Université de Montréal Towards a New Qur'ânic Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical and ...

367 Pages·2013·4.03 MB·English

by  Nahidi Shahram

Université de Montréal

Towards a New Qur’ânic Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical and
Intertextual Approaches: The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the
Tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes

par
Shahram Nahidi

Faculté de théologie et de sciences des religions

Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures
en vue de l’obtention du grade de
Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.)
en Sciences des religions

avril 2013
© Shahram Nahidi, 2013
Abstract

The Qur’ân, together with the sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet Muḥammad recounted in
aḥâdîth (oral traditions of the Prophet), form the eternal source of inspiration and knowledge
upon which the Muslim communities have acted and reacted to, as well as interacted with.
Externally, their relations with many others, including Christians, have followed the same
dynamics, as seen in the mirror of the Qur’ân and its interpretations. The topics of the divine
nature of Jesus, the trinity, and the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross, have been
commonly considered the three main theological points of disagreement between Muslims
and Christians. The Qur’ân’s clear position vis-à-vis the first two points do not leave any
space for scholarly debates. However, despite Muslims’ actual consensus on denying Jesus’
crucifixion and death, the Qur’ânic ambiguous image of Jesus’ last day on earth has caused
many discussions among mufassirûn (exegetes of the Qur’ân). This thesis is a textual
analysis of the two Qur’ânic passages on this debated point of difference. For this textual
and intertextual study, the tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’ân) of eight mufassirûn
belonging to different madhâhib (schools of interpretation) from various periods in the
history of Muslim-Christian relations are used in combination with recent textual approaches
and methods such as: historico-citical and redaction critical. In addition, three new theories
developed within this dissertation complete the hermeneutical tools employed for this
research: the “theory of five layers of meaning,” the “theory of double messages of the
Qur’ân,” and the “theory of humans’ tripartite nature.” In the light of these theories and
methods, it emerges that the Qur’ânic ambiguity on Jesus’ crucifixion and death may well be
the Qur’ân’s own invitation to Muslims and Christians to live with that unresolvable
ambiguity. This dissertation’s conclusion thus contributes directly to better Muslim-
Christian relations, reinforcing the Qur’ânic call to both Muslims and Christians (Qur’ân
3:64, 103) to focus on major common points, to embrace minor differences, and to spend
their energy on what might have a positive impact on their harmonious co-habitation,
abandoning the rest in the hands of God in whom both believe.

Keywords: Qur’ân 3:55 and 4:157; Jesus; Crucifixion; Death; tafsîr; nabawî; nafs; rûḥ;
Hermeneutics; Intertextual and Historico-critical Approaches.
Résumé

Le Coran et la Sunna (la tradition du prophète Muḥammad) relatée dans les aḥâdîth (les
traditions orales du Prophète) représentent la source éternelle d’inspiration et de savoir à
laquelle les Musulmans se réfèrent pour agir, réagir et interagir. Par le fait même, tout au
long de l’histoire musulmane, ces sources sacrées ont été à la base des relations des
Musulmans avec autrui, incluant les Chrétiens. Les trois éléments majeurs de
différenciation entre l’islam et le christianisme sont : la nature divine de Jésus, la trinité
ainsi que la crucifixion et la mort de Jésus sur la croix. La position tranchée du Coran
quant aux deux premiers points ne laisse place à aucun débat académique. Cependant,
l’ambiguïté du texte coranique quant à la crucifixion de Jésus et sa mort a favorisé de
nombreux débats entre mufassirûn (les exégètes du Coran). Cette thèse est une analyse
textuelle des deux passages coraniques qui traitent de cette troisième différence. Pour
cette étude textuelle et intertextuelle, les tafâsîr (interprétations du Coran) de huit
mufassirûn appartenant à différentes madhâhib (écoles d’interprétation) et périodes de
l’histoire des relations musulmanes-chrétiennes sont utilisés en combinaison avec
certaines approches et méthodes récentes telles que : historico-critique et critique
rédactionnelle. De plus, trois nouvelles théories développées dans la thèse enrichissent les
outils herméneutiques de la recherche : la « théorie des cinq couches de sens », la
« théorie des messages coraniques doubles » et la « théorie de la nature humaine
tripartite ». À la lumière de ces théories et méthodes, il apparaît que l’ambiguïté
coranique au sujet de la crucifixion et de la mort de Jésus est une invitation claire de la
part du Coran incitant les Musulmans et les Chrétiens à vivre avec cette ambiguïté
insoluble. La conclusion de cette thèse contribue directement à de meilleures relations
musulmanes-chrétiennes, renforçant l’appel coranique (Coran 3:64, 103) à ces deux
communautés leurs demandant de se cramponner aux points communs majeurs,
d’intégrer leurs différences mineures et de consacrer leurs énergies pour une vie
harmonieuse entre eux et laisser le reste dans les mains du Dieu qu’ils ont en commun.

Mots-clés : Coran 3 :55 et 4:157; Jésus; Crucifixion; Mort; tafsîr; nabawî; nafs; rûḥ;
Herméneutique; Approches Intertextuelle et Historico-critique.
iii
Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Résumé iii

Table of Contents iv

Preface xv

0 Introduction 1
0.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….. 1
0.2 Scope of the Thesis ………………………………………………………………….. 3
0.3 Limit of the Thesis …………………………………………………………………... 8
0.4 The Question of Approaches, Theories, and Methods …..………………………..... 10
0.4.1 The New Critical Methods ……………………………………………….. 12
0.4.2 The Comparative Contextual Method and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite
Nature …………………………………………………………………………... 13
0.4.3 The Theory of Double Messages of the Qur’ân ………………………….. 14
0.4.4 The Historico-critical Theory and the Redaction Critical Method ………. 15
0.4.5 Two Important Clarifications …………….………………………….....… 16
0.4.6 The Historico-critical Method and New Criticism …………………….… 18
0.5 Outline of the Thesis ……………………………………………………………….. 20

1 The Qur’ân and its Hermeneutics: First Steps Towards a New Interpretation of
Muslims’ Sacred Text 23
1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 23
1.2 The Qur’ân ……………………………………………………………………….… 25
1.2.1 The Compilation of the Qur’ân …………………………………….…….. 34
1.3 The ḥadîth ………………………………………………………………………….. 39
1.4 The tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………… 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.5 First Case Study: The Qur’ân Between Proper Noun and Concept …………..……. 54
1.6 Second Case Study: Muslim Disciples of Jesus ………………………………..….. 60
1.6.1 Part One: Two âyahs on the Disciples of Jesus ……………………….…. 60
1.6.1.1 Ṭabarî’s Version …………………...…………………………… 63
1.6.1.2 Ibn Kathîr’s Version ……………………………………………. 67
1.6.1.3 Ṭabarî, Ibn Kathîr, and Their Socio-Political Contexts ………... 69
1.6.1.4 A Telegraphical Style Comparison between Two tafâsîr ……... 71
1.6.2 Part Two: Does Christian, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân? …..……... 73
1.6.3 Does Muslim, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân? …………………...…. 79

2 On Themes, Topics, and Subdivisions in the Qur’ân 87
2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 87
2.2 The Sciences of the Qur’ân ………………………………………………………… 88
2.3 Different Subdivisions of the Qur’ânic Text ….…………………………….….….. 90
2.3.1 The Subdivision of the Qur’ânic Text into juz’, ḥizb, and rub‘ …….……. 93
2.3.1.1 A Feminist Hypothesis .……………..…………………….……. 96
2.3.2 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into Meccan and Medinan ………….. 99
2.3.2.1 The subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs into Meccan and Medinan .100
2.3.3 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs According to Their Length ……..... 102
2.3.4 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into muḥkam and mutashâbih ….…. 104
2.3.5 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nâsikh and mansûkh ………….. 107
2.3.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into ‘âmm and khâṣṣ .………….….. 111
2.3.7 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into indhâr and tabshîr …………… 114
2.4 Some Implications of Subdividing the Qur’ân …………………………………… 115
2.5 The Theory of Five Layers of Meaning or the Soul of the Text ……………….…. 119
2.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nabawî and rasûlî or the Theory of Double
Messages of the Qur’ân ………………………………………………………..…. 128
2.6.1 The Term nabî in the Qur’ân …………………………………………… 133
2.6.2 The Term rasûl in the Qur’ân ………………………………….……….. 143
2.7 inzâl versus tanzîl …………………………………………………………………. 156

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 On nafs, rûḥ, and the Question of tawaffâ and mawt in the Qur’ân 181
3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 181
3.2 The self ……………………………………………………………………………. 181
3.2.1 al-nafs …………………………………………………………………… 186
3.2.2 nafs versus rûḥ ………………………………………………………….. 199
3.2.3 rûḥ versus nafs ………………………………………………………….. 205
3.2.4 nafs, rûḥ, and the Qur’ânic Theory of nafs …………………….……….. 206
3.3 Death in the Qur’ân, and the Question of mawt and tawaffâ ……………...……… 216
3.3.1 mawt and Its Definitions ………………………………………………... 218
3.3.2 tawaffâ and Its Definitions …………………………………….….…….. 220
3.3.3 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through mawt …………….……….…….. 221
3.3.3.1 mawt and qatl …………………………………………………. 222
3.3.3.2 mawt and the Question of Decomposition ……………………. 224
3.3.3.3 mawt and the Question of Subject …………………………….. 227
3.3.4 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through tawaffâ …………………….…… 228
3.3.4.1 tawaffâ and the Question of Subject ………………………….. 230
3.3.4.2 tawaffâ and the Question of Body ……………………….……. 235
3.4 mawt, tawaffâ, and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite Nature ……………….…… 240

4 The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes:
an Example for a New Hermeneutics of the Qur’ân 250
4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 250
4.2 The Selection of tafâsîr …………………………………………………………… 251
4.3 A Short Biography of the Selected mufassirûn with Their Respective Historical
Contexts ………………………………………………………………………………. 254
4.3.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih ……………………………………………………. 254
4.3.2 Ṭabarî …………………………………………………………………… 258
4.3.3 Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib .……...……………………………………………. 259
4.3.4 Qurṭubî ………………………………………………………………….. 261
4.3.5 Ibn Kathîr ……………………………………………………………….. 263
4.3.6 Suyûṭî …………………………………………………………………… 264
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.3.7 Ṭabâṭabâ’î ………………………………………………………………. 267
4.3.8 Jazâ’irî …………………………………………………………………... 269
4.4 Jesus and the Story Tellers in the Islamic Tradition ……………………………… 271
4.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus ................................ 275
4.5.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabarî’s
tafsîr …............................................................................................................... 276
4.5.2 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Makkî Ibn
Abi Ṭâlib’s tafsîr……...……………………………………………………….. 284
4.5.3 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Qurṭubî’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 287
4.5.4 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ibn Kathîr’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 291
4.5.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Suyûṭî’s
tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………... 295
4.5.6 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s
tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………... 301
4.5.7 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Jazâ’irî’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 304
4.6 A New tafsîr of the Crucifixion of Jesus Based on the Theory of Double Messages of
the Qur’ân …………………………………………………………………………….. 307
4.7 Re-understanding Jesus’ tawaffâ Through the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite
Nature …………………………………………………………………………………..325

Conclusion 329

Bibliography 334
vii
Preface

In May 2005, while doing a second Master’s degree at Wilfrid Laurier University
(Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), I presented a paper entitled Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’ân
at the annual regional meeting of the American Academy of Religion’s Eastern
International Regional conference in Montreal, Canada. A few months later, I enrolled as
a Ph.D. candidate at the Université de Montréal, focusing my research on the same topic
and presenting its results in this doctoral dissertation. When I started the redaction of this
thesis, its title was The Crucifixion of Jesus in Qur’ânic Exegesis (tafsîr) and the Science
of Tradition (‘ilm al-ḥadîth): Towards a New Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical
and Intertextual Approaches. The more my research progressed, the more I was
convinced that my simple theories and discoveries on Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’ân can
be applied to the rest of the Qur’ânic text as well, and used as hermeneutical tools for a
better understanding of the Qur’ân’s multilayered messages. In the middle of this long
journey, I realized that I had consecrated most of my time on developing and presenting
ideas that could help the devout reader of the Qur’ânic text grasp better what the text has
to offer beyond its historical and contextual boundaries. For that matter, Jesus’
crucifixion was only a par excellence example. Thus, during the redaction of my second
chapter on different Qur’ânic subdivisions within which I present my theory of double
messages of the Qur’ân, I reversed the title of my thesis to its present one: Towards a
New Qur’ânic Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical and Intertextual Approaches:
The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the Tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes.

Useful information before reading
In this thesis, the translation of Qur’ânic âyahs mainly comes from Marmaduk Pickthall’s
The Glorious Qur’ân: An Explanatory Translation. The edition I use was published in
2000 by Tahrike Tarsil Qur’ân Inc. An online version of it is also available at
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/. In some cases, in order to compare translations, I
PREFACE
use other versions in English, French or Persian, and they are clearly identified in the
footnotes. Apart from those translations of the Qur’ân, all other sources utilized for this
thesis are in their original language whether Arabic, English, French or Persian, and all
passages translated into English are the result of my own translation except when the
translated text is part of a direct citation from an English source.
In this thesis, the transliteration of Arabic into English follows the method of the
U.S. Library of Congress with the six following exceptions:1
1. For long vowels, circumflex is used instead of macron. (i.e. Qur’ân instead of Qur’ān)
2. Circumflex is used for alif maqsûrah. (i.e. ‘Isâ instead of ‘Isā)
3. Common Arabic names formed of the composition of a noun with Allâh are written as
one word. (i.e. ‘Abdullâh instead of ‘Abd-Allâh)
4. Ibn is transliterated as b., except where it comes at the beginning of a name or if it is
commonly recognized as a popular name to identify a person.
5. In compound nouns, the definite article of al is not conjugated except if it is a part of a
cited sentence in Arabic. (i.e. always ahl al-kitâb)
6. When the definite article of al is attached to a letter of ḥurûf al-shamsiyyah, the
transliteration does not follow the pronounciation but it respects the written form. (i.e. al-
nafs instead of an-nafs)
In this thesis, for the plural form of some popular Arabic terms such as âyah,
sûrah or sunnah, sometime a small s is added to the end of the term. For the less popular
terms such as tafsîr, mufassir, mutakallim, muḥâddith or ḥadîth the Arabic plural form is
used. To facilitate the reading, for Arabic terms that have several plural forms such as
nabî a small s is added to the end of the term.
In this thesis, the transliteration of an Arabic term and/or name reflects its
phonetics in Arabic, and the transliteration of the same term and/or name in Persian
reflects its phonetics in Persian. For example, the first name for Zam who is a Persian
writing author is recorded as Mohammad Ali, and the same first name for Ibn Jazrî who
is an Arabic writing author is recorded as Muḥammad ‘Ali.

1 This method is available online at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf (consulted on
September 1st 2012).
ix
PREFACE
In this thesis, the birth year and/or the death year of Muslims who have lived
before the twentieth century are marked using the hijra calendar. Also, the birth year
and/or the death year of non-Muslims as well as those years for Muslims who have lived
through the twentieth century are recorded using the Common Era calendar.
In this thesis, apart from direct citations from English sources, wherever a non-
English term is mentioned, if a translation is judged necessary, it appears in parenthesis
after the term. In a few cases this order is reversed for rhetorical purposes.
In this thesis, wherever there are numbers separated from each other by a colon,
they represent one or some Qur’ânic âyahs. The number before the colon represents the
number of the sûrah, and the number or numbers after the colon represent(s) the number
of âyah or âyahs in that sûrah.

x