliphate; Hadith; Holy Cities; Miʿraj; Quran; Shiʿa: Early; Succession; Sunna; Tasawwuf.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cook, Michael. Muhammad. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Dashti, ʿAli. Twenty Three Years. Translated by F. R. C. Bagley. Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 1994.
Guillaume, Alfred. Islam. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954.
Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Hallaq, Wael b. A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni Usul al-Fiqh. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Haykal, Muhammad Husayn. The Life of Muhammad. Qum, Iran: Center of Islamic Studies, 1976.
Jarrar, Maher. “Sirat ahl al-Kisa.” In The Biography of Muhammad. Edited by Harald Motzki. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.
Kaptein, Nico. “Materials for the History of the Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday Celebration in Mecca.” Der Islam 69, no. 2 (1992): 193–203.
Kathir, Ibn. The Life of the Prophet Muhammad. Translated by Trevor Le Gassick. Reading, U. K.: Garnet Publishing, 1998.
Mernissi, Fatima. The Veil and the Male Elite. Translated by Mary-Jo Lakeland. New York: Addison Wesley, 1987.
Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shii Islam. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985.
Newby, Gordon. The Making of the Last Prophet. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Rippin, Andrew. Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. 2d ed. London: Routledge, 2001.
Schimmel, Annemarie. And Muhammad Is His Messenger. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.
Sellheim, Rudolf. “Prophet, Chalif und Geschichte. Die Muhammed-Biographie des Ibn Ishaq.” Oriens 18–19 (1967): 3–91.
Stowasser, Barbara. Women in the Qurʿan, Traditions, and Interpretation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Tabari, Muhammad b. Jarir, al-. The History of al-Tabari, vols. 6–9. Edited by S. A. Arjomand. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
Watt, W. M. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad’s Mecca. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988.
Welch, A. T. “Muhammad’s Understanding of Himself: The Koranic Data.” In Islam’s Understanding of Itself. Edited by R. G. Hovannisian, and S. Vryonis, Jr. Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1983.
Rizwi Faizer