reynolds-the-quran-in-its-historical-context-2

412 Waleed Ahmedassess the early Muslim exegetical material pertaining to these verses and compareit to the intertextual readings I presented.FrameworkDespite the considerable attention that Qur'anic narratives have received inmodem scholarship, until recently many scholars mainly focused on the similaritiesand/or the differences between these narratives and their Jewish and Christianantecedents. A popular approach has been to isolate the various story elementspertaining to a given figure in the Qur'an and merge them into a synthesis, whichwas then compared with that figure's story in Jewish and Christian sources.forming such syntheses, little or no regard has been paid to the successive andgradual emergence of these story elements within the Qur'an. In addition, oncethese story elements were extracted from their original textual units, they, at leastpartially, acquired new significance that was influenced by their new Sitz im Lebenin the synthesis. Therefore, in effect such studies have largely detached the ::analysis of Qur' anic narratives from the textual history of the Qur' an and, more- .over, have, in essence, decontextualized the stoiy elements of these narratives. 5 ..We will be examining the Qur'anic representation of the t:;pisode ofdaughters within the framework of the traditional Islamic account concerningtextual history of the Qur'an. 6 Within this framework we are mainly concerned5 See, for example the synthesis of Lot's story in F. Leemhuis, "Liit and his people in the Koran and its'early commentary," in E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar ( eds ), Sodom 's Sin: Genesis 18-19 and itslations, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 97-113. See also H. Speyer, Die Biblischen Erziihlungen Im Qorari,Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1961, 151-58. Although Speyer adopted Theodor Noldeke's chronology as a.framework of inquiry, he only considered the broad periods ofNiildeke's classification; within each .period Speyer did not follow Noldeke's order of the revelation of individual Siiras. Cf. ibid., xi. ·•6 H. Motzki offers an insightful critique of the different modern views concerning the canonization of'.:.the Qur' an, particularly those of Friedrich Schwally, Alphonse Mingana, John Wansbrough and Jolu{Burton. See H. Motzki, "The Collection of the Qur'an: a reconsideration of Western views in light ofrecent methodological developments," Der Islam 78, 200 I, ( l-34) 1-15. Motzki also argues, based onmodern techniques of isniid (chain of narration) and main (content) criticism, that the Muslim tradi~tions concerning the codification of the Qur'an "were already in circulation towards the end of the firstIslamic century:" See Ibid., 31. Furthermore, E. Whelan argues that an examination of the survivmg··~:historical evidence such as the inscriptions from the Dome of the Rock will "lead to the conclusion ; ·that the Muslim tradition [concerning the collection of the Qur'an] is reliable, at least in broad outline,·· .in attributing the first codification of the Qur'anic text to 'Uthmiin and his appointed commission." ·See Whelan, "Forgotten witness: evidence for the early codification of the Qur'an," JAOS, 118/1,1998, (1-14) 13. As Neuwirth contentds, "the presentation of the events [of the 'Uthmiinic collection.(jam') of the Qur'anic texts] as tradition reports them is not oftbeat at all; at least, it fits well into ·findings offered by the text itself, since the new codex, which does not claim any chronologicaltheological justification for the sequence of the single texts (siiras and parts ofsiiras) which it encom-.passes, but which it arranges at least apparently according to merely technical, exterior criteria, doesdisplay inextinguishable traces of its compilation as a collection ..." See Neuwirth, "Rt,ferentiali~vand textualicy," 144. In my view, these studies push the date of the canonization of the Qur'an backthe last quarter of the first Islamic century and they also corroborate the broad outline of thehistory of the Qur'an as Muslim traditions report it and as adopted here.Lot's daughters in the Qur 'an 413with the chronological order of the two Qur'anic narrative units in which the threeverses relevant to the episode of Lot's daughters appear: namely, al-lfijr (15)51-77 and Hzid (11) 69-83. In view of the absence of reliable historical evidencethereof, I shall argue the chronological order of these two narrative units on atextual basis.Both al-lfijr (15) 51-77 and Hlid (11) 69-83 recount the story of the angels'visit to Abraham and Lot. Moreover, each of these two narrative units is a cohesivetext by itself Given these features, it is possible to think of the sequence ofthese two narrative units in the Qur'anic revelations with respect to each other.Overall, al-lfijr (15) 51-77 can be considered a concise summary of the parallelBiblical story in Genesis 18:1-19:29. 7 Yet this narrative unit, even while it maintainsthe skeleton of its Biblical antecedent, ignores several elements from it. Forexample, it does not recount that Abraham had prepared a meal for God's messen­.· gers, i.e. the angels, or that he pleaaed with God on behalf of the Sodomites. ThereI .are also a few differences between al-lfijr (15) 51-77 and Genesis 18:1-19:29.For instance, al-lfijr (15) 51-77 asserts that Abraham initially feared God'smesse?ger_s (Q 15:52); it alsoptates that he ::as informed in advanc~ a~out the fateof Lots wife (Q 15:60). Compared to al-lfyr (15) 51-77 the narrative mHlid (11)69-83 is a fairly comprehensive version. Not only does it supplement its counterpartin al-lfijr (15) 51-77 with more details that have parallels in the Biblicalstory but it also introduces new story elements that do not exist in al-lfijr or in theJewish versions of the story. Let me point to some examples.While in al-lfijr ( 15) 51-77 there is no mention of Abraham preparing a banquetfor God's messengers, inHzid (11) 69 Abraham is said to have prepared a meal forthem, specifically a roasted calf. Also, while al-lfijr (15) 5~ mentions brieflyAbraham's initial suspicion towards those messengers, Hlid (11) 70 justifies thisby asserting that Abraham grew suspicious of his guests when he saw that they didnot extend their hands to eat from the roasted calf he had prepared for them, a. detail which is absent from the Jewish sources. Moreover, while verse 53 of... al-lfijr mentions the· good tidings of a newborn son to Abraham without naming· • him, verse 71 of Hlid names this son, another detail not found in the Jewishversions of the story. Another addition to the narrative communicated in al-lfijr isthe mention of Abraham's intercession in favor of the Sodomites in Hlid (11)74-76. Lastly, verse 79 of Hlid recounts the response of the Sodomites to Lotwhen he offered thein his daughters - also an elaboration over the representationof the episode of Lot's daughters in verse 71 of al-lfijr.If we then take into consideration the literary context in whichHl7d (11) 69-83. appears, namely in a cohesive and polemical chapter (Sfira) which argues· that Mul;!ammad is not fabricating revelations, the elaborations in the · storyof the angels' visit to Abraham and Lot in Hlid (11) 69-83 could amply be7 The choice to compare al-ijijr (15) 51-77 andHiid (II) 69-83 to Genesis 18:1-19:29 is not meantto suggest that only Jewish traditions had a bearing on Qur'iinic narratives. It is only a means toshow how a/-ijijr (15) 51-77 and Hzid (II) 69-83 compare to each other ·