Zwemer Center

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: Prophethood in Islam

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on Prophethood in Islam during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents the themes of Prophethood within Islam: prophets in the Qur’an, the importance of prophets within Islam, the characteristics of prophets, and Muhammad. 

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture: Prophethood in Islam: 

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. In the last lecture, we dealt with the issue of a revelation, special revelation. And special revelation in the Islamic scheme of things is something which is transmitted to prophets. And so we’re now going to turn our attention to prophets, to the issue of prophethood in Islam. Now this is, of course, a shared concept.

The Bible has prophets as well. Are they the same? Is it the same concept? The same understanding? Well, let’s consider the named prophets in the Quran.

There are 25, sometimes some lists add 1 or 2 more, but these are the main ones. These are the named prophets in the Quran. Just going down the list, and I’ll read the translated names. So Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham well, Hud and Saleh. They’re 2 Arabian prophets.

Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Jibe, Job, Moses, Aaron, Ezekiel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elijah, Jonah, Zechariah, John, Jesus, and Mohammed. Have another look at that list. Look back. Think which of those prophets would you accept in a biblical context are prophets? Which are not?

Who are the main prophets in the Bible? Do you consider Adam a prophet? Do you consider Abraham a prophet, Ishmael a prophet? Are there any big prophetic names that are missing? Would you see Mohammed as being the last of the prophets?

We’ll return to that question later. The whole question of prophets is something which is quite productive, quite popular out amongst Islamic communities, and we saw in an early lecture the whole the the significance of the stories of the prophets genre of literature, just how widespread the stories of the prophets collections have been, how widely distributed. How those rich colorful tales that are compiled into collections of stories of the prophets are used to explain the Quran and to teach Islam to young Muslims. So prophets are an important topic to consider in our study as we seek to understand the Quran. Now here, you have the kind of, chain of prophets, which is very popular on Islamic websites where you have the different prophets named and the the links drawn between them and so forth.

We saw in the last lecture how the great classical commentator, Zamai Shari, in commenting on Surah 43 verses 2 to 4 distinguishes between a message a messenger and a prophet. Again, let’s read this. A messenger is one of the prophets to whom together with the verification miracle, the book is sent down. A prophet, on the other hand, who is not a messenger, is one to whom no book is sent down, but who was commanded only to restrain people on the basis of the earlier revealed law, the Sharia law. That’s an interesting distinction drawn by Zamashali.

He died in 11/44. So by his time, that distinction was being distributed, circulated amongst Muslims. But questions are asked about whether that distinction actually holds up on an examination of the Quran. Arthur Jeffrey, in his study of the Quran, identified 3 words used in the Quran for Allah’s messengers, mursal Rasul Nabi. The Quran uses them interchangeably, but later theologians, he says, distinguish between Rasul, messenger, and Nadi, prophet.

Similarly, John Wansbrough agrees with Jeffrey that the Quran does not distinguish between messenger and prophet, although late later theologians did. Certainly, Muslims today very widely distinguish between the 2, and you will encounter that distinction as you interact with Muslims. Another scholar from the 17th century was Niamat Allah Aljazayeri. He was the author of a quite a famous work called Asiha. He was a Shiite, a Shiite Muslim from the 15% minority.

Interestingly, he identifies reasons and purposes for the prophetic mission. Why were they prophets? What was their purpose? He says the reasons were as a mercy and a grace from God. God sent prophets as a mercy and grace, and their purposes were to give good tidings of reward to warn of punishments.

Here’s this theme of warning appearing again, to make clear to people all they need to know, to make specific what was required in order to be accepted in the hereafter, in order to be accepted in the hereafter. Compare that with biblical prophets. Why were biblical prophets empowered and sanctioned to do what they did? Why were they sent? Why did god touch prophets and send them to communities?

In Islam, one encounters this interesting notion of prophetic impeccability. The classical theologian, he suggests that prophets must necessarily be impeccable, free from sin, in order to prevent there being anything to contradict what is indicated by the miracle. Now zamakshali comments on this. He says that while prophets may in terms of lack of knowledge, they should be free from both serious and mild sins. This is very interesting from a Christian perspective Because if Muslims fundamentally believe that prophets are free from sin, then how do we engage with Muslims on the question of prophethood if prophets in the biblical context seem to have sinned?

How do you go about that? And this certainly is a stumbling block in conversations between Christians and Muslims. Muslims considered David to be a prophet, and yet David, as we know, according to the Old Testament account of his encounter with Bathsheba, was guilty of some of the most serious sins. So these are stumbling blocks, and these are issues that Christians need to consider as they discuss the question of prophethood with Muslims. Aljuwani, a classical Islamic theologian, says that prophets may have committed venial sins, which are pardonable sins, but they did not commit mortal sins.

There’s no decisive proof, he says, to show that prophets either did or did not commit benial sins. Theologians differ on this point. So you can see that Muslim scholars struggle. They they work around this issue. They they they want to maintain a standard dogma that prophets do not sin, but they’re aware, according to the Islamic accounts, that there are oblique references to Islamic prophets erring in certain sorts of ways, so they need to develop a kind of framework for dealing with that.

And in case, he says, well, there are venial sins and pardonable sins there are venial sins and mortal sins. And prophets, under no circumstances, commit mortal sins, but perhaps they committed venial sins. How would you respond to that discussion as a Christian? How would you deal with the David issue, David and Bathsheba? Moving on to another very famous scholar.

And let me say at this point that I’ve spent so much time dealing with classical scholars because of what I stated at the outset of this course, that classical scholarship in islam in Islam lives on in the modern world in a way that classical scholarship in the west doesn’t necessarily live on. Now a very important classical scholar historian was Ibn Khaldun. He died in 1406, and he considered the characteristic hallmarks of prophets to be that they withdraw from others. They undergo physical distress during the revelatory experience, and we saw this with Mohammed. They’re good and wise, and they perform miracles.

Think about that. What are the hallmarks of biblical prophets in your view? How do the hallmarks of biblical prophets interact with those hallmarks of Islamic prophets according to Ibn Khaldun’s viewpoint. Moving into the modern day, Mohammed Iqbal was a very famous, writer in the Indian subcontinent. He died in 1938.

And he introduces us to the last of the Islamic prophets, which is Mohammed. He says, god is the light of heaven and earth. His light shines upon the apostle, that’s Mohammed, and the latter illuminates mankind. This prophetic function of mediation has seen the seeds, plants, and fruits. Its seeds are knowledge, its plants action, and its fruits, salvation in the hereafter.

What do other modern writers have to say about prophethood? Well, Muhammad Abdu, the famous Egyptian scholar that we considered in an earlier lecture, he considers a prophet has special natural talent, which enables him through effort to carry out his tasks. On the other hand, Parawes, a famous Indian Pakistani scholar, rejects this implication that talent plus effort produces the prophetic genius. Similarly, Rashid Rida, a disciple of Muhammad Abdul, rejects this suggestion. For him, the prophet depends entirely on God’s revelation.

Daud Rapper, another Indian scholar, conceives of a pre revelatory period during which the prophet is being prepared. What about biblical prophets? Is their prophetic gift? Is their prophetic talent part of something which involves their effort, or is it entirely something which comes from the grace of God? I’d like us now to prepare ourselves for the next section of this lecture, the second part of this lecture, which is going to focus on the last of the Islamic prophets, Mohammed.

In preparation for that, I’d like you to turn to the Moodle page and read Ibn Kathir’s exegesis of Surah 33 verse 40, which introduces us to the person of Mohammed, and it gives us comment by a very influential theologian commentator, Ibn Kathir, who died in 13/73, a long time ago, but who wields extraordinary influence in the Islamic world today. Hello, and welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re continuing on with our lecture on prophethood, and this time we’re going to focus especially on, the prophet whom, Muslims regard as the last of the prophets and that is Mohammed. Again, I draw your attention to the Moodle site, which contains a range of materials, including a set of films about which I’ll say more later. There is some, important writing on Mohammed by Muslims at the end of the previous lecture.

We looked at the commentary by Ibn Kathir on verse 40 of Surah 33 that was considering the person of Mohammed. The site also includes some, Hadith selections on Mohammed compiled by, William Goldsack, which is an important source. There is also, an important piece of writing by Patricia Kroner, who is a revisionist scholar. And in her, online article, she’s asking the question, what do we know about Mohammed? What do we know historically that is historically reliable about Mohammed?

There’s also, an important reading by the, Christian writer John Gilchrist, in which he addresses the question as to whether Mohammed is foretold in the bible. This is a very central claim by Muslims. The claim that the Bible had previously in its original form many references to the coming of Mohammed, and these references were erased erased by Jews and Christians. John Gilchrist responds to those claims in expert fashion. He’s a very gifted scholar and writer, so I would refer you to that article.

I’d also refer you to, the the writing by Chalkut Mulkari, his book entitled the prophet and the messiah in which he includes an extended discussion over several chapters in his book on the person of Mohammed and and on the prophetic claims of Mohammed. That’s an an essential piece of reading for you. So if you feel called to write an assignment on prophethood in general and Mohammed in particular, Mukherjee would be an important source for you to be referring to. One of the key hallmarks of profits that we saw in our previous discussion was, that they were miracles were associated with them. Now, Mohammed’s the the in Mohammed’s case, the the the usual miracle that’s associated with Mohammed is the Quran itself.

You often heard it said by Muslim scholars and writers that Mohammed’s greatest miracle was the receipt of the Quran. Additionally to that, there is the issue of the night journey. Now this night journey is there is any cryptic reference to it in Quran. It occurs at Surah 17 chapter, verse 1. And in order to unpack that rather cryptic reference, we need to turn to the Hadith accounts of the night journey, which are quite copious and quite extensive.

Now this night journey where Mohammed is reputed to have ridden on a horse on the the special horse, Burak, from Mecca to Jerusalem and then from Jerusalem up to heaven. This night journey is regarded by some as a miracle, as one of his miracles according to Zamach Shari, the classical commentator who we’ve now encountered quite extensively. Zama Shari states that some regarded the night journey as a miracle according to Mohammed, But he also points out that there was disagreement over the starting point. There was disagreement over the date of the journey. They disagree.

The different writers disagreed over whether Mohammed was awake or asleep during the journey. And Zama Shari points out that Hassan al Basri, a very significant early writer, suggested that it was a vision Mohammed had in his sleep, although most Muslim scholars disagreed with this. So the question of Mohammed’s night journey, which is a key part of the Mohammed story, is surrounded by much disagreement among Muslim scholars. Is it to be taken as a literal journey, or is it to be taken as a figurative journey that Mohammed experienced merely in his in his sleep? Now John Wansborough, the prominent British revisionist scholar, he offers quite a radically revised interpretation of the night journey, that’s referred to in surah 17 verse 1.

He challenges the link of surah 17 verse 1 with Mohammed, suggesting perhaps that Moses was intended, and this really is radical thinking. The transport by the spirit of God is widely referred to in the old testament, he suggests, and he says that the phrase from the sacred mosque to the furthest mosque, which is in that that verse, may be an exegetical gloss. Now that really is a radical inter reinterpretation, which Muslim scholars would not accept, but it indicates the kind of creative radical thinking that takes place among some non Muslim scholars on standard Islamic, dogma. What about Mohammed’s status among the prophets? Well, much is said in the Hadith collections on this, and the selections offered by Goldsac, which is available on the, Moodle page, address this question of Mohammed’s rank among the greatest, among the scholars.

In summary, and you will see in reading the hadith, more detail, in summary, those features which Islam claims render Mohammed the greatest of prophets are, according to Bukharian Muslim, firstly, divine assistance in achieving victory over his enemies. So that was one quality which made him the greatest of the prophets. A further quality is the right of prayer for his followers anywhere in the world. Thirdly, the right to take booty after battle makes him stand out among the prophets. Fourthly, that Mohammed was a mission to all humankind.

And finally, the right of intercession on the day of judgment sets Mohammed apart from the other prophets. Think about those features and compare those features with the characteristics of biblical prophets. Would you agree as a Christian that the Bible would support such claims of pro prophetic characteristic? How would you respond to Muslims who make that those claims for Mohammed? Again, John Wansbrough shows his radical, thinking in saying that the Quran itself does not support a claim of special status among prophets for Mohammed, yet there does seem to be some hint of a special status, he says, for Jesus and some biblical prophets, especially Moses in the Quran, further radical thinking, further revisionist thinking.

I’d like you now to take time out, to watch a series of, films which relate to the person of Mohammed. In 2,011, a documentary series was produced by the BBC on the life of Mohammed, and I’ve provided links to those that 3 part documentary on the Moodle page. I’d like you to watch those documentaries. As you watch them, listen watch them critically, noticing style, noticing, the way that Mohammed is portrayed, thinking about the commentary, listening to the the narrator as you watch. Take notes as you go, and take stock at the end of it as to how Mohammed is portrayed in that 2,011 documentary.

After you watch that documentary, I’d like you to take the time, 3 hours when you have time, to watch the 1977 film, the message of the story of Islam. It is a representation of the history of Islam and the life of Mohammed produced in 1977. I’d like you to compare and contrast the treatment of the life of Mohammed between the 2,011 BBC documentary and the 1977 film. Do you sense any difference, any evolution in the way that Mohammed is portrayed? If so, what differences are there?

What are the parallels?

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: Revelation in Islam

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on Revelation in Islam during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents the themes of revelation within Islam: general and special revelation.  

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture: Revelation in Islam: 

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re moving now onto a new topic, the topic of revelation, which we will address in 2 parts. Now, of course, revelation is a theme which is very widely portrayed in popular literature and and in the in the arts, both in terms of the fine arts and in terms of, more popular sorts of, expressions. Hollywood revelation, these pictures are termed, but these are very fin familiar scenes in the west. The question of revelation occurs, in 2 specific ways in the Christian context.

We tend to court talk about, general and special revelation, a distinction between the 2 in the Christian context, and that applies no less in the case of Islam as well as we shall see. So in this lecture, we are going to deal with general revelation And general revelation, as we are aware, is something which, is available to all as is indicated in the Luzun covenant statement of 1974, which said we recognize that all men have some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. Of course, we know what he’s talking about, the kinds of spectacular evidences of God’s handiwork in the natural world around. And indeed, this topic of general revelation intersects quite extensively with the previous topic that we talked about of creation. Through creation, God gives general revelation and makes it available to the whole world, to all people of all races, in all locations, and of all creeds.

So how does general revelation work in the case of Islam? How do we see evidence of general revelation in the case of Islam? Well, again, let’s go on a journey through the Islamic materials and hear what the Quran the Quran and other documents have to say. Now the Islamic textual materials include references which reveal an appreciation of general general revelation, and this is, of course, not surprising. In the Quran in surah 30 beginning in verse 20, we read among his signs, among the signs of Allah, is this that he created you from dust and then behold ye men scattered.

And among his signs is this that he created for you mates from among yourselves that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and he has put love and mercy between your hearts. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. Now that particular surah goes on in subsequent verses, and I will let you read that yourselves. Unpacking a Quranic perspective of general revelation, that surah is quite significant, but there are many other surahs that make reference to the concept of general revelation. In surah 6 verse 99, we read the statement, It is he who sendeth down rain from the skies.

With it, we produce vegetation of all kinds. From some, we produce green crops out of which we produce grain heaped up at harvest. Behold, in these things, there are signs for people who believe. This concept of signs is very central to the Islamic concept of general revelation. In Surah 17 verse 12, we read, we have made the night and the day as 2 of our signs.

The sign of the night have we obscured while the sign of the day we have made to enlighten you that he may seek bounty from your lord and that you may know the number and count of the years. All things have we explained in detail. Remember the importance of that word signs, ayat. Surah 2, the longest surah in the Quran in verse 100 and 64 makes this statement. Behold in the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the alternation of the night and the day, in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind, in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which he gives there with to an earth that is dead, in the beasts of all kinds that he scatters through the earth, in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, here indeed are signs for a people that are wise.

Further on this issue of signs verse 22 of surah 30, And of his signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth as well as the difference of your language and languages and colors. In these, there are signs for people of knowledge. Now we can look beyond the Quran and find evidence of an awareness of general revelation in other, elements of literature in the Hadith collections. Consider this Hadith account from, the collection by Muslim book 2 number 0494. Even our best reported that he spent a night at the house of the apostle of Allah.

The apostle of Allah got up for prayer in the latter part of the night. He went out and looked towards the sky and then recited this verse of Ali Imran surah 3 verse 190. Behold, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day there are indeed signs for men of understanding. So that gives a context to that particular Quran verse and it shows how the Hadith explains the Quran. In this case, this Hadith explains the context for Mohammed expressing that verse.

Continuing on, Mohammed, the he then returned to his house, used the toothpick, performed the ablution, and then got up and offered the prayer. He then lay down on the bed and again got up and went out and looked towards the sky and recited the verse mentioned above, then returned, used the toothpick, performed ablution, and again offered the prayer. Ask yourself the question, is this an exposition of natural theology? How does this help us link creation and salvation? How does this compare with Romans 120?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead so that they are without excuse. Remember, the purpose of these materials of this course understanding of the Quran is not simply to understand the Quran, but it’s to equip us as Christians to respond and to engage with with Muslims. On this question of revelation, general revelation at the moment, how does that intersect with a biblical understanding of this theme? Are you able to draw on the Bible to respond to Islamic perspectives here? Now remember the distinction between general revelation and special revelation.

The fact that the words of the Quran might refer to aspects of general revelation, that fact does not necessarily mean that the Quran itself is the word of God or is special revelation. There are references to general revelation in diverse texts, both sacred and secular. That doesn’t make those texts necessarily special revelation. Consider, for example, the Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita, which at chapter 15 has this statement by Krishna by the Lord Krishna who says that light which is residing in the sun and which illumines the whole world and that which is in the moon and in the fire, know that light to be mine. Krishna is one of the gods of Hinduism.

So there’s a similar theme there of the light illuminating the whole world in the moon and in the fire pointing towards the divine. Now that’s found in Hindu texts. It’s found in Muslim texts, but it doesn’t mean that the texts themselves are necessarily special revelation. And it’s to the issue of special revelation that we will turn our attention in the next part of this lecture. Consider the discussion thus far of general revelation and Islam.

Do you feel that the Quranic articulation of general revelation agrees in all respects with that in the bible? We’re continuing on with our lecture topic of revelation. In the first segment of this lecture, we considered the question of general revelation in Islam. And I wanna now move on to the second key part of any discussion discussion about revelation that is special revelation. Now, again, I encourage you to be referring to the Moodle page, which contains a set of writings by both Muslim and Christian writers on this particular topic, writings drawn from both classical and modern Muslim writers, and Christians responding on the Islamic claims of general and special revelation.

Now the idea of revelation in general and and, the Arabic term that is most commonly used, the the key Arabic term is the word. It’s the Arabic word for revelation. And in the Islamic context, it refers to the revelations and inspirations of God to his prophets for all humankind. Now the key element of Wahi, according to Muslim belief, is the Quran. In Islam, Quran is considered a Wahi given to Mohammed.

In other words, the Islamic claim is that the Quran is special revelation. Why does revelation take place? Well, we learn from Surah 6 verse 19 that this Quran has been revealed to me, that’s Mohammed speaking, that I should warn you by it and all whom it shall reach. In other words, the Islamic understanding of special special revelation is of something which serves as a warning. How does this compare with the purpose of special revelation in the bible?

One of your readings in on the middle page is the book by Atman von Denfer, and he gives various names for the Quran. Alternative names, terms such as the criterion, the the things sent down, the reminder, scripture, plus terms of reference such as light, guidance, mercy, glorious, blessed, announcer, and warner. They reflect one of the various aspects of the revealed word of of Allah, he says. Note how some of the names for the Quran overlap with the names for Allah. What about in the case of the Bible?

What alternative names do we have in Chris the Christian tradition for the Bible? This concept of special revelation in Islam crosses over between Quran and Hadith. We’re reminded by the great classical scholar, Al Ghazali, who still wields a huge influence in modern Islam, that God has but one word which differs only in the mode of its expression. On occasions, God indicates his word by the Quran, on others by words in another style not publicly recited and called the prophetic tradition. Both are mediated by the prophet.

Now that’s quite a remarkable claim. So Ghazali is saying that in Islam, special revelation, the special devices revealed by god for furthering his purposes in this world are the Quran and the Hadith. The Hadith forms part special revelation. Another classical scholar has a slightly different angle on this this relationship. Jalaludina Suyuti, one of the authors of the tafsir or Jalalayn that we considered in an earlier lecture, writes, the revealed speech of Allah is of 2 kinds.

Suyuti says that in the sunnah, Gabriel rephrased god’s words, but in the Quran, he reproduced it verbatim, but it still reveals speech. So Quran and Hadith are both special revelation. Consider both of those statements closely. Are they saying the same thing? Now how did this special revelation take place according to Islamic belief?

Well, there are 2 stages in the revelation of a Quran according to. He says, first, the preserved tablet, the the the tablet in heaven that contains all of god’s speech was excerpted. Some was taken from the preserved tablet to the lowest of the heavens on the laylatul Qadr, which is a night during the month of the fasting month of Ramadan. And the second stage is when that excerpt was taken from the heavens to earth. Initially, on that same night, the laylatul Qadr, and then gradually during Mohammed’s 23 year ministry.

So in other words, the teaching is that the Quran, which is part of that heavenly tablet of God’s speech, was taken in 2 stages, from heaven to the lowest of the heavens down to earth for Mohammed during his ministry. That’s how special revelation came about in the Islamic view. We’re going to revisit something which we touched on in an earlier lecture, the issue of prophetic inspiration. In the following account, in the summary account taken from Bukhary, we see the description of prophetic inspiration. How does it compare with descriptions of prophetic inspiration in the bible?

According to the account in Bukhari, which we saw earlier, there are various stages of this prophetic inspiration, the process of revelation. So and Mohammed would experience these. There would be dreams like bright daylight. Then he would have this love of seclusion. Then an angel appeared asking him to read.

Then the angel squeezed Mohammed very hard. The angel released Mohammed. The angel squeezed Mohammed again. The angel released Mohammed. The angel squeezed Muhammad again, and the angel finally released him saying, Read in the name of your lord.

Now that is the process according to Islamic belief that special revelation came about. How does that compare with the special revelation of the Bible for Christians? There are other references in the hadith to Mohammed’s experiences in Bukhari, Abu Dawood and Tirmidi. There are references to experiences like the ringing of a bell, an angel appears in the form of a man and talks to Mohammed, Revelation appeared while he was using a toothpick. While receiving revelation, Mohammed sent for Zayd, his scribe, who transcribed his account of events as they were happening.

In other words, Mohammed was sufficiently conscious and aware. Now this whole question of special revelation, the those special excerpts from the heavenly tablet that Muslims believe were sent down to prophets, the last one being Mohammed, relates to to a distinction that’s drawn by some Muslims between a messenger and a prophet. We read this in Zamakhshari commenting on Surah 43 verses 2 to 4. He writes, a messenger is one of the prophets to whom together with the verification miracle, the book is sent down. A prophet on the other hand who is not a messenger is one to whom no book is sent down, but who was commanded only to restrain people on the basis of the earlier revealed law.

In interacting with Muslims, you will encounter this distinction between a prophet and a messenger, so be prepared for it. Now Zara Shari argues that certain sections of the Quran are ambiguous. He says that ambiguity forces believers to engage in meditation, reflection, inference on the verses. So he says that the special revelation of the of the Quran as he sees it is deliberately ambiguous in parts because it forces believers to engage in meditation. Ambiguity represents a test to determine the strong and the weak in faith, he says.

Scholarly resolving of ambiguity produces the noble science. That’s an advantage, she says. And believers engagement with ambiguous verses with associated charges provides greater insight into harmony within the Quran intended by god and greater conviction and certitude. So the special revelation of the Quran as Muslims believe it to be involves deliberate ambiguity. Does the Bible include deliberate ambiguity?

The same Zamashadi insists that the expression that god speaks from behind the veil is a simile. God speaks from behind a veil is a simile. Why might this be? Zai Shadi in commenting on surah 75 verses 16 to 19 gives further angles, further perspectives on the process of Mohammed receiving this believed special revelation. As the messenger of God received the revelation with immediate understanding, he attempted to snatch the recitation away from Gabriel and did not have patience until the latter had finished it.

For he wanted to commit the revelation to memory quickly, and he feared that some of it might slip away from him. What do you think of that statement? The image of Mohammed believed to be a prophet, snatching the revelation away from the revealer. Further on this issue of the Quran being special revelation in the Islamic view, we get a comment from Baydawi, the classical comment commentator, who says that the only relationship between the Quran and poetry is that both are written in the Arabic language. Many commentators are quite active in, distinguishing between the Quran and poetry, poetry produced by people.

Why do you think they may be committed to that line of argument? We return again to the classical, scholar, Al Ghazali. He makes a comment, little by little, prophecy will penetrate into whoever recites the Quran, except that direct divine revelation will not be granted to him. It’s important to understand that the Muslim belief in the Quran as being special revelation is seen as a final act of special revelation. That kind of special revelation, Muslims believe, does not happen after Mohammed.

Mohammed was the last the Quran was the last act of special revelation. I’d like you to turn to the Moodle page now and stop the recording and look at the reading taken from Said Kotb, his commentary on surah 96. Now remember that surah 96 is the surah which Muslims believe contain the first and earliest revelations to Mohammed. Read what Saeed Qutb has to say in commenting commenting on that surah. So let’s revisit this question.

Does Islam have special revelation? Well, the Islamic claim of the Quran as special revelation given to Mohammed is quite clear. Clearly, Muslims claim that it is special revelation, sayid Qutb in his commentary on surah 96, which you’ve just read, says God has honored the species of his creation by choosing one of its numbers to be the recipient of his divine light and the guardian of his wisdom. Now that is clearly a claim for special revelation. And the Quran itself describes its purpose as to warn.

We saw this in an earlier verse. And, again, we see in in in verse 19 of surah 6, and this Quran hath been revealed to me that I should warn you by it and all whom it shall reach. As Christians, do we accept that that’s the purpose of special revelation? Special revelation, the special revelation of the bible is specifically designed to warn. Further, the whole question of the Quran being linked with the Hadith, the special revelation raises questions.

Remember the statement by Gaza by Ghazali, the great classical scholar. He said, god has but one word which differs only in the mode of its expression. On occasions, God indicates his word by the Quran, on others by words in another style not publicly recited and called the prophetic tradition. Both are mediated by the prophet. Does that linkage with the Hadith undermine the claims of the Quran for special revelation?

The Hadith, which is incredibly voluminous and which has great inconsistency in its accounts from one area to the other. Further, one must ask questions as a Christian about the method of revelation of the Quran, the issue of Mohammed being squeezed and pressed and subjected to physical pain and distress. Is that how special revelation comes about? Furthermore, within the Quran, seen as special revelation by Muslims, there is a fundamental incompatibility. The Quran says that Jesus was not crucified, and he did not die.

Christianity says the opposite. They can’t both be right. Can they both be special revelations?

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: Creation in the Qur’an and Hadith

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on Creation in the Qur’an and Hadith during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents the theme of Creation found within Islam, particularly in the Qur’anic and Hadith traditions.

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture: Creation in the Qur’an and Hadith: 

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re going to turn our attention now onto a new topic, the, topic of creation. I do hope you’re following the Moodle page as you go through this course. I’ve uploaded links and, documents to the Moodle page for each one of these topics, and they provide, important background to to add to what we’re dealing with in the slides. Under the topic of creation, on the middle page, you have 3 readings there at present.

One reading by Beidawi, the classical commentator, one reading by Sa’d Khutb, modern commentator, and an interesting reading by a Christian writer, Sam Shamoun, from the answering islam.org website in which he considers the days of creation in the Quran and responds from a Christian perspective. These readings will be supplemented as time goes on, but I do encourage you to follow the Moodle page and its developments. So we’re dealing with creation in the Quran and the Hadith. I want you to consider the verses that we’re about to encounter referring to Allah’s act of creation and to identify points of convergence and divergence with Christian belief. You will also need to read more widely.

In Shamoon’s article, you have a very good listing there of verses within the Quran that refer to creation, though there are many more. So if you use those as a jumping off point to add to what we’re discussing in these slides. In surah 13 verse 2, we’re told that god is the one who raised the heavens without pillars that you can see then assumed all authority. He committed the sun and the moon each run running in its orbit for a predetermined period. He controls all things and explains the revelations that you may attain certainty about meeting meeting your lord.

We constantly have this refrain emphasized of God’s sovereignty. God is the one who raised the heavens without pillars, assumed all authority. He committed the sun and the moon. You see, there’s this constant emphasis on the sovereignty of god, god’s overarching authority and sovereignty. In surah 24 verse 3045, we have reference to god creating every animal out of water.

1 of them is a category which walks upon its belly, another which walks upon 2 legs, and a third walks upon 4. Allah creates what he wills. Allah is able to do everything. Again, there’s that statement at the end, isn’t there? Allah is able to do everything.

Allah creates what he wills, the overarching sovereignty of Allah. More verses available here from Surah 32 verses 7 to 9. Allah is he who has perfected everything he created, and he began the creation of the human being out of clay or mud. So says the translator. He adds that bit in brackets.

Verse 8. Then he made his offspring from a quintessence of despised water coming out of parents as the translator. Then he shaped him in due proportions and breathed in him of his spirit and made for you hearing sight and hearts, little thanks you give. Further references to creation come from Surah 50 Surah 15 verse 26, where Allah speaking in the first person plural form we says we created the human being from stinking smooth and wet clay. And that theme is reiterated in Surah 55 verse 14 where he created man of stinking clay, wet and smooth like the one used in making pottery.

The question of image occurs in Surah 82 verse 8. In whatever form he willed, he puts you together. Again, we have this emphasis on God’s sovereignty. He does what he wills. Surah 7 verse 11 refers to the idea of rank, and we created you then fashioned you, then said to the angels, prostrate to Adam.

And they prostrated all except Iblis, who was not of those who made prostration. So in the act of creation, Adam was elevated above the angels in rank. And eventual, later resurrection is seen as a form of new creation in surah 17 verse 49. And they say, when we are bones and dust, are we going to be resurrected as a new new creation? The following verse says, say, yes, you will be resurrected even if you are stones or iron.

Now the whole question of creation, which is a key theme in the Quran, it’s key because it points to god’s all powerful and all sovereign nature. This theme of creation is picked up by the comment commentators, of course, and Zamakshari, our great classical commentator of the Mu’tazili school who died in 1144. He expounds on the matter of Iblis refusing to bow to Adam. Did Iblis have a point? Was it’s somewhat understandable in this account in Islam of an angel refusing refusing to bow to a man.

How would you respond to that discussion as a Christian? The Quran also refers to Allah breathing into man. Is that significant? How would you respond to that account as a Christian? The great classical commentator Tabari refers to Allah as follows.

He is their creator and the creator of their fathers and their forefathers before them and the creator of their idols, graven images, and gods. I’d like you to be thinking about all of this from a Christian perspective. You may wish to make reference to Isaiah 45:7 in the process. Moving into the modern day with the commentaries, we reach the Pakistani commentator, Muldudi, the Islamist activist who we encountered in an earlier discussion. He comments on Surah 2 verse 21 and urges Muslims to serve their creator so that you are saved from false beliefs and unrighteous conduct in this life and from the punishment of god in the next.

Think about Muldudi’s comment. How would you respond to that as a Christian? On the website, on the Moodle page, I’ve uploaded this reading from the classical commentator, Al Baydawi, a reading on surah 3 verses 180 7 to 191, which refers to creation and associated with the theme of revelation, which we will reach in our next, lecture. Do the reading. Read that read that passage and ask yourself those three questions as you read it.

Also, do be reminding yourself about the importance of sensing the difference in commentary style between some of the more philosophical commentators such as Baidawi and some of the more hadith based commentators such as Tabari or the more literalist commentators such as Mawdudi. I’d like to conclude by considering Sayed Khotb again, the great 20th century radical commentator who is really a an icon of Islamic radicalism. He certainly has his opponents. And in on this slide, I’ve given you an excerpt from a web page that I encountered where, he is is being criticized by an anti Waha’abi writer who who writes. Kot’s new fandangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir of the Quran called Quran in the shade of the Quran.

That’s the title of, commentary. The writer continues, was not interested in following the traditional approach Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the hadiths of the prophet which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense. This writer has taken to task because has actually been quite innovative in his formatting of his commentary, moving away from the traditional approach of taking a few words of the Quran and putting a comment, followed by a few words of and putting a comment, followed by more words of and putting a comment. That was the standard chain approach to commentary writing for centuries.

Saeed Khutb moved away from that, as you can see in the excerpt uploaded to the Moodle page. In that excerpt, writes, the very nature of this universe rules out any possibility of its formation by chance, for no chance could result in such perfect and absolute harmony on such an immeasurable scale. So we talked earlier about natural disasters. How do they fit the view of perfect and absolute harmony? How would you address that in your discussions with Muslims?

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: Angels, Spirits, and Demons

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on Angels, Spirits, and Demons during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents the theme of Angels, Spirits, and Demons found within Islam, particularly its significance in Muslims’ daily lives.

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture: Angels, Spirits, and Demons:

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re going to move on to a new topic now. We’re going to consider angels, spirits, and demons in Islam. Now this is a topic which impacts on the lives of Muslims in significant ways. While most non Muslims might not think a lot about angels, within Islam, angels are a much more conscious presence in the perceptions of ordinary Muslims.

And so it’s important for us as non Muslims to understand what Muslims are taught about angels and how their thought processes may be influenced by a perception of the functions of angels. I’d like to begin with an activity. I’ve given you on on the slide there a series of Quran verses, and I’d like you to go through each of those verses. Stop the rec recording now. Take your Quran.

Go through each of those verses, and just draw up a list of the functions of angels as they are referred to in those verses. As you’re doing so, try and be thinking at the same time how those functions of angels in Islam relate to your understanding of angels from a bib from a biblical context. Among the angels, of course, Jibril or Gabriel is extremely prominent. He’s the one who transmitted the Quran to Mohammed. He’s the holy spirit, the angel Gabriel.

Many references to him are found in the Quran. Another significant angel is the angel Micha’il. He’s the angel of sustenance, and he’s referred to in surah 2 verse 98. And a further significant angel is. He will sound the trumpet at the end of the world, and he rates a significant mention in the collection of Hadith by book 4 number 1694.

And a further significant angel is Israel, who is mentioned in the Quran by function rather than by name in Surah 32 verse 11. Now angels, we are told, are created from light. They’re incapable of refusing to do Allah’s will. Although having said that, the creation account in surah 2 from verses 30 to 34 and onwards have the angels are seeming to argue with Allah. They’re many in number.

They’re quite numerous, although only Allah knows their exact number. Angels are without gender. The famous medieval commentator, Arvazi, who we encountered previously, writes that the angels have no offspring because there are no female angels. I’ve included on the Moodle page a translation by doctor Tony Street of part of Razi’s commentary that relates to the angels for your greater information. Another Islamic scholar, al Bayjuri, who died in 8 18/60, considers that it’s wrong to ascribe either masculinity or femininity femininity to angels.

Angels pass on messages from god in the the kinds of couriers. And we have this recorded in the context of the Islamic account of Esa or the Islamic Jesus in surah 3 verse 45, where we’re told, behold, the angels said, oh, Mary, Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter and of the company of those nearest to Allah. So the angels are involved in giving the news to Mary of her the impending birth of Jesus. The great classical commentator, Tabari, defines angels as God’s messengers between him and his prophets and those of his servants to whom they are sent.

They’re messengers between God and his prophets. Now angels have been assigned other tasks. They are to continuous praise of God, which is one of the functions, one of the purposes of their existence to praise god. They bear god’s throne, we’re told. They accompany believers in prayer and one of their functions is to guard hell, administering it and directing its affairs.

Opposing the angels is tantamount to opposing god as they are his envoys, And that’s clarified in Surah 2 verse 98 where it is said, whoever is an enemy to Allah and his angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael, lo, Allah is an enemy to those who reject faith. In an interesting hadith account in Bukhary, volume 4, book 54 number 433, angels are seen to be recording the deeds of every person, including this very specific event. Narrated Abu Huraira, the prophet said, on every Friday, the angels take this stand at every gate of the mosques to write the names of the people chronologically, I. E. According to the time of their arrival for the Friday prayer.

And when the imam sits on the pulpit, they fold up their scrolls and get ready to listen to the sermon. It’s a very graphic image of angels. In another one of the canonical hadith collections by Abu Dawood, book 14 number 254, we read narrated Habiba. The prophet said, the angels do not go with a traveling company in which there is a bell. Now this, view of bells and of other musical instruments comes through in a number of hadith accounts where musical instruments are portrayed as undesirable.

In another very prominent collection of hadith by Imam Malik in his book called Muwatta, book 3 number 3 to 14, we read, related to me from Malik from Yahia ibn Said, that Said ibn al Musayab used to say, whoever prays on waterless, desolate land, an angel prays on his right and an angel prays on his left. When he calls both the and the for the prayer or calls out the angels like mountains pray behind him. The and the are key people in the worship cycle with the other calling people to prayer and the Akama leading people in the prayer. On the Moodle page, I’ve given you a link to this film on YouTube called The World of the Angels. I’d like you to watch that and, at the same time, be thinking comparatively.

How does this relate to Christianity? How would I respond to this from a Christian perspective, from a biblical perspective? Now angels only form part of the spiritual realm in in, Islam. The other key player in the spirit in terms of spiritual beings are the jinn. And so I’d like you to do the same kind of activity.

Stop your recording now. Take your Quran and look at those few Quran verses that make reference to jinn, just drawing up a list their characteristics. We find when we look at the Quran and associated literature that the jinn are unseen beings. They’re created from fire, whereas as we saw, the angels are created from light. They’re not angels, and it’s worth noting the comment by the classical scholar Atoonsi on the nature of Satan, who says angels do only good, Satan’s do only evil, jinns sometimes do good, other times evil.

So there you have your 3 spiritual beings, angels, jinn, and satans. We read in Surah 18 verse 50 that, Iblis is identified as one of the jinn, Iblis or Satan. That’s his other name, Iblis. That’s his main name. Whereas in surah 2 verses 31 to 34, Iblis or Satan seems to be portrayed as an angel.

So there’s some inconsistency there, and commentators have debated his nature. The fall of Satan or the fall of Iblis is referred to in Suras 2 34, Surah 7 verse 12, Surah 15 verse 28 and following, Surah 17 verse 61, and surah 20 verse 116. Do read those verses in your Quran. And in concluding now, I’d like like you to think about this question. After having surveyed the roles and functions of angels and jinn in the Quran, how does this discussion compare with the angels and spiritual beings in the bible?

Again, if you look at your Moodle page, you’ll find that I’ve given you a link to the very, to me, extensive answering islam.com website. And I’ve taken a reading from there, which talks about, provides a Christian perspective on the whole Islamic discussion of angels.

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: The Nature of Allah

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on the Nature of Allah during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents the theme of the Nature of Allah found within the text of the Qur’an: per-Islamic Arabia, Muhammad’s view, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Tafsir, seven attributes of God, theodicy, and apophatic theology. 

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture, The Nature of Allah:

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re marking now upon the second part of this course. In the first part, we considered the textual materials of Islam. We surveyed the Quran itself, addressing issues of its text and translation with some of the great debates. We considered how the Hadith texts are used to explain the Quran.

We also looked at the vast collections of commentary writing on the Quran of all different styles. We also looked at the stories of the prophets, which are also used to explain the Quran. So up to this point, we focused very much on the texts of Islam, in a sense, the ingredients for understanding the Quran. What we’re going to do now in the second part of this course is to move from texts to themes. I’m going to take a selection of themes, and we will look at what the Quran has to say about these themes, and then we will look to see how the texts of Islam we’ve looked at up until now are used to explain those particular themes.

Now the first theme that we’re going to consider is the nature of Allah in Islam, the nature of Allah in the Quran and how that’s explained by the texts that we’ve discussed up to this point of the course. Let’s begin by considering Mohammed and the god concept that comes through the pages of the Quran. Now remember, Mohammed is central to the whole Quranic event. Muslims believe that Mohammed received the Quran from God. Non Muslims don’t accept that.

But whatever the case, Mohammed is clearly closely interrelated with the Quran in some way. What was his understanding of God coming through the pages of the Quran? Well, we get a window through the pages of the Quran into Arab beliefs and worship before Islam, a subject we discussed in the last lectures. There appears to have been a pantheon of gods and goddesses in pre Islamic Arabia. There are approximately, it seems, 300 and 60 idols established by pagans in pre Islamic Arabia.

And Allah existed, but he was worshiped as the chief deity, the master of all those other idols. Interestingly, it seems that the pre Islamic Arabs did not believe in resurrection and judgment. Now such was the case of the society that man Mohammed entered. And Mohammed served as a religious reformer in his society. He he served as a religious reformer in the same sort of way that Buddha did, in Hindu society.

Jesus reformed Judaism. Martin Luther came as a reformer. So Mohammed was a reformer in his particular society, and part of his calling was to prove a number of things. Firstly, the existence of Allah. So but he was redefining the Allah of pre pre Islam.

Mohammed sought to prove Allah’s existence, but also his uniqueness and oneness as sole creator. And that comes through very clearly in the pages of the Quran. But another, theme that Mohammed focused on in the in the Quran was resurrection and judgment and rewards and punishments, themes which apparently had not been prominent in pre Islamic Arabian society. Now how did Mohammed prove this? How did Mohammed prove those claims?

Well, he drew on a range of evidence, but he especially drew on the physical world. He drew on the heavens, on the earth, on the clouds, and on the rain and so forth. And if if you read the, pages of the Quran on this theme, on on what Mohammed had to say about Allah, you find regular references to the physical world. Now at the same time, Mohammed was preaching resurrection and judgment, And that is a very profound common heavily accented theme in the pages of the Quran. Now Muhammad emphasized Allah as independent from his creation.

The forces of nature were merely manifestations of Allah’s power, said Mohammed. And this idea of signs is especially recurrent in the Quran. The Quran indicates Allah made himself partly known, and I emphasize the partly, to mankind through signs, through works, through attributes and qualities. So Allah revealed himself partly to humankind through signs and works and attributes and qualities. But at the same time, Allah remains unknown and unknowable in his essential being, and that’s a significant difference clearly with Christianity.

As we go through these slides, as we think about the nature of Allah in Islam, I want you to be thinking from a Christian perspective. How is it different? How what parallels are there? How do you respond as a Christian to these ideas? You know, it’s it’s it’s important that we listen to Muslim voices on these themes well.

And in that context, I would like you to go to the Moodle page now and watch the filmed interview with on that’s available on YouTube with Sheikh Yousef Estes who’s a convert to Islam. Now this film is called the concept of God in Islam. It runs for 23 minutes. He’s very articulate. I want you to listen to, what he has to say.

I want you to take notes of his main points and his arguments, especially as they reveal the Islamic scriptural understanding of God. And I would also like you to be listening for his criticisms of Christian views as well and be asking yourself the question, how would I respond to that? Because so much of this course is about Christian responses. How would I, as a Christian, respond to the comments of this sheikh Yousef Estes? So let’s turn to the pages of the Quran, and let’s look at certain verses to get a sense as to the profile of Allah in the Islamic primary text and the commentaries.

And we’re beginning with the Quran, and we’ll have a look at other materials in subsequent lectures. The focus is on the theme of Allah, the nature of Allah. What does the Quran have to say? What can be known of the Allah of Islam from the Islamic sacred texts? Well, there is only one god that is emphasized again and again and again and again.

It’s a much accented theme. Allah has 99 names according to the Quran. Although when you look at the Hadith, there are many more than 99 names for Allah in the Hadith collections, but you can easily find little booklets in Islamic bookstores or go online where the 99 names are listed. Some sometimes the collections will be slightly different from each other. There’s the key reference to Allah having 99 names is found in the hadith, such as this account in Bukhari volume 3, book 50, number 894, which says narrated, Allah’s apostle said Allah has 99 names, I e 100 minus 1, and whoever knows them will go to paradise.

That’s interesting. That’s one of the reasons that you sometimes see Muslims with prayer beads counting off the prayer beads as they say a name of Allah because they believe that they will earn merit by doing so. How do you respond to that as a Christian? How would you approach that Muslim? Here are some of the 99 names.

The beneficent, the merciful, the sovereign lord, the holy, the mighty, the compeller, the creator, the forgiver, the subduer, the abaser, the honorer, the dishonorer, the all hearing, the all seeing, the judge, the reckoner, the creator of death, the avenger, the distressor, the guide to the right path, and there are many others as well. Go back and have a look at that slide again. Those two slides as well as other lists go online. Have a look at online lists of the 99 names of Allah and assess whether those names could also be used to apply to God in the Bible. How do you respond as a Christian to those names?

Which of those names would you be happy to attribute to the God of the Bible? Which of those names would you not be happy to do so with? Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re continuing on with the topic of the nature of Allah, looking at a range of texts, both from the Quran and commentaries on the Quran and other materials to understand this topic. Allah has 7 core attributes as I’ve listed them there on the screen, attributes of life, attributes of knowledge, will, power, hearing, seeing, and speech.

Now in fact, when you read the Islamic literature, you find that there are some quite extensive discussions of the attributes of Allah in the, literature. And on your Moodle page, I’ve, given a link to an important piece of writing on the attributes of Allah in Islam, a piece of writing that was written by Muhammad al Fad Ali al Shafi’i, who was a very prominent, Egyptian scholar associated with Al Azhar University in the early 1800. He wrote attract, addressing the issue of god’s attributes in Islam, and that tract has been translated by Andrew Ribbon and published, and you have a copy of that document available to you. So I do encourage you to read that, and we’ll be drawing on that more as we go through these slides. There are copious references, of course, to Allah in the Quran.

And, there are several verses mentioned on this slide, 2268, 1061, which point to Allah being all knowing, and chapter 6 verses 61 to 62, which point to Allah being all powerful. A key verse for, an Islamic portrayal of the nature of Allah is verse 255 of Surah 2, chapter 2 of the Quran, and it goes as follows. Allah, there is no god save him, the alive, the eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh him. Unto him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth.

Who is he that intercede with him saved by his leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of his knowledge save what he will. His throne included the heavens and the earth, and he is never weary of preserving them. He is the sublime, the tremendous. Now the English of this translation is a little archaic, somewhat Shakespearean, and translations of the Quran into English often choose Shakespearean language because it seems to the translators to be more appropriate to, to primary text.

Perhaps there’s some reference there to the King James version and the role that it’s played within, biblical history. But looking beyond the language, I would like you to look very closely at this verse. I’d like you to think about the descriptions, the adjectives after you make the list, just consider every, attribute or every description, every adjective for Allah given in this verse and ask yourself whether they the say those adjectives could be applied to the God of the Bible. Other verses in the Quran point to other features of Allah. Allah sees all things according to verse 20 of surah 40.

Allah is present everywhere according to surah 2 verse 115 and surah 7 verse 7. Allah created the heaven and the earth, the creator role for Allah. And you have a number of references provided there on the screen. And beyond the Quran itself, the attributes and activities of Allah are unpacked by the commentators and by the scholars. Al Qasimi is a classical scholar, and he suggests that the purposes of creation, of God’s creation of the world, of the heavens and the earth, were threefold.

Firstly, as a demonstration of his power. Secondly, as fulfillment of what he previously willed, and thirdly, as verification of his eternal word. How does that square with God’s creative act in the Bible? Why did God create the world? Zamach Shari, a commentator who we encountered in earlier lectures, died in 11/44, the great Mortazilite writer.

He writes, all creatures are created well even though they share variation with regard to the good and the better. One adjective which appears regularly within the Quran to describe Allah is mercy, merciful. And in close, on close inspection, it becomes clear that Allah is merciful to those who serve him. Allah is merciful to those who believe. Allah is merciful to the believers.

And that’s emphasized and reinforced in the Hadith accounts in Muslim and Bukhary, in the great collections of those 2 scholars, they quote Mohammed as saying that god is more merciful to his servants than this woman to her child. It’s merciful to his servants. To those who serve him, he is merciful. How does that square with the mercy of God in the Bible? Is the mercy of god conditional?

Is it directed especially to god’s servants and to believers? I’d like you to pause this presentation now, go back and carefully read all the verses that were referred to in the preceding slides in your copy of the Quran, making a list as you go along of the characteristics of God Allah as they come through in these verses, and list similarities and differences with God in the Bible so you have a clear sense as to the range of adjectives used for Allah in the Quran and associated literature, comparing it with the activities and the features of god in the bible. This brings us on to the issue of the sovereignty of god, the sovereignty of Allah in Islam. This is a topic which is a huge topic in, the Islamic literature, and Muslim scholars and ordinary Muslims still talk about the some of the tricky issues related to this topic in the modern day as well. Now we’re going to touch on this now, but we’ll come back to this in more detail in a later lecture.

The bottom line is that in Islam, Allah decrees all, and there is a sense of that in Surah 13 verse 27, which says, the unbelievers say, why is not a sign sent down to him from his lord? Say, truly Allah liveth to astray whom he will, but he guideeth to himself those who turn to him in penitence. I do encourage you to be thinking as we go through this how these sorts of messages square with a biblical teaching on the sovereignty of Allah. Apart from the Quran having a range of statements about, the question of preordination of god’s determining or decreeing or, There’s much on this in the Hadith as well. Here is one example from Sahih Muslim, book 33, number 6436.

And this is related from Aisha, Mohammed’s wife. Aisha said that Allah’s messenger was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said, Allah’s messenger, there is happiness for this child for it committed no sin. He said, Aisha, peradventure, it may be otherwise because God created for paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father’s loins and created for hell those who are to go to hell. He created them for hell while they were yet in their father’s loins.

You can sense how this is profoundly significant in terms of a contrast with teachings of Christianity. And as you engage with Muslims, it’s important to know this kind of textual context that Muslims are brought up with. Apart from the Quran and the Hadith, the commentators, of course, have something to say about this whole question of predestination. Tabari, the great commentator who died in 9 23 AD, in a sense, his was the watershed moment of early exegesis on the Quran. What does he say?

Well, he writes, there are people who consider predestination untrue, then they consider the Quran untrue. People merely carry out what is a foregone conclusion decided by predestination and written down by the pen, by the divine pen. So you see the message is coming through fairly clearly, and it’s reinforced by other scholarly writings coming back to al Qasimi. He writes, what he wills is, and what he did not will is not. And there is no one who may resist his command or make a change in his decision.

And, again, the early 19th century Egyptian scholar, Alfad Ali Ashaafani, who I referred to earlier as the author of the work on God’s attributes, he writes, he makes his creature act according to his wish or at any time according to or in spite of that creature’s character. It is by his will that he creates, destroys, changes anything at any time. As you can see, all of these quotes are weighted towards a predestinarian view away from free will being allocated to to humankind. Al Fad Ali Ashafi has more to say on this, attacking those who oppose a predestinarian view. He writes, the liberal theologians maintain that God will not fail to fulfill his obligation for that would be a short shortcoming.

The liberal theologians, may god shame them, teach incorrectly that humans create their own actions. People are not compelled nor do they create their own actions. God creates the actions which people perform, but at the same time, people have a free choice to act. Still weighted towards a predestinarian view while within the overarching framework of predestinarian thinking, Al Fadali is trying to leave the door open for some freedom of action by people. I’d like to leave this topic with you for now.

And as I say, we will return to it later and look at it in more detail. In in the meantime, I’d encourage you to search for other Quran and Hadith references relevant to the debate about free will versus predestination. Asking yourself the question, do the Islamic materials seem more weighted to advocating human free will or predestination? In fact, Islamic materials are weighted strongly one way, but there are there are other elements which give fuel to an argument on the other side as well as we will see. In this lecture, we’re continuing on with the topic of the nature of Allah in Islam.

An important question relates to the whole discussion of the theodicy, suffering. Why do people suffer? Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why does god allow suffering? Now these questions are by no means unique to to Islam and to Muslims.

These questions have been asked, by Christians down the ages, and they continue to be discussed. And so as we look in the next few slides of the question of Allah and theodicy, I would encourage you to be looking at the same time at Christian materials on this topic so that you’re equipped to respond to the Islamic perspectives that you encounter from a Christian viewpoint. Now material on this in the Islamic context is found, of course, in the Quran and in the associated literature that explains the Quran. Take, for example, verse 11 of Surah 64, which says, no kind of calamity can occur except by the leave of Allah. And if anyone believes in Allah, Allah guides his heart aright for Allah knows all things.

Again, of course, this relates to the whole question of God’s sovereignty. God is involved in all all things, all events guiding. And so commentators and other scholars interpret those kinds of verse references as in the way that we see from Alfa Daliyah Shafi’i. He writes, if you are healthy, it’s that God wishes you to be so. If you suffer, God wishes to test you.

And a context where this question arose with great impact was following the great Asian tsunami of Boxing Day 2004 when a massive earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, then the Indonesian island, led to a massive series of tsunami waves, which killed up to a quarter of a 1000000 people with vast numbers of them being killed in the north the Acehnese, the province of Aceh, the Indonesian province of Aceh, a predominantly Muslim and very devout Muslim province. Others were killed in Thailand. Buddhists were killed. Christians were killed. Hindus were killed in Sri Lanka on the shores of India and so forth.

But the greatest number of victims came from the Indonesian Islands from the area of Aceh, and they were Muslims. So it’s an inevitable question to ask, how do Muslims explain such a calamity that killed almost a quarter of a 1000000 people. How do Muslims explain that in the context of their belief in god and their belief in God’s sovereignty? Following the great Asian tsunami, there were a series of documentaries on the event and on the aftermath. And one of the documentaries, surveyed a number of survivors of the tsunami to ask for their views on how they explained it in terms of their belief in god.

And so the next few slides will give voice to those survivors to listen to their explanations, And we begin with, a survivor by the name of Fadil, an Acehnese Muslim who lost all his family in tsunami. He is just an ordinary Muslim, not a specialist, not a scholar, not a specifically trained religious scholar. He was an ordinary, Muslim living in society. How did he explain it? He said, I can’t be angry with my god because if god took my family, I think it’s the time for my family.

They must die. God is testing me, he said at another time in the interview. Now I have a link with god 100%. So in terms of popular perceptions of the role of god in such disasters, this man articulated a view that the tsunami was an act of god designed as a test, and those who survive are linked more closely to God because of it. Now he, of course, wasn’t the only Muslim who was surveyed after the great tragedy.

What did others have to say? Well, another group of Adjani’s, Muslims, were swept into a mosque. What did they say? They said, because of the power of God, we weren’t crushed by the rubble. We were swept into the mosque.

We prayed and prayed, glorifying Allah’s name. We feared judgment day was coming. God did this because he he loves us. It was a lesson to us. God didn’t want us to become complacent.

So, again, we we find this idea of the great, calamity being a a kind of lesson from god, a test from god, an an event that is actively triggered by god as a kind of test or a lesson. Now the Acehnese Muslims who have been interviewed in these slides so far were ordinary Muslims living their lives on a daily basis, not specific specialists in the study of Islam. The next person interviewed was a a man by the name of Yousef Al Qadadawi, and he was associated with the Islamic defenders front. Islamic defenders front is an activist militant, fairly radical group of, Islamic activists in Indonesia, and they were very quickly on the scene in Aceh. How did they explain the great tragedy of the tsunami?

Well, he said, Islam forbids people to wear tight clothes. It forbids young people to go off to quiet places on their own, going off on motorbikes with someone who is not your husband, things that are prohibited by Allah. So all this had to be cleansed. What has hit them is a lesson so that we don’t do it all again. So, again, we have this idea that the tsunami happened as a deliberate act by god to cleanse, to give a lesson.

So far, the message and the interpretation has been quite uniform, whether coming from ordinary Muslim members of the community who are not specifically trained in Islamic theology or coming from a more self consciously religious Muslim activist, such as this man from the Islamic defend defenders front. What about the specialists? How did the specialists explain that the Islamic seminarians, those who have studied theology in great detail, how do they explain it? Well, let’s listen to the explanation of professor Youssni Sabi from Shaquale University in Aceh. Anybody in the world can be tested.

What’s in the mind of god? We don’t know that. Men should be stronger and closer to God through testing if they pass. If they don’t pass, they may be farther from God. Because of this tragedy, they may even blame God.

We are being tested by God. This is the very meaning of suffering. If you pass, you are closer to God. If you don’t pass, you blame this, you blame that, maybe you’re going to hell. So the remarkable thing is that whether a less educated member of the community or a highly trained theologian in the case of professor Sabi, the message is essentially the same.

That for these Muslims, a a huge calamity in the form of the tsunami was in fact an act of god, a deliberate act of god, intended by god, triggered and carried out by god in order to teach a lesson and to test. I’d like you to stop the recording at this stage and just digest that. Just think about it in the context of Christian explanations. How would you explain huge calamities in the form of the tsunami or other such calamities within a Christian framework? How does the Bible go about explaining natural disasters?

As you answer those questions, think of not simply what the a Christian answer may be, but how you would transmit that answer to the Muslims who we’ve heard interviewed, who’ve we’ve heard explaining the tsunami in the way that they did. Continuing on, the nature of God in Islam is defined not only according to what God is and and to positive attributes and character of god. But in the literature, you often find that the nature of god is explained in terms of what god is not. If you look at the, reading, translated by Andrew Ripon available on the Moodle site of the reading by Al Fad Ali Ashaafi’i. He devotes the second half of that tract to a listing of the negative attributes of god, what god is not.

And as we look at it, we find that Allah is not a trinity but is 1. And such statements in such documents are, of course, intended as a rebuttal to those who claim that Allah is a trinity. In other words, Christianity. This theme of God not being a trinity, not being not having certain characteristics comes through quite clearly in certain parts of the Quran, such as in Suratul Ikhlas, surah 112. This is a much, recited surah among Muslims, one of the best known surahs in the Quran, and it goes as follows.

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful, say he is Allah the one, Allah, the eternally besought of all. He begot it not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable to him. You see, in such statements, we find the negatives. God is not this. God is not that.

God was not begotten. None are comparable to him. Similarly, in the statement, the track by Alfred Ali Ashaver, there are statements about god not being created. No one has created him. Al Fad Ali Ashaqe writes, as god is uncreated, his existence has no beginning.

Allah does not depend on anyone. He has no needs. There is nothing like him. Nothing resembles him. Writes, nor does he resemble any created thing, nor any created thing resemble him.

And part of the framework for these negative statements of what Allah is not is that at the core, Allah remains unknown and unknowable in his essential being. This is an essential this is a key concept to understand in the context of Islamic theology and understanding the nature of God. As Ismail al Farooq, a very famous modern Islamic scholar writes, he writes, god does not reveal himself to anyone in any way. God reveals only his will. And similarly, the great classical theologian, one of the greatest thinkers who’s ever lived and who continues to exert a huge influence on modern modern Islamic thinkers, Al Khazali.

He writes, the end result of the knowledge of the adafine, that means those who have seek special knowledge. The end result of the knowledge of the art of the is their inability to know him. And their knowledge is, in truth, that they do not know him and that it is absolutely impossible for them to know him. So the that term, the that refers to those Muslims who divide devote themselves through a process of prayer and contemplation and withdrawal, seeking to to attain special knowledge. But even when they do that, says Ghazali, they do not know him, and it is absolutely impossible for them to know him.

Al Khazali goes on in another excerpt translated by Samuel Zwema. Allah is not a body endured with form nor a substance circumscribed with limits or determined by measure, neither does he resemble bodies as they are capable of being measured or divided. Neither is he a substance nor do substances exist in him, neither is he an accident, nor do accidents exist in him, neither is he like anything that exists, neither is anything like him. His nearness is not like the nearness of bodies, nor is his essence like the essence of bodies, neither does he exist in anything, nor does anything exist in him. It’s very far removed from the biblical teaching that humankind was created in the image of God.

The thrust of the biblical story is to build bridges to draw near to God in our understanding of him, to seek to know god, to seek to be like god as much as we can, to be Christ like. In Islam, there is so much weight on God’s difference from his creation. One of the greatest sins, one of the worst sins in Islam is the sin of shirk. That is it’s it’s it’s apostasy, but the kind of apostasy that involves associating others with God, associating others with God, not simply believing in one God, but believing in gods alongside God. And there are four forms of this great sin of shirk associating others with God and thereby apostasizing.

Shirkol, so that is apostasy of knowledge, associating others with god through knowledge. Apostasy of independent action. Apostasy of worship, mainly associating others with God in worship. Apostasy of liturgy liturgy associating others with God in liturgy. So this concept of shirk, associating others with god, is a great sin in Islam.

What I’d like you to do is to survey the materials that have been presented in these slides in the last three lectures and read more broadly. Ask yourself the question, do you feel that Christians and Muslims worship the same god? Now this is, of course, is a hot topic. Following on the very widely distributed and successful book by Miroslav Volf from Harvard Divinity School I’m sorry, from Yale Divinity School. His book was called Allah, and he addressed the whole question of Christians and Muslims worshiping the same god.

I’ve given on the Moodle site a link to one of his articles, which deals with the whole question of the trinity. Is the trinity something which is so far removed from the Islamic understanding of god? He addresses that question. I would encourage you to read that article in detail, but also look beyond, the Moodle site to access his book and read his book. I’ve also put on the website, on the Moodle page, a review by Mark Dury, doctor Mark Dury of Miroslav Volf’s book.

And doctor Dury takes a very different perspective on the question to professor Volf. So there’s a real debate there among Christians, both doc professor Volf and doctor Dury are believing and committed active Christians, but they reach very different conclusions on this key question as to whether Christians and Muslims worship the same god. I would encourage you to read their 2 pieces closely as you review the material presented in these slides and consider the big question yourself about Christians and Muslims worshiping. Do they worship the same god?

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: The Stories of the Prophets and the Isra’iliyyat

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on the stories of the Prophets and the Isra’iliyyat during a CIU course. Here, Riddell presents how the Arab communities interacted with the stories of the Prophets, the infiltration of stories from Jewish and Christian converts into Islam, and their impact (Isra’iliyyat) on Islam.

  Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture, The Stories of the Prophets and the Isra’iliyyat: 

Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re continuing on this lecture on the stories of the prophets and the Israel I liyat. And now we’re going to turn our attention to the Israelite. Now these two components of this lecture can’t be torn apart in any realistic way because they’re closely interwoven, as you will see. Just taking stock, we talked about the stories of the prophets, how, how Arab communities interacted, whether they were Jewish Arab, Christian Arab, or pre Islamic Arab, and they shared stories.

And this was very much a feature, it seems, of, pre Islamic Arabian society. Now stories serve to unpack, text, sacred text. And for Muslims, their book of the Quran, contains accounts of prophets. But when you look at the accounts of the prophets, you find that they’re very sketchy. They lack in so much detail that sometimes it’s difficult to understand the point of the story.

It’s almost it’s almost as if the account of the prophets in the Quran was being told to an audience that knew the details, and therefore, they were only given a bare outline of the story. Now where did the extra information come from if a story was being told about a prophet and the Quran only contains, a skeletal outline of that story? Where does the extra information come from? Well, it seems that extra information was brought into Islam by Jewish converts to Islam or Muslims of Jewish ancestry drawing on the egotic material of Judaism or old testament accounts. Now there are 2 big names here.

Kaob al Abbar, he converted to Islam in 638, and Wahab ibn Munabbi, who died in 728. Now there are subsequent generations of scholars, but the later generations can usually trace their statements back to these first two. If you look at the tradition accounts, if you look at the Hadith, you find the names of Abu Huraira and Ibn Abbas occurring a lot. They were sources of the, they were often cited as original sources of Hadith accounts, and you find that a lot when you look at the Hadith accounts. Now they were well, Reuben Firestone points out that they were early traditionalists who were known to be familiar with the Hebrew Bible or to collect traditions from Jews and Christians.

Now you can see where I’m going with this. Clearly, some of the detailed material, which fills out the Koranic story, the Koranic account, was brought into Islam by Jews and Christians who converted to Islam. And in time, some Islamic scholars came to be suspicious of this. There was an effort by the ulama, by the Islamic scholarly community, to forbid the transmission of traditions that derive from foreign sources, namely Jewish or Christian sources. Firestone explains this by saying that there was a growing sense of Islamic pride and concern for an integral identity and standardization of practice among what had become an increasingly diverse ethnic Muslim population.

Remember, we have Firestone’s book available in part through the link on the Moodle page. So what do we have here? We have a set of material, additional story based material brought into Islam by Jewish and Christian converts to Islam, brought in from Jewish and Christian sources. And this came to permeate some commentaries on the Quran, the stories of the prophets, and the tradition material. And soon this sense of suspicion grew of stories derived from Jewish sources, and these stories came to be known as the Israel Iliat.

In other words, stories of dubious reliability which had infiltrated and corrupted Islam. Now this whole process of suspicion was intertwined with an ongoing suspicion of all things Jewish that was reinforced by Koranic pronouncements about the Jews that were negative pronouncements. Now, again, I’ve been talking, about the past in discussing this topic of these three Iliad, but let let me assure you that this is not simply a detailed history. This is an ongoing issue and this book, Hadis Palsu Danhriwayat Isra Iliyat is a book that was published in Indonesia in recent times about the whole question of false hadith and Israeliat stories. That’s that’s what the title means.

Here’s another book in Turkish published on the Israelite. So this question of the Israelite, the idea that Jewish and Christian stories crept into Islam, into the Islamic material, and therefore cause causes suspicion. That’s still a living issue in the Muslim world. The question of the is a very interesting topic, and it could be one for an assignment if you’re interested in doing that. Now the Israelite were rejected by Muslim scholars by the 9th century because, says Firestone, they were not considered to be sound traditions.

The view that the Israelite tales were traditions that had been distorted by Jews because of their jealousy of the powers and political hegemony of the Muslims, And Firestone adds, only those stories that appeared to contradict Islamic dogma were labeled and outlawed as Israelite tales. You can imagine the dilemma. If Muslims found that on the one hand, the Quran said one thing, but on the other hand, a commentary or even a hadith account said something opposite to the Quran. How were they to deal with that? Well, part of the answer was in identifying the differing accounts in Hadith and Commentaries as Israelite, as Israelite corruptions.

Let’s take an example here. The question of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of his son. Is it Isaac or is it Ishmael? Of course, this has direct ramifications for us as Christians. And it’s interesting to look at this question, in the the context of Christian responses to Islam.

It’s very clear in the biblical account that the son that Isaac took to sacrifice was Isaac. There’s no doubt about that. What about in the Islamic materials? Reuben Firestone looks closely at this. He considers, the sources for the Abraham Ishmael stories because today, if you ask Muslims, which son did Abraham try to sacrifice, Muslims will unanimously say it was Ishmael.

And Firestone identifies the Abraham Ishmael stories within Islam as being sourced from biblical literature, pre Islamic Arabian folklore, and Islam itself. But interestingly, Firestone then undertakes a survey of the major commentaries. Remember all those commentaries we talked about in earlier lectures, the commentaries based on hadith and story, commentaries based on philosophical approaches? Firestone surveyed the major commentaries to see whether they identified Abraham’s would be sacrificed as Isaac or Ishmael, and he came up with some very interesting findings. For example, he went back to the great early exegete, at Tabari, one of the very first commentators we looked at, a commentator whose work is very much hadith based.

And at Tabari, who died in 923, he said quite clearly that the son who Abraham tried to sacrifice was Isaac, although he does offer arguments for both views. But, nevertheless, Isaac rates a mention in one of the greatest commentators who’s ever lived within the Islamic tradition. On the other hand, a athalaby, another narrative commentator, who we discussed earlier, favored Ishmael, although he too offers arguments for both views. Moving down the centuries, ibn Kathir, who died in 13/73, who we all also discussed earlier, he favored Ishmael. And by this stage, by the 13 by the 1300 late 1300, Ibn Kathir is articulating a kind of conspiracy theory where he says the people of the book, namely the Jews and the Christians, dishonestly and slanderously introduced Isaac to the story in the Bible by forcing him in.

So Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible by putting Isaac in there. Firestone comments on page 144 that the Ishmael traditions therefore represent Islamic material that evolved in an effort to affirm the view that Ishmael was the intended sacrificial victim. So let’s think about this. Around the time of a fallabee in 900, many Muslim scholars said Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac. By the late 1300, the standard view was that Abraham tried to sacrifice Ishmael, and today that’s the view.

Part of the process of that move from Isaac to Ishmael is associated with this whole Israelite controversy, where Muslim scholars became suspicious of material that they felt had been infiltrated into Islam by from Judaism and Christianity. And the claim that Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac was part of the whole Israelite controversy. This crossover between Islamic material and Jewish and Christian material, especially Jewish material, is quite profound and affects many different topics. For example, f e Peter’s comments in his book a reader on Islam that almost everything that is said of Mecca and of the Kaaba, the great black shrine in Mecca, can be found in the dense body of Jewish legend surrounding Jerusalem. These stories came from men like ibn Abbas, Wahab ibn Munnabi, or Kaab al Ahbar.

Now this is a very interesting topic. This whole question of the Israelite, the suspicion by Muslim scholars that some Islamic textual material has been corrupted by bringing in Jewish and Christian, especially Jewish stories, and you may wish to write an assignment on this topic. I’d like you to think further about this by going to the Moodle page and having a look at Ginsberg’s legends of the Jews. I have a link to it there. Have a look at that work.

That’s a gatic material within the Jewish tradition. Of course, it’s richly narrative going far beyond the biblical account of of of of of different topics. I’d like you to look at those materials to see what Ginsburg’s legends of the Jews says about the Adam and Eve story. Think about that and then also have a look at the link on the middle page to the excerpt from the tales of the prophets of Al Kisai where the Adam and Eve story is presented. See if you can see any overlap, any points of connection, any parallels between the rich, a gatic legends of the Jews and the rich narrative tales of the prophets of Al Qisai.

To get a sense as to how the material within the Islamic tales of the prophets might have been sourced from legendary material within Judaism. That is the essence of the Israeliat controversy. Welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re continuing on this lecture on the stories of the prophets and the Israel I liyat. And now we’re going to turn our attention to the Israelite.

Now these two components of this lecture can’t be torn apart in any realistic way because they’re closely interwoven, as you will see. Just taking stock, we talked about the stories of the prophets, how, how Arab communities interacted, whether they were Jewish Arab, Christian Arab, or pre Islamic Arab, and they shared stories. And this was very much a feature, it seems, of, pre Islamic Arabian society. Now stories serve to unpack, text, sacred text. And for Muslims, their book of the Quran, contains accounts of prophets.

But when you look at the accounts of the prophets, you find that they’re very sketchy. They lack in so much detail that sometimes it’s difficult to understand the point of the story. It’s almost it’s almost as if the account of the prophets in the Quran was being told to an audience that knew the details, and therefore, they were only given a bare outline of the story. Now where did the extra information come from if a story was being told about a prophet and the Quran only contains, a skeletal outline of that story? Where does the extra information come from?

Well, it seems that extra information was brought into Islam by Jewish converts to Islam or Muslims of Jewish ancestry drawing on the egotic material of Judaism or old testament accounts. Now there are 2 big names here. Kaob al Abbar, he converted to Islam in 638, and Wahab ibn Munabbi, who died in 728. Now there are subsequent generations of scholars, but the later generations can usually trace their statements back to these first two. If you look at the tradition accounts, if you look at the Hadith, you find the names of Abu Huraira and ibn Abbas occurring a lot.

They were sources of the, they were often cited as original sources of Hadith accounts, and you find that a lot when you look at the Hadith accounts. Now they were well, Reuben Firestone points out that they were early who were known to be familiar with the Hebrew Bible or to collect traditions from Jews and Christians. Now you can see where I’m going with this. Clearly, some of the detailed material, which fills out the Koranic story, the Koranic account, was brought into Islam by Jews and Christians who converted to Islam. And in time, some Islamic scholars came to be suspicious of this.

There was an effort by the ulama, by the Islamic scholarly community, to forbid the transmission of traditions that derive from foreign sources, namely Jewish or Christian sources. Firestone explains this by saying that there was a growing sense of Islamic pride and concern for an integral identity and standardization of practice among what had become an increasingly diverse ethnic Muslim population. Remember, we have Firestone’s book available in part through the link on the Moodle page. So what do we have here? We have a set of material, additional story based material brought into Islam by Jewish and Christian converts to Islam, brought in from Jewish and Christian sources.

And this came to permeate some commentaries on the Quran, the stories of the prophets, and the tradition material. And soon this sense of suspicion grew of stories derived from Jewish sources, and these stories came to be known as the Israel Iliat. In other words, stories of dubious reliability which had infiltrated and corrupted Islam. Now this whole process of suspicion was intertwined with an ongoing suspicion of all things Jewish that was reinforced by Koranic pronouncements about the Jews that were negative pronouncements. Now, again, I’ve been talking, about the past in discussing this topic of Israel Iliad, but let let me assure you that this is not simply a detailed history.

This is an ongoing issue and this book, Hadis Palsu Danhriwayat Isra Iliyat is a book that was published in Indonesia in recent times about the whole question of false hadith and Israeliat stories. That’s that’s what the title means. Here’s another book in Turkish published on the Israelite. So this question of the Israelite, the idea that Jewish and Christian stories crept into Islam, into the Islamic material, and therefore cause causes suspicion. That’s still a living issue in the Muslim world.

The question of the is a very interesting topic, and it could be one for an assignment if you’re interested in doing that. Now the Israelite were rejected by Muslim scholars by the 9th century because, says Firestone, they were not considered to be sound traditions. The view that the Israelite tales were traditions that had been distorted by Jews because of their jealousy of the powers and political hegemony of the Muslims, And Firestone adds, only those stories that appeared to contradict Islamic dogma were labeled and outlawed as Israelite tales. You can imagine the dilemma. If Muslims found that on the one hand, the Quran said one thing, but on the other hand, a commentary or even a hadith account said something opposite to the Quran.

How were they to deal with that? Well, part of the answer was in identifying the differing accounts in Hadith and Commentaries as Israelite, as Israelite corruptions. Let’s take an example here. The question of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of his son. Is it Isaac or is it Ishmael?

Of course, this has direct ramifications for us as Christians. And it’s interesting to look at this question, in the the context of Christian responses to Islam. It’s very clear in the biblical account that the son that Isaac took to sacrifice was Isaac. There’s no doubt about that. What about in the Islamic materials?

Reuben Firestone looks closely at this. He considers, the sources for the Abraham Ishmael stories because today, if you ask Muslims, which son did Abraham try to sacrifice, Muslims will unanimously say it was Ishmael. And Firestone identifies the Abraham Ishmael stories within Islam as being sourced from biblical literature, pre Islamic Arabian folklore, and Islam itself. But interestingly, Firestone then undertakes a survey of the major commentaries. Remember all those commentaries we talked about in earlier lectures, the commentaries based on hadith and story, commentaries based on philosophical approaches?

Firestone surveyed the major commentaries to see whether they identified Abraham’s would be sacrificed as Isaac or Ishmael, and he came up with some very interesting findings. For example, he went back to the great early exegete, at Tabari, one of the very first commentators we looked at, a commentator whose work is very much hadith based. And at Tabari, who died in 923, he said quite clearly that the son who Abraham tried to sacrifice was Isaac, although he does offer arguments for both views. But, nevertheless, Isaac rates a mention in one of the greatest commentators who’s ever lived within the Islamic tradition. On the other hand, a athalaby, another narrative commentator, who we discussed earlier, favored Ishmael, although he too offers arguments for both views.

Moving down the centuries, ibn Kathir, who died in 13/73, who we all also discussed earlier, he favored Ishmael. And by this stage, by the 13 by the 1300 late 1300, Ibn Kathir is articulating a kind of conspiracy theory where he says the people of the book, namely the Jews and the Christians, dishonestly and slanderously introduced Isaac to the story in the Bible by forcing him in. So Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible by putting Isaac in there. Firestone comments on page 144 that the Ishmael traditions therefore represent Islamic material that evolved in an effort to affirm the view that Ishmael was the intended sacrificial victim. So let’s think about this.

Around the time of a fallabee in 900, many Muslim scholars said Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac. By the late 1300, the standard view was that Abraham tried to sacrifice Ishmael, and today that’s the view. Part of the process of that move from Isaac to Ishmael is associated with this whole Israelite controversy, where Muslim scholars became suspicious of material that they felt had been infiltrated into Islam by from Judaism and Christianity. And the claim that Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac was part of the whole Israelite controversy. This crossover between Islamic material and Jewish and Christian material, especially Jewish material, is quite profound and affects many different topics.

For example, f e Peter’s comments in his book a reader on Islam that almost everything that is said of Mecca and of the Kaaba, the great black shrine in Mecca, can be found in the dense body of Jewish legend surrounding Jerusalem. These stories came from men like ibn Abbas, Wahab ibn Munnabi, or Kaab al Ahbar. Now this is a very interesting topic. This whole question of the Israelite, the suspicion by Muslim scholars that some Islamic textual material has been corrupted by bringing in Jewish and Christian, especially Jewish stories, and you may wish to write an assignment on this topic. I’d like you to think further about this by going to the Moodle page and having a look at Ginsberg’s legends of the Jews.

I have a link to it there. Have a look at that work. That’s a gatic material within the Jewish tradition. Of course, it’s richly narrative going far beyond the biblical account of of of of of different topics. I’d like you to look at those materials to see what Ginsburg’s legends of the Jews says about the Adam and Eve story.

Think about that and then also have a look at the link on the middle page to the excerpt from the tales of the prophets of Al Kisai where the Adam and Eve story is presented. See if you can see any overlap, any points of connection, any parallels between the rich, a gatic legends of the Jews and the rich narrative tales of the prophets of Al Qisai. To get a sense as to how the material within the Islamic tales of the prophets might have been sourced from legendary material within Judaism. That is the essence of the Israelite controversy.

Dr. Peter Riddell Lecture: Tafsir (Pt.2)

Dr. Peter Riddell delivered a lecture on Tafsir during a CIU course. Here, Riddell continues to present the different styles within Tafsir literature, like philosophical, popular hadith-based, and 20th-century Tafsir literature.  

 Here starts the auto-generated transcription of Dr. Peter Riddell’s Lecture: Tafsir (Pt.2):

Hello, and, welcome back to understanding the Quran. We’re dealing in, the current lecture with, following on from the last couple of lectures. Let’s take stock. We initially talked about, principles of tafsir, principles of commentary writing in Islam. And I’ve encouraged you to try and relate this to your own understanding of, biblical commentary writing.

To what extent are the principles similar? To what extent are they different? If they’re different, how are they different? We also took our 1st group of commentaries for examination, and we we we focused especially on the commentaries that drew on the hadith and on the stories, on narrative, which according to John Wansbrough represents the very earliest form of commentary writing in Islam, and others agree with Wandsborough on that. How does that compare in the biblical context?

To what extent does storytelling serve as a very significant feature of biblical commentary writing? Even beyond the world of scholarly biblical commentary writing, to what extent does storytelling serve to elucidate the Bible in Sunday school classes or at church or in children’s classes in in in, Christian schools? It’s worth considering the same principles to see whether there’s overlap or whether there’s difference. We’re going to move on now from the, from the narrative and hadith based commentaries to look at philosophical commentaries. Inevitably, after the early centuries, when commentary writing on the Quran focused very much on narrative and on hadith, in time, some commentators wanted to go further and simply tell stories or tell narratives and draw on hadith for the commentary task.

So some commentators moved into more philosophical, speculative, rationalistic kind of thinking in there in explaining Quran verses. And remember, in talking about commentaries, we’re talking about explaining verses, how to explain a verse. These people, these commentators believe that, 1, that they needed to engage in rationalist speculative thinking to explain verses, to do full justice to the verses at their disposal. Now Jane McAuliffe, who we’ve encountered before in her book, Koranic Christians, she makes a list of the, philosophical commentators. She lists, Abdul Jabbar, who died in 10/25, Azam al Shari, Arazi, al Beidawi, and Anasafi.

And you notice the dates. We’re talking the 10 100, 11 100, 12 100, 1300. This was the period of great philosophical commentary writing. Whereas the preceding centuries, the 800, the 900, that had been the period of the where hadith and narrative commentary writing had dominated. Now we’re going to look in particular at 3 of the names on that list.

The second one, Azamakhshari. 3rd one, Araiza, and the 4th, Ubaidawi. Let’s begin with Zamakhshari. Now there’s a book being written on, on Zamakhshari, on his commentary by Andrew Lane. It’s called a traditional Mu’tazilite Quran commentary.

And this brings us back to that word that we encountered earlier, the Mu’tazilah, zamakshali and the Mu’tazilah. So we’ll spend a little more time now thinking about this. Now who was he? Well, he died in 11 44. You’ve got his full name there.

His commentary was entitled the unveil of the real meanings of the hidden matters of what was sent down and the choice of statements about the various aspects of its interpretation. Even the title tells us something more than the Hadith based commentaries did. It’s telling us the title this title is telling us of a process of unveiling that’s taking place of real underlying meanings of hidden matters. And in order to access those real meanings in the hidden matters and to unveil the matters, this commentator believed that he had to reason and engage in philosophical speculation. Now the Arabic term for this kind of commentary writing is what’s presented at the, the second bullet point at the bottom, the third bullet point.

Good it’s a good example of tafsir berei. Now this man, as I’ve shared, he was quite overt about his Mu’tazilite leanings. He he was quite open about his sympathies for the Moatazilite movement. Who were they? Well, they espouse doctrines such as the doctrine of the unity and the justice of God.

They rejected anthropomorphism for God. They argued for the creativeness of the Quran. That’s an interesting one. These were some early Muslim groups debated whether the Quran was a created document or an uncreated document. Importantly, this group of thinkers, including Azam Akshati, recognized the intellect as the source of understanding of faith.

In order to understand faith, it wasn’t a matter of blindly following teachings, but it was a matter of using the intellect. They also believed in freedom of will, the free will of the individual person, and they rejected superstitious concepts. Now I’d like you to stop your recording and do a little bit of research about the Mo’utazila, their teachings and their influence. They’re a very interesting group who, at one stage, they were predominant in the early centuries of Islam in the 8 100, but they lost their influence and they ended up losing the debate to groups that were a little more predestinarian or fatalistic in their approach. But they’re a very interesting group.

And their influence lived on in the writings and thinking of some people and has made a resurgence in the in the modern world. Now this next commentator, Arasi, died in 1210. His commentary is entitled the keys to the hidden. Again, we have this idea of hidden matters being revealed. His commentary extends to 32 volumes, and one finds this sometimes with philosophical writers that that they go on and on and on in in at great length.

And Razi is certainly one of those. It’s a it’s a huge commentary, 32 volumes. Now he drew heavily on the preceding man, but he rejected the Moqtazilite thinking of Zamasikari. Because by this stage, by the stage of Adazi, who died in 12/10, that group of thinkers, those rationalist thinkers, the had lost favor, and it was no longer they were no longer the predominant force. So this commentator, Razi, draws on Zamashari, but he doesn’t he he adapts his teaching to orthodoxy.

Here’s another name, Anissa Buri. He drew heavily on Razi and on Zamakhshari, and he also was interested in philosophical commentary writing. He takes an interesting approach to exegesis, and this gives us a feel for the for the philosophical approach to commentary writing. And, again, we should always be asking ourselves the question, how does this compare to biblical commentary writing? Do you do you see any evidence of this kind of approach in the writing of certain biblical commentators?

What Nisaburi does is that he follows a particular structure. First, he poses a question, then he provides an answer, then he poses an alternative question. He cites the mothazila, giving an exposition of their view. He provides an alternative approach and expon exposition, and then he provides his own conclusion. You can see it’s a highly structured approach, one which requires a lot of thinking, a lot of philosophical or speculative thinking, rational thinking.

And this is the essence of this philosophical approach to commentary writing. No longer are they simply telling a story to explain a verse, but they’re thinking it through. Quite a different approach. And remember as we talk about all of this that we’re getting a feel for diversity among Muslims in history and diversity, which reflects itself today as well. Back in this early period, Muslims were debating at great length about how to explain the Quran.

Should they explain it by telling a story, or should they explain it by thinking through the issues, rationally thinking through the issues? That debate took place over a 1000 years ago, but it’s still taking place today. And it’s interesting how those old debates live on. So in looking at this material, we are not simply studying history, but we are engaging with a process which lives on in the Muslim world today. Because Muslims continue to engage in these debates.

Some like to explain the Quran by telling a story. Others like to explain the Quran by thinking through the issues and engaging in a kind of philosophical process. Another name to mention is Al Baydawi, the tafsir of Al Baydawi. This appears in 2 volumes and has been very widely distributed through the world. This man died sometime between 12861292.

Again, we’re talking about a man who lived a long time ago. But remember that Islamic commentary writing does not discard the works of the predecessors. Later commentaries build on the works of their predecessors. So by studying these early commentators, we are effectively also studying the modern comment commentary approach as well. Now Obeidawi’s commentary was entitled the lights of revelation and the secrets of interpretation.

Again, we have the concept of secrets being unveiled. He drew also very heavily on the first man we talked about, Azam Kashari, but, again, he assimilated his perspectives to orthodox Sunni theology. He rejected his heavily mottazila approach. And to illustrate that, I’d like to look at an example. Let’s see how the 2 commentators explained a particular verse.

The verse is sort of 18 verse 29. And this verse in from the Quran says, say the truth is from your lord. So whoever wills may believe, and whoever wills may disbelieve. Now how are Muslim commentators going to explain that? Because it relates to freedom of will.

It relates to God’s sovereignty. How a Muslim commentator is going to explain that? Well, Zama Shari, the first commentator we we dealt with in this philosophical group, leans towards the free will approach. He writes, there remains for you nothing more than to choose freely whether you want to follow the way of deliverance or the way of destruction. Now this man lived almost a 1000 years ago, but his approach certainly has followers today.

Whereas, al Baidawi is more cautious. He’s more circumspect. He adds, this in no way means necessarily that the servant is solely responsible for his act himself. Even though this happens through his wish, still his wish is not limited to his wish. You get the sense of caution and circumspection where he’s not wanting to give or to attribute free will to the individual, but he’s leaving room for the sovereign Allah to maintain control, and that was a key part of that big early debate.

Now the fill philosophical commentaries have played a significant role in Islamic history, and they continue to do so today. This last commentary that we saw, by Al Baydawi is very popular in Muslim Southeast Asia, both in earlier periods and today. I’d like you to stop the recording at this point and turn to the middle page and look at the exegesis by Al Baydawi of surah 3 verses 116 to 119 in the link that’s available there. It’s David Margolio’s translation of that Surah. So if you stop the recording now and have a look at that.

And, again, ask yourself the question, how does this feel as a commentary style compared with the earlier narrative commentaries, the earlier hadith based commentaries? Are they similar? Are they different? If they’re different, how? Of course, waves come and go, trends come and go, but it doesn’t mean that an earlier trend has been has completely disappeared.

And, of course, while the philosophical commentaries emerge, there were hadith based commentaries that were continuing on, continuing to emerge as well side by side. Let’s look at a couple of them. This by Ibn Kathir is very popular today. This man died in 1970, 13/73, Ibn Kathir. He was born into a period of great social upheaval following the Mongol invasions and devastations.

His tafsir is essentially Hadith based. He first uses the Quran text in explaining the Quran, and then he uses the Hadith, then he uses the writings of the companions. I can’t stress enough the importance of this commentary today. Although this man died in 13/73, his commentary is widely distributed today. It’s published all over the world.

It’s widely available. He was writing at a time of great weakness of Islam. And what tends to happen is that at periods of when his Islam is weak following the Mongol Mongol invasions, these kinds of scholars emerge and say, let’s get back to the Quran. Let’s get back to the Hadith. Let’s get back to the styles of explaining the Quran that were close to the time of Mohammed.

And so his approach represents a kind of throwback to earlier styles of commentary writing. A slightly later commentary is the Tafsirah Jalalain produced by 2 men actually. One of whom died in 14/85, and this man, Asayuti, died in 1505. This is an extremely popular commentary. It’s a relatively easy commentary for for students.

It’s very popular among students in the seminaries. And, really, the title, Tafsir al Jalalain, means the commentary of the 2 Jalals because the 2 authors were both named Jalal. One was this teacher and one was a student. Now I’d like you again to stop the recording and to have a look at an example of this commentary, the, look, where a link is provided on the Moodle page, and have a look at the commentary on Surah 2 verses 7 to 15. Now finally, I’d just like to make brief mention to commentaries outside the Arab world.

We have to remember that, although we’ve been focusing very much on commentaries produced by Arab writers, More Muslims live outside the Arab world than live in it. Now this was a famous commentary in Muslim Southeast Asia in present day Indonesia that was written by Abdulrauf ibn Ali Alfonsuri Asinkli. He died in 16/93. And, his commentary was the first complete commentary on the Quran from that part of the world. It was entitled the interpreter of that which gives benefit.

Now we’ve covered a lot of ground. I hope you’re still with me, on on this material, and I’d like us to digest it as we go along, remembering at all times that we’re not just here to study the Islamic materials for the sake of studying the Islamic materials, but we’re here to respond to them as Christians. I’d like you to digest the material we’ve looked at in studying tafsir, commentary writing. Digest the material, both classical and modern, to get a feel for the different exegetical styles. How did the Muslim commentators differ from each other?

How do their styles differ? Consider the differences between a hadith based, more literalist approach, and a philosophical and rationalist approach. Now we’ve covered a lot of material, and there’s more to come. Hello again. This is, the last, lecture on the topic of, tafsir al Quran.

We’re rounding off by looking at the, the modern period. So let us, move ahead with this tafsir of Quran, exegesis of Quran. Now there has been a a lot of activity. During the 20th century, many Muslims wrote commentaries. In many ways, it was, one of the most prolific periods of commentary writing, among the Muslim world.

And we’re just going to look at a selection of those commentaries to give you a taste as to, what is out there. A number of, 20th century commentators are available online, so I would I would encourage you to look at, online materials and resources. You can certainly supplement what we make available on the Moodle site by looking for other commentaries as well. Let’s reiterate the key point that was made by Jane McAuliffe in her in her writing, that is that modern commentators look back to and depend heavily upon the great classical commentators. Remember that theme.

The dependence of later commentaries upon earlier commentaries. Islam Islamic commentary writing is characteristic characterized by that. In contrast with the biblical tradition, where you have a much more dynamic process, where commentaries, are designed to address the needs of the modern world and don’t necessarily feel that there is anything to be gained from looking backwards at early commentators. So the works of the classical Islamic commentators live on in their own right as well, and we need to we need to be aware of that. Having said that, it’s not entire dependence with modern commentators having nothing new to say.

Certainly, modern commentators have introduced new approaches, innovative ideas, revised formats in the exegetical process. Now a key name in the modern period, by modern, we’re going back especially in the Islamic context to the turn of 20th century. A key name was Muhammad Abdul and also his student, Rashid Rehda. Now in 9 18 99, Mohammed Abdul was appointed grand Mufti of Egypt, and that’s a very significant position. It represents the most senior Islamic scholar in Egypt at the great University of Al Azhar, which is a magnet for students of Islam from all over the Muslim world.

So he wielded great influence. And his lectures at Al Azhar University between 18/99/1905 were collected by his student, Rashid. They were revised, they were expanded, and they were edited, and they were then added to by Rita and presented in the form of a commentary on the Quran entitled Tafsiran Manaar. So Tafsiran Manaar represents a combined effort by these two men. It’s one of the very significant 20th century commentaries.

Here’s a picture of Muhammad Abdul. Egypt came to represent one of the key centers for learning very early on in the Islamic period, but in the 20th century, Egypt was one of the great magnets as I say. An Egyptian who, is key name in terms of 20th century Islam is Sayed Kotb. He was Egyptian. He wrote a tafsir.

He wrote a commentary. He actually wrote it from prison. He has an interesting story, and I would encourage you to read about him. In brief, he spent, a couple of years in the United States in the late 19 forties. He was very disillusioned with, Western society as he saw it.

He came back. He became radicalized as a Muslim, and he spent the the the the years of the 19 fifties and until his death in 1966 in Egypt resisting the, government of the nationalist, government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Was a Muslim revivalist, and he actually has become a clean name among contemporary radicals. Here’s really the main idea log or one of the 2 main ideologues of modern Muslim Sunni fundamentalism. I’ve given a, a link on the Moodle page to, his commentary writing on the Surah 109.

So I’d like you to stop the recording at this point and to carefully read, say, if God’s exegesis of that verse of that, Surah, actually, of that chapter 109. But, of course, don’t just read it. Ask yourself, read it critically and ask yourself, how does it differ from the early examples of commentary that that you’ve read going back to the early hadith based commentators, the story based commentators, the philosophical commentators. How does Sayid Quds’ exegesis of Sura 109 compare with those? How is it different?

There’s another very key name, in terms of 20th century, radical exegetical writing, and that is Sayed Abu Alaa Maududi. Now he came from the other key pole of, the key pillar of the Islamic world in the 20th century that is Pakistan, India, Pakistan. He was born at the time that the two nations were 1. He was born in British India, but he played leading role in the emergence of Pakistan. He’s a very prolific writer.

He’s had a huge influence around the world on, on Muslims, especially literalist, Islamist Muslims. He’s very much a believer of political Islam. He wrote this commentary called the meaning of Quran, a multivolume work. He considered the weakness of Islam in India resulted from the centuries old practice of interfaith mixing. He was very critical of certain expressions of Sufi mystical Islam or popular Islam.

Muldudi founded in 1941 a a group that went on to become a very significant political party in Pakistan, the Jama’at Islami. And it called for the establishment of an Islamic state. Muldudi was your essential Islamist, believing in the, intermixing of Islamic politics, and that comes through in his commentary towards understanding of Quran. I have also uploaded to the website a, a link, to Mulduri’s commentary, and I would like you to look at that, to look at his exegesis of sura 3117 to 127. Again, compare what Muldudi has to say with what had to say.

Compare their approach not only between themselves, but also with the earlier philosophical and hadith based commentaries as well. You get a taste of Maldudi’s, political and and religious leanings by reading the broad corpus of his writings. Here’s a quote from some of his writing. Muldudi wrote, Islam is a revolutionary doctrine and a system that overturns governments. It seeks to overturn the whole universal social order and establish its structure anew.

Islam seeks the world. It is not satisfied by a piece of land, but demands the whole universe. Islamic Jihad is at the same time offensive and defensive. The Islamic party does not hesitate to utilize the means of war to implement its goal. Pretty strong words.

And, of course, not all Muslims buy this line. Maududi represents a particular stream of Islam that has quite a following in Pakistan and beyond, especially among the more literalist Muslims who are leaning towards, Islamic Islam in politics, political Islam, Islamic states, and so forth. He’s a powerful he bears powerful influence in the world. Moving further to the east, we find a commentator in Indonesia by the name of Hamka. He lived and died around the same time as Muldudi.

He was a 20th century writer dying in 1981. He was born in the Minang Kabal region of West Sumatra, and he also was imprisoned like. During his 3 year imprisonment, he wrote most of his chronic commentary. So this is the 2nd 20th century commentator, who wrote his commentary in prison. His commentary was entitled Tafsir Al Azhar.

And he identifies his sources quite interestingly because when we look at the list of his sources, it’s virtually a who’s who of commentators down the centuries. He says he drew on So in other words, the first name mentioned there, Tabari, died in 9 23 AD. And the last mentioned person, Saeed Khotb, died in 1966. So hamka has really drawn on the full gamut of Islamic commentary writing. He was not a radical like and.

Hamka, his full name is actually Haji Abdul Malik Karim Amurullah. But according to the well established custom in Indonesia, they tend to create acronyms. So his full name was turned into the acronym of hamka. He had, Sufi leanings, mystical leanings, and so his commentary is much more, in some ways, mystically inclined than, you would expect to find in the writings of more political Islamists like Muldudi and Gudp. In these lectures on on, exegesis, we have touched on, a range of different styles.

We’ve looked at hadith based commentary writing, story based commentary writing, We’ve looked at philosophical commentaries. We’ve looked at, some modern 20th century commentaries, the more radical writing of. We’ve hinted at the mystical writing of someone like Hunkka. There’s much more we could look at, but we weren’t in these lectures. But the key thing that comes out of these lectures, I think, is the diverse approaches to explaining verses of the Quran by Islamic commentators.

And so as we set our goal to understand the Quran in this course, we have to get a sense of how understanding the Quran depends very much on where people are coming from. And we can see that Muslims are not all of one mind or of all of one block in understanding of the Quran as reflected in the very diverse approaches to commentary writing. And we haven’t even considered it, commentaries coming from the Shiite group of Muslims. And we’ve barely touched on the commentaries coming from Sufi Muslims as well. So there’s much more to be said on this topic, but I’ll leave that for you to do in your own reading.

And if you prepare an assignment on this topic, you have some good materials to start with, but there’s much more available as well. I’d like you to finish this lecture by, going to the Moodle page and watching a film where a link is provided on on the Moodle page. It’s a very interesting film because you have a panel of discussions talking about a particular verse in the Quran. Verse 34 of chapter 4. Now this is the verse that refers to to, suggests that a man should beat his wife if she, is disobedient.

Now the question is, how do Muslims understand that verse? Well, you’ll see from the film that Muslims understand it in very different ways, and there are huge debates about this kind of topic. So the quranic verse itself is not self standing. It’s not self evident. It seems to say a man should beat his wife if she’s disobedient.

How do Muslims explain that? They explain it in very different ways. Watch the film, enjoy it, and think about, the different approaches to understanding that verse. And, of course, think about it in terms of our Christian context as well. How would you, as a Christian, respond to the kinds of approaches to that topic reflected in that film?

And more broadly, how would you, as a Christian, engage with the diverse approaches to Islamic commentary writing that we’ve encountered?