An Arabic Source of Ramon Marti Al Saif

An Arabic Source of Ramo
on Martí
Title-page of MS Ľehid Ali PaľASEEPOFTHISSTUDY
An Arabic Source of Ramo
on Martí
Al--Saif al--Murhaf fî al--Radd Ԟalâ al--MuΣͥaaf
(“The Wh
hetted Sword in Refutation of the Koran””)
Introductory Study with Tex
xt and Translation of its
Surviving Fragments
Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld
Professor Emeritus of Islamic Studies
Leiden University, Netherlands
Aurora
Leiden 2018
ISBN 9789082597813
9789082597813
All correspondence regarding this publication may be sent to:
p.s.van.koningsveld@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Table of Contents
Preface – 6-7
I – Title – 8-10
II – Authorship – 11-24
III – Ramon Martí and al-Saif al-Murhaf – 25-33
IV – Conclusions and Hypotheses – 34-35
V - Appendix: Al-Saif al-Murhaf fî al-Radd ‘alâ al-MuΣͥaf - Texts
collected from works of Najm al-Dîn Al-άûfî with translation
and annotated parallels from De Seta Machometi and Explanatio
Symboli Apostolorum by Ramon Martí – 36-150
Bibliography - 151-156
5
PREFACE
When Damascus had surrendered to the Mongols, in 1260,
their leader Hulagu promised his Christian allies total freedom
and equality of religion, including the possibility to openly
manifest the Christian religious symbols and ceremonies. The
resulting Christian celebrations of this event occasionally
derailed into acts of provocation against Islamic centers of
learning and worship. Soon after, when the Mongols had been
driven out, following the Battle of ԞAin Jâlûέ between them and
the Egyptian Mamluks, a bloody revenge was taken, with
ensuing destruction and plundering of Christian houses of
worship and the residences of Christian dignitaries and
wealthy tradesmen.
In the enormous turmoil of those days, a Christian book
appeared with unprecedented attacks and insults of the Koran
and the Prophet. In its introductory parts, it presented a
theoretical discussion of prophecy, discerning four conditions
to be fulfilled for being legitimately called a prophet. Then, in
four chapters, it aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
fulfilled neither of these conditions. The book quoted a wealth
of Arabic, especially Islamic sources, varying from
philosophical and theological works to the Koran and Hadith
literature. A Coptic dignitary and intellectual, Al-Mu'taman Ibn
al-ԞAssâl, was accused to have authored the book and even
arrested for some time, but finally escaped execution. The
work was entitled Al-Saif al-Murhaf fî al-Radd Ԟalâ al-MuΣͥaf (“The
Whetted Sword in Refutation of the Koran”). Unfortunately, no
manuscript of the work seems to have been preserved, but
extensive quotations thereof are found in the polemical work
of the Hanbalite jurist Ibn al-άûfî (d. in Egypt in 716/1316),
entitled Al-IntiΣârât al-islâmiyya fî kashf shubah al-naΣrâniyya.
In some hitherto unknown way, the book reached the
writing-table of a promising young Dominican arabist from
Catalonia, Ramon Martí, who was preparing to become a
Christian missionary towards Muslims and Jews. He gratefully
6
used the work as the basic text in his polemical De Seta
Machometi (“On the Sect of Muhammad”), and especially in the
central part thereof, entitled Quadruplex Reprobatio (“Fourfold
Reprobation”, viz. of Muhammad) which can be regarded as a
compilation of passages in Latin from this major Arabic source.
In the first part of this study, I am focusing on the title of
the Christian attack on Islam refuted by Al-άûfî (I). This is
followed by a discussion of the authorship of the Christian text
(II). Then I am turning to the “Spanish connection”, viz. the
numerous quotations of the work preserved in the Quadruplex
Reprobatio by Ramón Martín (III). In the Conclusions and
Hypotheses, I am discussing, among others, Ramón Martín’s
knowledge of Arabic sources and formulating a few points for
future research (IV). In the Appendix (V), I am collecting Alάûfî’s quotations from the work of his anonymous Christian
opponent. I am following thereby Al-Qarnî’s edition, though in
some cases I was able to introduce some necessary corrections.
My aim is to bring together and translate the Arabic textual
remains of Al-Saif al-Murhaf and relate these fragments to the
work of Ramón Martín. Al-Qarnî’s edition, which is easily
available in the Internet through the website of Al-Maktaba alShâmila, remains of course indispensable for any future study.
This holds true especially for his rich bibliographical
references to the Hadith literature and other Islamic sources.
7
I – Title
In her recent book Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cairo,
Lejla Demiri studies and edits an Arabic text by Najm al- Dîn
Al-ώûfî (d. 716/1316), which she entitles in English
“Commentary on the Christian Scriptures”. However, in
Arabic, she presents two titles of this text, viz. (1) Al-TaԞlîq Ԟalâ
al-anâjîl al-arbaԞa wa-al-taԞlîq Ԟalâ al-tawrât wa-Ԟalâ ghairihâ min
kutub al-anbiyâ’ (‘Notes on the four Gospels and on the Torah
and on other books of the prophets’). To this title she adds,
between brackets, a second title, viz. (2) Al-Radd Ԟalâ kitâb
Σannafahu baԞ͍ al-naΣârâ sammâhu Al-Saif al-murhaf fî al-radd Ԟalâ
al-muΣͥaf (‘Refutation of a book composed by a Christian who
named it The whetted sword in refutation of the Koran’).
The oldest manuscript of this text preserved is MS Shahid
Ali 2315. This is a collection of four texts authored by Al-άûfî,
in the handwriting of a single scribe, and the “Commentary on
the Christian Scriptures” is the last of these four texts. It was
dated by the scribe in 728/1329 which was only 12 years after
the author’s death. The ambiguity of the title of the
“Commentary” as presented by Demiri and quoted in the
preceding paragraph, goes back to this manuscript, to the
later manuscript tradition and to the way Al-άûfî referred to
this work in his more extensive polemical text entitled AlIntiυârât al-islâmiyya fî kashf al-shubah al-naυrâniyya to which we
shall soon turn.
On the title-page of MS Shahid Ali 2315, in accordance
with the custom of his age, the original scribe wrote the titles
of all the texts contained in the collection. This, he did as
follows:
é ó{ó!ЋdL:é|!Ћdó Ló ÑnšT"
yh˜bšUÐíN—šUn=yh˜bUÐÌÚØodšThRí
phiÐWfUЍ˜I‡ZTíphYĆHüÐÓÐÚn[šiüÐÑnšThRí
8
:‡w}CЇh—UÐì5HîÚn[fUЂ_=afÉÑnšTDL Øö }UÐÑnšThRí
"‡[CÐDLØ}UÐ
To the fourth title was appended, however, in a cursive
handwriting that could very well have been that of the main
scribe, the following note:
DLˆhd_šUÐDLíp_=ÚúЊh@niúÐDLˆhd_šUÐDLŠešZYŽwí"
"Ênh˜iúÐošTíÓÐڎšUÐ
The title mentioned in this last note reappears in the later
manuscript we know of this work, viz. MS Koprülü Fazil 795
Ahmed Pasha, with the omission, however, of the main title
presented in MS Shahid Ali 2315. This manuscript was written
in the year 749/1348-9 in Cairo and it contains Al-άûfî’s main
polemical work followed by his “Commentary”. The two texts
are presented on the title-page as follows:
zhIpYĆ_UÐênYüÐzhZUЇhUn>phYĆHüÐÓøn[aiüÐÑnšT"
:Ž]UЌx{UÐ~LêĆHüÐ
"p_=ÚúЊh@niúÐDLˆhd_šUЍhRí
In fact, the critical commentary (taԞlîq) was written by Al-ώûfî
as a preliminary study to his much more extensive polemical
work entitled Al-Intiυârât al-islâmiyya fî kashf shubah alnaυrâniyya. That extensive polemical work was written in
Cairo, in the years 707-708 (1307-1309), in refutation of the
same Christian anti-Islamic work as the one referred to in the
TaԞlîq, in which Islam and the Prophet Muhammad were
severely criticized and debased. Al-άufî refers several times to
his preliminary “commentary” on the Gospels, as to his
“notes” (taԞâlîq). But he never uses the word “refutation”
when referring to these “notes”, neither does he mention the
title of the work of his Christian opponent even a single time.
9
How to understand this remarkable incongruity in the
transmission of two titles of Ibn al-άûfî’s “Commentary”? An
explanation might be that the scribe of the oldest manuscript
was confused about the titles of the two books which were so
closely related but yet so diferent in many respects. The title
“Refutation of a book written by a Christian which he had
entitled The whetted sword in refutation of the Codex”, may
have reflected the author’s project in its initial stages, as a
“working-title”: al-Radd Ԟalâ al-Saif al-murhaf”. However, when
the remarks on the Gospels and other Biblical texts, originally
conceived merely as a part of the author’s prolegomena to his
(more extensive) “Refutation”, had developed into a book
themselves, that title became obsolete for those notes which
were now entitled “Notes on the Gospels”. Though the original
working-title survived (perhaps copied by an assiduous scribe
from the author’s draft notes), in manuscript Shahid Ali 2315,
it was eliminated later on. The conclusion is that in the initial
stages of his project Ibn al-άûfî probably still had the intention
to mention the title of the work of his Christian opponent (his
name was always unknown to him; see below), an idea he must
have rejected later on, with the result that the title-page of MS
Shahid Ali 2315, to the best of our knowledge, is the only place
in the manuscript transmission of Al-άûfî’s works where that
title is still mentioned.
In view of the preceding considerations, I believe we may
safely assume that there has really existed a Christian work
against the Koran with the title Al-Saif al-murhaf fî al-radd Ԟalâ almuΣͥaf, which, after the composition of his preliminary
“Notes”, was ultimately refuted by Al-άûfî in his Al-Intiυârât alislâmiyya fî kashf shubah al-naυrâniyya.
10
II – Authorship
Al-άufî remarks that the work he is refuting had been written
by “a certain Christian” 1. Every now and then, however, he
provides his opponent with certain labels and ascribes to him
certain intentions, which help us to understand the
personality and background Al-ώûfî had in mind. First of all, he
repeatedly calls him an ‘ilj 2, an unflattering ethnic-religious
label indicating an “infidel” of non-Arab origin. In the
understanding of Al-ώûfî, the fate of his opponent had been
that he had led his life in the Land of Islam in debasement, as
he (like other Christians under Islam) had been obliged to pay
the poll tax in humiliation and was subjected to the laws of
Islam 3. In the opinion of Al-ώûfî, the anti-Islamic polemic was
the Christian author’s revenge for his personal fate. The
Christian author had written the book in secrecy, and,
consequently, it had remained hidden for a certain period of
time. Only after a long time had passed by, the book had
appeared and was criticized, just like in the case of the
imitations of the Quran written by the poets Abû al-‘Alâ’ alMaԞarrî and Al-Mutanabbî 4.
Al-ώûfî’s extensive refutations in his book Al-IntiΣârât alislâmiyya are systematically preceded by quotations from the
Christian work discussed, even though some passages thereof
1
Edition by Al-Qarnî (hereafter: “Edition”), p. 227: “baԞͯ@I-K@υ¹O¹¢
E.g. in Edition, p. 266 (see there also note 5); see also page 588 of the
edition: “thumma innaka anta naΣrânî ‘ilj aqlaf al-lisân, mâ laka wa-li-alfasâͥa…”
3
Edition, p. 330: “hadhâ mâ lâ yufîdukum fa-inna muΣannif hadhâ alkitâb qad abraza fîhi kulla mâ ‘indahu min al-Ϗ@Ԟn fî dîn al-islâm maԞa almakhâfa wa-ϵRGÌO@I-islâm wa-lam yamnaԞhu dhâlika”. On page 583 of
the edition, Al-άûfî remarks in an even clearer way: “fa-innahu (viz. his
Christian opponent N@Cž¹PG@EÂ@Oͯ@I-islâm ‘umrahu dhalîlan muhânan
‘alayhi al-¯®WV@JRIQ@W®J@K@·H¹J@I-milla…”
4
Edition, page 613: “Bal hadhâ al-khaΣm bi-ž@VK®G® υ@KK@E@ G@CG¹ @Ikitâb fî al-έa’n ‘alâ al-islâm mustakhfiyan thumma innahu ‘alâ έûl alayyâm ϓahara wa-nûN®ͯ@ T@-I@VP@ ž®KC@ @·@C J®K ORŸ@P¹Ÿ @I-islâm
J®KGRHG@A@O·@QQ¹@I-ân”.
2
11
were sometimes omitted or very briefly summarized, usually
because Al-ώufi deemed them excursions which were
irrelevant for the issue he wanted to discuss or, in his view, of
no importance for the substance of the argument of his
opponent, as he remarks every now and then. 5 I counted no
less than 117 of such quotations, varying in length from one
line to more than a whole page and even more. There is of
course a certain risk, that passages of the Christian work which
we, from our perspective, would judge of the greatest value,
have been omitted by Al-ώûfî as irrelevant, e.g. passages that
might have shed some light on the historical background of
the work and the personality of the author, strictly Christianapologetic passages, as well as certain theoretical or
philosophical elaborations, or historical narratives on the life
of Muhammad, etcetera. Nevertheless, the numerous
quotations of Al-ώûfî do allow us to gain a fair image of the
scope and contents of the original work, thus enabling us to
reconstruct, to some extent at least, this remarkable antiIslamic treatise.
As far as we can gauge from the fragments preserved, in
the introductory part of his work, the Christian-Arabic author
presented a theoretical and comparative framework for his
polemical treatise. Here, he spoke about the essence and the
necessity of prophecy and formulated four conditions by
which true prophets (of the “Three Faiths”) may be
distinguished from false ones. Sources used by the author in
this part are mainly theological or philosophical, in addition to
some Biblical texts by which his theoretical notions are
underpinned. Prominent among the sources quoted are
(pseudo-)Aristotle, Al-Ghazzâlî, Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, and
Ibn ͤazm. In the corpus of his work, the author presented an
applied study where he aimed to demonstrate that Muhammad
5
The introductory study by Dr. Al-Qarnî, pp. 168-169: “Lâkinnahu
yatruku mâ yastatridu fîhi al-naΣrânî mimmâ lâ ͥâjata ilâ naqlihi wa-alijâba ‘anhu. Wa-idhâ aέâla al-naΣrânî fî baԞ͍ al-mawâ͍iԞ ikhtaΣarahu alάûfî thumma ajâba ‘anhu. Yaqûlu –raͥimahu Allâh- : ‘wa-mâ kâna fî
‘ibâratihi min taέwîl lakhkhaΣtuhu maԞa al-ityân bi-kamâl al-maԞnâ …’”.
12
does not meet the criteria formulated by him in his theoretical
prolegomena. In this part, his main sources to speak of
Muhammad are Koran, Hadith and Ibn Hishâm’s al-Sîra alnabawiyya, also here, of course, supported by a rich gamma of
Biblical texts, to contrast with the Islamic data. It is probably
correct to say that the author’s originality lies mainly in his
theoretical reflections on prophecy, and especially in the
conditions he formulated by which he wanted to test
Muhammad. In the applied section he seems more likely to
have depended on earlier anti-Islamic polemical work from
which he may have adopted the numerous quotations from
Koran and Hadîth he adduced, though such an earlier antiIslamic source has not been identified by me.
When the author defined the essence of prophecy and
spoke of its necessity, he was basing himself on generally
accepted views in main stream Islamic (and Christian)
theology. Leaving the strict circle of theology, he also evoked,
however, the authority of Ibn Rushd who speaks of the
fundamental role of prophets and revelation in the divine
sciences, as scholars of the natural sciences, in Ibn Rushd’s
view, are unable to contribute anything relevant in that field.
The first condition formulated by our author, viz. the veracity
of a prophet, seems, again, to be nothing else than a summary
of accepted views in (Islamic or Christian) theology. But this is
different for the second condition, viz. that of the personal
holiness of the prophet, implying, among others, “the rejection
and disdaining of corporal enjoyments”, a notion for which the
author refers to the Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides. With
the third condition, that of the performance of a miracle, we
seem to be back into main stream theology, but in the fourth
and last condition this, again, is not the case. Here the author
introduces the idea that that the revealed Law brought by the
prophet should be in harmony with the “natural rules of
conduct” followed by mankind in general (al-dîn al-έabîԞî). Here,
the author refers to no specific sources, but I can point to two
parallels for this view, first of all, in the notorious Epistle of
“Al-Kindî”, who in the third chapter of Tartar’s translation
13
deals with the different kinds of laws and rules and
distinguishes: the divine Law brought by Christ, the natural
law, based on reason, brought by Moses, and the Satanic law
brought by Satan. (Muhammad’s law is said to appertain to the
third category). 6 Though there is a clear similarity of approach
between both works, it is a distant one and the details of the
explanation of the “natural rules of conduct” by both authors
are completely different. The second parallel for the notion of
“the natural rules of conduct” used by our Christian-Arabic
author seems to be more convincing and is more detailed. It is
to be found in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, and especially
in his distinction between the natural law and the divine Law.
It is quite remarkable that the discussion of the ChristianArabic author of this condition (see Texts 15, and 75-95 of the
Appendix with the relevant notes) has several close parallels to
Aquinas’ discussion of marriage, sexuality and fornication in
his Summa contra Gentiles.
In summary, the numerous sources our anonymous
author quotes are often Islamic, but frequently also Christian
and Jewish. Apart from many Biblical quotations (both from
the New and the Old Testaments), he frequently cites the
Koran, with reference to the titles of Sura’s, as well as the two
major Sunni Άadîth sources, the Sa·î·ain of Muslim and AlBukhârî. There are also incidental references to k. Al-MuwaϏϏa’
of Mâlik ibn Anas and to Al-Musnad of A·mad ibn Άanbal. Apart
from numerous references to the Tafsîr of Ibn ‘AϏiyya alGharnâtî (who died in 1147), as well as a unique reference to
the Al-Kashshâf of Al-Zamakhsharî (who died in 1144), the
author shows special knowledge of Arabic theological and
philosophical writings. Among these figure authors like Ibn
Rushd (d. in Marrakesh, 1198: Tahâfut al-tahâfut 7), Maimonides
(died in Cairo in 1204: Dalâlat al-·â’irîn), Al-Ghâzâlî (d. in ώus,
6
Tartar, Georges: Dialogue islamo-chrétien sous le Calife Al-Ma’mûn
(813-834). Paris, 1985, 175ff. See also the Arabic text published in
London in 1885, pp. 120ff.
7
Not explicitly mentioned in the fragments preserved but identified by
Al-Qarnî.
14
1111: Kîmiyyâ al-Sa’âda and al-Maqυad al-asnâ), Ibn Άazm (d.
1064: Risâlat al-Tawqîf) and Fakhr al-Dîn al-Râzî (d. 1209: alMabâ·ith al-mashriqiyya). In addition, there are references to
Aristotle, one of them to the Kitâb al-asbâb ascribed to him, to
Ibn Sînâ’ (d. 1037: al-Ishârât wa-al-Tanbîhât), to Abû al-‘Alâ’ alMa’arrî, Ibn Qutayba (d.889: Kitâb Mukhtalaf al-·adîth) and to AlSuhrawardî (d. in Baghdad in 1191: Kitâb al-Tanqî·ât).
Obviously, we are dealing here with a remarkable scholar
possessing a vast erudition in some of the sources of the “three
faiths” marking his world: Islam, Christianity, as well as
Judaism.
The modern editor of Al-ώûfî’s work, Sâlim ibn
Mu·ammad al-Qarnî, has published an edition of outstanding
quality and documentation, tracing, among others, the
numerous Islamic traditions quoted in the book in the greatest
of details. But al-Qarnî’s main focus is the position of Al-ώûfî as
a successful defender of Islam against what he regards as
insults and calumny. There is no analysis of the approach of
the Christian author or the contents of his work. Al-Qarnî
suggested that the Christian author was perhaps of Moroccan
or Andalusian origin, because he quoted a lot from the Tafsîr of
Ibn ‘AϏiyya al-GharnâϏî (d. 546/1147) and also (once) from the
works of Mûsâ ibn ‘Ubayd Allâh “al-QurϏubî” (=Maimonides),
who was originally from Córdoba but had died in Cairo, in the
year 1204. Al-Qarnî did not realize, perhaps, that Ibn ԞAέiyya’s
voluminous tafsîr, like so many other Andalusian works, may
very well have been available in Egypt in the time of Al-άûfî, as
it was already used intensively by Abû ‘Abd Allâh al-1ROϏRAÂ who died in Cairo in 1273, in his *¹J®Հ @·H¹J @I-qur’ân. And
Maimonides, though of Andalusian origin, produced his main
works in Egypt, including the Dalâlat al-Ά¹Ÿ®OÂK, quoted by our
#GO®PQ®@K@RQGLO!IPLTLOHPLE)AKΆ@WJ@KC)AK2RPGC ALQG
known to our Christian author and both of Andalusian origin,
were available in Egypt at the time.
Georg Schwarb, basing himself on the earlier edition of
the Intiυârât by Al-Saqqâ’, argued in an article of 2007 that the
anonymous Christian-Arabic author would likely have been a
15
Coptic scholar like τafî al-Dawla Ibn al-‘Assâl or Al-Rashîd Abû
al-Khair Ibn al-ώayyib, both of whom are known as the author
of polemical writings against Islam. 8 In 2013, Leyla Demiri, at
the suggestion of David Thomas and Georg Schwarb, provided
a valuable reference to Ghâzî Ibn al-WâsiϏî (d. 712/1312), a
contemporary of Al-ώûfî, whose reports of events in Damascus
related to the Mongols contain an accusation of the Coptic
author Al-Mu’tamin Ibn al-‘Assâl (d. after 1270) of having
authored a pamphlet with the title Al-Saif al-murhaf fî al-radd
Ԟalâ al-muΣͥaf. She identified the pamphlet mentioned by Ibn alWâsiϏî with the text authored by the anonymous opponent of
Al-ώûfî. Acknowledging, with Schwarb, the need of further
comparative study of Coptic anti-Islamic polemical writings of
the same period, she maintained that Al-Mu’tamin Ibn al-‘Assâl
could very well have authored the text. 9 In our present study,
where the Christian text takes center-place, rather than the
refutations of Al-άûfî, the important passage of Ibn al-Wâsiέî
needs to be assessed. I am going to produce the passage in
English, where I follow Gottheil’s version with a few
corrections necessary for a correct understanding of the text.
The author, who was an influential Muslim official of the state,
refers in this passage to developments in Damascus in the year
658/1259, when Hulagu had given a firman confirming the
liberty of each religious community to openly express one’s
faith. Here, the author remarks:
“Now, when the un-eyelashed Tartars obtained
possession of Syria the well-guarded and learned Abû al-Fa͍â’il
ibn Ukht al-Makîn ibn al-ԞAmîd, known as Secretary of the
Army in Damascus, went to Hulagu, King of the Tartars. He
carried with him much money from his uncle, the aforementioned al-Makîn, and from the rich Christians in Damascus,
as well as presents and precious gifts. He was aided especially
by the governor of Irbil, who succeeded in obtaining a firman
from Hulagu, sending his command to the inhabitants in the
8
Schwarb (2007), especially pp. 39-41: “Eine anonyme christliche
Streitschrift gegen den Islam”.
9
Demiri (2013), 38-39.
16
eastern part of the Empire, in Jazîrat Ibn ԞUmar and the whole
of Syria, that every religious sect in the world could proclaim
its faith openly – whether Christian, Jew, Magian, Sunworshipper or idolater; and that no Muslim should disapprove
of any one of the faiths or oppose them in language or in deed.
Whoever should do anything like this was to be put to death.
Then, this cursed fellow was able to make Hulagu covetous by
telling him that the schools, business-quarters, mosques and
chapels were all in the hands of the Muslims; and that, because
of collusion of one with the other, they do not pay what is due
to the King; the Qâ͍î being one of their own men, just as the
witnesses were of their body. He (the Secretary of the Army)
therefore laid it down that one-third of all the religious
mortmain should be seized and given to Hulagu. In doing this,
the intention the cursed fellow had was to destroy the symbols
of Islam by weakening the jurists and throwing despite upon
the Qâ͍îs, and by trampling underfoot the holy law. He
returned with a firman in his favor , ordering him to allow the
various faiths to practice their religion openly and to seize
one-third of the religious mortmain. He stopped at
΢aidanâyâ 10, and sent to the Christians in Damascus to tell
them that he had returned with the firman from Hulagu and of
their victory over Islam. He said to them: ‘Come out to meet
me with the crosses on the croziers, with Evangels clothed in
brocade, shining with cloth (?) and satin – the censers full of
aloes-wood. With deacons and priests in their capes, the
metropolitans decked out with their jewels, and with them the
holy wine uncovered’”.
“This occurred during the middle days of the month of
Ramadan in the year 658(1259). The wine was on trays of silver
and gold and in golden flasks and bowls. They came out to
meet him in parties and singly. In such manner the fellow and
those with him entered the City of Damascus in open daylight,
with drums and trumpets, cymbals, silver in-laid censers. …
raising cries in a loud voice, carried by this large multitude –
the most frequent of which were: ‘the Messiah Jesus, son of
10
Yâqût 3, 441 (Gottheil).
17
Mary!’ and ‘the Holy Cross!’ Whenever they passed by a
mosque or madrasa, they halted there and sprinkled upon the
doors wine from the residue in the flasks out of which they had
drunk, loudly wishing ‘long life’ to the dynasty of Hulagu: ‘who
has ordered to help us and grant our true religion victory over
the religions of the liars!’ On that day there was not a single
Christian – of the common people and the lowest, or of the
highest and the wealthiest – who did not put on his finest
apparel. Their women decked themselves out with jewels and
necklaces. On that day - it was in the sacred month of Ramadan
when Allah openly showed their godlessness – the Muslims
suffered abasement and anguish of heart. They broke out in
weeping, in the shedding of hot tears; and they besought Allah
the Highest to remove from them all this sadness.”
“Upon the second day after the entrance of the cursed
Abû al-Fa͍â’il, the firman was read out publicly in the Maidan
of Damascus. On that day two persons came to me. One of them
was named ԞIzz ibn Amsainâ al-Wâsiέî. He was a man known for
his attainments – especially for his ability to write in gold. The
second was the Qâ͍î Mubashshir ibn al-Qasέallânî, acquainted
in government circles and with wazîrs. They told me that the
Christians had (even) brought into the open a treatise
composed by Al-Mu’tamin ibn al-ԞAssâl al-Mustawfî in
Damascus in the days of al-Malik al-NâΣir. 11 This treatise [the
author] had entitled: ‘The Whetted Sword, in Refutation of the
Koran’ (Al-Saif al-murhaf fî al-radd Ԟalâ al-muΣͥaf). A summons
was issued against it publicly on the Bridge of the Feltworkers
in Damascus, while it found itself with al-Shams al-Jazarî, the
bookseller 12, known as Al-Fashshûshah (Mr. Irresolute). The
Probably NâΣir ΢alâͥ al-Dîn Yûsuf of Aleppo, 1250-1260, who ruled
over Damascus. (Gottheil)
12
There seem to be two separate stories here. The first is that the book
was brought into the open at the occasion of Hulagu’s ordinance of
freedom of religion and all the events that were to follow this
ordinance. The second story seems to be that the book emerged on the
book market, more precisely in the book shop of al-Jazarî, the Muslim
authorities consequently having been informed about it.
11
18
two 13 were studying carefully the afore-mentioned book. That
which struck their minds especially in the book was how this
cursed fellow had tried to prove in it that the expression: ‘Bism
Allâh al-Raͥmân al-Raͥîm’ can be interpreted as containing
the words: ‘The Messiah, son of God’. The cursed fellow did not
know that any particle, noun or verb that contains two letters
or more can be mutated [to mean something else]. 14 He said
that the Holy Book contained the passage: ‘Verily, the like of
Jesus with Allah’, until the end of the verse. 15 That it also
mentions Mary the sister of Aaron, who was the daughter of
‘Imrân. 16 He added that the name of Jesus among the Jews was
Joshua 17; that Mary the mother of Jesus was the daughter of a
Jew; that her mother’s name was ͤanna 18; and that no such
name as ԞÎsâ was used by them or known to them. The cursed
fellow added further: ‘Did not he who sent down the Koran
know that between Mary on the one hand and Moses and
Aaron on the other were thousands of years?’ 19 He denied the
story of al-Khi͍r –peace be upon him!-, saying: we possess no
reference to him (in our holy sources). The Christians hold that
his name is Saint Prince George (al-qiddîs amîr Jirjis), who
13
Viz. Al-7¹P®ϏÂ@KC!I-1@PϏ@II¹KÂ
The idea expressed here is that by a change of the consonants one can
create the words al--@P·®AK!II¹G4G®PPQ@QDJDKQ®PKLQELRKC®K!IώÌEŸP NRLQ@Q®LKP @KC PRJJ@O®DP @P MRAI®Phed and translated in our
Appendix.
15
Sura 3:59: “Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam.
He created Him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” The
quotation does not figure among the texts produced by Al-άûfî and
collected and translated in the Appendix, but it certainly could have
been discussed by the Christian author.
16
Gottheil incorrectly: “whose son was ‘Imran”. The issue alluded to
here is discussed in Texts 20 and 21 of the Appendix.
17
This detail does not figure in the references of Ibn al-ώÌEÂ
18
See Text 21, where the author remarks that Mary’s father was Joachim
@KCGDOJLQGDOΆ@KK@
19
See Text 21 in the Appendix, where the language is more sarcastic
than in the reference of Ibn al-7¹P®ϏÂ
14
19
lived a long time after Christ. 20 Cursed fellow! He declared
many similar stories to be apocryphal; e.g. the history of
Solomon ;-peace be upon him!- and Bilkîs, and all the other
events connected with his name. 21 He also threw doubt upon
the ‘Cave-Dwellers’. He went even so far as to say that this was
merely the foolish talk of storytellers.” 22
“Now, just at this time I was in the service of the Sultan
al-Malik al-Ashraf Muϓaffar al-Dîn Mûsâ 23, the ruler of Emessa
– God cover him in mercy and favor! So, I went in person to the
Bridge of the Feltmakers, and interviewed al-Shams al-Jazarî
the bookseller; and I asked him to show me the
aforementioned book. He swore that he had given it to the
cursed al-Mu’tamin; and that, in his presence, the latter had
torn it to pieces and destroyed its (or: his own) draft notes 24.
Then, I presented myself before the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf,
sending, of my account, one of my servants in whom I had full
trust, to bring him (al-Jazarî). I related to the Sultan what had
happened, and he said: ‘Get the book and produce the fellow.
I’ll have the head of al-Mu’tamin cut off.’ I asked the cursed
fellow for the book. He denied that he had it, saying: ‘It was not
at all in my handwriting; and (anyhow) I tore it to pieces.’
Then, I took him to my own house and questioned him
minutely. I threatened him and frightened him. The while, a
number of Damascus Christians – among whom were al-Makîn
ibn al-MuԞtamid and al-Rashîd, known as Kâtib al-Tiflîsî, as well
as a number of the leading and wealthy Christians – arose and
went to the ϒâhirî Garden, to al-Sibbân, the general of the
Tartars. It was said that he was a maternal cousin of Hulagu. He
was authoritative in tone, bloodthirsty and an infidel. The
Al-+G®ͯO @KC 3@®KQ George do not figure in the quotations of Ibn alώÌEÂ
21
Cf. Text 32 in the Appendix.
22
Not in Ibn al-ώÌEŸPNRLQDP
23
1245-1262 (Gottheil).
24
Arabic: musawwadâtahu. This word means “notes” or “rough notes”,
“brouillon” or “draft manuscript”, viz. written by the author himself,
“autograph”. Ibn al-7¹P®ϏŸP ®KP®KR@Q®LK PDDJP QL AD QG@Q @I-Mu’tamin
was destroying his own work in order to hide his crime.
20
20
Christians brought him a goodly sum of money and told him
that a firman of the Ilkhan had appeared to the effect that
everyone should have the right to profess his faith openly, as
well as his religious affiliation; and that the members of one
religious body should not oppose those of another; further,
that the Secretary of the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf had seized
the author of the book written against our faith, and that he
intended to have him put to death. Thereupon, al-Sibbân sent
to the Qâ͍î Shams al-Dîn al-Qummî, the Tartar representative
in Damascus, who was then in the Dâr al-SaԞâda Palace, telling
him to have an audience of al-Malik al-Ashraf and to say to
him: ‘This … of yours has disobeyed the firman of the Ilkhan;
he shall die!’ Al-Qummî asked my master for my services; he
related to me all that occurred, and said: ‘These fellows are
infidels and wicked. There is no difference between a Muslim
and a Christian. If you thwart this Christian, you yourself will
be hurt; your master will be harmed and; and you both will get
the reputation with Hulagu of having done what is prohibited.
The faith of islam has claims upon whomsoever asks its
protection, even if he is other than you (i.e. not a Muslim). This
whole affair has become notorious; the great, the prominent,
the learned men in Damascus – all know about it.” 25 Obviously,
the affair described by Ibn al-Wâsiέî concerned the very same
book as the one refuted by Al-άûfî.
In an article of 2014, Schwarb pointed again to Al-Rashîd
Abû al-Khair Ibn al-ώayyib as the most likely author of the
pamphlet. 26 First of all, he pointed out that “Ibn al-Tayyib and
his Coptic peers played a central role” in the “infamous
incidents that took place in Damascus in 658/1260” described
by Ibn al-7¹P®Ϗî. Secondly, as he had argued elsewhere, there
was evidence to suggest that Abû al-Barakât Ibn Kabar (d. 1324)
referred to the very same pamphlet in his MiΣbâͥ al-ϓulma fi
î͍âͥ al-khidma where he linked “al-Qiss al-Rashîd Abû al-Khair
25
Gottheil, An answer to the Dhimmis, pp. 447-449 of the translation; pp.
407-410 of the Arabic text. During these events, Al-Mu’taman ibn alԞAssâl’s library was sacked, as well. See WadîԞ (1997), 138-145.
26
Schwarb (2014), especially 149-150 and notes 24-26.
21
al-MuϏatabbib” with the composition of “a polemic and
slanderous book”: “wa-Σannafa kitâban li-yarudda ‘alâ kitâbin li@·@C @I-mukhâlifîn wa-N@υ@Oa ‘an hâdhihi l-martaba wa-waqaԞa fî
al—malâmati wa-l-‘atabati wa-rumiya bi-fasâd al-ra’y fî alJRՀQ@N@C 27, see Schwarb, “The Reception of Maimonides,” pp. 36
f: “If my assumption that Ibn Kabar refers here to al-Sayf almurhaf is correct, the “Kitâb li-aͥad al-mukhâlifîn would have to
be identified with the Qur’an.” However, the Arabic text
quoted from Ibn Kabar does not necessarily imply that Ibn alάayyib had written a “polemic and slanderous” book.
According to Ibn Kabar, Ibn al- άayyib “had failed to comply
with the standard demanded by this task”, viz. of writing a
refutation to one of the opponents. Consequently, “he had
become the object of censure and rebuke, and was accused of
perverse views in matters of the faith”. I do not see how this
accusation could have been justified by the contents of al-Saif
al-murhaf, whose author strictly adhered to the Christian faith,
from the beginning to the very end of his work, as far as we
can judge from the fragments preserved. In Al-Andalus, the 9thcentury Christian theologian Eulogius, who had expressed
similar views about Islam, had become a martyr-saint after his
execution, and a symbol of resistance against Muslim
domination and of the Reconquista during centuries to come. It
seems to be more likely, that Ibn Kabar was referring to
another book by Ibn al-άayyib, viz. his άiryâq al-Հuqûl fî ‘ilm alRυÌI, which had been written in order to answer the objections
of a Muslim opponent, and which contained some very
controversial passages on the Christian faith, especially
concerning the origin and meaning of Biblical rituals, where
the author had totally embraced the highly controversial views
of Maimonides on precisely those issues. 28 All this is not to say
Ibn Kabar, MiΣbâͥ al-ϓulma ft î͍âͥ al-khidma, ed. Samir 1987, 320; ed.
Riedel, pp. 661; tr. Riedel, p. 698.
28
I am following Khouzam (1941), 19: „les traités dogmaticoapologétiques, frappés de la réprobation des chefs eccléiastiques, ne
seraient-ils pas précisement l’Illumination ou Thériaque des intelligences,
27
22
that Ibn al-άayyib cannot have been the author of Al-Saif almurhaf. On the contrary, there are good reasons to assume he
might have been, especially his familiarity with Arabic writings
of non-Christian authors like Maimonides, Fakhr al-Dîn al-Râzî,
al-Ghazzâlî, Ibn Sînâ, and others. But what about the profound
knowledge of Koran and ͤadîth, as demonstrated by the
author of Al-Saif al-murhaf (or his source)? Can that be traced in
the works of Ibn al-άayyib, as well? A further, comparative
study of al-Saif al-murhaf with available Coptic-Arabic
polemical and apologetical writings of the first half of the 13th
century is still needed.
The audience the Christian-Arabic author had in mind
when composing his treatise, can hardly have been the learned
and the pious Muslims within Dâr al-Islâm. First of all, the
author should not have invoked the authority of Ibn Rushd and
Maimonides to convince such an audience in matters of the
creed concerning the prophecy of Muhammad. And he should
certainly not have written about the Koran and the Sunna of
the Prophet in the way he did, and for which – as he would
have known himself very well - he would have been guilty of
no less than capital punishment. Therefore, it seems much
more likely that the author compiled his work for an audience
of Christians, especially of Christians under a system of
government that would permit them to read and discuss such
sharply anti-Islamic materials. This was the case in Christian
Spain in the second half of the 13th century, where, among
others, Dominican preachers wanted to convince Muslim
communities of the errors of Islam and the truth of the
Christian faith. These preachers were in need of anti-Islamic
materials and the author may have had them in mind, a
suggestion which seems not too farfetched if we take into
consideration that the substance of the work was in fact
translated into Latin by the leading Dominican scholar Ramon
Martí (see below). My view would imply some form of contact
and cooperation between the author and those Dominican
dont le procédé hardi et trop prématuré ne pouvait que soulever
l’indignation des théologiens rigides de l’époque ? »
23
circles. These contacts could, of course, have come in different
forms. Ramon Martí may have partaken in 13th century
contacts between Aragon and Egypt or Syria and have met the
author in the Near East. They may have discussed the project
and in the process of exchange Ramon Martí may have
explained central ideas of Thomas Aquinas. But the author may
also have visited Europe himself and have been in contact with
various Dominicans directly, including Ramon Martí and
Thomas Aquinas. An intellectual exchange may have taken
place between him and those prominent scholars in the
Dominican Order. This is a line of research that certainly
merits to be followed up further. 29
Did Najm al- Dîn Al-ώûfî (d. 716/1316), who was writing in
Egypt, possess any knowledge of the affair of the book in
Damascus in the early 60es of the 13th century? This does not
seem to have been the case. In his words, the Christian author
had written the book in secrecy, and, consequently, it had
remained hidden for a long period of time. Only then, the book
had come to light and become the subject of controverse, just
like in the case of the imitations of the Quran written by the
poets Abû al-‘Alâ’ al-MaԞarrî and Al-Mutanabbî 30.
29
The presence of a copy of (part of) a Mozarabic manuscript of the New
Testament dated 1151 A.D. in a Coptic-Egyptian majmûԞa also containing
a work by Abû Isͥâq ibn al-ԞAssâl, may be another reflection of similar
contacts between Spain and Egypt in the 13th century. See MonferrerRoisse, Una version árabe, Qurέuba 3(1989), 130-131.
30
Edition, page 613: “Bal hadhâ al-HG@υJ A®-ž@VK®G® υ@KK@E@ G@CG¹ @Ikitâb fî al-Ϗ@Հn ‘alâ al-isI¹J JRPQ@HGE®V@K QGRJJ@ ®KK@GR ž@I¹ ϏÌI @I@VV¹J ϵ@G@O@ T@-KÌN®ͯ@ T@-I@VP@ ž®KC@ @·@C J®K ORŸ@P¹Ÿ @I-islâm
J®KGRHG@A@O·@QQ¹@I-ân”.
24
III – Ramón Martín
n and al--Saif al--Murhaf
Leaving aside Al-ώÌEŸPG®FGIV®KQDODPQ®KFC®PBRPP®LKPT®QGQG®P
text that certainly deserve a separate study by those who are
focussing in their research on Islamic polemical texts from the
13th and early 14th-century Near East, especially Egypt, my
focus here will be on the “Spanish connection” of the text,
following the intuition of Al-Qarnî which originally rose my
special interest.
Because there is in fact a “Spanish connection”, though
the nature of this connection differs from Al-Qarnî’s
suggestion that the author might have been a Christian
Andalusî. I will show that the book was the major source of the
polemical work De Seta Machometi of the Catalan missionary
and orientalist Ramon Martí. Consequently, Ramon Martí’s
numerous references in that work to Koran, ͤadîth sources
and major Islamic and non-Islamic theological and
philososophical works were not based on his own direct st udy
of these sources, but were adopted by him from his basic text,
al-Saif al-Murhaf. The widespread image of Ramón Martín as the
first European orientalist with a direct and independent
knowledge of the Arabic Koran, of the voluminous tradition
compilations of Al-Bukhârî and Muslim, of the Sîra, as well as
works by Al-Ghazâlî, Ibn Sînâ, Ibn Rushd
and other
theologians and philosophers in their original Arabic versions,
seems to be largely legendary, at least: as far as his work De
Seta Machometi is concerned.
In 1983, Hernando i Delgado convincingly demonstrated
that the polemical treatise De Seta Machometi is a work
authored by Ram͙n Martín. 31 This work consists of five parts.
First comes an introduction (I) in which the author explains
that a true prophet is recognized by the collective presence of
four “signs” or “fruits”. This introductory passage is followed
by a short discussion of Muhammad’s life and the early
spreading of his message (II). Then comes a long and detailed
31
Hernando i Delgado (1983).
25
study to prove that each of the aforementioned four “signs” or
“fruits” are absent in the case of Muhammad (III). This is the
most substantial part of the work. (In the manuscripts, this
part is entitled “Quadruplex Reprobatio”, i.e: “Fourfold
Reprobation”, and this same title is sometimes used to indicate
the work as a whole.) It is followed by a survey of Muhammad’s
misfortunes, his illness and death (IV). At the end, the author
discusses the incorruptness and veracity of the Old and New
Testaments (V). 32
Drawing a structural comparison, we observe that the
anonymous Christian-Arabic text refuted by Al-ώûfî, similar to
De Seta Machometi, starts with a discussion of the phenomenon
of prophecy. In De Seta, the view of prophecy presented is
mainly based on the Bible (with the exception of one reference
to Ibn Rushd). In the work of Al-ώûfî’s opponent, however, it is
mainly of a philosophical and theological nature. The
authorities quoted here are Muslim and Jewish philosophers
and theologians, not Biblical verses. Moreover, the four
“fruits” or “signs” of prophecy, as explained in De Seta, appear
in the Christian-Arabic text as four “conditions”. The most
substantial part of De Seta, where extensive evidence is
presented proving that each of the four “signs” or “fruits” of
prophecy are absent in the case of Mu·ammad, appears in the
same order in the Christian-Arabic text, but in a much more
extensive form and presenting many more examples from
Koran and Tradition. Sections II and IV of De Seta dealing with
the life of Muhammad, do not appear in the Christian-Arabic
text as separate units, but small parts of their contents can
nevertheless be traced in other units, dealing with one of the
“conditions” of prophecy. Section V, finally, dealing with the
incorruptedness of the Scriptures, does not figure in the
Christian-Arabic text, either (with the exception of one
32
See also the summary given of this work and of Ramon Martí’s
Explanatio Symboli by Tolan (2002), 234-242.
26
paragraph, which we already discussed in section II dealing
with the authorship of the Christian-Arabic text 33).
We propose that sections I and III of 2@J͙K -@OQÁ’s De
Seta Machometici, which form its backbone and contain its
major substance, were, to a large extent, derived directly from
the anonymous Christian-Arabic text, with adjustments and
additions introduced in view of its intended Latin Christian
audience. To these adjustments and additions belonged, among
others, the Biblically rather than Islamic and Jewish
philosophically oriented presentation of the phenomenon of
prophecy. I presume that both small separate sections on the
life of Muhammad, as they figure in De Seta Machometi,
originally formed part of the Christian-Arabic text, but
belonged to the part left out by Al-ώÌEÂ@P“irrelevant” for his
purposes. The defense of the incorruptedness of the Bible,
figuring at the end of De Seta Machometi, has, however, a
different origin: it was almost completely copied from Martí’s
Explanatio Symboli Apostolorum, which was written in the year
1257. It is possible that this last part did not figure in the
original version of De Seta Machometi, but was added later, in a
second version. At present, this cannot be decided.
To substantiate my observations, I am providing a
comparative table in which I am, first of all, breaking down the
complete text of De Seta Machometi into separate elements
(column 1), providing a brief indication of their subject-matter
and source(s), if mentioned explicitly (column 2), while
indicating the parallel passages in Al-Saif al-murhaf, if found
among the quotations preserved by Al-άûfî which are
numbered, collected and translated in my Appendix below, or
in Ramón Martí’s own Explanatio Symboli Apostolorum (column
3).
33
See above, section II at the end, and see also Text Number 29 in the
Appendix.
27
DSM 34
Subject/Source
DSM 141-11
Opening statement:
Gospel of Matthew
Four fruits or signs of
prophecy
First fruit: veracity:
Deuteronomium
Second fruit: purity
and holiness OT and NT
Third fruit: miracles –
Aben Rust
Fourth fruit: a Law for
a holy and peaceful
life
Transitional passage
Transitional passage
Youth of Muhammad
– Ciar, id est Actus
Machometi ; in
Alcorano et in aliis
libris
Marriage with
Khadîja- ‘ibidem’
Muhammad was living
in idolatry until the
age of 40, when he
became prophet Bochari, in capitulo
Cautionis; in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Duha
First revelation –
Muslim
How revelation came
to Muhammad -
DSM 1412-1418
DSM 1419-30
DSM 1431-169
DSM1610-16
DSM 1616-21
DSM 1622-25
DSM 181-5
DSM 186-1819
DSM 1820-206
DSM 207-2015
DSM 2016-222
DSM 223-2211
34
SM/ESA35
SM 1
SM 11
SM 12
SM 13, 14
SM 15
= De Seta Machometi, ed. Hernando i Delgado (see Bibliography).
SM = Al-Saif al-murhaf. See our Appendix below (based on the edition of
Al-Qarnî, see Bibliography). ESA = Explanatio Symboli Apostlorum, ed.
March (see our Bibliography).
35
28
DSM 2212-248
DSM 248-2413
DSM 2413-2417
DSM 2418-22
DSM 2422-25
DSM 2425-264
DSM 265-283
DSM 284-5
DSM 285-11
Bochari
Earliest adherents of
Islam – Ciar;
Alquindius; Bochari
Spread of Islam
Transitional text
Denial of first fruit:
veracity – ut ait
Augustinus36
True words of
Muhammad – in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Ione; in Alcorano, in
tractatu Ambram
True words of
Muhammad – in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Prohibitionis; in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Apostolorum
False words of
Muhammad – ‘in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Taharim, id est,
Prohibitionis; ibidem,
in tractatu Marie;
ibidem, in tractatu
Araf; ibidem, in
tractatu Zaf, id est
Ordinis; ibidem, in
tractatu Mulierum’
Idem, in Alcorano, in
tractatu Mulierum
Idem, Bohari, in
capitulo
Predestinationis;
Genesis
36
(parallel in LD 2.1:
Burman)
SM 191-3
SM 203-212
SM 291-4
SM 251-8
SM 433-4
SM 438-10
The name of Augustinus may very well be an interpolation, as it
appears in some MSS in the margin, not in the body of the text. See the
edition of Hernando I Delgado.
29
DSM 2811-14
DSM 301-5
DSM 305-26
DSM 3027-31
DSM 321-2
DSM 322-3
DSM 323-11
DSM 3212-14
SM 3214-19
DSM 3220-25
DSM 3226-343
DSM 344-8
DSM 348-12
DSM 3412-25
Denial of a Koranic
falsehood by a Muslim
scholar –“quidem
sapiens
sarracenorum”
Another falsehood –
in Alcorano, in
tractatu Errohmen, id
est, Misericordis
More falsehoods – in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Alquitel, id est, Pugne;
ibidem, in tractatu
Nelmurtilet; Genesis,
Ysaias, Ad Corinthios,
Lucas, Mattheus,
Iohannes
More falsehoods –
Bohari, in tractatu
Creationis’
Falsehood
Falsehood
Falsehood – in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Demonum
Falsehood
Falsehoods - alibi
More falsehoods –
Bochari; in eodem
libro
Transitional text:
conclusion of the first
fruit, introduction of
the second fruit:
moral integrity
Immorality of
Muhammad –Bohari,
in capitulo Lotionis
Idem – in eodem libro
Idem – in Alcorano, in
tractatu Elahaze;
Bohari, in tractatu
30
SM 4331-33
(Al-Zamakhsharî)
SM 341-2
SM 364-6
SM 352-3
SM 103
SM 332-3
SM 551-3
SM 562-5
SM 60
SM 611-3
SM 615-6
SM 616-8
DSM 3426-3619
DSM3620-3624
DSM 381-3830
DSM 3831-35
DSM 3835-39
DSM 401-27
DSM 421-6
DSM 427-24
DSM 4224-448
DSM 449-25
Expositionis Alcorani
Idem – in eodem (bis);
in Alcorano, in
tractatu Prohibitionis
et in glossa que est ibi;
in Alcorano; in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Alfatha; Bochari
Transitional passage
initiating the third
fruit: no miracles
performed by
Muhammad
Miracle demanded,
but not performed by
Muhammad –Cyar
Idem – in Alcorano, in
tractatu Ascensus
No miracles –Bochari,
in tractatu Fidei
No splitting of the
moon – per
Alcoranum…, in
tractatu Lune;
glossator Alcorani
super predictum
locum; Alquindius
Transitional text:
towards the fourth
fruit: the quality of
the Law
The moral superiority
of monogamy over
polygamy – in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Mulierum
The moral
reprehensibility of
divorce – in Alcorano
in Tractatu Vace
Reprehensibility of
the permission of
31
SM 62
SM 62
SM 62
SM 63
SM 67
SM 75
SM 76-77
SM 87
SM 86
DSM 4426-32
DSM 4433-462
DSM 463-8
DSM 469-12
DSM 4613-26
DSM 4627-31
DSM 4632-4813
DSM 4814-505
DSM 506-527
coitus per anum – in
Alcorano, in Tractatu
Vace, ubi dicit glosa
Sarracenorum
expositorum Alcorani
Reprehensibility of
temporary marriage
JRQՀ@
Reprehensibility of
Coitus interruptus –
Muzlim et Bochari
Reprehensibility of
licking fingers after
eating - Muzlim, in
tractatu Ciborum
Reprehensibility of
permitting raids –
Bochari
Reprehensibility of
permission to break
oaths – in Alcorano, in
tractatu Mense; in
Alcorano, in tractatu
Prohibitionis; Bochari
in tractatu
Expositionis Alcorani
Reprehensibility of
permitting mental
sins –Bohari, in
tractatu Redemptionis
Islamic law against
sodomy too
permissive – in
Alcorano in tractatu
Mulierum; dicit glosa
Transitional passage
with conclusion and
initiating a passage on
Muhammad’s
disfortunes and end
Muhammad’s
misfortunes and end –
32
SM 92
SM 94
SM 102
Cf SM 66
(Muhammad’s
DSM 527-5427
DSM 5428-564
DSM 564-5631
DSM 5632-5813
DSM 5828-624
Bohari in titulo
Medicine, Actus
Machometi, Bohari in
tractatu Infirmitatis
Prophete, Actus
Machometi, Muslim in
tractatu Orationis,
Bohari, Bohari in
Tractatu Contrarii
Incorruptedness of
the Bible, first reason
Idem – in Alcorano in
capitulo Mense
Idem – (1) in Alcorano
in tractatu Hygr, (2)
item in eodem
capitulo V, (3) item in
tractatu Vace in fine
secunde distinctionis,
(4) item in .V. capitulo
circa finem, (5) item
in tractatu Mense
.VII.c, (6) item in
eodem capitulo .V.
Idem – Why the name
of Muhammad would
never have been
removed
from the text of the
Bible
Idem – in historiis;
various biblical texts
33
poisoning: k. al-Siyar)
ESA 45430-38
ESA 45439-4556
ESA 45517-28; SM 29
ESA 45333-45418
IV – CONCLUSIONS and HYPOTHESES
1 Al-Saif al-murhaf fî al-radd Ԟalâ al-muΣͥaf is an Arabic polemical
text written by a Coptic author who lived in the first half of the
13th century. (I am following Schwarb and Demiri here). It is
probable that the author had been in contact with Dominican
circles and had acquired some knowledge of the ideas of
Thomas Aquinas, especially concerning the distinction
between natural law and divine law.
2 Ramon Martí’s De Seta Machometi was largely based on Al-Saif
al-murhaf fî al-radd Ԟalâ al-muΣͥaf, with the exception of its last
section dealing with the integrity of the Christian Scriptures
which was derived from Ramón Martí’s own work Explanatio
Symboli Apostolorum.
3 There is no evidence that Ramón Martí had seen any of the
Arabic sources quoted in De Seta Machometi or Explanatio Symboli
Apostolorum. It appears that Ramón Martín, for the purpose of
his Latin writings on Islam and related issues, was able to
acquire a copy of the Arabic book of a contemporaneous Coptic
author, on which he could base himself completely for his first
compilation on Muhammad and Islam, the Quadruplex
Reprobatio. In comparing the Latin text with its Arabic
originals, I found no proof that Ramón Martí could handle the
Koran himself directly and independently, so as to select
therefrom himself verses fitting for his apologetic and
polemical purposes. Here, he completely relied on the work of
his Coptic colleague. Exactly the same holds true for his
quotations of ͤadîth. In fact, he had no idea that Al-Bukhârî
and Muslim, quoted many times by the Coptic author, were the
names of the authors of important collections of Islamic
traditions, as he consistently and with no exception quotes
these names as the titles of important works (“in libro qui
Buchari vocatur”, etcetera). The same holds true for all the
other Arabic sources mentioned by Ramón Martí, including
34
Maimonides, Al-Ghazzâlî, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sînâ, and others.
Here, and elsewhere, he completely relied on the work he was
translating and abbreviating. Whether he had seen the Arabic
sources quoted in his later works, remains to be verified.
35
V - APPENDIX
Al-Saif al-Murhaf fî al-Radd ‘alâ al-MuΣͥaf
Texts Collected from the Works of Al-άûfî
With Annotated Parallels
from De Seta Machometi and Explanatio Symboli Apostolorum
[Introduction: The Danger of False Prophets]
[1]
ºN=Ð|cUÐÊnh˜iúЌYÐíÚ|AÐénSë̍=nšT=yššRÐnYéíÌéŽSjR(244)
‹*Ð}e?ŒYºÒE`YÑnýٌJn˜UÐ:‹wíºëj\UÐÜn˜U:‹ciŽ>jxŒx|UÐ
º}wn]UЊhœiüÐ :Š@í~LāÐéŽSpxùÐì|wíénS245) ºëŽR}_x
ìØ{[=Œi5hRì}TÙOÎnfUÒÚí¦ønYĆTnghdL}TÙí
(244) I say: The opening words of his book are: 37 Beware of false
prophets who come to you in the cloths of sheep, while in their
inner they are rapacious wolves. They will be known from
their fruits. 38 (245) He said: This verse is the word of God –High
and Exalted- in the Holy Gospel. He then mentioned a discussion
on it, which we do not need to relate in our present context. 39
Passages evidently phrased by Al-ώÌEÂ G®JPDIE @OD F®SDK ®K ®Q@I®BP though, in the absence of the original text of the Christian-Arabic
author, the distinctions made here between the words of Al-άûfi and
the Christian author are not always certain. Some passages ascribed by
al-άûfî to the Christian author may in fact not be literal quotations but
summaries, etcetera.
38
Matthew 7: 15.
39
DSM 14: “Ad ostendum quod Machometus non fuit Dei propheta vel
nuntius, sicut asserunt sarraceni, qui miserabiliter pereunt illius
sequentes blasphemias, et errores, notandum quod Dominus, loquens de
falsis prophetis et monens fideles ut caverent sibi ab eis, dixit secundum
quod habetur in Mattheo VII: ‘Attendite a falsis prophetis qui veniunt ad
vos in vestimentis ovium intrinsecus autem sunt lupi rapaces: a
37
36
[2]
ÊnhYÚÌҎ˜i:=Ö£{S5TE›Tp=|TëŽþ˜fšYŠhýГΐf=:ënT{Sí 247)
fh_=©ÐWfUÐ 248)Ð|w}TÙ5T ngfYÜØn—UÐíYn#Ðí =Ð}UÐÖnÉúÐ:
ŒYÛ:Ҏ˜fUÐЎLØЊhýГΐf=ŒYpý5_=Ú̎iëÌ}]Hj=pxùÐì|w}TÙ{_=
ýÐ{L̂_=DLÒWfUn=ìí{L틹Ìíp=|TЎinTíºŠhýГΐf=‰dYÑnBË
ŠšSíé|žR‹)GQnR
(247) Among the Israelites there have been many false prophets, as is
elucidated in the Prophecy of Jeremiah in chapter 4, 5 and 6, as is
mentioned precisely (248) by this Christian some lines after having
quoted this verse 40, viz. that around 400 Israelites claimed prophecy in
the time of Ahab the King of the Israelites, while they were false
pretenders. They promised him to help him against some of his
enemies but he was deceived by them and then forsaken and killed.
[3]
}x|šUÐíº‹gR}_>íN=Ð|cUÐÊnh˜iúЇx}_>f_xÐ|wíénS‹? (249)
y”Ðí = Še_UÐí ºp_afCÐ }wnK º Rni ºÒÚí–UÐ N=
ö ºïÚí¦ ‹gfY
Ҏ˜fUЌYêØːf=: RÚÌp]BøíDLÌp˜>ÚøiúÖĆ[UÐN=yœfUÐ
ö
GQÐnY{ýncCАaBíºŠh"Ð ˆýnS،Y}gKjRºŠh"n=ngYÐÚešdY‹cR
fructibus eorum congnoscetis eos’. Ubi Dominus tria facit. Primo monet
fideles ut a falsis prophetis sibi caveant cum dicit ‘attendite a falsis
prophetis’. Secundo ostendit quales sint illi in se exterius et interius
cum dicit: ‘qui veniunt ad vos in vestibus ovium, intrinsecus autem sunt
lupi rapaces’. Tertio, quibus signis cognoscantur ut sic ab eis caveantur
cum subiungit ‘a fructibus eorum cogniscetis eos’. The Latin text seems
to present a more complete version of the opening passages of the
Christian-Arabic text, unless it was Ramon Martí himself who added the
exegetical passages.
40
Viz. Matthew 7: 15-16.
37
ŠBØÌí ºÜnfUÐ:éĆ\UÐ ën]hZUЏbUjR ºéŽb_UÐ Êna_” ŒY E›T =
p[S:Ên@5TºN=Ð|cUÐÊnh˜iúЌY‡f[UÐÐ|wp]HЎ=Øn—aUЋgfh=
: Ўþ˜f> Œx|UÐ pýnCÐ =ÚÌ Y š[S
(250)}TÙí
ˬŠhýГΠ‰dY ÑnBË
.‹w}Tو˜H{SíºinYÛ
(249) He then said: This means that it is obviously necessary and
useful to define false prophets and to make oneself acquainted
with them and to warn against them. Acting accordingly is to
be deemed an evident guarantee for success and wellbeing,
because there is no higher rank and office among mankind
than prophecy. How many ambitious people are not striving
for it by tricks? They manifest subtle tricks and hidden
subterfuges by which many weak minds are deceived.
Consequently, Satan spreads error among people, introducing
among them perversion by way of this kind of false prophets,
like in the case of the story of Ahab, King of Israel. (250) He then
mentioned his story with the four hundred who acted as prophets in
his time and who have been mentioned already.
[Defining Prophecy and Prophets]
[4]
nYíÈn*{ýnRnYíÈҎ˜fUÐnYøíÌæ}_xë̊Sn_dU`˜fhRénS‹? (252)
ŒY{=øiúÈì{h˜_UUnHÚl=On_>āÐØÐ}YnYíȍJí nYí Ȑ˜fUÐ
N= pS}ašUÐ DL ÐÚØnS ën—iüÐ ëŽchU º= ˆx{[šUÐ Š˜S ÊVUРڎ[>
ºÊnh˜iúЌYÑÙncUÐíçØn[UÐN=Š[aUÐDLíºngS{ÉíҎ˜fUÐÑ|T
(252) He then said: Therefore, an intelligent person should first
know: what is prophecy; what is its virtue; what is a prophet;
which are his conditions; what is God’s purpose by sending him
to His servants? Because, one should first conceive something
38
before believing in it, in order for man to be able to distinguish
between truthful and false prophecies and prophets.
[Prophecy]
[5]
ڎYÌp_=ÚÌ:êĆcUÐpR}_YŒYÐ|w:ߎ#Ð{fL{=øí énS‹? (252)
ºngš_afYínghUΈd#ÐÒÚí¦íºngLŽSíínw؎@ííºÒŽ˜fUÐpbhbA
(252) He then said: When delving into this, one needs to be
familiar with the discussion of four matters: the essence of
prophecy, its existence and occurrence, the need mankind has
of it, and its use.
[6]
ŒL‡Zcxº4ÎÜnfdU RniçØnɐAín¹lRҎ˜fUÐpbhbAnYÌénS‹? (252)
ŒY؎hbUÐì|w:nY}TÙíp_h˜]UÐî}6o—=RnZciЌcexøï|UÐoh`UÐ
.Ò}wnKwíºÓÐÛÐGAøÐ
(252) He then said: As for the essence of prophecy, it is a
veracious revelation, useful for people, and divine; it uncovers
the hidden world that cannot be uncovered according to the
course of nature. He then related the restrictions to which these
conditions are subjected, which are evident.
[7]
253) ÔƛUЊdCЊwÌ{fLºhRâÛnfYE`RҎ˜fUÐâŽSínYÌíénS‹? (252)
:q˜›>{Sbdž=in˜HïÚn˜UÐpxnfLëÌnªÐ{AÎ ºNšœ=hRâÛniŒCinh=í
U q_”í nC pþhgšY ºÊn\LúÐí ÜЎ"Ð ”ŽT ºÝn_CÐ yUn[Y ŒY E—hUÐ
ŒY énHÚl= Øn_CÐ }YÌ : ‹) pxnf_UnR XĻ ø šUÐ āÐ ‹_i ŒY ‰UÙ Žií
ŒL 3n_UÐ ‚_=
‡cxí º peýÐ{UÐ Ònh"Ðí px{=úÐ ÒØn_—UÐ ˆx}J OÎ ‹0{0
ŒYàíPUЊYncUÐ}>ЎšUЍhdLéØnYphin›UÐ254ºOí̋w}Y̋^šfhUº‚_=
39
º‹0{xÌ DL ÓÐ~œ_CÐ Ó}gKí ºāÐ ŠHÚ ‹¹Ì ЎLØö Ð ºén@}UÐ ŒY pLn+ ëÌ
ŒYŒfHy”íÌDLЎ˜wً? IŽhUeZUÐØÚíº—hLíHŽYÓÐ~œ_eT
DLé{xÐ|wëlR‰Uي›YOÎÜnfUÐЎLØíºnhi{UÐ:{w~UÐípdh\aUÐíÒÚng]UÐ
ŒY ì}TÙ nY ŠÉnA Ð|w ºn_]S Ҏ˜fUÐ âŽSí {hax ‰UÙí ‹wЎLØ : ‹gS{É
Ð{@ŠxŽJ>Ún˜L:Žwíºni̍š[#ºNšœ"Ð
(252) He then said: As for the occurrence of prophecy, that is
uncontested among the adherents of the three faiths. (253) To
the person who contests this, it can be elucidated by two
arguments. The first of these is that God’s care for his creation
[in this world] – be He praised!- may be proven [on the one
hand] by [even] a few of the requirements of subsistence, like
the placement of senses and bodily parts which have been
prepared for the purpose for which they were installed, and
other uncountable graces of God. His care for them in the
Hereafter, on the other hand, consists in sending those
[prophets] who might lead them towards eternal bliss and
everlasting life, blocking the evil of one part of the world from
the other part, so that their life will be ordered in a more
appropriate way. (254)The second is the complete and
unbroken chain of transmission which indicates that a group
of men claiming that they were messengers of God and were
performing miracles, like the miracles of Moses and Jesus, and
the repelling of the sun by Joshua - these men were living
according to the clearest habits of holiness, virtue and ascetics
calling the people towards the same way of life: [all] this
proves the veracity of their claim which yields the occurrence
of prophecy beyond any doubt. This is the sum of the two
arguments he mentioned. I summarized this, because in his own
words it is a very longwinding passage. 41
41
Though Al-άûfî presents the text as a quotation, he admits at the end
that it is his own summary.
40
[8]
pR}_YOΊɎšUЌcexøi±RºnghUΈd#ÐÒÚí¦nYÌíénS (258)
âĆJøÐëí{= Ð}^iøíºÒÚí¦Šb_UÐØ}œe=ph4üÐڎYúЌYE›T
p˜—fUn=ÓÐ؎@ŽCÐÙÎ -©n—iüЊb_UÐڎ[bUĆhec>‰UÙDL4üÐ
Ð}^i íÌ ºŠcUÐ ŒY }`ÉÌ Ê~!Ð ëj= ‹d_UnT ºÒÚí¦ êŽd_Y nYÎ hUÎ
‹d_UnTºTÐÚØΌL~œ_xnYí̺ÊĆ#ÐpUnšHÐíºUüÐ؎@Ž=‹d_UnT
‹d_UnTí ºngÉnžIÌ Ø{L ŒL Ć\R Ón˜fUÐí ÓniЎh"Ð âЎiÌ Ø{_=
:‰Ziøºpde!ÐDLˆýnb"Ðí ýn˜]UЌYE›c=íâЎiúÐ}›TÌéŽ[a=
ph4üÐڎYún=‰fK5R ngfYêŽd_CÐDLoUnQni{fLéŽgœCÐëÌ
(258) He said: Mankind does indeed need [prophecy], because it
is impossible to obtain knowledge of many divine matters
merely by way of the intellect -neither by necessity nor by
contemplation- without divine information concerning them
by which the shortcomings of the human intellect are
compensated. Because, to it [the human intellect] the existing
things are either known by necessity, like the knowledge that a
part is smaller than the complete thing, or by reflection, like
the knowledge of the existence of God, the [logical]
impossibility of a vacuum, or they are things impossible to
grasp like knowledge of the number of the [existing] kinds of
animals and plants, leave alone the number of their
individuals; and like knowledge of the partitions of most of the
kinds, as well as [knowledge of] many of the natural
phenomena and of the facts in general. Undoubtedly, the part
we do not know of that is greater by far than what we know of
it, leave alone then [when it comes to] divine matters.
41
[9]
:ì}TÙnfY{Sï|UÐ{YnA-Ìí{Iڌ=ÐíŽ]HÚÌ êĆT}Tً?
(259)
nYDL Ž]HÚÌénSÐ|4í (237) [phin›UÐpY{bCÐì|wŒYí] phin›UÐpY{bCÐ
ënh=:š\SnfYØ{[=Œiï|UÐÐ|w=nšT:©ÐWfUÐÐ|w fLcA
ïØn˜CÐ OÎ }^fUÐ {fL nfUŽbL : én"Ð ëÎ énS ˆdždU Ҏ˜fUÐ ÒÚí¦
pxnQ:eZUÐë̐fLÌeZUÐOÎ}^fUÐ{fLÝna#ÐénTºOíúÐ
(238)
ìÚn[=Î ‡_\U Ýna#Ð {fL phaB wí ºng—ai : ڎg^UÐ
3énSiÌNed—CЌYcUnCÐ{Iڌ=ЌL©ÐWfUÐÐ|wn\x̏cAí
øκnghRj]#ЌY{A̋[_x3íº={š_xøŽSph4üÐêŽd_UÐ:{Åbx
cAí Ênh˜iúЋwíën—iüÐp_h˜JŒLÕÚnB4Î}Yj=āЍe[LŒY
ŒYDLÌOíúÐpd_UÐénSiÌÑn˜HúЍ=nšT:énSiÌn\x̎]HÚ̌L
(239) pdLŠTçŽRn¹úøκngaÉíŒLpf—UúÐ~œ_>øíº‡ÉŽ>ëÌ
ÊnhehT OÎìÐ~L‰Uُf_Y:nþhI -<Ð~`UЎw{YnA-̌LcAí
f—UÐ{[bCÐOÎíÒØn_—UÐ
(259) He then quoted the words of Aristotle, Ibn Rushd and Abû
Ά¹J®CTG®BGTDG@SD@IOD@CVJDKQ®LKDC®KLROPDBLKC®KQOLCRBQ®LK
[From Al-ώÌEŸP PDBLKC ®KQOLCRBQ®LK M = For this reason
Aristotle said, according to the relation of this Christian in his book
which we are presently disputing, concerning the necessity of
prophecy for mankind 42: The state of our intellects when looking
42
The words “concerning the necessity of prophecy for mankind”
should be understood in relation to the “relation of the Christian in his
book”, not to Aristotle.
42
at the first principles is like that of a bat when looking at the
sun. I mean that the appearance of the sun in itself is maximal,
but for the bat it remains hidden because of its weak sight.
(238) And this Christian related also from the Muslim author Ibn
Rushd al-Mâlikî that he had said: No one has said anything
concerning the divine sciences that should be taken into
account and no one has remained free from any error in it
except those who were protected by God against committing
errors through a divine order outside the reach of human
nature, who are the prophets. 43 And he related from Aristotle also
that he had said in his Kitâb al-Asbâb (Book of Causes): The first
cause is elevated beyond any description, and the tongues of
mankind are unable to describe it because it is beyond every
cause. 44 (239) !KC GD ODI@QDC EOLJ !AÌ Ά¹J®C S®W !I-Ghazâlî
something of the same meaning which he ascribed to [the books]
Kîmiyyâ al-SaԞâda (Alchemy of Happiness) and Al--@Nυ@C @I-Sanî
(The Lofty Purpose).45
43
A quotation from k. Tahâfut al-tahâfut, p. 547 of the edition by
Sulaymân Dunyâ, Cairo: Dâr al-Ma’ârif, 3rd edition. (Al-Qarnî).
44
The Christian author refers here to the famous pseudo-Aristotelian
book known in the Latin Middle Ages as Liber de Causis. In Arabic, this
work was known by the title Al-Kalâm (or: al-Î͍âͥ) fî al-khayr al-J@·ͯ. It
was translated into Latin in Toledo around 1175. The title Kitâb al-Asbâb
mentioned in our text, does not figure in the Arabic manuscripts known
of this text. The passage quoted here corresponds to the first lines of
chapter 5 of this text: “Causa prima superior est narratione, et non
deficient linguae a narratione eius nisi (…) quoniam ipse est supra
omnem causam.” My quotation was taken from the edition of Fidora
und Niederberger (2001), p. 52. Compare the same passage in the
original Arabic version as published by Bardenhewer (1888), p. 69: “inna
al-Ԟilla al-ûlâ aԞlâ min al-Σifa wa-innamâ Ԟajizat al-alsun Ԟan waΣfihâ min
ajli waΣfi anniyyatihâ li-annahâ fawqa kulli Ԟillatin wâͥida”: “Die erste
Ursache ist erhaben über jede Bezeichnung, und zwar ist die Zunge
unfähig sie zu bezeichnen, weil sie ihr Sein nicht zu bezeichnen vermag,
insofern dieses über einen jeden Ursache steht.”
45
“Lam ajid fî Kîmîyâ al-SaԞâda mâ fî maԞnâ hadhâ; wa-aqrab mâ wajadtu
fî al-MaqΣad al-Asnâ mâ qâlahu Al-Ghazzâlî fî al-muqaddima: ‘fa-qad
sa’alanî al-akh fî Allâh sharͥ maԞânî asmâ’ Allâh al-ͥusnâ … fa-lam azal
uqaddimu rijlan wa-u’akhkhiru ukhrâ akhdhan bi-sabîl al-ͥadhr wa43
[The Utility of Prophethood]
[10]
: ˆhRŽšUÐ pUnHÚ : {YnA Ž=Ì énS 5cR Ҏ˜fUÐ p_afY nYÌí énS
262)
ç{[UÐípa_UÐíé{_UnTph—afUÐçĆBúÐÖĆÉÎnw{AÌ ÊnhIÌp?Ć?
Ñnfš@Ðíºngf—AêÐ~šUÐíºng_”ÐŽY:p1}UÐíF[UÐí‹d"ÐíÒ{œfUÐí
©n›UÐ ‰UÙ ŒL In_Y : ŠSn_dU fQ ø ilR º‰UÙ ØÐ{”jT ngþhH
º‹gfh=ŒY3n^CÐ RÚíºìŽiíß}LíénYíê،YÜnfUÐçŽbA„aA
ÚÐ{UÐ:pcd4ЌYafUÐÒnœirUn›UÐ Yn^iŠšBÐíº3n_UЉdwøÎí
‰UÙ pR}_Y OÎ Šh˜H øí ºšLnJí -in˜H -ˆUn#Ð pR}_e= Ò}BùÐ
ŠhUØ ŒL ÒØ}6 ìЎL{R ‰UÙ LØÐ ŒYí Ҏ˜fUÐ ëí{= pa—daUÐ Ø}œe=
ëíØ ‹g\_= p_=nšeR º‹wE`T ÊÐÚùÐ : ëŽadš8 paHĆaUÐ ÙÎ º ˆ"Ð
y@}YĆ=yh@}>‚_=
(262) He said: The utility of prophecy consists, like Abû ͤâmid
said in Risâlat al-Tawfîq 46, of three things. The first of these is
Ԟudûlan Ԟan rikâb matn al-gharar [al-khaέr] wa-'stiqΣâran bi-thuwwat albashar Ԟan dark hadhâ al-waέar; wa-kaifa lâ! wa-li-al-baΣîr Ԟan khaw͍
mithli hâdhihi al-ghumra Σârifân: aͥaduhumâ anna hadhâ al-amr fî
nafsihi Ԟazîz al-marâm ΣaԞb al-manâl ghâmi͍ al-mudrik fa-innahu fî alԞuluw wa-al-dhurwa al-Ԟulyâ wa-al-maqΣid al-aqΣâ alladhî tataͥayyaru
al-albâb fîhi wa-tankhafi͍u abΣâr al-Ԟuqûl dûna mabâdîhi fa͍lan Ԟan
aqâΣîhi wa-min aina li-al-quwâ al-bashariyya an tasluka fî Σifât alrubûbiyya sabîl al-baͥth wa-al-faͥΣ wa-al-taftîsh wa-an tuέîq nûr alshams abΣâr al-khafâfîsh?” (Al-Qarnî)
46
There are two errors here. The work quoted is in fact Ibn Άazm’s
Risâlat al-Tawqîf ‘alâ shâriԞ al-najât bi-ikhtiυâr al-Ϗarîq. See I·sân ‘Abbâs
(ed.), Rasâ’il Ibn Άazm, Bairût 1987, vol. 3, p. 134. I owe the identification
of this text to Dr Samir Kaddouri (Doha, Qatar). There is another
44
the improvement of morality like justice, chastity, veracity,
lending support, magnanimity, patience and mercy wherever
these are appropriate. [Then also,] to adhere to good manners
and to refrain from their opposed bad [manners], as every
intelligent person needs to do in making a living. The second is
to preserve the rights of the people, like their blood(-rights),
property, honour etcetera, and to remove crimes from among
them. Without this, the world will perish and its order will
collapse. The third is to save the soul from perishing in the
Hereafter by knowing and obeying the Creator – praised be He!
There is no way of knowing this solely by philosophy without
prophecy. Whosoever claims that lacks a proof of the truth of
his claim, because philosophers differ in their views, and
following one of them instead of the others is tantamount to
making a choice without a criterion to choose. 47
[What is a Prophet? Four Conditions]
[11]
éŽbfRJí nY퐘fUÐnYN˜fR ìni}TÙn,nfQ}R{SÙÎíénS263)
{A : ÒڎT|CÐ pa[UÐ DL āÐ {fL ŒY AŽUÐ ]_x ï|UÐ Žw ˜fUÐ
pþJŽ> {_= ngSŽ—i p_=ÚjR Jí nYÌí énS º‹dö —Y Ð|w qdS Ҏ˜fUÐ
øilRÊ¡:ØØ}>ŒYëÌì}TÙï|UÐ{hgešUЊÉnAí º‰U|U{hg/í
confusion, again with the name of Abû Άâmid, of Abû ‘Alî ibn Sînâ’s
name, below in Text 52.
47
The extensive erudition demonstrated by the Christian-Arabic author
is, again, very impressive. In addition to his Biblical culture and his
familiarity with works by Pseudo-Aristotle, Ibn Rushd and Al-Ghazalî, it
now appears that he had even some knowledge of the work of Ibn ͤazm
al-Andalusî, as well. This knowledge does not necessarily point to an
eventual Andalsian background of the author, as many of Ibn ͤazm’s
works circulated in the Near East in the time of our anonymous author,
witness the numerous manuscripts of his works in mashriqî script dating
back to that period.
45
=|T ŒY S{É æ}_x 5iÎ ˜fUÐ ‰U|cR }^fUn= øÎ šbhbA DL ‡bx
ngšwÐ~iíafUÐÒÚngJnghin?íç{[UÐn4íÌ hRp_=ÚúÐàíPUÐ؎@Ž=
šaÉDLëŽcxëÌo@ŽRºāÐ{fLŒY 264)˜fUÐëúº€AЎaUЌL
ºpwÐ~fUÐíÒÚng]UÐí 265)ç{[UÐ:
(263) He said: Having (thus) finished what we mentioned
(earlier), we will now explain what a prophet is and which are
the conditions he should fulfill. We thus say: the prophet is the
one who conveys the revelation from God in accordance with
the description mentioned in the definition of prophecy. I say:
This is acceptable. He said: Its conditions are four. We will follow
them up after an introduction to that. The sum of the
introduction he mentioned is that whosoever hesitates about
something will only establish its true nature by reflection. Similarly,
the true prophet is only known from the false one by the
presence of four conditions 48. The first of these is veracity; the
second is the holiness of his soul and its blamelesness from
misdeeds, because a prophet (264) [is sent] from God.
Therefore, his veracity, holiness and blamelesness should be in
48
Al-Qarnî remarks (p. 263, note 2): “I did not find in the books of the
[pious] ancestors I read these four conditions, with the exception of the
work of Al-Mawardî concerning the signs of prophethood (aԞlâm alnubuwwa) who remarked: ‘While it is a fact that prophethood is only
genuine of him who was sent by the Exalted God with His revelation to
him, its authenticity is only taken into consideration by [the presence
of] three conditions indicating its veracity and the obligation of
obedience towards it. The first of these is that the person who claims to
be a prophet possesses properties which enable him to be fit for [that
office], because of the veracity of his speech, his apparent nobility and
his perfect state… The second condition [is that] he produces a miracle
indicating his veracity… The third condition is that he expresses his
claim to prophethood while announcing his performance of the
miracle…’”.
46
accordance with His attribute in veracity, (265) holiness and
blamelessness. 49
[12]
wí ºÒÚng]UÐ ŒJŽY f_x -ŒJŽCÐ Ð|w : ‹dc> {Sí énS 265)
=nšT : Ҏ˜fUÐ Š[R : 掗dhaUÐ āÐ {h˜L Œ= HŽY -©n›UÐ àPUÐ
ºU5T Ún˜šLÐ Žw ºçØn[UÐ ˜fUÐ ënšYÐ énbR Œx}ýn"Ð pUøØ e—CÐ
ºphi{˜UÐ ÓÐ|dUÐ ÖÐ}JÐ >nYĆL FTÌí >EH ŠYj>í ºUn_RÌ ob_>í
pÉnBí Ênh˜iúÐ ŒL Ć\R º‹d_UÐ ŠwÌ ëjI ‰UÙ ëlR ºn) ëíngšUÐí
49
DSM 14: “Ut ad notitiam istorum fructuum facilius per contrariorum
suorum declarationes perveniamus, possumus dicere quod propheta vel
nuntius Dei, qui vult ostendere veritatem suae prophetiae vel suae
missionis ita quod illi ad quos mittitur non possunt resistere super hoc
vel rationalibiter dubitare quatuor debet habere que sunt quasi quidam
fructus vel signa, per que potest cognosci et discerni verus propheta vel
nuntius Dei a falsis prophetis vel nuntiis, qui non habent illa quatuor
signa seu fructus sed contraria. Primum est quod sit verax. Et hoc potest
ostendi ratione et autoritate. Ratio talis est: Deus est summa ac simplex
ac pura veritas, ergo ab eo mendacium non potest procedure. Ergo
propheta vel nuntius ab eo missus, in quantum talis, non potest aliud
dicere nisi quod a mittente est inspiratum seu mandatum, et hoc non
potest nisi esse verum. Ergo verbum prophete vel nuntii verum debet
esse, alioquin convincitur non esse propheta vel nuntius Dei.
Auctoritate: per illud quod dicitur Deuteronomii XVIII, in fine, ubi
Dominus ostendit signum per quod congnoscatur falsus propheta
dicens: ‘Si tacita cogitatione responderis: Quomodo possum intelligere
verbum quod non est locutus Dominus?, hoc habebis signum: Quod in
nomine Domini propheta predixit et non evenerit. Hoc Dominus non
locutus est, sed per tumorem animi sui propheta confixit: ed idcirco non
timebis eum’. R. M. proceeds immediately to a discussion of the four
conditions of a prophet. Following good scholastic methodology, he
gives his arguments based on reason and revelation, respectively.
Thereby, he modifies the argumentative discourse of the ChristianArabic text, adding many Biblical texts as authorities.
47
ngfYÖncfUÐÒÚÐ|S5hHøíŽ]HÚÌ}TÙ5TºnfhdLÚnLwšUÐpHn"Ð
øí ºÐŽd\x øí ºˆ"Ð N˜šhU 266) ºâ{Y ŠT n) āÐ y\R ‰U|Uí
ºâ5!ÐÒ|UpHn—A:nce¹ÐíºÒŽ˜fUÐnhLØÐNd@Úp[S}Tً? Ў]d`x
énS íÌ ˜fUÐÊnhYÚÐ }TÙ 5T Š=n=‰dY 5gS}AÌí ºn\šRnRºnhiÛ šA
ŒxP_UÐí HnšUÐÑn˜UÐ:˜fUÐnhY}=
(265) He said: Mûsâ ibn ‘Ubayd Allâh the Philosopher discussed
this issue, viz. the issue of holiness, which is the second
condition, in the section on prophecy of his book entitled
Dalâlat al-ͤâ’irîn (“Guide of the Perplexed”), remarking:
Examining the truthful prophet is considering his perfection,
following up his actions and taking notice of his way of life.
The strongest sign [of the truth of his prophethood] is the
rejection and disdaining of corporal enjoyments, which is the
sake of scholars, leave alone prophets, and especially of the
sense of touch which is a disgrace for us, as Aristotle
mentioned, and more particularly the filth of sexual
intercourse 50. For that reason, God put to shame by it every
false pretender of it [viz. prophethood], (266) in order for the
truth to become manifest and lest [men] will err and be
confused. He then related the story of two men who claimed
prophethood while indulging in the sensual pleasure of intercourse.
When they even committed adultery, they were exposed. The King of
Babylon burnt them, as was related by the Prophet Jeremiah, or he
rather said: the Prophet Birmiyâ, in chapter twenty-nine. 51
50
The Christian-Arabic author presents a very short selective summary
of the long text of Maimonides (see the translation by Pines, pp. 371372) in his own words. The view ascribed to Aristotle is also quoted from
Maimonides, who adds that Aristotle had expressed this view in his
Ethics.
51
Compare the description of the second condition in DSM 14,16:
“Secundum est quod sit bonus et virtuosus, non malus et facinorosus. Et
hoc potest ostendi ratione et auctoritate. Ratio talis est: Certum est
48
[13]
~œ_CÐ ÚngKÐ -˜fUÐ àí ŒY f_x -rUn›UÐ àPUÐ énS 285)
ÑÙncUÐíçØn[UÐN=ç}aUÐ bxí˜dUÐ a>EUÜnfdU
(285) He said: The third condition – viz. of the conditions of a
prophet – is the manifestation of a miracle to the people in
order to remove uncertainty and to bring about a separation
between the trustworthy [person] and the liar.
[14]
î}œCÐo—=d_axëÌën—iüÐҎS:hUnYŠ_R~œ_CÐíénS286)
º_h˜]UÐ
(286) He said: “A miracle is an act that man is unable to perform
in accordance with the course of nature.” 52
quod a Deo, qui est summum bonum et summa munditia, religata est
omnis inmunditia et omne peccatum, unde etiam vult quod in
sanctitate, quantum possumus, ipsum imitemur iuxta illud Levitici XI :
‘Sancti estote quoniam ego sanctus sum’. Et hoc dicit omnibus et
maxime prophetis et nuntiis suis, propter quod multo fortius tenetur
habere munditiam et sanctitatem qui est propheta vel nuntius Dei.
Auctoritate autem ostenditur per hoc quod dicit Propheta in Psalmis :
‘Ambulans in via inmaculata hic michi ministrabat’. Et Petrus in Epistola
II, capitolo I : ‘Non humana ratione allata est aliquando prophetia sed
Spiritu Sancto locuti sunt sancti homines Dei’ » R. M. omits the
quotation of Maimonides and strictly follows the scholastic bifold way
of arguing, thereby adding a few Biblical texts as authorities.
52
Texts 13 and 14 are reflected in DSM 16: « Tertium quod faciat
miracula. Licet enim talis esset verax et virtuosus, sinon faceret
miracula, per illa duo non ostenderit se esse prophetam vel nuntium
Dei. Multi enim sunt boni et veraces, qui tamen non sunt prophete vel
nuntii Dei, propter quod dicit Aben Rust philosophus rem que fecit ad
hoc : ut ille qui dicit se esse prophetam credatur esse verax, est quod
veniat cum miraculo quod non potuit facere homo per se, in quantum
homo » (with reference to Kitâb Falsafat Ibn Rushd, in M. Asín Palacios,
Huellas del islam. Madrid, p. 24 sqq). Note, that R. M. does not provide any
authoritative Biblical text to underpin this third condition, but only
provides a text of the Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd. This text does not
49
[15]
Œx{dU nbRЎY LPx ï|UÐ Œx{UÐ ëŽcx ëÌ =Ð}UÐ àPUÐ énS 287)
ëíØ pYj= š¶ ø º‹YúÐ he! ênL nª{AÌ ënLŽi Žwí º_h˜]UÐ
ŒLÛínœšUÐíºŒ—CÐOÎën—AüÐí‹A}UÐpdÉíºŒx{UЎUÐFTºpYÌ
ºŠýn\aUn= MšUÐí º{HnaCÐ ÊÚØí yUn[CÐ od@ pde!n=í Ê¢CÐ
‹" ‹x}šT pYÌ ëíØ pYÌ š¶ ÞnB ©n›UÐí ŠýÐÙ}UÐ ŒL MžšUÐí
ŠÉnAÐ|w pªÐFUÐ{fLëЎh"Ðy=ًx}ĻíîÚn[fUÐEQ{fL}x~f#Ð
.àPUÐÐ|w:ì}TÙnY
(287) He said: The fourth condition is that the law he prescribes
is in accordance with the natural law. This is of two kinds, the
first of these being general [and] for all nations, without any
special distinction between one nation and another, like
reverence for parents, blood relationship, beneficence to the
beneficent, disregarding an evildoer, in short: to bring about
beneficial matters and to avert causes of evil. The second is
particular for one (religious) nation rather than another, like
the prohibition of pork meat among non-Christians and the
prohibition of slaughtering animals among the Brahmans. This
is the sum of what he said concerning this condition. 53
figure in the extracts presented by Al-άûfî and could have been omitted
by him as irrelevant, because the miracle is a standard condition of a
prophet in Islamic and Koranic theology and it was the way par
excellence by which Muͥammad is generally believed to have proven
his prophethood, the Koran itself being considered as the greatest
miracle.
53
The summary Al-ώûfî provides of the words of the Christian-Arabic
author seems to be rather sloppy and inadequate. (Possibly, there is a
problem in the transmission of the Latin text, here). It would seem that
the Christian-Arabic author in reality had argued that «the fourth
condition is that the law he prescribes is in accordance with the natural
law. [Law] is of two kinds, the first of these –the rules of natural
50
conduct-- being general [and] for all (religious) nations, without any
special distinction between one nation and another, like reverence for
parents, blood relationship, beneficence to the beneficent, disregarding
an evildoer, in short: to bring about beneficial matters and to avert
causes of evil. The second –divine or revealed law-- is particular for one
nation rather than another, like the prohibition of pork meat among
non-Christians”. See further our remarks on the similarities between
this passage and texts 75 and following with a passage in the notorious
Risâla of “Al-Kindî”, and with the ideas of Thomas Aquinas, in his
Summa contra Gentiles. DSM 16: «Quartum est quod, si est propheta vel
nuntius Dei, veniat cum lege, et quod illa lex cum qua venit, sit sancta et
bona et inducens gentes ad cultum unius Dei et homines ad sanctitatem
vite et concordiam et pacem iuxta illud ‘lex Domini inmaculata
convertens animas’. Talis fuit Lex Mosaica et Evangelica, ut patet in eis».
In his Latin reworking of this condition, R.M. omits the fine distinction
of the “natural law” and the “divine law”, where he only speaks of the
law brought by the prophet concerned, which has to be holy and good,
bringing the peoples to adore one God only, etcetera. He thus simplifies
the discussion confining his attention to the divine law brought by the
prophet. The perspective of the “natural law” is omitted. DSM 16 adds
the following conclusion: “Ex predictis patet quod eum qui prefata
quatuor signa vel fructus non habet, non tenetur aliquis credere vel
recipere tanquam prophetam vel nuntium Dei. Et quicumque contraria
signa vel fructus habet, debet vitari iuxta prefatam admonitionem Dei
tanquam falsus propheta et nuntius.” At this point, DSM announces that
-R·@JJ@CC®CKLQBLJMIy with the four conditions mentioned; on the
contrary, he possessed exactly the opposite properties of them all. But
before the author is going to explain this in detail, he will first present a
AO®DELSDOS®DTLE-R·@JJ@CŸPLO®F®KP@KCG®PTLOCP@KCCDDCP “Nunc
autem ostendemus cum auxilio Dei quod Machometus, qui dixit se
prophetam et nuntium Dei, non solum non habet predicta quatuor signa
seu fructus, sed, quod maius est, habuit contraria signa et fructus. Quod
ut melius et apertius intelligatur, ponemus primo originem et aliquid de
verbis et factis ipsius». In this biographical part, R.M. brought together,
among others, various elements he selected from later parts of the
Christian-Arabic text in front of him. References to these parts are to be
found in notes appended to the fragments of the Christian-Arabic work,
below. This separate biographical section does not figure in the
fragments quoted by Al-άûfî. Following this biographical intermezzo,
which fills 4 pages in the edition of Hernando i Delgado, the author
returns to the four conditions, on DSM 24: “Primam namque fructum
51
[The First Condition: Veracity]
[16]
o«šUЍJí íº˜fUÐíҎ˜fUÐ:êĆcUЌYnfQ}R{SÙÎíénS288)
ng\_= íÌ hR qdšBÐ ëÎí ºç ö{É hR Ó{@í ëÎ rh= n) inšYÐ
ö
LØÐod]CÐ{˜LŒ=āÐ{˜LŒ={e7e—CЊ@}UÐni{@ínilR Ñ|T
ni{@ŽR ç{[UЎwíéíúÐàPUЍfYešUnRÑ}_UЌYpYÌ:Ҏ˜fUÐ
.N˜fH5T-ÑÙnTíçØnÉNafÉDLŠešZx=Ên@nY
(288) He said: As we have already completed our discussion of
prophethood and prophet, as well as the conditions to be
examined indicating, if fulfilled, that he speaks the truth, or, if
not complied with, that he is a liar, we found that the man
B@IIDC-R·@JJ@C®AKž!AC!II¹G®AKž!AC@I--RϏϏ@I®ABI@®JDC
to be a prophet in a nation of the Arabs. Consequently, we
examined the first condition, viz. [his] veracity. We found that
his message consisted of two elements, viz. veracious and
untruthful, as we shall explain [further]. 54
veri prophete, qui est quod verus propheta debet esse verax,
Machometus non habuit, sed potius contrarium…”
54
After having completed the biographical intermezzo, the author of
DSM returns to the four conditions of prophethood. The section starting
now on page 24 in the Latin text has the subtitle “De quadruplici
reprobatione Machometi”. The author introduces the subject with the
words: “Nos autem ostendemus in subsequentibus, cum auxilio Dei,
quod Machometus predictus non fuit propheta nec nuntius Dei,
ostendendo quod non habuit illos quatuor fructus veri prophete, de
quibus supra actum est, sed potius contrarios, a quibus, iuxta verum
Domini, falsi prophete cognoscuntur. Primum namque fructum veri
prophete, qui est quod verus propheta debet esse verax, Machometus
non habuit, sed potius contrarium”.
52
[17]
Œ^UЌ—"n˜@ŽY‹dcšCÐÑ|Tén=ç{[UÐëŽThUíénS 288)
Ò{hcCÐ:|aiÌíºpdh"Ð:†d=ÌÑ|cUÐ Y ç{[UЃdB 289) Š=º=
ŠJn˜UИšdhUˆ"ЌYÊ¡@Û5xíøÎÑÙnT‹hd_>ŒYnYénbxÐ|4í
.îŽS̈x{[šUÐ:pdh"ÐíºhRaBÌpL{#ÐëŽc>íº=
(288) He said: The presence of [some sort of] veracity in the
words of a lying speaker does not oblige (one) to give him the
benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, (289) the mixing of
truthfulness and untruths is quite helpful in the performance
of tricks and ruses. For this reason it is said: There is no
untruthful teaching without some mixture of the truth, in
order to obscure thereby the false and to hide thereby the
cheating, while enforcing the credibility of the trick. 55
[Truthful Words of MuH
Hammad]]
[18]
‹—bR ìEQí ç{É ŒY ën—iüÐ Ð|w ŠxínSÌ ØڎfdR énS 289)
º ñ{Aó Ìó ô­āЎó wô Š÷ Sô {e[UÐÒڎH:UŽSç{[UÐ
He said: Let us therefore produce the truthful and other sayings
of this man. The truthful part thereof [contains] his words in
Sûrat al-τ@J@Cž3@VHe is God alone’ (112:1). 56
55
DSM 24: “Fuit enim mendax quod patet per verba ipsius, quorum
quedam fuerint vera, quedam falsa, ut per amixtionem verorum posset
efficacius persuadere falsa. Nam, ut ait Augustinus, nulla falsa doctrina
est que aliquid veritatis non misceatur ». In his edition, Hernando i
Delgado notes that the words « ut ait Augustinus » were written in the
margin of the MS. They may therefore have been a reader’s gloss,
especially as Augustine’s name does not figure in the Christian-Arabic
text.
56
DSM 24: “Verba quoque eius vera fuerunt cum dixit in Alcorano…”
The quotation of Sûra 112:1 is omitted in DSM.
53
[19]
õ
õ
ÓÐí5
—UÐ
­ ˆó dó Bó ï|U­ Ð ô­āÐ ‹ôô c=­ Úó ë­ õÎ iŽx ÒڎH : UŽSí énS 290)
õ ó÷CÐq
õ Uó nS Ù÷ õÎíëÐ}eLéËÒڎH:í êò nxÌó p­õ šHõ :õ ßó ÚóúÐí
ë­ õÎ ‹ô xó }÷ Yó nxpô có ýĆ
­
÷ ÷
õ
õ ]ó ÉÐí èõ }gJó í èna
õ ]ó ÉÐó­āÐ
ÒڎH:UŽSí pxùÐ N
ó õ óCn_U÷ Ð Ên—õiDLó èna
÷
÷
ó­
:í -ŠhœiüÐíÒÐڎšUАwíºāÐÓ5dTf_x õ õ>5õdócõU éó ¬{˜ó Yô øên_iúÐ
ó ô Uó n­iõÎí }÷ó T|UÐnó
ó ^ô õRn"
¬ fU÷ ~ó­ i Œô ó÷ in­iõÎ}œ"ÐÒڎH
ÒÐڎšUЎw}T|UÐíºëŽ
ø­ õÎ ‰ó dó ˜÷ Só nfd÷ Hó Ú÷ Ìó nYí Ênh˜iúÐ ÒڎH : UŽS ‰U|U {gZxí ŠhœiüÐí
õ i øn@
ð Úõ
ó eô dó _÷ >ó ø ‹ô÷ š÷fTô ë÷ õÎ }÷õ T|UÐ
¬ Šó w÷ Ìó Ўdô þó —÷ Ró ‹÷ gõ h÷ Uó õΐAŽô
ëÌÐ|)N˜R ëŽ
ºpU{˜YEQāÐÓ5dT
(290) He said: And his words in Sûrat Yûnus: ‘Lo, your Lord is
God who created the heavens and the earth in six days’ (10:3) 57;
and in Sûrat Âl ‘Imrân: ‘And when the angels say: O Mary, God
hath chosen you and made thee pure and has preferred thee
over [all] the women of creation‘ (3:42) 58; and his words in
Sûrat al-AnԞâm: ‘There is naught that can change His words’
(6:115), viz. the words of God which are the Tawrât and the
Injîl; and his words in Sûrat al-ͤijr: ‘Lo, We reveal the
Reminder and lo, We verily are its Guardian’ (15:9). The
Reminder are the Tawrât and the Injîl. To this testify his words
in Sûrat al-Anbiyâ’: ‘And We sent not before thee other then
men whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if
57
DSM 24: “… in tractatu Ione, sic : ‘Dominus Deus noster est, qui creavit
celum et terram in sex diebus’ »
58
DSM 24: “Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu A[m]bram, quod
Deus preelegit et sanctificavit et preelegit beatam Mariam super
mulieres seculorum ».
54
you know not’ (21:7). Hereby, he explained that the words of
God have not been changed. 59
[Untruths in the Koran – 1. Mary]
[20]
Ún˜BÌ ŒY Ñ|T iÌ ‹LÛ n, f_x – UŽS ŒY ©n›UÐ ‹—bUÐ énS 300)
õ Ó
õ Uó nS Ù÷ õÎ UŽS ‰UÙ ŒeR -êƗUÐ hdL -{e7
ó e÷ L
©¬ õΠѬ Úó ëÐ}
ô Ìó }ó Y÷ Ð q
: UŽSí ‹ó xó }÷ Yó ngôšh÷ e­ Hó ©¬ õÎí UŽS OÎ Ðð Ú}­ ó 7
ô Ú÷ |óó i
ô õf]÷ =ó :õ nY ‰ó Uó Ó
õ qóó f=Ð ‹x}Yí ‹x}šUÐ
ó e÷ L
ÒڎH : UŽSí ng@ó }÷ Ró qó÷ f[ó A÷ Ìó õšU­ Ð ëÐ}
÷ ó ó÷ó
õ =Ìó ënTnY
ó Únw
Êò Ž÷ Hó Ìó }ó Y÷ ÐèŽ
ëí
ô ó
ô qó B÷ Ìô nx‹x}Y
(300) He said: The second part of his words, viz. the part of the
reports of Muhammad –peace be upon him!- which according to him
consist of untruths, [contains, among others,] his words: ‘When
the wife of ‘Imrân said: My Lord! I have vowed unto thee that
which is in my belly as a consecrated [offering]’ up till and
including his words: ‘I have named her Mary’ (3:35-36); and his
words in Sûrat al-4@·OÂJ ž!KC -@OV C@ughter of ‘Imrân,
whose body was chaste’ (66:12), and his words in Sûrat
59
DSM 24 does not quote the last three Koranic passages quoted: 6:115,
15:9 and 21:7. In stead it produces Koran 4:171 (Christ as the word of
God), 66:12 (Mary inflated by the Holy Spirit), 5: 46 (in the Gospel is
guidance, light and a warning for those who fear God), and 3:52 (the
apostles [of Jesus] were helpers of God). It adds: “Hec et aliqua dixit que
sunt vera”. Yet, ESA does quote 15:9: “Item, in cap. Hygr, introducit
Deum sibi loquentem: Nos demissus (sic, but read probably: dimisimus)
memoriale et sumus eius custodes. Vocat autem legem et Evangelium
memoriale Dei, ut dicunt sarraseni. Quod, cum ipse Deus custodiat, non
est corruptum ; alioquin non esset Deus fidelis custos, quod absit. »
(ESA, p. 454). Cf. LD 3.4 : « Sicut dicit in Alchorano in Capitulo Elhagar
quod interpretatur Lapis : Nos, inquit in persona Dei, descendere
fecimus recordationem Dei et nos eandem custodiemus. Lex et
Evangelium apud eos dicuntur recordatio ».
55
Maryam: ‘O sister of Aaron, your father was no wicked
man’(19:28). 60
[21]
qBÌ ëÐ}eL qf= w yh—CÐ êÌ ‹x}Y ëÌ dT Ð|) q˜›R énS 301)
pfA ngYÌí ‹hb_x yh—CÐ êÌ ‹x}Y -Ì ‹HÐí énS ëíÚnwí HŽY
:UÐÚ|LíénS pfHpý5—2í‡ȔHŽY-ÌëÐ}eLíì|w‹x}YN=í
ƒd`UÐ:LnbxÎ{ÉnSnYÎíŠwn@nYκŠSnfUÐëlRºp]d`UÐì|w
He said: By all this it is established that Mary, the mother of
Christ, was the daughter of ‘Imrân, and the sister of Moses and
Aaron. He [further] said: But the name of the father of Mary, the
JLQGDO LE #GO®PQ T@P *L@BG®J @KC GDO JLQGDO T@P Ά@KK@
Between this Mary and ‘Imrân the father of Moses were one
thousand and five hundred years. He [further] said: But he is to
be excused for this mistake, because the one who transmitted
this to him was either ignorant or aimed at making him
commit this error.61
[2 - Zachariah]
[22]
ó
énS 305) énSº
hh=nx}T~UpcýĆCÐEZ˜>çnhH:UŽS‰UٌYí
ó pð xó Ë <
énS º Ðð ~Y÷ Úó ø­ õÎ êò nx­ Ìó pó ?ó Ć?ó Ün­
õ Š÷ _ó @Ð
÷ Ѭ Úó
ó fUÐ ‹ó d¬ có >ô ø­ Ìó ‰ôó šxó Ë énS
60
DSM 26, with omission of 3 :35-6: “Primum quod dixit in Alcorano in
tractatu Raharim (read: Tahrim, VK), id est Prohibitionis, ubi, loquens
de beata Virgine, ait quod fuit filia Ambram. Item quod dixit in
Alcorano, in tractatu Marie, quod beata Maria Virgo fuit soror Aaron.”
61
DSM 26: “Per que ostenditur quod ipse credebat et dicebat quod beata
Virgo fuit filia A[m]bram et soror Aaron, quod patet esse falsum per
libros prophetarum et Evangelie et libros ystoriales.” According to the
report of Ibn al-Wâsiέî, the Arabic text had remarked here : “Did not he
who sent down the Koran know that between Mary on the one hand and
Moses and Aaron on the other were thousands of years?” See also our
introductory study.
56
ëøºŠJn=Ð|wí ‰UÙíº}gIÌp_—>ŒY{xÛÌënTnx}TÛӎcH 306)
oxØjšUÐpg@DLënT‰UÙëÌíº ”íëÌO΍=P=ï|UÐqSŽUЌY
DL ø ºYĆT éíj= ˆ›x 3 iŽTí º‰dCÐ š_@Ð}Y DL f_x ºÑnb_UÐí
ni̍>}TÙ{SŠxŽJêĆT:ŠhœiüЌY‰UÙpxncA}TÙíºpxùÐpg@
Šh@niúÐMLˆhd_šUÐ:=Ў@í
He said: To [this part] also belong his words in the course of the
announcement by the angels to Zachariah of John: ‘He said:
Lord, appoint a token for me. [The angel] said: The token unto
thee shall be that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three
days except by signs’ (3:41). He said: This is false because (306)
the silence of Zachariah lasted for more than nine months, viz.
from the time [John] was announced until he was born.
[Moreover,] this took place as a corrective punishment and not
as a token, viz. because he had questioned the angel critically
and had not trusted his first words. He then quoted its story from
the Injîl in a lengthy exposition which I quoted and answered in [my
book] Al-TaԞlîq ‘alâ al-Anâjîl. 62
62
Demirel, page 283, translates the relevant passage of the TaԞlîq where
Al-ώÌEÂ PRJJ@O®WDP QGD #GO®PQ®@K-Arabic auhor’s words, as follows:
“Useful Note: This (Christian) author has also attacked, in two ways,
what the Koran contains in His words, Exalted is He, regarding the story
of Zachariah, where the angel announces to him the glad tidings about
John: ‘Your sign is that you shall not speak to mankind for three days,
except by gestures.’ His first objection is that Zachariah’s muteness was
not meant as a sign and token, but it was intended as a punishment, due
to the fact that he did not hasten to believe in the glad tidings, but
rather, he said: ‘How can I have a son when age has overtaken me
already?’ His second objection is that the period of his muteness was
not only three days, but rather, it lasted from the time of the glad
tidings until the time of John’s birth. He cited against it what is
mentioned in the prologue of the Gospel of Luke: ‘Zechariah said to the
angel: “How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and his mother is
well advanced in age?” And the angel said: “I am Gabriel who stands
57
[3 - Joseph]
[23]
îíˇ
ó HŽ
ô xô DLó Ўdô Bó Øó 5­ dó Ró ‡HŽxÒڎH:UŽS‰UٌYíénS312)
õ
õ
õ }÷ _ó U÷ Ð Dó Ló õ x÷ Žó =ó Ìó ó Ró Úí
ó Ý
}x}b>í ºÐð {œ­ Hô ô Uó Ðí}´ Bí
ó UŽS OÎ x÷ Žó =ó Ìó h÷ Uó õÎ
Ng@í ŒY éÐk—UРЖA ‡HŽx ïŽ=Ì ëÌ FBÌ iÌ nª{AÌ 313)
:q>nY‡HŽxê̊hAÐÚëÌÒÐڎšUÐ:q˜?{SíºqSŽUЉUÙì{fL
©n›UÐí Ì}JnY‡HŽhUÌ}]xë̊˜S‹"qh˜=qfRØíNYnhf˜=ngHnai
îÌÚnCюb_xëÌEQ ÒÐڎšUÐ:}T|x3íº‡HŽhUÐí{œH‹¹Ì}TٍiÌ
nhTn=binLíºhLÐÚÙyšR‡HŽx
(312) He said: To [this part] also belong his words in Sûrat
Yûsuf: ‘And when they came in before Joseph, he took his
parents unto him’ up till and including the words: ‘And he
placed his parents on the dais, and they fell down before him
prostrate’ (12: 99-100). The question to be formulated here is
twofold: (313) first of all, he related that the parents of Joseph
were present at that time, but it is proven from the Tawrât that
Rachel the mother of Joseph had died in her delivery of
Benjamin and was buried in Bethlehem, before the things
[known from his story] occurred to Joseph. The second point is
that he mentioned that they prosternated before Joseph, while
in the Tawrât it is merely mentioned that Jacob, when he saw
Joseph, opened his arms, embraced him and cried.
before God. I am sent to speak to you about this and to announce to you
glad tidings. And from now on you shall be mute and not able to speak
until the day that this thing shall come to pass, because you did not
believe in my speech which shall be fulfilled in its season”.’ Evidently, at
this point Al-ώÌEŸP Pummary of the arguments of the Christian-Arabic
author is much shorter in the )KQ®υ¹O¹Q than in the TaԞlîq.
58
[4 - Moses]
[24]
Êó nY Øó Úó ín
ó ­óCíHŽY}TÙ{_=[bUÐÒڎH:‰UٌYíénS 325)
õ |óô > Nó
õ ÷ >Ìó }ó Y÷ Ð ‹ô ¹í
õ õ Øô Œ÷ Yõ ó{@ó íí
õ fUÐ Œó Yõ pð Y­ Ìô õ h÷ dó Ló ó{@ó íó Œ
ó bô —÷ xó Ün­
ëÐØí
ó xó ÷{Yó
ó ëŽ
õ
õ
õ
õ
õ õ
õ
©5
ó ?ó ©}ó @ô jó÷ > ë÷ Ìó DLó Nó÷ >nw ó­ šóf=÷ Ð î ó{A÷ Î ‰ó ó c÷iÌô ë÷ Ìó ô{xÚÌô ©¬ Î UŽS OÎ
: ”ÐŽY:p[bUÐì|w:Ñ|cUÐénS ºsò œó Aõ
Š= f_x ‰U|T Œcx 3í "ëŽb—x nYŽS ÊnCÐ DL {@í" UŽS nw{AÌ
ºŒgh=Ì ‹fQ Nb—hU ߎ"Ð ë±Y {Sí ºoh_I Ónf= DL ÐíÊ}J êŽbUÐ
„aU : .jhH 5T ŒgefQ bHí Œw5R HŽY ênbR ŒwŽ@}BjR
ÒÐڎšUÐ
Nšf?Ðøn_˜HŒTÊn—fUÐë̏in›UÐ
©5?ngAnciDLìÚnœþšHÐíHŽYDLšf=Ðoh_Iß}LëÌ rUn›UÐ
"UnBqf=ŠhAÐ}=юb_xÕÐíÛ:Ð|wënT5iκʡfYŒcx3NfH
ÕÐíÛ p[b= U q]dB íÌ ºp[bUÐ ën—iüÐ Ð|4 q]dšBÐ 5iÎí "Œ=Ð
énSë̎wí ‰UÙ:HŽYp[SŒYÒÐڎšUÐ:nY}Tً?º˜fUÐюb_x
od]xënTíF#ÐÐ|wëŽL}R e—R]˜bdUHŽYŠšS}TÙ{_=nghR
}þ˜UÐÚЎ@d@íºŒx{YßÚj=ênSÌíº>–AŒYÑ}gRHŽYŠšS
ë±eR ÊnCÐ ÊnbšHø Œd˜SÌ ŒT Ónf= ˜H Œx{Y ênYü ënTí 326)
ŒwŽ@}BÌíŒghdLÒnL}UЊ˜SjRºŒgh=ÌÐ}›x‹fQbHŒ˜˜AÌíßnh"Ð
59
ºŒgh=Ìí}›x OΌRWiÐ5dRºŒg@n_ibHíïÚЎ!Џ1íHŽYênbR
ŒY ninœiÌ ïWY Š@Ú Œ˜@jR ÈØnš_CÐ ŒY â“Ì Œšþ@ 3 Œ4 énS
ŒšadB 3 Ȏw ŒxÌ énbR Õn_fUÐ bHí ÊnCÐ bšHÐ ÒØnx~=í ºÒnL}UÐ
ڎ=nH|BÌí_YŒc—xë̏HŽY‡dRºÐ~˜BŠTjhUiŽLØÐÈën—iüÐ
åwÐ p@íۍšf=
ënTŒw{UÐíëÌíºNšf?Ðøºn_˜HŒTïÚЎ!ÐëÌÒÐڎšUЁiÐ|wénS
63 퍚f=ÐÕÐíÛOЏHŽYoh_IÑ{fU}TÙøíºoh_Iøí}›xeHÐ
OÎ ÒÐڎšUÐ ŒY юb_x ÕÐíÛ p[S }TÙ ‹? sœA ©5? ìÚnœþšHø
î}Bún=Nš[bUÐî{AÎàƚBÐÏÚnSnxŠYjšR énS‹? nw}BË
(325) He said: To [this part] also belong his words in Sûrat al1@υ@υ ‘And when he came unto the water of Midian he found
there a whole tribe of men, watering. And he found apart from
them two women holding back [their flocks]’ up till and
including his words: ‘I fain I would marry thee to one of these
two daughters of mine on condition that thou hirest thyself to
me [for the term of] eight pilgrimages’ (28:23-27). There are
untruths in various places of this story. The first in his words:
‘He found at the water a whole tribe of men, watering’. It was
not like that. [On the contrary,] the people concerned fell upon
the daughters of Jethro who had filled the ponds to water the
sheep of their father. They drove them out but Moses stood up
to protect them and watered their sheep, as will follow in the
words of the Tawrât. The second [untruth] is that the women
were seven, not two. The third is that of [the whole story that]
63
The additional words between square brackets were taken from the
(somewhat longer) quotation of the same passage on p. 335 of Al-Qarnî’s
edition.
60
Shu’ayb offered his daughter to Moses and that he hired
himself for eight years in fact nothing happened. This only
took place at the marriage of Jacob to Rachel, the daughter of
his cousin Laban. Thus, the story got confused for this man, or
it was mixed up with the story of the marriage of Jacob the
prophet. He then related the story of Moses [and Midian] as it is
found in the Tawrât, viz. that it says after the killing of the Copt:
‘Farao heard this report and sought to kill Moses who fled from
his presence and stayed in the land of Midian, sitting down
near the source. (326) The ruler of Midian had seven
daughters, who used to approach [the source] to draw water.
They therefore filled the ponds, wanting to water the sheep of
Jethro their father. But the herders fell upon them and drove
them away. Thereupon, Moses stood up and protected the girls
and watered their ewes. And when they had returned to
Jethro, their father he said to them: Why did you come
quicklier than usual? They answered: An Egyptian man rescued
us from the herders. Additonally, he drew water and watered
the ewes. He said: where is he? Why did you leave the man
behind? Invite him to eat some bread. Thereupon Moses swore
that he would live with him and took Zippora his daughter as
his wife’. End of quotation.
He said: Thus, according to the text of the Tawrât there were
seven girls, not two, while the name of their father was Jethro,
not ShuԞayb. Moreover, there is no mention [of Jethro’s
assigning Moses to marry his daughter], neither of his hiring
himself during eight pilgrimages.
He then related the story of the marriage of Jacob from the Tawrât,
until the end and then said: Consider, o reader, how the one story
was mixed up with the other.
[5 - The Crucifixion]
[25]
õ
õ
yh
ó —ó÷CÐ nófd÷ óšSó n­iõÎ ‹÷ 4Ž÷ Só í ؎ghUÐ }TÙ {_= Ên—fUÐ ÒڎH :í énS 343)
õ
ó Hô Úó ‹ó xó }÷ Yó Œó =÷ Џ—h
157) ‹÷ ô 4ó ó ˜¬ Iô Œ÷ õcUí ìô Ž˜ô dó ÉnYí
ìô Ždô šó Só nYíõ­āÐ éŽ
ó
ó L
61
ô
yh—CЍ˜IëÌìnf_YëÌí ‹÷ ô 4ó ó ˜¬ IUŽSE—a>:
ph]LŒ=ønYĆT}TÙí
ˆhRÚ ëŽcx ëÌ DL ìÚnhšBn= @“ U énbx U oAnÉ DL bUÌ
nYyh—CÐëÌDL ]bUÐ:Ð|)ëŽed—CЉ—ešxíénS pf!Ð:yh—CÐ
BÚkYí îÚn[fUÐí؎ghUÐNšYúÐ{fL}>ЎšUn=ŠJn=‰UÙí odÉ
Ênh_IÌ êĆT }TÙí pH{bCÐ ošcUÐ f=í yh—CÐ odÉ DL ܎œCÐ
ÓnYíodÉyh—CÐëÌí‰UÙDLé{xn,šYŠhœiÎ:nYíºénhiÐØí
nCí 344) ÒE›T ÐÚÐ}Y ì|hYƚU }gKí rUn›UÐ êŽhUÐ : nhA ênSí FSí
éŽÉÌ : Jí í }>ЎšUÐ : ÓnhbfšUÐ ÑnšT : ïØÚí}g—UÐ
ö ‹dc>
DL ˆ˜x 3 —hL od[x 3 ŽUí énbR od[UÐ p[S U q”}_> baUÐ
.64 êĆHøÐpaHĆR}=nŤYŽwíØ5šLÐÓnHŽ—CÐ
ºéÐk—UÐÐ|wDLìØÚíÌnYŠÉnAÐ|wqdS
(343) He said: In Sûrat al-Nisâ’ after mentioning the Jews, it is
said: ‘And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus
son of Mary, God’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified
him, but it appeared so unto them’ (4:157). And he quoted the
TLOCP LE )AK ž!Ϗ®VV@ ®K G®P Tafsîr, saying: the meaning is that
the likeness of Christ was put on a companion of his called
Sirjis by virtue of his choice that he would be the companion of
Christ in Paradise 65. He said: Muslims stick to this in taking for
granted that Christ was not crucified. This is false by virtue of
an uninterrupted tradition among both the nations of the Jews
and the Christians, as well as the historians of the Zoroastrians,
64F
64
The words between square brackets have been added from the
quotation as repeated on pp. 355 and 356.
65
Tafsîr )AKž!Ϗ®VV@ -204 (Al-Qarnî).
62
that Christ was crucified, and also by their Holy Scriptures. And
he mentioned the words of Isaiah and Daniel, as well as the passages
of the Gospel of Matthew proving that and [saying] that he was
crucified, that he died, was buried, stood up alife on the third day and
appeared to his disciples many times. (344) And when AlSuhrawardî in Kitâb al-4@KN·¹Q 66 discussed the [principle of]
uninterrupted tradition and its conditions in the [science] of
the principles of jurisprudence, his attention was turned to the
story of the crucifixion. He said: If Jesus has not been crucified,
one can no longer rely on matters percepted through the
senses,[while he was one of the leading philosophers in Islam].
I said: This is the sum of what he forwarded concerning this issue. 67
[26]
paÉ : UŽS Žw Ênh_IÌ ‡[Y ŒY ì}TÙ nY ëÌ ©n›UÐ @ŽUÐ 350)
ÚÛn!Ðï{xN=æí}#nTqe[xípfxn\UЊ›YŠšbUÐOÐØnbxyh—CÐ
ˬìnRyšax3í
(350) The second viewpoint concerns what he mentioned from the
-Rυ·@ELE)P@®@G S®WG®PTLOCP®KCDPBO®A®KF#GO®PQ ‘He was lead to
66
Shihâb al-Suhrawardî, Kitâb al-4@KN·¹Q. 2006, Maktabat al-Rushd, AlRiyâ͍, 512 pp. I was unable to trace the passage concerned in this
publication. Is it possible that this passage was was left out because of
its assumed heterodoxy?
67
DSM 26,28: “Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu Mulierum,
inducens iudeos loquentes sic: ‘Nos interfecimus messiam Iesum, filium
Marie, nuntium Dei; et non interfecerunt eum, neque crucifexerunt eum
sed assimilatus fuit eis’. Hic negat passionem et mortem Christi et hoc
patet esse falsum per libros Prophetarum et Evangeliorum, per dicta
Apostolorum et per relationem multorum antiquorum et signum crucis
quod est memoriale passionis Christi ». Note, that R.M. has omitted the
ODEDODKBDP QL QGD 4@EPÂO LE )AK ž!Ϗ®VV@ QL QGD G®PQLO®@KP LE QGD
Zoroastrians and to the book of Al-Suhrawardî. For his Christian
audience he apparently judged it sufficient to refer to the Koran for the
Islamic denial of Christ’s crucifixion and to refer to the Bible and to the
sign of the cross as convincing counter-evidence.
63
be killed like a ewe and was silent like a lamb before his
slaughterer, and he did not open his mouth.’
[27]
a[YŒYŒxP_UÐíYn#ÐÖnÉøÐ:Ênh_IÌ}TÙ{S‹_i 350)
ŒYi̎wnYюi|dUU5šAÐíº68 pe?øÐ Y˜dÉíyh—CÐ:Ҏ˜fUÐ:
o˜H : Ñí–CÐ yh—CÐ f_x – Žwí UŽS Žwí yh—CÐ ŠšS : Ð|w
”ÐŽšxíºnfe?Ί@̌YŠšbx –ngd@̌Y 351) ”ÐŽšCÐ 69 āÐÓÐíÙ
‹f`UЊ›Yn˜¹nfdTÌFiAÐ}œ=ëúºnfšYĆHÑØ̍hdLínfe?Ί@̌Y
n_”ÐŽšYniØ N_+Ìninxn]Bìnbö UÑ}UÐíº˜in@OÐnfYën—iЊTŠ˜SÌí
nwÚÛn@êÐ{Spœ_fUnTnšYnÉënTíy=|dUŠe"Њ›YˆhHíºìnRyšax3í
bU5=Ô{²ëÌÚ{bxŒYí ºÊn\bUÐOИ"ЌYˆhHíìnRyšax3í
ëÙÌ퐘_I 70 pe?̌YêŽSfYniØíÒnh"ÐßÚ̌Y Rڍiúhaö BŒY
ˬfR{=ˆRnfCÐ
(350) In the twenty-E®EQGBG@MQDOLEG®P-Rυ·@E ®K@MOLMGDBV
concerning Christ and his crucifixion together with the
criminals and his bearing of the sins, Isiaiah indeed mentioned
a text which is more explicit than the preceding one about the
killing of Christ, namely his words, referring to the beating of
Christ because of the essence of God, and who had been
humiliated (351) because of it: ‘He is killed because of our
trespassing; humiliated because of our sin and upon him is the
punishment of our salvation. Because by his wounds all of us
are freed by force like sheep, and every man of us turned to his
68
Al-Qarnî (incorrectly): al-a’imma.
Thus it is written in the three MSS, the correct reading being dhât
Allâh (Al-Qarnî).
70
Al-Qarnî (incorrectly): al-a’imma.
69
64
own side, and the Lord made him suffer all our sins. He drew
near in humility without opening his mouth. He was lead like a
lamb to the slaughtering and was silent like a ewe before her
slaughterer. He did not open his mouth while being lead from
his emprisonment to his execution. Who is worthy to touch the
earth trodden by his sandals, because he was elevated from the
earth of life. Men from among the leaders of my people drew
near to him and a hypocrite was permitted to bury him’. 71
[6 - The Sun]
[28]
†ó dó =ó ÐÙõΏ­šAénS
Ni}bUÐïÙ}TÙ{fL‡gcUÐÒڎH:íénS 360)
ó
ò ÷ Ló :õ Ñô }ô `÷ >ó nw ó{@ó íó 
õ e÷ ZUÐ
­ Ñó }õ `÷ Yó
ëÛí DL ph]L Œ=Ð énS ºpò þó õ1ó N
phYnANL:ëŽSn˜UÐí‹ÉnL}c=Ž=ÌÌ}SíºÒj1ÓÐÙïÌpd_R 361)
ÒÚnAènfwN_UÐëÌDLé{RénS ‰UÙ:n[iÚÙ-Ìrx{A}TÙí
­ éŽbx rhA Ð|w Š›Y x ÒڎH :í énS
n4ó }Ą bó šó —÷ õ ôC ï}õ 9
÷ ó ô e÷ ZUÐí
ïÚ{>Ì 362)˜fUЍUénSrhAÚÙ-̌L ïÚnž˜UÐ rx{A}TÙí pxùÐ
{œ—>šAow|>n¹lRénS ‹dL̍UŽHÚíāÐqdSÈì|wow|>ŒxÌ
ºngfY Š˜bx ĆR {œ—> ëÌ ‰IŽxí ºn4 ëÙkhR ëÙjš—šR Ý}_UÐ qĻ
iØÌ U ŒY ŠcU ëĆ]˜UÐ N= dT Ð|wí énS n4 ëÙkx ĆR ëÙjš—>í
øíº =Ð}UЉdaUЎwíºngcdR:Ð{=ÌÚí{>eZUÐëúpþh4Ð:pR}_Y
ÚÐ}Sn4hUn¹úºn4}bš—Cï}9øíphYnANL:Ñ}`>
71
There are several confusions in these references to Isiaiah 53: 5-9
which may have resulted by an attempt of Al-ώÌEÂ QL PGLOQDK QGD
quotation (including its possible explanations) as found in the text of
his Christian opponent.
65
(360) He said: And in Sûrat al-Kahf, when referring to Dhû alQarnayn, he said: ‘Till, when he reached the setting of the sun,
GDELRKC®QPDQQ®KF®K@JRCCVPMO®KFŸ )AKž!Ϗ®VV@P@®C
;QGDTLOC·@J®Ÿ@ JRPQADOD@C=@BBLOC®KFQLQGDELOJLEE@Ԟla
(361), [the two words of the Koranic verse under consideration
QGRPG@S®KFQLADRKCDOPQLLC@P@PMO®KF=T®QG·@JŸ@;JRC=
(LTDSDO !AÌ "@HO žsυ®J @KC QGD LQGDOP OD@C E ž@VK ·¹J®V@
[in a hot spring]. (DQGDKJDKQ®LKDCQGD·@CÂQGLE!AÌ$G@OOPQ@Q®KF
[the same meaning] explicitly, saying: [This] proves that the spring
there was hot.
He then said: And the same occurs in Sûrat Yâsîn where he says:
‘And the sun runneth unto a resting-place for him’, until the
end of the verse (36:38). (D QGDK JDKQ®LKDC QGD ·@CÂQG LE @IBukhârî from Abû Dharr where the Prophet (p) said to him: (362) ‘Do
you know where this [viz. the sun] goes? I answered: God and
His Envoy know best! He said: It leaves in order to prostrate
under the Throne and ask permission to leave [again] so that it
is allowed [to go on]. Thus it hurries to prostrate but this is not
accepted from her, and when it asks for permission to leave,
this is not given to her.’ 72 He said: This is all clear nonsense for
anyone who possesses the slightest knowledge in astronomy,
because the sun is circling forever in its orbit which is the
fourth celestial sphere. It does not set in a hot spring and does
not run to a resting-place, because it has no abode [at all].
[7 – Muhammad]
[29]
õ ó Ù÷ õÎí énS ‡[UÐ ÒڎH :í énS 375)
õf=ó nx ‹ó xó }÷ Yó Œô =÷ Ð —h
ó L énS
õ
õ
ò
:í ô{ó1÷ Ìó ô eô HÐ
ó ýÐõ “÷ õÎ
÷ ï{_÷ =ó Œ÷ Y .õ j÷ xó éŽHô }ó õ= Ðð P¬ ˜ó Yô í -UŽS OÎ –Šh
÷ ­ õ˜­fUÐ éŽ
ó Hô }UÐ
ó _ô õ˜­šxó Œó x|õ U­ Ð énS æÐ}LúÐ ÒڎH
ô ió í ô{õ«ó ï|õ U­ Ð ­ Y¬ ôúÐ
­ ëŽ
õ Ž­šUÐ :õ ‹w ó{÷fL
õ nð =Žôšc÷ Y
õ ÷ ÒÐÚ
õ œ÷
:øÐ|wŒYÊVUÒÚnYÌøíénS Šh
õ iüÐí
÷
÷ ô
ó
Al-Bukhârî in kitâb bas’al-khalq, bâb Σifat al-shams wa-al-qamar (AlQarnî).
72
66
éŽbxĆýnSŠ_UíénS 5ghRyxWšUЌLĆ\RŠhœiüÐ:øíÒÐڎšUÐ
ëú pc\CÐ pdJn˜UÐ ÚÐ|LúÐ ŒY Ð|w ëÌ ÑЎ!nR ngfY eHÐ â~i
â~i:Ò{ýnRøŒx}x{bšUÐMTDLíº íÌEž=ëŽcxëÌnYÎ{e7ڎgK
ëÎofš«íÌEž=Ên@ëÎ =nšhRæ}_hUìÍnb=Ð o«Š=ošcUЌYeHÐ
ºéÐk—UÐÐ|w:ì}TÙnYŠÉnAÐ|w ën]hZUÐíén@{UÐ:5TP=Ên@
3UŽSnYÌí385ސh—CЍe[BÑnšTŒY:Ž]UЊbinYëÚnSí
‹gbAĆ= ‹gb=nH ‚_˜= ‹g\_= F¶ ënT Œx|UÐ Ênh˜iùÐ Ê5HÌ â~f> 3
...én@{UÐíën]hZUЋHÐâ~fx
33íºnx}Tی=hhT
ö
(375) He said: And in Sûrat al-τ@EEGDP@®Cž!KCTGDK*DPRPPLK
of Mary said: O Children of Israel!’, up till and including his
words: ‘and bringing good tidings of a messenger who will
come after me whose name is the Praised One’ (66:6). 73 And in
Sûrat al-AԞrâf he said: ‘Those who follow the messenger, the
Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find
described in the Torah and in the Gospel [which are] with
them’ (7:157). He said: There is not the slightest trace of this,
neither in the Torah nor in the Gospel, leave alone that both of
them would have mentioned [him] explicitly. 74 He said:
Someone might say: His name was removed therefrom. The
answer is that this is a false and ridiculous excuse, because
MR·@JJ@C D®QGDO AOLRFGQ AIDPP®KF LO DS®I )K ALQG PRMMLPDC
73
DSM 26 : “Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu Zaf, id est, Ordinis,
quod Christus prophetavit de eo dicens : ‘Veniet post me nuntius mei,
est Ahmet’, hoc intelligens de se ipso. Et hoc est falsum, cum Christus
nunquam legatur hoc dixisse.”
74
DSM 26 : « Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu Araf, ubi loquens
de se ipso, dixit : ‘Illi qui secuntur nuntium, prophetam ydiotam,
inveniunt eum scriptum in Lege Moysi et in Evangelio.’ Et hoc est
falsum, cum non inveniatur scriptum in istis libris. »
67
cases, there is no use in removing his name from the books; on
the contrary, it would be obligatory to maintain it in order for
it to become known, so that he can be followed in case he
brings blessing, or avoided in case he brings evil, like in the
case of Satan and the Antichrist. This is the sum of what he
mentioned concerning this issue. (On page 385, Ibn al-ώÌEÂ F®SDP
the following quotation from the work of his opponent which,
in one way or another, must have belonged to the same
passage: Why were the names of the prophets who reported
about each other, their predecessor about their follower, not
removed, like for instance [the name of] John, the son of
Zachariah, and why was the name not removed of Satan and
the Antichrist?) 75
75
DSM 56-7 : « Sed si quis vero dicit quod in hoc sunt corrupti libri quod
nomen Machometi est inde amotum, respondemus quod non est causa,
quia (ESA : quare) nomen eius amoveretur; quia, si bonus erat futurus,
utile erat sciri nomen eius ut cum venisset, sicut bonus de quo (ESA : et
de quo) iam prophetatum erat, reciperetur, sicut contigit in Iohanne
Baptista, precursore Christi, de cuius adventu et (ESA om : et)
prophetaverunt Isayas et Malachias. Item sicut scriptum est de Helia et
Henoc, quorum adventus in fine mundi predictus est in Veteri et Novo
Testamento, per quos Iudei in fine mundo converterentur (ESA:
convertentur). Si vero malus futurus erat, necesse fuit similiter nomen
eius sciri et mores, ut, cum veniret, per huiusmodi (ESA : huius)
notitiam caveretur ab eo, sicut scriptus est de Antichristo et de moribus
eius et de seductione et de falsis miraculis que facturus est, ut per ista
iam scripta, cum venerit, cognoscatur et a fidelibus caveatur. Unde,
sicut non est ablatum nomen Antichristi, nec nomen diaboli de libris,
eodem modo nec nomen vestri (ESA om. vestri) Machometis inde fuisset
ablatum, si ibi fuisset scriptum. Unde cessit (ESA : esset) frivola
excusatio qua assumitur in deffensione mendacii et erroris.» R.M.
transfers this text to the last section of DSM, dealing with « the truth
and the incorruptedness of the Old and New testaments ». R.M’s text is
longer than the quotation on page 375 of the Christian-Arabic text. It
seems to be closer to the original Arabic text, like Al-ώÌEŸP ILKFDO
quotation on page 385 of Al-Qarnî’s edition). In his work Explanatio
Symboli Apostolorum, RM produces almost the same passage (ed. March,
p. 455). I have provided the (minor) textual differences of ESA between
brackets.
68
[8 - The Creation]
[30]
ò ŒYõ pò =ÐØ Šô­ T ˆó dó Bó ô­āÐí ڎfUÐ ÒڎH :í énS 387)
ÒڎH :í ÊnY
÷
­ ó
õ
õ
õ n𠘗ói dó _œRó Ðð Pó = Ên
ó |õ U­ Ð Žó wô íënS}aUÐ
ÒڎH:íºÐð }g÷ Éí
ó ÷CÐ Œó Y ˆó dó Bï
ó
ó ô ó ó
õ
õ
ò > Œ÷ Yõ ‹ô÷ cbó dó Bó ë÷ Ìó õ õ>nxË Œ÷ Yõ íó êí}UÐ
ó Pó
:í º ëí
ñ ó =ó ‹ô÷ ši÷ Ìó ÐÙÎ ‹­ ?ô ÑÐ}ô
ô š÷f>ó P
ò > Œ÷ Yõ ‹ô÷ cbó dó Bó ô­āÐíó }JnR ÒڎH
Ênh˜iúÐ ÒڎH :í ºpò aó ]÷ iô Œ÷ Yõ ‹­ ?ô ÑÐ}ô
õ ÷CÐ ŒYnf
ò ó Šô­ T Ên
õ
:êÛøÑ|cUÐíº‚SnfšUÐN=Ð|wí 30) Ą A
ó
ó d÷ _ó @í
ó Ê¡
÷
qbdBÑÐí{UÐëÎénbxrhAºÒÐڎšUÐ:Ð|wæĆBíNšh\bUÐî{AÎ
‚_=Ùκ؎@ŽUÐ:n\x̉UÙæĆBí ºÊnCЌYën—iüÐíÑÐGUЌY
ÊnCЌYng\_=íßÚúЌYpSŽd8ÊnhIúÐ
(387) He said: And in Sûrat al-Nûr [it is said]: ‘God has created
every animal of water’ (24:45). And in Sûrat al-Furqân: ‘And He
is it who hath created man from water’ (24:54). But in Sûrat alRûm: ‘And of His signs is this: He created you of dust, and
behold you human beings, ranging widely!’ (30:20) Then, in
3ÌO@Q&¹Ϗ®OžGod created you from dust, then from a little fluid’
(35:11). Finally, in Sûrat al-Anbiyâ’ it is said: ‘And we made
every living thing of water’ (21:30). This is clearly
contradictory. There must be an untruth in one of both cases.
The contrary is the case in the Torah, where it is said dat the
animals were created from dust, and man from water. The
contrary is also true in reality, as some things are created from
earth and some from water.
69
[9 - The Satanic Verses]
[31]
õ d÷ HÚÌó nYís"ÐÒڎH:íénS 393)
ò HÚ Œ÷ Yõ ‰ó õd˜÷ Só Œ÷ Ynf
ø­ õΐĄ õ˜óiøí éŽ
ô ó
ó ÷
ô h÷ ZUА
ô h÷ ZUЏ
ó õÎ
­
­
ô­āÐ ‹ô õc²
bõ d÷ xô nYô­āÐ zô —÷ó fhó Ró õ õšh­ õ fY÷ Ìô :õ ën]
bó U÷ Ìó ­fó/ÐÙ
÷ ô ‹­ ?ô ën]
õ ‹hõdLó ô­āÐí õ õ>nxË
E—ašUÐ:ìEQí ph]LŒ=ÐìncAnY}TÙí 52) ‹h
ó ñ
ñ cA
}?kxí YŽS _˜šx ëÌ fešx ënT 394) -êƗUÐ hdL -˜fUÐ ëÌ ŒY
ÒڎH ÒíĆ> : in—U DL ën]hZUÐ bUÌ ‰UÙ hf/ Ò}›cdR º‹gšxÐ{w
‹gšLnaIëÎD_UЈhiÐ}`UЉd>î}BúÐp›Un›UÐÒnfYíénSNA‹œfUÐ
ŒLЎaTíUЎiĆREž= nfš4Ë}TÙ{SЎUnSíëŽTPCÐÖ}aRº9GU
nZx}SëÎ -OíúÐÒ}œ4Ð -pZ˜"ÐÒ}@nge=Š[>nRº=nÉÌîÙÌíìÐÙÌ
OÎ €x}SÓØnLí z—i {S ën]hZUÐ ìnbUÌ nY Ðí{@ŽRÐíÊnœRºqedHÌ
Ò}œ4Ðo˜H‰UÙí nghUÎpZ˜"ЌYÐíÊn@Œx|UÐØn_RºngSnbIíng^dQ
ö ˜fUÐ ‹dL nCí phin›UÐ
Ö{Y ŒY UnS ënT nY ëÌ ‹dö Hí hdL āÐ DÉ
U phd—> -in˜H -āÐ é~ijR ‰U|U ‹šQÐ ën]hZUÐ ÊnbUÎ ŒY ênfÉúÐ
ò HÚ Œ÷ Yõ ‰ó õd÷˜Só Œ÷ Yõ nfd÷ HÚÌó nYí
ô ÷hZUÐ
­ bó U÷ Ìó ­fó/ó ÐÙõÎ ø­ õÎ Ą õ˜ói øí éŽ
:õ ën]
ô ó
ó ÷
pxùÐ52s"ÐÒڎɍõ õšh­ õ fY÷ Ìô
: ŠH}UÐ DL ÊÐGRøÐ nª{AÌ NdJn= p[bUÐ ì|w qfe\šR énS
-in˜H-āАAí:‹ghdL˜d>ën]hZUÐë̌Yp˜d›CÐì|)‹gaÉí
ën]hZdUëŽcxë̌YÊnh˜iúÐnInAíÜnfdUéƔüÐípxЎ`UЍ= bx5=
70
ëj= ìÚn˜BÎ ©n›UÐí ‹ghdL AŽUÐ ƒhdĺ : nɎ[B ºën]dH ‹ghdL
ì}TÙïÚnž˜UÐë̋LÛn›x{A}Tً?º‰U|=ngA{YíºpLnaIênfɱU
395) ŒcU ºìEQ dbi : {dS d_dR -hR ì{@Ì 3í Œx{h_UÐ Ñn= :
ö
‹dö HíhdLāÐDɐ˜fUЌLÒ}x}w-̌L
p_xPUÐ:yhÉrx{"Ð
ºfYāАffcYjRºMLng_]bhUÒĆ[UÐ:<ß}Lën]hZUÐëÎ
ȎnS
ö
Ó}T|R ” hUÎ Ðí}^fšR Ў˜[> šA pxÚnH OÎ b?íÌ ëÌ qeª {bUí
õ `õ ˜÷fxønð cd÷ Y<õ owí<õ }aõ Q÷ ÐÑÚë5hdHéŽS
ÒڎÉï{õ _÷ =ó Œ÷ Yõ {ò Aó óú
ó ó
¬ ó
ô ÷ ó
÷
hdL ƒd—šx ‡hT ºën]hZUÐ DL ën]d—UÐ Ð|w U ŒeR énS 35Þ
Œe\>{SíénSȐAŽUЍhdLƒd¶íºr˜_UÐÐ|w=r˜_hRën]hZUÐ
Ð|wípxÚnHO΍]=ÚÌëÌqeªUŽbU ‹—œšYën]hZUÐëÌrx{"ÐÐ|w
Ð|wí ܎afUÐí pcýĆCnT ÒØnCÐ ŒL ÒØ}6 ƒýn—= NJnhZUÐ ëú ŠJn=
.éÐk—UÐÐ|w:ì}TÙnYÐ|w paHĆaUÐíÊnh˜iúÐéŽS
(393) He said: And in Sûrat al-Άajj [he says]: ‘Never sent We a
messenger or a prophet before thee but when he recited [the
message], Satan proposed [opposition] in respect of that which
he recited thereof. But God abolisheth that which Satan
proposeth. Then God establisheth His revelations. God is
Knower, Wise” (22:52). And he mentioned what Ibn ‘AϏ®VV@@KC
others 76 related in the exegesis [of this verse], viz. that the
Prophet – peace be upon him – (394) was hoping that his
people would follow him and his guidance would affect them.
Al-Qarnî provides a reference to the Tafsîr of Al-ώ@A@OÂ vol. 17, 186189, and to the Tafsîr of Al-Qurέubî, vol. 12, 80 and of Ibn Kathîr, vol.3,
229.
76
71
Because of the intensity of his desire, Satan laid on his tongue
while he was reciting Sûrat al-Najm: ‘And Manât, the third, the
other. These are the elevated cranes whose intercession is
hoped for’. The polytheists rejoiced of this and said: He
mentioned our gods in a positive way. So they inclined towards
him and abstained from hurting him and from hurting his
companions. The news reached the expatriates in Ethiopia –
those of the first emigration – that Quraysh had converted to
Islam. So they came [back] but found that the words Satan had
laid on his lips had already been abrogated, while Quraysh had
returned to its crudeness and its discord. Thus returned to the
Ethiopians those who had come back from them, which was
the cause of the second emigration. But when the Prophet
realized that the praise of the idols he had expressed had been
dictated by Satan, he became very worried about that. Then
the Exalted God sent a consolation down to him: ‘Never sent
We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when he recited
[the message], Satan proposed [opposition] in respect of that
which he recited thereof’ (22:52).
He said: This story contains two falsehoods. The first of these is
calumniating the messengers by describing them in this
slanderous manner in that Satan confuses them in the
revelation of the Exalted God with atticement and delusion of
the people. Far be it from the prophets that Satan would have
any power over them, especially in mixing the revelation upon
them! The second is his reporting that the idols have an
intercessionary role, and that he praised them for that. He then
mentioned @·@CÂQGGDQGLRFGQQG@Q!I-Bukhârî had mentioned in Bâb
al-‘Îdâyn, but which I did not find there – perhaps he followed
someone else in quoting it – nevertheless (395) QGD·@CÂQG®P@RQGDKQ®B
according to the Law, from Abû Hurayra, from the Prophet –may God
bless him and grant him peace – who said: ‘Satan countered me
CRO®KFQGDυ@I¹Q ®KLOCDOQLAOD@H;JVMO@VDO=LEE@F@®KPQJV
will, but God enabled me to overcome him. I had intended to
fetter him to a column until daybreak so that people would
look at him. So I remembered the words of Solomon: ‘My Lord!
Forgive me and bestow upon me sovereignty such as shall not
72
belong to any after me’(38:35).’ 77 He said: Who possesses such
power over Satan? How does Satan control him and make such
a fool of him, while [even] mixing up the revelation upon
him?” He also said: 4G®P ·@CÂQG @IPL BLKQ@®KP ;QGD ®CD@= QG@Q
Satan is a corporeal being, because of his words: ‘I intended to
bind him to the column’. This is false because satans are simple
(spiritual) beings devoid of matter. These are the words, both
of the prophets and the philosophers. This is what he adduced
concerning this issue.
[10 - Solomon]
[32]
n) y[RÌ ÓnRÐ}B ë5hdH ‰dY ŒL ìÚn˜BÎ : énS {bUíénS 411)
ô h÷ dó Hô Ô
ó Úõ ííŠefUÐÒڎH:‰UٌYëË}bUÐ
qô e÷ dó H÷ Ìó íUŽSOÎ Øó íÐØ
ô ë5
ó
ó h÷ dó Hô ó Yó
Œ=ЌL‰UÙE—aš=ˆd_šxnYĆT}TÙí 44) N
ó õóCn_U÷ РѬ Úõó ­õā ë5
‰db_=}^inRénS‹? nªEQíÜn˜LŒ=ÐíêĆHŒ=ЌLìncA ph]L
qinTŽUšUÐڎYúЌYhdLĻnYíºpxnc"Ðì|wOÎ{IG—CÐn0Ì
šUÐoýnœ_UЌYn¹ú‡An[CÐ:‰UÙ}Tو˜—Ung\_=íÌë5hd—U
pHŽHŽYÓnRÐ}B‰d>ë̋d_R ngdbiDLLÐí{UÐ}RŽš>
(411) He said: And in his reporting about King Solomon he
included fables, part of which are expressed by the Koran in
Sûrat al-Naml: ‘And Solomon was David’s heir’ (27:16) up till
and including his words: ‘I surrender with Solomon to God the
Lord of the worlds’ (27:44). He then mentioned a discussion
BLKKDBQDC QL QGD DUDFDP®P LE QG®P EOLJ )AK ž!Ϗ®VV@ TG®BG GD ODI@QDC
from Ibn Salâm, Ibn ‘Abbâs and others. He then said: Look with your
reason at this story, you who are seeking right guidance, and at
the matters it contains which would already have been
77
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-Ԟamal fî al-Σalât, bâb mâ yajûzu min al-Ԟamal fî alΣalât (Al-Qarnî).
73
mentioned in the [biblical] books, if they, or at least some of
them, [really] are of Solomon, because they belong to the
miraculous events that are quoted by preachers abundantly.
Thus it is known that these are fables, produced by devilish
insinuation.
[11 - Jinns]
[33]
õ÷ Œó Yõ Ðð }aó ió ‰ó h÷ Uó õÎ nfR÷ £
õ
Œ¬ !Ð
ó ó Ù÷ Îí ænbAúÐ ÒڎH :í énS 420)
õ
õ÷ Œó Yõ }ñ aó ió ó eóó šHÐ
ó }÷ bô U÷ Ð ëŽ
ó _ô eóõ š—÷ xó
Œ¬ !Ð
÷ ô i­ Ìó <­ ó õÎ ó AíÌô Š÷ Sô Œ!ÐÒڎH:í ëË
:ìEQí ph]LŒ=Ðì}TÙnY}TÙí ÓnxùÐ n𠘜ó Ló nð iË}÷ Sô nf_÷ eõ Hn­
ó iõÎЎUô nbRó
ö ›_˜C e—UÐ SG—Y YÚ ŒY Ð|w E—a>
‹¹Ìí ‹dö Hí hdL āÐ DÉ
iÌЎed_RÌ}bx-êƗUЍhdL-˜fUÐÐí{@ŽRÈo˜—UÐnYëí}^fxЎS}a>
˜fUÐni{bRénS؎_—YŒ=ÐpxÐíڌY‹d—Yrx{A}TÙíº‹g_fYo˜H
ö
ënT5dRºE]šHÐ 421)í̺ŠhšQÐnfdbRpdhUÓÐًdö HíhdLāÐ DÉ
Œ!Ð LÐØ ©n>Ì iÎ énbR ºÊÐ}A Š˜S ŒY ʐ« Žw ÐÙÎ y˜[UÐ @í
‹¹ÐEiÚn?Ëí‹wÚn?ËniÐÚjRnf=ˆd]inRénSëË}bUЋghdLÓÌ}bR‹gšh>jR
}T|x‹^LŠTénbRÒ}x~!Ќ@ŒYЎinTíØÐ~UÐìŽUjH˜_ZUÐénS
‡dLp?íÚíÌÒ}_=ŠTíº5"ëŽcxnY}Rí̋cx{xÌ: bxhdLāЋHÐ
78 {1ÌìÐíÚíŒ!ЌY‹ciЎBÎØÐÛ5¹lR5)Ўœfš—>ĆRénS‹c=Ðí{U
78
DSM32: “Item dicitur in Alcorano, in tractatu Demonum, quod quedam
congregatio demonum audivit ab eo Alcoranum et aliqui qui ex eis
crediderunt et facti sunt sarraceni; et hoc idem latius dicitur in libro qui
vocatur Muslim, ubi dicitur quod ipse Machometus legit Alcoranum
demonibus, quem cum audierunt, facti sunt sarraceni; quo facto,
petierunt ab eo viaticum eorum et quod omne stercus caprarum vel
74
M][>‡hcRÒØnCЌL ÒØ}6ƒýn—=NJnhZUÐëj=‹d_UÐê{b>{SíénS
ëÌDL‰dbL‰bRÐíëÎÈên^_UÐ}žf=ï|š`>íºÑÐí{UÐoT}>íÚnfUn=
‹ýng˜Un=ˆ"ÐíNhYØùЌLÖ~A~šRˆAÐ|w
(420) He said: In Sûrat al-!·N¹E ;GD P@®C= ž!KC TGDK 7D
®KBI®KDC QLT@OC QGDD ;-R·@JJ@C= BDOQ@®K LE QGD ¯®KK TGL
wished to hear the Koran’ (46:29), and in Sûrat al-Jinn: ‘Say: It
is revealed unto me that a company of the Jinn gave ear, and
said: Lo! We have heard a marvellous Koran’ (72:1) as well as
the other verses. He then mentioned the hitting of the [jinns] with
delicate ears because of his mission (s @PODI@QDCAV)AKž!Ϗ®VV@@KC
others in the exegesis of that, and [the story] that they split up in their
views of the cause of it. They found out that the Prophet (p) was
reading the Koran so they knew that that was the reason for their
G@S®KFADDKT®QGGDIC!KCGDJDKQ®LKDCQGD·@CÂQGLE-RPI®JEOLJ
the transmission of Ibn MasԞûd who said: ‘On a certain night, we
were missing the prophet (b). We said: He has been murdered
or (421) [jinns] flew away with him. But lo! Against dawn-break
he returned from the direction of a lava field, saying: A jinn
came to invite me and I went to them and read to them the
Koran. He then went with us and showed us their traces and
the traces of their fires. Al-ShaԞbî said: They asked him for food
and were from among the jinns of the Peninsula. He said: Every
bone on which the name of God has been pronounced which
falls into your hands and which is amply provided with meat,
and every dropping or dung is fodder for your animals. He
added: But do not clean your private parts [after having
defecated] with either of them, because they are the food of
ovium esset annona bestiis eorum; et ideo probavit sarracenis ut non
pergerent interiora sua cum ossibus, quia sunt illa cibus fratrum eorum,
scilicet demonum. Que falsa et ridiculosa esse homo intelligens non
ignorat.” (Very briefly summarized by R.M).
75
VLROAOLQGDOP@JLKFQGD¯®KKPŸ!IPL!·J@CQO@KPJ®QQDCQG®P 79
He said: We already discussed that it is known that the jinns are
spiritual beings, devoid of matter, so how would they warm
themselves by fire, ride animals and feed themselves with
rotting bones? If your reason agrees with you that this is the
truth, then stagger away from the human beings and join the
animals! 80
[12 - Women in Paradise]
[34]
ڎ"кpf!ÐÊn—i‡[xŒ1}UÐÒڎH:UŽSOÎn\xÌ}^iÐíénS424)
ó
° @øí
énSE—ašUÐ: ph]LŒ=ÐénSºën
‹÷ gô dó ˜÷ Só ÷ñ iõÎ Œ­ gô ›÷ eõ ]÷ xó ÷ 3N_UÐ
ó
425) Õí~UÐ}T|x3ÐÙκŒg@ÐíÛÌ YP˜UÐÊn—i Yn9{SŒ!Ð{wn6
Œ!Ðoh˜AŒ=Ò}e”énS Ón_YnœCÐ h+pxùÐì|w:afROn_>āÐ
pxùÐì|w:afRºŒ!ЌYÊn—fUАf_xæ}]UÐÓУnS‹4pf!Ð:
ˬÓnhf!ÐíÓnxP˜UÐ:ßn\šRøÐ
(424) He said: Pay also attention to what he said in Sûrat al2@·J¹K TGDODGDCDPBO®ADCQGDTLJDKLE0@O@C®PD QGDGRO®ŸP
79
Muslim, kitâb al-Σalât, bâb al-jahr bi-al-qirâ’a fî al-Σubͥ wa-al-qirâ’a
Ԟalâ al-jinn, ͥadîth 150. Aͥmad ibn ͤanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 1, 436 (AlQarnî).
80
DSM 32: “Item dicitur in Alcorano, in tractatu Demonum, c. I et II,
quod quedam congregatio demonum audivit ab eo Alcoranum et aliqui
qui ex eis crediderunt et facti sunt sarraceni; et hoc idem latius dicitur
in libro qui vocatur Muslim, ubi dicitur quod ipse Machometus legit
Alcoranum demonibus, quem cum audierunt, facti sunt sarraceni ; quo
facto, petierunt ab eo viaticum eorum, et quod omne stercus caprarum
vel ovium esset annona bestiis eorum; et ideo probavit sarracenis ut
non pergerent interiora sua cum ossibus, quia sunt illa cibus fratrum
eorum, scilicet demonum. Que falsa et ridiculosus esse homo
intelleligens non ignorat.» R.M. reduces the issue to the conversion of
the jinns to Islam and their request of food from Muhammad and his
answer, ridiculous in his eyes.
76
with the big eyes: ‘Whom neither man nor jinni will have
touched before them’81)AK ž!Ϗ®VV@ P@®C®KG®P 4@EPÂO -R¯¹G®C
said: jinns may have sexual intercourse with the women of
human beings together with their husbands, when they do not
mention the name of the Exalted God [prior to their
cohabitation]. He thus rejected in this verse [apparently] all
ELOJP LE BLG@A®Q@Q®LK ͮ@JO@ ®AK Ά@AÂA P@®C QGD ¯®KKP ®K
Paradise have modest looks, viz. the female jinns. In this verse
the [previous] deflowering of both the human and the jinni
females has thus been rejected.
[13 – Satan]
[35]
rx{"ÐàЦUën]hZUÐ}=ØÌÒĆ[Un=ëÙÌÐÙÎrx{A}TÙí 426)
ën]hZUÐ ëlR ºfheh= ÑPxí fheh= ŠTjhdR ‹T{AÌ ŠTÌ ÐÙÎ rx{Aí
NJnhZUÐ ÊÐ|šQn= yxW> dT Ð|w énS U5Z= ÑPxí ºU5Z= ŠTjx
ngLn+í
(426) !KC GD JDKQ®LKDC QGD ·@CÂQG ‘When the prayer-call is
recited, Satan turns his back and breaks wind’ until the end of
QGD·@CÂQG. 82 !KC;@IPL=QGD·@CÂQG ‘When one of you eats, let him
eat with his right hand and drink with his right hand, because
Satan eats with his left hand and drinks with his left hand’. 83 He
81
Compare DSM 30: “Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu Errohmen,
id est, Misericordis, ubi, describens paradisum in alia vita, dixit quod ibi
erunt fontes, fructus, uxores, tapecia de serico et puelle vel virgines,
cum quibus iacebunt et concumbent, et non fedaverunt illas puellas vel
virgines ante eos homo vel diabolus.” Note, that SM gives the
translation of the complete verse, while Al-άûfî replaced part of it by a
paraphrase. R.M. omits the further discussion in this text, including the
ODEDODKBDQLQGD4@EPÂOLE®AKž!Ϗ®VV@
82
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-Ԟamal fî al-Σalât, bâb YUFAKKIRUAL-RAJUL F¡ AL-ΣAL•T
ANDELSEWHERE!L-1ARN¡ No trace of this text in SM.
83
Muslim, kitâb al-ashriba, bâb âdâb al-έaԞâm, trad. 105 and other
sources (Al-Qarnî). DSM 32: “Item mandavit suis quod biberent et
77
said: All this clearly states that satans take food and have
sexual intercourse.
[36]
„bhšHÐÐÙÎénS˜fUЌLÒ}x}w-Ìrx{AŒYïÚnž˜UÐ:íénS427)
hRíYŽZhBDLqh˜xën]hZUÐëlR n?Ć?}›fš—hdRºYŽiŒY‹T{AÌ
©}SN= d]> 428)n¹lRºn)í}QíeZUÐâŽdJ‹c>Ć[=ЎfhĻø
ŒLØ}6ƒh—=ën]hZUÐë̌YY{SÐ|wŒYUÐkH@íqdS ën]hI
.5—@ëŽcxë̐L{š—x‰UÙíȐYØùÐêŽZhBDLqh˜x‡hcRÒØö nCÐ
‡hcRÒE›TÐÚÐ}YßÚøЊ›YeZUÐn\xÌíÈëni}SUëŽcx‡hTí
Èën]hI©}SN= d]>
(427) He said: And in Al-"RHG¹OÂ EOLJ QGD ·@CÂQG LE !AÌ
Hurayra from the Prophet (p) who said: ‘When one of you
awakens from his sleep, let him snuff up [some water] three
times, because Satan is passing the night on his nose and his
mouth’. 84 And in [the same book it also said]: ‘Don’t let your
υ@I¹QBL®KB®CDT®QGQGDO®P®KFLOQGDPDQQ®KFLEQGDPRK ADB@RPD
it rises between the horns of Satan’. 85 His argument against
this had been formulated by him earlier, viz. that Satan is a
simple being devoid of matter, so how could he pass the night
on the nose of a human being, as that implies that he is a body.
And how could he have two horns? And also: the sun has many
times the shape of the earth, so how could it rise between the
horns of a satan? 86
comenderent cum manu dextra quia diabolus comedit et bibit cum
manu sinistra.” R.M. omits the conclusion which follows in the
Christian-Arabic text.
84
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb bad’ al-khalq, bâb Σifat Iblîs wa-junûdihi (Al-Qarnî).
85
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb bad’ al-khalq, bâb Σifat Iblîs wa-junûdihi (Al-Qarnî).
86
DSM 30: “Item quod dixit in libro qui dicitur Bohari, in tractatu
Creationis, ubi, loquens de demonibus, dixit suis quod in ortu solis vel in
78
[37]
ŒY‹cfYnYāÐéŽHÚénSÒ}x}w-̌L ‹d—YÑnšT:í énS 432)
énS āÐ éŽHÚ nx ènxÎí ЎUnS Œ!Ð ŒY fx}S = ŠTí {Sí øÎ {AÌ
ëÎ énSí Ež= øÎ ©}Yjx ĆR º‹dHjR hdL finLÌ āÐ ëÌ øÎ ïnxÎí
ê{UÐî}6êØˌ=ЌYï}«ën]hZUÐ
He said: In the Book (called) Muslim, on the authority of Abû
Hurayra, that the Apostle of God (p) said: “Each of you is
supervised by a jinni who keeps your [close] company. They
asked him: And you, Apostle of God, [are you supervised by a
jinni who keeps your company, as well?] He answered: Yes,
also me, but God helped me against him, whereupon he
converted to Islam. Consequently, he only commands me to do
what is good. 87 He (the Prophet) also said: Satan is as close to
man as his blood.” 88
[14 – Angels]
[38]
õ
ó dô eõ ²
ëŽ
÷ ó Œó x|U­ Ð éŽbx rhA pcýĆCЇ[x }RnQ ÒڎH :í énS 435)
ó ô ˜¬ —ó xô ô Uó Ž÷ A
ó }ô aõ `÷ šó —÷ xó í õ õ= ëŽô
ó fYõ k÷ xô í ‹÷ õ)¬ Úó {õ e÷ ó õ= ëŽ
Œó x|õ d­ õ U ëí
ó Œ÷ Yó í Ýó }÷ _ó U÷ Ð
ëÙÌénS˜fUÐëÌāÐ{˜LŒ=}=n@îíÚE—ašUÐ:ph]LŒ=ÐénS ЎôfYó Ë
occasu eius non facerent orationem, quia sol ascendit vel oritur inter
duo cornua diaboli et occidit similiter. Quod quidem patet esse falsum,
considerata magnitudine solis et quod diabolus non habet cornua, cum
sit rex spiritualis. » R.M. leaves out one hadith and confines the
argument to the spiritual nature of the Devil.
87
-RPI®J H®Q¹Aυ®E¹Q@I-JRK¹E®NÂK A¹AQ@·OG@I-PG@VϏ¹KT@-@KK@J@Հ@
kulli insân qarîn (Al-Qarnî). No traces of this text in SM.
88
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-aͥkâm, bâb al-shahâda takûna Ԟinda al-ͥâkim (AlQarnî).
79
ÒE—Yb>nLíiÙÌpeIN=Ý}_UÐpd1ŒY‰dY ŒLÔ ö{AÌëÌ<
pfHpý5_˜H
And in Sûrat Ghâfir he describes the angels where he says:
‘Those [angels] who carry the Throne and those around it exalt
[God] with praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask
forgiveness for those who have believed’ (40:7). Ibn ԞAέiyya
says in his Tafsîr: Jâbir ibn ԞAbd Allâh related that the Prophet
said: ‘I was permitted to relate [the following] on the authority
of one of the angels carrying the Throne, between whose
earlobe and shoulder there is a distance of a journey of seven
hundred years.’
[39]
f_x 88) ô gó @÷ íó ø­ õÎ ‰ñ õ Unw Êò ¡
÷ ó Šô´ T [bUÐÒڎH :í énS 437)
pcýĆCÐ ŒY On_> āÐ îŽH nC ĆYnI ÊnfaUÐ Š_œR -in˜H -āÐ
܎afUÐí
And in Sûrat al-QaΣaΣ: ‘Everything perishes but for His face’
(28:88), viz. God’s face – praised be He! -, where he made the
extinction applicable to both the angels and the souls made by
God.
[40]
õ ó÷CÐ Šõ Ln@}JnRÒڎHéíÌ:íénS
õ
õ Ìô Ćð Hô Úô póõ cýĆ
f›÷ Yó pò ó õf@÷ Ìó <í
438)
ó ?ô í
.1)ân=
ó Úí
ô ÔĆ
And he said: !KC ®K QGD ADF®KK®KF LE 3ÌO@Q &¹Ϗ®O (it is said):
‘[who] made the angels messengers having wings, two or three
or four’ (35:1).
[41]
õ
õ
õ
õ [UÐ
Œ÷ Yó í ÓÐí5
—UÐ
´ :õ zó aôií}Y~UÐÒڎH:énS 438)
­ :õ Œ÷ Yó ˆó _[ó Ró ڎ
õ Ú÷ óúÐ
÷ :õ
f›šHÐï{—UЌL ph]LŒ=ÐéŽS}TÙíºô­āÐ Êó nI Œ÷ Yó ø­ õÎ ß
80
ì|w : ÖWR énS º{_= ‹*nYÌ ‹? ӎCÐ ‰dYí ŠhýnchYí ŠxF@
Ê5d_UÐ{fLŒwFx5Twípf@Ìn4ëÌípe—6pcýĆCÐëÌ ”ÐŽCÐ
.pcýĆedUØn—@Ìøíº{—!ÐÖí}UÐpSÚnaYӎCÐí ÒØ}6p]h—=éŽbL
(438) He said in Sûrat al-Zumar: ‘And the Horn will be blown,
and whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth will
fall dead except whom God wills. (39:68) He then related the
TLOCPLE)AKՀ!Ϗ®VV@EOLJ@I-Sadî: He excepted Gabriel, Michael
and the Angel of Death; then he made them die later. He said:
Thus he made clear that the angels are corporeal, that they
have wings, whereas they are simple and abstract intellects, as
is proven among the scholars, while death is the departure of
the soul from the body and the angels have no bodies.
[15 – Corporality of God]
[42]
é~fxrx{A}TÙí in˜HāÐænÉí̌YfLîíÚn,íénS 439)
nghRY{SÑ}UÐ \hR440)‹fg@rx{Aíºnhi{UÐÊ5HOÎpdhUŠTnf=Ú
ŒYkY ŠT U {œ—hR SnH ŒL nf=Ú ‡Zcx rx{Aí ºƒS éŽbšR
íÌNHŽSÑnSfYënTšAÒ~_UÐÑÚni{RÕÐ}_CÐrx{AíºpfYkYí
šAašTN=ì{x ”ííºÒڎɌ—AÌ:-ÚqxÌÚrx{AíºiØÌ
441) o_TŒ=-ÌÒÌ}YЊha]UÐêÌrx{Aíºx{?N=dYniÌØ}=Ó{@í
ö
DL–B:}SŽYÑnIÒڎÉ:=ÚîÌڍiÌ}T|x˜fUÐq_eHn¹Ì
owٌYëĆ_ihd@Ú:íowٌYÝÐ}RHÌÚ
81
‡An[Cí Šb_dU ‡Un8 Ð|wí º‹—@ āÐ ëÌ dT Ð|) Ú}bšR énS
ënT ŽU nª{AÌ Ng@ŽU 5—@ in˜H āÐ ëŽcx ëÌ fšexí Ênh˜iúÐ
Ûn@ ìE`= ŠdL nYí ºnghUÎ Ò}bšaYí ýÐ~@ú øŽd_Y šd+ qincU 5—@
Š= ºìEQ ê{_U ê{_x ø nY Žw ؎@ŽUÐ o@Ðíí ºšdL ê{L {fL Y{L
êÐ{_in=ê{_fhR OŽh4ÐíÒڎ[UЌYoT}Y‹—!ÐëÌphin›UÐ >ÐÙê{_U
ënh= nYÌí ˆ˜H 5T ìEQ êÐ{_iø ê{_fx ø o@ЎUÐí 5gfY 442) ŠT
ÖíÚāЊhœiüÐ:ëlRÊnh˜iúÐošT:‰UÙ
=ìÚ}SíºéÐk—UÐÐ|w:}TÙnYŠÉnAÐ|wqdS
(439) He said: It is related that one of the ways in which he
described God, Praised be He,- and he then mentioned the ͥadîth:
‘Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven.’ 89 And
(also) the ͥadîth of Hell: (440) ‘Thus God put His foot in it,
whereupon it said: Never!’ 90 And the ͥadith: ‘God uncovers His
leg whereupon every believing man and woman prostrates
towards it.’ 91 And also the ͥadîth of the ascension to heaven:
‘And he approached the Lord of glory until he was very near to
Him.’ And the ͥadîth: ‘I saw my Lord in the most beautiful
form, and He placed His hand on my shoulder so that I felt the
coolness of his fingers in between my breast.’ 92 And the ͥadîth
of Umm al-άufail, the woman of Ubayy ibn KaԞb (441), that she
heard the Prophet mentioning that he had seen his Lord in the
form of a dignified young man in green on a bed of gold and on
his feet a pair of golden sandals.’ He said: From all this it is
established that God is a body, which is contrary to reason and
89
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-tahajjud, bâb al-duՀâ’ wa-al-υ@I¹QJ®K¹HG®O@I-lail,
and elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
90
Al-Bukhârî, tafsîr sûrat Qâf, and elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
91
Al-Bukhârî, tafsîr sûrat nûn wa-al-qalam (Al-Qarnî).
92
!·J@C®AKΆ@KA@I !I-Musnad, vol. 5, 243, and elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
82
to the holy books of the prophets. But it is impossible that God
is a body, for two reasons: First of all, in case He were a body,
his totality would be caused by His parts and in need of them.
And what is caused by something else can fall into nonexistence in case its cause is absent. But what exists by
necessity, cannot fall into non-existence because of the
absence of something else, nay even of its essence! Secondly,
because a body is composed of form and matter. It falls into
non-existence in the absence of (442) either, while the
necessarily existing does not fall into non-existence, if
something else does not exist, as discussed before. As for the
proof in the books of the prophets, in the Gospel it is said: God
is a spirit. I say: this is the sum of what he related on this issue.
[16 – Predestination]
[43]
:Ên@nYngfLOn_>āЈA:ÒØÚЎUÐænÉíúÐì|wŒYíénS 451)
ø ‹÷ wô Ú÷ |÷õ f>ô ÷ 3ó ê÷ Ìó ‹÷ *ô ó Ú÷ |÷ó iÌó Ìó ‹÷ gõ h÷ dó Ló Êñ ЎHó Ðí}ô aó Tó Œó x|õ U­ Ð ë­ õÎ Ò}b˜UÐ ÒڎH
õ dô Sô DLó ô­āÐ ‹óó šBó ëŽô
ó fYõ k÷ xô
ó ô{x}ôõ >Ìó Ên—fUÐÒڎH:í pxùÐ ‹÷ õ)Ž
Ðí ô{*
÷ ó ë÷ Ìó ëí
ó x÷ Úó Ìó õšU­ Ðnxó Í÷ }UÐnó
ènf
452) pxùÐ88)ô­āЊ­ ”ó Ìó Œ÷ Yó
ó
´ fd÷ _ó @nYíÊГøÐ:í
õ fdõU pð óf÷šõR ø­ õÎ
ó dô eó _÷ >ó nYí ‹ô÷ cbó dó Bô
ó ­āÐíénSí Ün­
énSí96ÓnRn[UÐ ëŽ
õ ŒYõ Šô° T
ì|wEQÒE›T ”ÐŽY:ÖWYëË}bUÐíº78Ên—fUÐõ­āÐ {÷õ fL
÷
ˆd#Ð ÒØÐÚl= ø ºbdBí āÐ ÒØÐÚl= w nw í nwEB ˆd#Ð én_RÌ ëj=
‹gd_Rí
ì|)q˜›RénS‹? ÒڎgZYwíNh[UЌYÚ{bUÐrxØnAÌ}Tً?
h+ˆUnBin˜HāÐë̌YnaiËÒڎT|CÐÓnxùn=q˜?nYrxØnAúÐ
83
Žwí º‰UÙEQí ni~UÐí Ñ|cUÐí ŠšbUnT ºPUÐí E#Ð ŒY Øn˜_UÐén_RÌ
nYhdL‹gšœAí êĆHüÐpfHŠwÌow|YÐ|wí oh›xíoSn_xï|UÐ
ow|CÐ Ð|w Øn—R ‹4 N˜> ÐÙÎí rxØnAúÐí ÓnxùÐ ŒY ìniØÚíÌ
Ўþ!ºën]hZUÐø΍=‡ÉŽxøāЍ=ëŽa[xï|UÐÐ|wëÌíºšLnfIí
ó dô þó —÷ xô ‹÷ wí
º23Ênh˜iøÐëŽ
ô Šô _ó a÷ xó 5­ Ló Šô þó —÷ xô øpxùÐì|)‰—ešUÐOÎ
Šx~fšUÐípœ"Ðow|CÐÐ|wØn—RDLŠhU{UÐíénS
{x}Yë̌YéŽb_CÐ:Ú}b>nYnª{AÌ 453)Ng@íŒeRpœ"ÐnYÌ
ŽdRº3nK‹d^UÐ{x}YíºéØnLé{_UÐ{x}Yíº}x PUÐ{x}YíEBE#Ð
ö
ºpxPUÐí pxE#n= nRŽÉŽY ëncU ‹d^UÐí PdU Ð{x}Y in˜H āÐ ënT
ŠTëÌ©n›UЍ@ŽUÐ On_>āЈA: fIí én7‰UÙí‹d^UÐíé{_UÐí
ø‹?pLn]Un=ì{˜L}YjxëÌOn_>āЌYŠhš—hRºU{x}YŽgRÊV=}YË
pwÐ}T N=í ºn) }Yún= ng˜dJí pLn]UÐ Ên\šSÐ N= e!Ðí nw{x}x
pUnA:fLgfUÐíÊVUn=}YúÐ p=n›e=‰UÙí N\hbiN= +ngLŽSí
ºhUÎ @}xì{_=nYĆT}Tً? šœAhžd>Ð|w Ò{AÐí
ÓjHÌëÎíºqxێ@qf—AÌëΊh=nbUÒÐڎšUÐ:āÐéŽbRŠx~fšUÐnYÌí
ÚnhšBøn=nghdLƒd—YqiÌíº‰>ØÐÚΉUnY‰iú‰>ÊnHÎDL d]hH
éŽSí .Ú{SqĻf_xÐ{=Ìï{x:AíÚڎ=~UÐ:˜fUÐØíÐØéŽSí
84
EQ Šýn—Y : —ai ŠBØÌ Žwí 5hbš—Y ën—iüÐ fÉ āÐ ëÎ ë5hdH
pɎ[žCЍ>ØÐÚl=f_xphwnfšY
ŒYìnbŰ?ºnRnšTíÐ{Inin—iΈ?í̌YŽwíºĆ›YѦëj= fI‹?
qd_RøÎíº<ö Î @}>í̇b>3ë΍xŽwénA:UénS튘@ 454)
éŽS cAí çn]x ø nY ‡hdc>í ºˆ1í aH Ð|gR ºqd_Rí ‰=
ºhUÎ ÿœdx ‹? oi|UÐ ŒL gfx āÐ ënT ëÎ ænZcUÐ : ïP8~UÐ
Ul=hUíën]hIiÎéŽbxŒYéíÌnijRºhdLoSn_xí
‹ge=éĆBÎEQŒYéÐk—UÐÐ|w:ì}TÙnYždYÐ|w
(451) One of these descriptions figuring in the texts concerning
God Most High is a passage in Sûrat al-Baqara: “Indeed, those
who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn
them or do not warn them - they will not believe. God has set a
seal upon their hearts” (2: 6-7). And in ‘Sûrat al-Nisâ’: “Do you
wish to guide those whom God has sent astray?” until the end
of the verse (4:88). 93 (452) And in Sûrat al-Isrâ’: “And We did
not make the sight which We showed you except as a trial for
the people.” (17:60) He also said: “While God created you and
that which you do.” (37:96). And He said: “It is all from God.”
(4:78). The Koran states cleary in many places other than these
that the acts of man, good and evil, occur by the will and
creation of God, not by the will of man and their acting. He then
JDKQ®LKDC ·@CÂQGP BLKBDOK®KF MODCDPQ®K@Q®LK EOLJ QGD QTL τ@·Â·ŸP
which are well-known. 94 He then said: 4GDPD ·@CÂQGP DPQ@AI®PG
93
DSM 28: “Item quod dixit in Alcorano, in tractatu Mulierum: ‘Nunquid
vultis dirigere illos quos Deus point in errore’”.
94
DSM 28: Item dixit in libro qui dicitur Bohari, in capitulo
Predestinationis, quod Deus scripsit super hominem partem suam de
luxuria et necessario oportet ipsum consequi illam partem. Al-Bukhârî,
85
what was established by the Koranic verses just quoted, viz.
that God –praised be He- is the creator of all the good and evil
deeds of human beings, like killing, lying, adultery etcetera, He
is the one who punishes and rewards. 95 This is the teaching of
the adherents of the Sunna of Islam. 96 The proof for this view
I®DPMODB®PDIV®KQGDSDOPDP@KC·@CÂQGPTDhave adduced. But if
the falseness of this doctrine is demonstrated to them, and if it
is shown that what they describe God with is only fitting as a
description of Satan, they take their refuge to clinging to this
verse: “He is not questioned about what He does, but they will
be questioned”. (21:22). He said: the demonstration of the
falsity of this doctrine consists of proof and revelation. As for
the proof, it has two sides. (453) The first of these is that it is
established by reason that he who wills the good, is virtuous,
while he who wills evil is wicked. He who wills justice is just,
but he who wills unjustice is iniquitous. The other side of this
proof is that everyone who commands something, wants it to
happen. It is impossible from God that he orders his servant to
obey but then does not want that. Combining between
demanding obedience by ordering it, and rejecting its
occurrence (at the same time) is a combination of
contradictions, which is the same as ordering something and
forbidding it at the same time. This is the summary of his
proof. He then forwarded an argument after that, to which we
will come back.
As for the revelation, (we refer to) the words of God in
the Tawrât to Qâbîl: If you do well, you will be rewarded, but if
you commit vil you will will be confronted with your evilness,
LXXXII, IX (Hernando I Delgado). Here, DSM produces a text not
preserved in Al-ώÌEÂ
95
DSM 28: “Unde per hoc et alia multa ostenditur quod Deo attribuit
quod ponit homines in errore ut necessario fornicentur. Et hoc est
falsum et blasfemia, homini enim dictum est Genesis: ‘Super te erit
appetitus tuus et tu dominaberis illius (Genesis 4,7). » The remainder of
Al-ώÌEŸPNRLQ@Q®LKPLKMM@KC@ODIDEQLRQAVDSM who resumes
the Arabic text only with the quotation from Al-Zamakhsarî on p. 453
onwards (see below).
96
The author probably refers to the Ahl al-Sunna, the Sunnites, here.
86
because you are the master of your (own) will, and you have
power over it, as you wish. Also the words of David the Prophet
in the Pslams: My spirit is forever in my hands, viz. under my
power. And the words of Salomo: God made man upright, but
he he brought himself into endless problems, viz. by his own
will. He then lowered himself by drawing the following comparison:
Whosoever puts his trust completely in another man, and is
then trown by that man (454) from a mountain, and says to
him while falling down: If you don’t stop or come back to me, I
will do with you as I wish. This is sheer stupidity and an
unbearable commissioning. 97 He then quoted the words of AlZamakhsharî in Al-Kashshâf: If God forbids sin, but then forces
one to (commit) it and punishes because of it, then I am the
first to say: He is a satan and not a god. 98
This is the sum of what he mentioned on this issue, without omission
of anything important.
[II: Untruths in the Tradition – 1. The Dead]
[44]
Ö{bUЌYf_xhRŒinYO΋\f>rx{"ÐyhÉŒY|˜iénS469)
ngdešAnRÒÛnf!Ðq_”íÐÙÎ-êƗUЍhdL-UŽSngfY}TÙ ç{[UÐ:
EQqinTëÎíº©ŽY{SqUnSp"nÉqinTëlRº‹gSnfLÌDLén@}UÐ
øÎ Ê¡ ŠT n*ŽÉ e—x È- 뎘w|> ŒxÌ ºngdxí nx qUnS p"nÉ
97
DSM28: « Et contra illud dixit quidem sapiens sarracenorum satis
pulchre : ‘Si Deus prohibet me a peccato et postea compellit ad illud et
dampnat me propter illud, ego sum primus qui dico quod qui hoc facit
non est Deus sed diabolus’ » Note that RM suppresses the name of AlZamakhsharî and his Koranic exegesis entitled Al-Kashshâf, and speaks
in stead of “quidam sapiens sarracenorum”, probably because both
names were completely unknown to him, leave alone to his Latin
readers.
98
Words similar to these in Al-Zamakhsharî, in his comments on Sûrat
al-Baqara, verses 6 and 7(Al-Qarnî).
87
DL ‹dcšx ëÌ ŒY N=Ì Ð|w énS 470)
99
ˆ_[U _eH ŽUí ën—iüÐ
ëíØ ÓÐØ5!Ðí ‹ýng˜UÐ _e—> ÓŽÉ qhC ëŽcx ‡hT ÙÎ ºiĆ]=
ºÊЎ4Ð = Վešx ºn@ÚnB n>ŽÉ ëŽcx ëÌ âŽe—CÐ à ëú ºën—iüÐ
ëŽc> ë̌L Ć\Râ5HÌ ÓÐØ5!Ðí ‹ýng˜dU ŠgRºëÙúÐ ×5É â}bhR
hfZ> YºéÐk—UÐÐ|w=Ú}SnYŠÉnAÐ|w Èën—iüЌYnghRŠ\RÌ
E—xì}TÙ
(469) He said: There are examples of authentic ͥadîth to be
added to our critical discussion of his veracity. Among these he
related his words (p): “When a bier is put down, it having been
carried by men on their necks, the deceased will say –if she
was pious-: Forward me (to the grave). But if she was not pious,
she will say: Woe to you, where are you taking me? Everything
will hear her voice, except man. Would he hear it, he would be
stupefied.” (470) He said: The falsity of this is so evident that
there is no need to discuss it. How would a dead person have a
voice heard by animals and inanimate beings with the
exception of man? It is a condition for something to be heard
that it is an external voice by which the air is undulated and
hits the meatus of the ear. Do animals and inanimate beings
have ears, leave alone that they would be able to listen with
them in a better way than man? This is the sum of what he set
forth on this issue, notwithstanding some limited form of
calumniation of his exposé.
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb ͥaml al-rijâl al-jinâza dûna al-nisâ’.
(Al-Qarnî).
99
88
[45]
hdL dwÌ Ênc˜= Ñ|_x qhCÐ }eL Œ=Ð rx{A : UŽS ngfYí
475)
Ênc˜=n=Ð|L}RncUÐ{x~hUāÐëÎénS5iÎqUnSípZýnL‰UÙÓ}ciÌí
ìEQŠ_a=Ð{AÌÑ|_xøOn_>āÐëúŠJn=Ð|wíénSˬhdLdwÌ
(475) Another example are his words in the ͥadîth of Ibn
ԞUmar: The deceased is punished by the weeping of his family
about him. ԞÂ’isha denied that saying: He only said: God will
certainly increase the pain of an infidel by the weeping of his
family about him. 100 He said: This is false, because God Most
High does not punish anyone by the act of someone else.
[46]
FbUÐÑÐ|LÓ}T|RnghdLqdBØpx؎0ëÌpZýnLrx{AngfYí 477)
qUnSºˆAFbUÐÑÐ|L‹4énbRºFbUÐÑÐ|LŒL˜fUÐpZýnLqUj—R
478) FbUÐÑÐ|LŒYَ_>øÎÒĆÉDÉ{_=˜fUÐqxÌÚ5R pZýnL
:UŽSO΍hRqhedUNcdCÐéÐkHíºFbUÐÑÐ|L:iÌrx{A}TÙí
hdxŒYng_e—xphÉyh[hRhiÙÌN=p=¦pS}]e=іx}RncUÐ
q˜?̇hTíºFbUÐÑÐ|_=ÖWCÐrx{"ÐÐ|wŠYjšRénSºNdb›UÐøÎ
ÖnhÉ e—x‡hTíÈpZýnL Ypx؎ghUÐêĆTŒYpTŽ”úÐì|whdL
ŒY e—x øí º e—x ø ŒY e—x ‡hTí ÈNdb›UÐ øÎ hdx ŒY qhCÐ
ŒYÐ|w:nYUN˜iëÌOÎ~hh/ŒYpc—YiØ̍UŒYÕnš²øíÈ e—x
ÊÐGRøÐ
100
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb qâla al-nabî: yuՀadhdhabu al-mayyit
bi-A@ՀͯARH¹Ÿ@GI®G®!I-Qarnî).
89
(477) Another example (mentioned by him) is the ͥadîth of ԞÂ’isha
that a Jewess entered upon her and mentioned the punishment
of the grave. Then ԞÂ’isha asked the Prophet (Σ) about the
punishment of the grave. He said: The punishment of the grave
is true. ԞÂ’isha said: After this, I observed that the Prophet did
not conclude a Σalât without a prayer to take refuge from the
punishment of the grave. 101 (478) And he also mentioned the
ͥadîth of Anas on the punishment of the grave. And the questioning of
the deceased in it by the two angels, until his words about the infidel:
He will be beaten with a hammer between his ears, causing
him to cry which will be heard by those who are near to him,
with the exception of mankind and jinns. 102 He said: Consider
this ͥadîth which explains the punishment of the grave. How
could he be sure of these ridiculous words of the Jewish
woman to ԞÂ’isha? And how would those who are near to him
hear this, with the exception of mankind and jinns? How
would the one who does not hear, be able to hear, and the one
who hears be unable to hear? I do not need to explain the
falsehood of this fabrication to him who possesses a crumb of
judgment!
[2 - The Hereafter]
[47]
øíºowÙoAnɌYnYÒ}x}w-Ìrx{AÒnT~UÐÑnšT:ngfYí (482)
ŒYyýnaɍUqaÉpYnhbUÐêŽxënTÐÙÎøÎngbAngfYïØkxøºp\R
fh˜@퍘f@n)îŽchRº‹fg@Úni:nghdL1jRÚni
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-kusûf, bâb al-taՀawwudh min Հadhâb al-qabr, and
elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
102
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb al-J@VV®QV@PJ@ՀRkhafq al-K®Հ¹I!IQarni).
101
90
pYnhbUÐêŽxUŠ›Y>nTÛØkx‹dRºønYāÐìn>ˌY}BùÐrx{"Ð:í
øí Ć> ‹? è~fT niÌ ‰UnY niÌ U éŽbx ‹? šY~gd= |Bjx nLnœI
õ=ëŽ
ó dô žó ˜÷ xó Œó x|õ U­ Ќ­ ˜ó —ó ²
ºpxùЍõ õd\÷ Ró Œ÷ Yôõ ā
­ Ћô wn>Ë5
ô
÷ó
ïØkxøº‹fQøí}b=øíŠ=ÎoAnɌYnYÚÙ-Ìrx{A:í 483)
n¹í}b=]f>íºngRnaBj=ìk]>º}S}Sânb=pYnhbUÐêŽxn4y]=øÎngbA
pYnhbUÐêŽxßÚúÐëŽc>»{h_H-Ìrx{Aí ÜnfUÐN=mbxšA
ø~i}a—UÐ:>~˜B‹T{AÌjacšx5Tºì{h=Ún˜!ÐnwkacšxÒ{AÐíÒ~˜B
n=Ì nx ‰hdL Œ1}UÐ èÚn= énbR ؎ghUÐ ŒY Š@Ú >jR pf!Ð Šwú
ëŽc> énS D=énSÈpYnhbUÐêŽxpf!ЊwÌé~f=èFBÌøÌ ‹HnbUÐ
šA‰”ínfhUΐ˜fUÐ}^fRº˜fUÐénS5T484)ºÒ{AÐíÒ~˜BßÚúÐ
Ò{ýÐیYŠTjxëŽiíڎ?nªíëŽiíêøn=‹gYÐØÎëÌ}Tً?ì|@ЎiÓ{=
naUÌëŽ_˜Hnª{˜T
DL ënf?Ðí º N˜wÐÚ N˜QÐÚ ˆýÐ}J ÔĆ? DL ÜnfUÐ P²» rx{Aí
‹gšhb=PĻíºE_=DLÒPLíºE_=DLp_=ÚÌíºE_=DLp?Ć?íºE_=
šbxhRíºÐŽ—YÌrhA‹g_Y—/íºÐŽUnSrhA‹g_YŠhb>ºÚnfUÐ
È؎_UÐÝ{B3؎_UÐíºÊni}bUЌYÊ5!ÐÒnZdU
91
ºø}Q ÒÐ}L ÒnaA ÜnfUÐ P² pZýnLí Ün˜L Œ=Ð rx{Aí 485)
íÌnx؎0‹d—YŠTOÎāÐ RØpYnhbUÐêŽxënTÐÙÎÒ}x}w-Ìrx{Aí
ÚnfUЌYèÍÐ{RÐ|wéŽbhRnhiÐWi
énY ëj= Ún˜BúÐ ŒY šfe\> nYí ºrxØnAúÐ ì|w OÎ }^inR énS ‹?
â}SÌnLnœIn\xÌE[xíºÚniŒYyýnaÉE[x=Šž˜xï|UÐën—iüÐ
Œgfh=ĿbxāÐëÌíºëÐ{h_UÐí‹ýng˜UÐíÓÐP"ÐPAŒLFḂhTí
é5!Ð DL ÜnfUÐ P² ‡hTí ÈÜnfUÐ DL }b˜UÐí é5!Ð V/ ‡hTí
Èn=nTÚ
(482) Another example thereof (mentioned by him), in the Book of
Zakât, is the ͥadîth of Abû Huraira: To everyone possessing gold
or silver without paying from it its rightful tax, sheets of fire
will spread out at the Day of Resurrection on which he will be
heated in the fire of Hell, and his side and front will be burnt in
it. 103!KC ®K QGD LQGDO ·@CÂQG: On the Day of Resurrection, God
will form a snake to whomsoever He had granted wealth but
did not pay his zakat. (The snake) will take him by his jawbone
and say to him: This is your wealth and this is your treasure! It
will then recite: “And let not those who [greedily] withhold
what Allah has given them of His bounty…” until the end of the
verse (3:180). 104 And in the ͥadîth of Abû Dharr: Whosoever
possesses camels, cows or sheep without paying the rightful
tax from it, will be faced with the flattening of the valleys of
Qarqar for those animals, who will trod them with their feet
and thrust them with their horns, until He will judge among
103F
103
104
Muslim, kitâb al-W@H¹Q A¹A®QGJJ¹K®Հ@I-zakât (Al-Qarnî).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-W@H¹Q A¹A®QGJJ¹K®Հ@I-zakât (Al-Qarnî).
92
mankind. 105And the ͥadîth of Abû SaԞîd: On the Day of
Resurrection, the earth will be one bread which the Almighty
will turn around in His hand, like every one of you will turn
around his bread in his hand during your journey as food for
the inhabitants of Paradise. Then there came a Jewish man
who said: May the Merciful bless you, Abû al-Qâsim, shall I
inform you about the food of the inhabitants of Paradise on the
Day of Resurrection? He answered: please, do! He said: The
earth will be one bread, (484) just like the Prophet had said.
The Prophet looked at us and smiled, so that his teeth became
visible. He then mentioned that their shortening would be
(made of) an ox and a whale, the outgrowth of whose livers
would suffice to feed seventy thousand people. 106 And also the
ͥadîth: Men will be gathered in three manners, craving and
running; two (will come) on camels, and three on camels, and
four on camels, and ten on camels, and the Fire will assemble
the rest. It will rest with them during the midday wherever
they do so (as well), it will spend the night with them wherever
they do so (as well). 107 And (he) also mentioned: The most fleshy
of the horned ones will be slaughtered in revenge for the
sheep. And the stick, why is the stick dishonoured? 108 (485) And
the ͥadîth of Ibn ԞAbbâs and ԞÂ’isha: men will be assembled
barefooted, naked and by their foreskins. 109 And the ͥadîth of
Abû Huraira: On the Day of Resurrection, God will provide to
every Muslim a Jew or Christian, with the words: This is your
ransom from the Fire. 110 He then said: Look at these ͥadîths and
the reports they contain, viz. that the money of a stingy man
108F
109F
Muslim, kitâb al-W@H¹Q A¹A ®QGJ J¹K®Հ @I-zakât, and elsewhere (AlQarnî).
106
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-O®N¹N A¹A V@NARͯR !II¹hu al-@Oͯ V@TJ @Iqiyâma (Al-Qarnî).
107
Al-Bukhâri, kitâb al-riqâq, bâb al-·@PGO QO@C @KCDIPDTGDOD!IQarnî).
108
Muslim, kitâb al-A®OO A¹AQ@·OÂJ@I-ϵRIJ @KCDIPDTGDOD!I-Qarnî).
109
Al-4®OJ®CGÂ H®Q¹Aυ®E@Q@I-qiyâma, bâb mâ jâ’a fî sha’n al-·@shr, and
elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
110
Muslim, kitâb al-tawba, bâb qubûl tawbat al-qâtil, and elsewhere (AlQarnî).
105
93
will become sheets of fire, and will also become a scabby snake.
And how he informed (them) about the assembling of insects,
animals and sticks, and that God will judge between them? And
how will camels and cows walk on people? And how will men
be assembled while riding on camels?
[3 - Martyrs]
[48]
ºˆx}`UÐí ºëŽ]˜CÐí ºëŽ_]CÐ p—2 ÊÐ{gZUÐ rx{A ngfYí 493)
Œ­ ˜ó —ó ĻøíëÐ}eLéËÒڎH
:í āЊh˜H:{hgZUÐíºê{4ÐoAnÉí
÷ó
õ ÊnhAÌó Š÷ = nð >ЎYÌó õ­āÐ Šh
õ õ˜Hó :õ Ўdô õšSô Œó x|õ U­ Ð
ó Sô Ûó }÷ xô ‹÷ )õ ¬ Úó ó{÷fL
ŒL }TÙí ëŽ
ñ ÷ ó
÷
æЎ@Ì:pf!ÐÑn=DLÊÐ{gZUÐÖÐíÚÌëλrx{Aph]LŒ=ÐE—a>
Ð|)ˆd_šxn,ÊnhIÌ:–BEJ
Another example (mentioned by him) ®PQGD·@CÂQG: Martyrs are five:
the stabbed, the afflicted by a disease in his belly, the drowned,
the senile, and the martyr in God’s path. 111 And in Sûrat Âl
Հ)JO¹K®PP@®C¡And never think of those who have been killed
in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their
Lord, receiving provision,” (3:169). And he quoted from the Tafsîr
of Ibn ԞAέiyya the ͥadîth: The souls of the martyrs are at the gates
of Paradise in the bellies of green birds112, together with other
matters related to this.
1F
111
112
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-âdhân, bâb fa͍l al-tajhîr ilâ al-ϓuhr (Al-Qarnî).
See Ibn ԞAέiyya’s Tafsîr, vol. 3, p. 293 (Al-Qarnî).
94
[4 - Muhammad’s Ascension]
[49]
ºoýnœ_UÐ ŒY hR î}@ nYí º çÐFUÐí ÕÐ}_CÐ rx{A ngfYí 495)
ënT Šw ÕÐ}_CÐ ëÌí Èø êÌ Ü{bCÐ qh= UŽBØ : ÜnfUÐ æĆBí
ÈnYnfYAí}=ê̍[žZ=
(495) Another (example mentioned by him) is the ͥadîth of his
ascension to heaven and of al-Burâq, and the miracles mentioned
therein, as well as the different views of people regarding the question
whether or not he entered Jerusalem, and whether the ascension took
place in person or spiritually during his sleep.
[5 - Eatiing and Drinking in Paradise]
[50]
éŽTjYŒYpf!Ð:nY}T|Upfe\šCÐrxØnAúÐíÓnxùÐngfYí 496)
}ciÌí ŠJn=í yhÉ Žw nY rxØnAúÐ ŒY }TÙí ֎cfYí ÑíPYí
˜IDLÊnf=e^_šHÐí‰UÙ
øíëŽ@í~šxøpYnhbUÐ:énSyh—CÐë̊hœiüЌLŠbinYŒwÐ{AÎ
ŒL }TÙí ºÓЎe—UÐ : āÐ pcýĆY Š›Y ‹gfcUí ºëŽ=Px øí ëŽdTjx
ìE`=ëŽcxĆRf_x-āЍ@Ž=Õngš=øÐЎUjH‹¹ÌÊnh˜iúЌYpLn+
5¹í{=n¹úºëÐ{=úÐÊnb=ÒÚí–Unhi{UÐ:ÑÐPUÐíên_]UÐëÌphin›UÐ
ÚÐØ n¹ú ºèĆ4Ð ‹ghdL Z¶ ø pcýĆCnT ëíE[x ènfwí º‰gd>
pdYncUÐÒØn_—UÐ
95
: ‹dc> rhA Óngh˜fšUÐ : nfhH Œ=Ð ML Ž=Ì ì}TÙ nY p›Un›UÐ 497)
Š= Ónh—"Ð : ÒWfY q—hU Ò|dUÐ ëÌ dÉnAí ÒØn_—UÐí pœg˜UÐ
h—B nY }YÌ : ŽUí ºp˜d`UÐÒ|UŠh[šU Ónh—"Ð èGx {S ën—iüÐ
hUíºÚn]BúЍd@ú‹šbxºì{_=Šh+}Tيh[Ļ:í̺si}]ZUnT
Èphdb_Un=‰fK5Rºphdb_UÐÓÐ|dUЌY‰UÙ
énJÌíhRogHÌ{SënTëÐíºéÐk—UÐÐ|w:ì}TÙnYŠÉnAÐ|w
(496) Other examples (mentioned by him) are the quranic verses and
traditions mentioning the food, drinks and sexual intercourse. He then
mentioned authentic as well as false traditions to deny that, making
it into an important issue based on dubious arguments: The first of
these he quoted from the Gospel, viz. that Christ said about the
resurrection: They do not marry, nor eat or drink, but they are
like God’s angels in heaven. And he mentioned that several
prophets asked to be granted the delight of God’s face, in other words:
that there is no (real delight) in anything else. The second (of his
dubious arguments) was that food and drinks are necessary for bodies
to survive. Without them, they will perish. And here they are
becoming like angels, who do not have to fear that they will perish,
because it is the abode of perfect happiness. (497) His third argument
was that Abû ԞAlî Ibn Sînâ in his work Al-Tanbîhât spoke about
delight and happiness, the jest of his words being the following:
pleasures are not confined to sensual matters. Man may leave
sensualities in order to reach the pleasure of victory, even in a humble
matter like the game of chess, or in order to gain a high reputation
after his death, while (even) taking complete possession of his mind.
This is not one of the rational pleasures. So what do you think of those
rational pleasures? 113 – This the sum of what he mentioned regarding
this issue, although he was very longwinding.
12F
113
Ibn Sînâ, Kitâb al-ishârât wa-al-tanbihât, sections 3 and 4, pp. 749-751
(Al-Qarnî).
96
[51]
øÎëŽcxøØn_CÐëÌ:ML-ÌïÌÚDLphf˜YgRp›Un›UÐnYÌí 501)
ë{˜Un=afUЈd_>ngTÐÚØÐà ÙÎ ph—"ÐÓÐ|dUÐڎ[š>ĆRºnhinAíÚ
ëÌ phSPCÐrAn˜CÐ:Œx{UÐ}žRênYüÐìncAnYº‰UÙDLšœAí
ëlR ìEQ:í̺ýÐ{š=Ð ŒYÛ:Øn_xëÌnYÎëncU{hL̎Uë{˜UÐ 502)
ÒE›cUЊÉЎaUЌY5gfh=nY YºNfY~UÐØnĻÐê~UºýÐ{š=ЌYÛ:{hLÌ
NL Žw Øn_CÐ Œcx 3 ìEQ : {hLÌ ëÎí én7 Žwí ºÒØ{_šCÐ pfYÛúÐí
Ì{š˜CÐ
As fort he third (dubious argument), that is based on the view of Abû
ԞAlî, that the Hereafter is only spiritual, so that sensual pleasures are
unimaginable, as the condition for that to be grasped is that the spirit
is attached to a body. His proof for that is what Imam Fakhr al-Dîn
relates in his work Al-Mabâͥith al-sharqiyya, viz. that (502) a body, if
revived, would either be revived in the time of its beginning, or in any
other time. If it were revived in the time of its beginning, it would be
necessary to unite the two times (viz. of its beginning and its revival,
VK) together with the numerous intervals and times between both of
them, which is impossible. Were it, however, revived in (its state at)
any other time, then the revived (body) would not be exactly the same
as when it began.114
114
Al-Qarnî remarks: What I found in al--@A¹·®QG@I-sharqiyya by Al-Râzî
of this meaning is the following passage: “If it is true that a deceased
person can be revived, then it is (also) true that the time of the
beginning of his existence can be revived. Therefore, if he is revived
precisely in that time, it is true as well that the time of his revival is the
same as the time of his beginning, (in other words:) while being at the
beginning (of his life), he is being revived (at the same time). This is a
contradiction. End of quotation.”
97
[52]
ŒY éÐk—UÐ Ð|w ŒY fL Ñn« ëÌ ˆš—x 5L ÑЎ!Ð }BË Ð|w 503)
-ÌêĆTí Ún˜BúЇh_”ŒYì}TÙnYnYjRºph[UÐÚn˜BúÐíÓnxùÐ
‰Uوš—xŒ,ŽwøíºfLÑЎ!ÐnfY~dxĆRìEQí{YnA
This is the end of the answer to the verses and authentic reports of
this question that merit to be answered. As for the weak reports he
mentioned, as well as the words of Abû ͤâmid 115 and others, we are
not obliged to answer them, neither does he deserve that.
[6 - The Creation of the World in Six Days]
[53]
õ
õ
ÓÐí5
—UÐ
­ ˆó dó Bó ï|U­ Ð ô­āÐ ‹ôô c=­ Úó ë­ õÎ æÐ}LúÐ ÒڎH :í énS 504)
õ õ
÷
Ò{œ—UÐÒڎH:énSíˬ Ý
õ }÷ _ó U÷ Ð Dó Ló îŽóšHÐ
÷ ‹­ ?ô êò nx­ Ìó p­šH :õ ßó Ú÷ óúÐí
÷ ˆó dó Bï
ó }ô aô c÷ šó Uó ‹ô÷ ci­ õÎÌó Š÷ Sô
ó |õ U­ nõ=ëí
õ ÷ Yó Ž÷ xó :õ ßó Ú÷ óúÐ
ó ˜÷ Hó Œ­ wn\
ô bó Ró UŽSOÎ N
ò H Šô¬ T :A
ò
õ ÷ Yó Ž÷ xó :õ ÓÐí5
õ
phin›UÐpxùÐì|wmšbeR nw}ó Y÷ Ìó Ê5
í÷ Ìó í N
Hó
ó
qhf=qdSŽU‰iÌî}>ø̺ênxÌphi5?:nšbdBßÚúÐíÓЎe—UÐëÌ
3ºNYŽx:šabHíºênxÌp_=ÚÌ:in]hAqeSÌíºNYŽx:š—HÌínšh=
ênxÌ phi5? šdeœ= qh˜UÐ ‰šYnSÎ Ò{Y ëÌ : ‰UŽS e—x ºŠSnL ‰Zx
ÒÚí–Un=phin›UnROíúÐpxùÐ:Ún˜BüÐçØnÉënTëÎÐ{e7ê~dxÐ|4í
.nf=Žd]Y‰UÙí c_Un=í p=ÙnT
(504) He said: And in Sûrat al-A’râf [it is said]: ‘Lo! Your Lord is
God who created the world in six days, then mounted He to the
115
Al-Qarnî remarks that this is the version of all three MSS he
consulted but suggests we should read: Abû ԞAlî (Ibn Sinâ).
98
Throne’ (7:54). And he said in Sûrat al-Sajda: ‘Say: Disbelieve ye
verily in Him who created the earth in two Days (…)? [He
placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it, and
measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all)
who ask] 116’, up till and including his words: ‘Then He ordained
them seven heavens in two days and inspired in each heaven
its mandate’ (41: 9-10,12). The implication of this second
verse 117 is that the heavens and the earth were created in eight
days. Don’t you agree that if you say: I built a house, and lead
its foundation in two days, I erected its walls in four days, and I
covered it with a roof in two days, no intelligent person who
had heard you saying this, would doubt that the total time it
took you to set up the house was eight days? Therefore, if
-R·@JJ@C T@P QORQERIIV ODMLOQ®KF ®K QGD E®OPQ SDOPD QGD
second verse must be untruthful. And vice-versa. This is what
we wanted to prove.
116
We have to assume, I believe, that our Christian author, in view of the
expression “up till and including his words” intended to include
explicitly in his quotation of 41: 9-12 also verse 10 of the same Sûra,
which seems obvious, because the total number of days obtained from
41:9-10 and 41:12 would be eight, which are to be contrasted with the
six days of 7:54, in accordance with the claim of our Christian author.
The example of the house forwarded by the Christian author is then
also a more exact parallel of the quoted passages of Sûra 41: the
foundation (=”the earth”) was completed in two days; the walls (=”the
firm hills rising above it”) in four days, and, finally, the roof (=”the
seven heavens”) in two days, which is eight days in all. I propose that
the text must be corrected accordingly. Perhaps the expression “up till
and including”, which we meet every now and again in the Koranic
quotations of the Christian author is in fact to be attributed to Ibn alώÌEÂ TGL QGRP QGLRFGQ QL @AAODS®@QD QGD QDUQ @s much as possible,
thereby occasionally committing an error.
117
Viz. 41: 9-10,12.
99
[7 - The Burial Place of a Prophet]
[54]
~ýnf!ÐÑnšT:}c=-Ì OÎì{f—= þJŽY:‰UnYìÐíÚnYngfYí 508)
hR:Ž>ï|UЍincY:ø΃S˜iŒRØnYéŽbxāÐéŽHÚq_eHénS
hRU}aR
ÒFbYOΊ1íºWe=:Ž>юb_xëlR ŠJn=éŽSíÊÐGRÐÐ|wíénS
:nfR{x3íènfwnfRØçnHÎí‹hwÐ}=ΉU|TíºnghRŒR{R‹hwÐ}=΍h=Ì
Ў>nYÊnh˜iúЌYnªEQOÎë5hdHíØíÐ؉U|Tíº50ÚÐ،Y5ghincY
nwEQ:ЎfRØíº‹gfTnYj=
ëÌ Ć\R ºhR :Ž> ï|UÐ incY : Ênh˜iúÐ ŒY ˜i ŒRØ nY pde!n=í
Ў>nYrhAЎfRØëŽ_+ÌЎiŽcx
(508) Another example (of untruthfulness he mentioned) is related
by Mâlik in his -RT@ϏϏ@ŸT®QGG®PBG@®KLEQO@KPJ®PP®LKQL!AÌ
Bakr, in Kitâb al-Janâ’iz, saying: ‘I heard the Messenger of God
saying: No prophet was ever buried in another place than
where he died, where a grave was dug for him’. 118 He said: “This
is a lie and idle talk. Jacob died in Egypt but was brought to the
grave-yard of his father Abraham where he was buried.
Similarly, Abraham and Isaac were buried there and were not
buried in the places where they were living. The same holds
true for David and Solomon and other prophets who died in
their [dwelling-]places, but were buried elsewhere. In short,
no prophet was buried in the place where he died, leave alone
that all of them were buried where they died.
118
Al-Muwaέέa’, al-janâ’iz, bâb mâ jâ’a fî dafn al-mayyit (Al-Qarnî).
100
[8 - The End of the World]
[55]
ŒL‹d—Y@}BnYŠ˜bš—x5LÚn˜BúЌYŠh˜bUÐÐ|wŒYíénS
513)
ö
Ð|wí pHŽafY ai ßÚúÐ DLí pfH pýnY .j> ø énS fL {h_H -Ì
ënY~UЉUÙ:3n_UЌY}›TÌßÚúЍ@íDLŒinwíºënh_dUŠJn=
ëŽþYnw{_=íº}TِšUÐpfHpýnCÐq>Ì{Sí
(513) He said: Another (example) of this kind of reports about
what is going to happen in the future was produced by Muslim
from Abû SaԞîd from him, saying: ‘No living soul will remain on
this earth after a hundred years’. 119 This is evidently false, as
we are now more numerous on the face of the earth than the
world in that time, while the hundred years mentioned have
passed by already, and after them several hundreds more.120
119
Muslim, kitâb fa͍â’il al-Σaͥâba, bâb qawlihi lâ ta’tî mi’at sana… (AlQarnî). Al-Qarnî corrected the text on the basis of the “3@·Â·¢ LE
Muslim, interpolating the word “al-yawm” after the words “nafs
manfûsa”, changing the meaning into: ‘No soul living today will remain
on the earth after a hundred years’. Even though this may be correct
from the perspective of the book of Muslim, it is not so from the
perspective of our Christian author, and we have to follow his text. Like
Al-άûfî did, as well.
120
DSM 32: “Item in libro qui dicitur Muslim, loquens de die iudicii, dixit:
‘Antequam veniant centum anni non remanebit super terram anima
nata, id est, aliquis vivens’.” We observe that the word ‘al-yawm’ (see
previous note) is not present here, either. Compare with this passage,
Liber Denudationis 9.23: “E contrario fertur in historiis aprobatis
Machometus dixisse, de uia cuiusdam dicti Abimassar, antequam
transissent centum anni quod nihil uiuens esset in superfitiae terrae,
nec est aliquis de suis sequacibus qui dubitauerit fore rersurrectionem
in fine centum annorum. Nos autem a tempore illo iam sumus in quarto
centenario.” (Burman, in his edition of 1994, 332). Burman translates
this passage as follows: “On the other hand Muhammad is reported in
verified accounts, on the authority of a certain Abimassar, to have said
that before one hundred years had passed away nothing would be living
on the surface of the earth, and there is no one among his followers who
101
[56]
ï{Ln—UÐ{_HŒ=ŠgHŒLïÚnž˜UЌYçĆ]UÐÑnšT:íénS515)
p=n˜—Un= ÐEZY N>ngT pLn—UÐí
(516)
niÌ q›_= āÐ éŽHÚ énS énS
ëÌpZýnLŒL‹d—YíïÚnž˜UЌYpLn—UÐÑ}SÑn=ŒYíº]HŽUÐí
OÎ}^fxëncRpLn—UЌLiŽUj—hR˜fUÐëŽ>jxЎinTÑÐ}LúЌYøn@Ú
‹chdL êŽb> šA ê}4Ð TÚ{x ø Ð|w €_x ëÎ éŽbhR ‹w}`ÉÌ
.‹cšLnH
(515) And he said: In kitâb al-έalâq of Al-Bukhârî from Sahl ibn
SaԞd al-SâԞidî, it is: ‘The Messenger of God said: I have been sent
(516), while the Hour is like these two, while he was pointing to
his index-finger and his middle-finger.’ 121 And from the
chapter on the proximity of the Hour of Al-Bukhârî and
Muslim, [comes the tradition] from ‘Â’isha: ‘Men from among
the Bedouins used to come to the Prophet and ask him about
the Hour. Looking at the smallest among them, he answered: If
this one will live, he will not be affected by old age before your
Hour will come for you’. 122
doubted that the resurrection would be at the end of one hundred
years. But we are already in the fourth century from that time.” (Ibidem,
333). He concludes from this passages that the Arabic original of Liber
Denudationis would have been written between the years 1010 and 1132,
as its author apparently was living in the fourth century after 100 years
had passed from the time the Prophet is supposed to have uttered these
words (between 610 and 632). As for this date, see also my following
note.
121
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-έalâq, bâb al-liԞân (Al-Qarnî). No trace of this
·@CÂQG®K3-
122
DSM 32: “Item alibi dixit Axa quod quidem arabes veniebant ad
prophetam Machometum et interrogabant eum de die iudicii, et ipse,
aspiciens minorem in etate, dicebat: ‘Si vixerit iste, non perveniet ad
decrepitam etatem donec sit dies iudicii’. Per hec et alia ostenditur quod
ipse predicabat et aserebat quod dies iudicii debebat esse ante centum
102
[57]
éŽHÚo]BiÌénSº}ebUÐÒڎ—U ph]LŒ=ÐE—a>:íénS 518)
Š›eTøÎmY5hRnhi{UЌYb=nYénbRoh`>eZUÐÓØnT{SíāÐ
‡[išYÌāÐ}Bkxë̎@Úú©ÎénSímY5hRêŽhUÐÐ|wŒYb=nY
êŽx
(518) He said: But in the Tafsîr LE)AKž!Ϗ®VV@QL3ÌO@Q@I-Qamar
[it is said]: Anas said: the Messenger of God was preaching,
while the sun had almost set. He said: What remains of the
world after the time that has passed [already], is the same as
what remains of this day after [the hours] that have passed [of
it already]. And I hope that God will suspend my nation for half
a day’.
annos, quod patet esse falsum, cum iam fluxerint sexcenti anni ex quo ista
dicta sunt» (my italics, VK). R.M. adds his own conclusion. It is evident
from this passage that our anonymous author was living in the first half
of the seventh century of the Hijra. I should like to point out that our
author takes the life-time of of Muhammad as the basis of his
calculation. Could the author of the Arabic original of Liber Denudationis
9.23 have followed the same method of calculation? If so, we have to
conclude that he in fact lived between 910 and 1032 (compare also Text
55 and my notes thereto), not between 1010 and 1132, as assumed by
Burman. Burman further notes that the names of Abû ͤanîfa and
Dâwûd al-IΣfahânî have been provided with the adiective “orientalis”,
which leads him to conclude that the author of the Arabic original was
probably from the Western part of the Muslim world (Al-Andalus,
Spain). But it is also possible that the adiective “orientalis” is an
interpolated gloss of a scribe or of the Latin translator. In that case, the
Arabic original may very well have been oriental in origin, especially as
no other indications of its possible origin in Al-Andalus or Spain can be
traced in it.
103
[9 - Medicines]
[58]
q_eH qUnS pZýnL ŒL ïÚnž˜UÐ ŒY o]UÐ ÑnšT :í énS 521)
ên—UÐøÎÊÐ؊TŒYÊnaIÊÐ؎—UÐp˜"Ðì|wëÎéŽbx˜fUÐ
(521) He said: And in the Book of Medicine of Al-Bukhârî [are
related] ‘Â’isha’s words: I heard the Prophet say: ‘This black
seed is a cure for every illness, except poisoning.
[59]
ÊÐ؊TŒYÊÐíØ~hiŽZUÐénSÒ}x}wn=ÌëÌq?{AénSÒØnšSŒLí522)
:Œgd_œhRºp˜AŒxPLíî{AÎêŽxŠT|BjxÒØnšSénS ºên—UÐøÎ
:í ºN>}]S ŒexúÐ ì}žfY : êŽx ŠT = ƒ_š—hdR º_bfhdR ºpS}B
:rUn›UÐí Ò}]SŒexúÐ:íN>}]S ’xúÐ:©n›UÐíºÒ}]S’xúÐ
Ò}]S’xúÐ:íN>}]SŒexúÐ
(522) And (he also quoted) from Qatâda, who said: I was informed
that Abû Hurayra said: [The black seed called] shûnîz is a cure
for every illness except poisoning. Qatâda said: One should
take every day twenty-one grains, put them into a piece of
cloth and macerate them. He should be given every day two
drops in his right nostril and one drop in his left nostril; on the
second day: two drops in his left nostril and one drop in his
right; on the third day two drops at the right and one drop at
the left 123.
123
Al-Qarnî remarks here that he has been unable to trace these words
of Qatâda, p. 522, note 2.
104
[The Second Condition:: Moral Integrity]]
[60]
nfd[Aí ç{[UЎwíéíúÐàPUÐënšYЌYnfQ}R{SÙÎíénS(526)
Žwí©n›UÐàPUÐënšYÐOΊB{fdR }gKíy\>ÐnYDL‰UٌY
.‰UٌYfLyÉnYŠYjšfRÒÚng]UÐ
(526) He said: As we have completed examining the first
condition, viz. veracity, and have collected clear evidence
concerning that, let us now proceed to examine the second
condition, viz. of moral purity, and let us therefore consider
the reliable reports about his sayings and deeds in that
respect. 124
[61]
DLÚí{x˜fUÐënTénSǐLïÚnž˜UÐrx{A‰UٌeRénS(526)
U ŠhS ÒPL î{AÎ Œwí ÚngfUÐí ŠhdUÐ ŒY Ò{AЎUÐ pLn—UÐ : ýn—i
çnH ‹? (527) N?Ć? ҎS ]LÌ iÌ Ô{ši nfT énS ȍbh]x ënTí
ëÌ pZýnL ÓíÚnY Ži ºŒ) LnšešHÐí ýn—fU ˜fUÐ ÒPL rxØnAÌ
bxÚ ƒUnB n4ŽSí ºn¹n—U exí ‹ýnÉ Žwí ngd˜bx ënT āÐ éŽHÚ
p[Síº© n˜xíÚ~>jR‚ýnAniÌí©}YjxënTíºnhi{UÐênxÌ}BË:bxÚ
õ ó
Só 5­ dó Ró On_>UŽSí ofxۍ@í~>
528) ngóTnf@÷ í­ Ûó Ðð }Jó íng÷
ó fY ñ{x÷ Ûm
nY ºnZó>Œ÷ Yó ‰ó h÷ Uó õÎïíõ kô÷ >팭 g÷ô fYõ Êô nZó>Œ÷ Yó @õ }ô÷ >qU~iNApZýnLéŽSí
[ýn[BŒYë̌YëŽed—CÐì}TÙnYí èЎw: âÚn—xøΉ=ÚîÚÌ
124
Cf DSM 34: “Ostendemus autem per dicta et facta Machometi et per
libros ipsius quod ipse non fuit mundus, sed potius immundus et
peccator, ut patebit in sequentibus”.
105
ºngSĆJÕí~UÐDLo@ínghRoQÚíÒÌ}YÐDLìW= SíÐÙÎënTiÌ
phaÉ (529) ëÌíюdbUÐodbYën˜HénSғnAofxÛîÌÚnCiÌí
‹? ØÐÚÌ nY ìn]LjR phAØ OÎ r_˜R āÐ éŽH}U qaɎR phA{U ÓÚnÉ
nghdÉÌiÌêúénbRnw|BÌ
õ
Ón”
(530)
ó }÷ Yó `óõ š˜÷ >ó ‰ó Uó ô­āЊ­ Aó Ìó nYêô }¬ Ļ
ó ô ó 3On_>UŽS:o˜—UÐ}TÙí
õ Û÷ Ìó
:ê{SnYDLÊnf=n_hfZ>àPUÐÐ|w:}T|x3í Ð|wìn˜IÌí ‰ó @Ðí
ÚnLÖncfUÐpHnAëÌìEQíāÐ{h˜LŒ=HŽYêĆTŒYÑnšcUÐéíÌ
U‹^šinRÖncfUÐpHn=n_UŽYënTÐ{e7 ëÌnfwq˜?̋? pY{bYì|gR
ºÖncfUÐpHn=n_UŽYënT{e7 Ð|cwì}x}b>}x{bšUÐ:Ún[RŠhU{UÐ
øÚn_Un=n_UŽYënTŒYíÚn_Un=n_UŽYënT{eeRºÚnLÖncfUÐpHnAí
ĆR}wn]=hU{eeRºÐ}wnJëŽcxë̍J ŒY˜fUÐí Ð}wnJëŽcx
nh˜iëŽcxëÌyd[x
(526) He said: To that belongs the tradition of Al-Bukhârî from
Anas who said: ‘The Prophet used to call on his women during
a single hour of the night and the day, and there were eleven
women. He was asked: Was he able to perform that [much]? He
answered: We used to say that he had been given the power of
thirty [men]’. 125 (527) Then he brought forward the traditions about
125
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-ghusl, bâb idhâ jâmaԞa thumma Ԟâda (Al-Qarnî).
DSM 34: “Dicitur enim in libro qui dicitur Buhari, in capitulo Lotionis,
filium Melich dixisse quod Machometus circuibat mulieres suas iacendo
cum eis in una hora noctis vel diei. Erant undecim. Et dictum fuit isti
enim: ‘Numquid poterat istud facere?’ Dixit: ‘Nos dicebamus inter nos
quod potestas vel virtus triginta virorum fuit data sibi, scilicet
Machometo, in coitu’”.
106
the prophet’s intimate relations with his women and the way he
enjoyed them, like the report transmitted by ‘Â’isha that the
Messenger of God used to kiss her and suck her tongue while he was
fasting 126. And also her words: My saliva mixed with his saliva on
the last day of his life 127, And he ordered me while I was
menstruating to put on an izâr and then approached me 128. And
the story of how he married Zaynab. And the words of God on High:
‘So when Zayd had performed that necessary formality [of
divorce] from her, We gave her unto thee in
marriage’(33:37),(528) as well as the words of ‘Â’isha after the
[following passage] had been revealed: ‘Thou canst defer whom
thou wilt of them and receive thee whom thou wilt’(33:51): I
only see your Lord hastening in complying with your desire 129.
And the story told by Muslims that it was one of his privileges that,
when his eye fell on a woman whom he desired, her husband was
obliged to divorce her, and that he said, when he saw Zaynab
uncovered: ‘Praised be the One who turns hearts around!’ 130 And
how (529) τ@E®VV@T@P@IILQQDCQL$®·V@@KCQGDKT@PCDPBO®ADCQLQGD
-DPPDKFDOLE'LCTGLPDKQ;ELOGDO=QL$®·V@ TGLF@SDG®JTG@QGD
wanted. When taking her, he said to Umm Anas: ‘Put her in
order’. 131
(530) And he mentioned the cause [of the revelation] of God’s words:
‘Why bannest thou that which God hath made lawful for thee,
126
Abû Dâ’ûd, kitâb al-Σawm, bâb al-Σâ’im yablaԞu al-rîq (Al-Qarnî).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-maghâzî, bâb mara͍ al-nabî wa-wafâtihi (AlQarnî).
128
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-ͥai͍, bâb mubâsharat al-ͥâ’i͍ (Al-Qarnî). DSM 34:
“Item in eodem libro continetur quod dixit Axa, uxor eius: ‘Ego et propheta
lavabamus nos de uno vase simul et eramus polluti’. Et mandabat me cingere
cum lineamine et sic iacebat mecum seu coniungebat se michi, et eram
menstruata”. (The sentence in italics was omitted by Al-άûfî).
129
Al-Bukhârî, tafsîr sûrat al-Aͥzâb (Al-Qarnî, p. 528). DSM 34: “Sed
postquam dedit Deus istam legem, scilicet quod Machometus daret
spem quibus vellet et reciperet quas vellet, dixit Machometo: ‘Video
Dominum Deus tuum velociter implentem desiderium tuum’”.
130
Al-Qarnî refers for this story to Ibn SaԞd, al-άabaqât al-kubrâ, and
argues that the story is false (p. 528, note 5).
131
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-Σalât bâb mâ yudkaru fi al-fakhdh, and elsewhere
(Al-Qarnî).
127
107
seeking the pleasure of thy wives?’ (66:1) and similar [verses]. He
did not mention in [his discussion of] this condition any calumny
based on the words of ‘Ubayd Allâh ibn Mûsâ and others whom he had
already quoted in the beginning of the book, as a premise, viz. that
sexual intercourse is a disgrace 132. At this point, he established that
-R·@JJ@C T@P M@PP®LK@QDIV ELKC LE QGD PDKP@Q®LK LE PDUR@I
intercourse. So he obtained an accurate proof to draw up the following
conclusion: -R·@JJ@C T@P M@PP®LK@QDIV ELKC LE QGD PDKP@Q®LK
of sexual intercourse. The sensation of sexual intercourse is a
C®PFO@BD 4GDODELOD -R·@JJ@C T@P M@PP®LK@QDIV ELKC LE
disgraceful acts. Now, whosoever is passionately fond of
disgraceful acts, is not morally pure. As one of the conditions
ELO AD®KF @ MOLMGDQ ®P JLO@I MRO®QV TG®ID -R·ammad is not
morally pure, he is unfit to be a prophet.
[The Third Condition: A Miracle]
[62]
çÚnBøíº~œ_e={e7Ójx3íÛnœLüÐrUn›UÐàPUÐénS 535)
ëÌE—UÐ ÑnšT : Ên@ nY ‰UÙ DL ŠhU{UÐí énS ÒØn_UÐ çÚЎB ŒY
DL{ÅBØÌnY{e7nxЎUnbR p˜_cUÐ{fLЎ_eš@Ѐx}SæÐ Ì
ëlRp4ùÐq˜˜HíŒx{UÐq˜LíÊn=ùÐqešI{bUnfhdLqdBØÌnYYŽS
nfU|= ëŽf@ ‰= ënT íÌ ènfhfQÌ énCÐ íÌ ºèni؎H ÒØnh—UÐ {x}> qfT
ÐEZ=‹chUΐfdHÚÌāЊ=ºdT‰UٌYÊ¡øénbR èniÌ}=ÌínfUЎYÌ
hUiÌqedL{bRº‰hdLìnf”}LnYŠ=nSEQqfTëlRЎUnSºÐ}x|ií
-nh˜iqfTëÎ-‰=ڊ—RºnZhL{IÌøíºnfYÐ{d=ˆh”ÌÜnfUЌY{AÌ
ç}žhUíºniØĆ=nfUƒ—˜hUíºnfhdLqbh”{SšUÐén˜!Ðì|wnfLE—hdR
132
Compare, above, Text 12 and the accompanying notes.
108
ŒchUíºnfýn=ˌYmYŒYnfUr_˜hUíºçÐ}_UÐíênZUÐÚn¹jTºÐÚn¹ÌnghR
‹4j—fRºç{ÉzhIënTilRÑĆTŒ=ľS (536) ‹gfYmYŒY:
‰U nfR}Lí ºènfS{É ènfUjH nY q_fÉí èŽS{É ëlR ºéŽb> 5L
UŽHډiÌí āЌY‰šU~fY
ЎUnSº=f›_=ï|Un=āЌY‹cšþ@5i΋chUÎq›_=Ð|)nY‹4énbR
º‰fL nf_@Ð}xí ºéŽb> 5hR ‰S{[x ncdY ‰_Y r_˜x ëÌ ‰=Ú Š—R
5Ln)‰hf`xp\RíowٌYÐێfTíÐڎ[SínYnhB‰UŠ_œhdRdHí
ng—ešdi5T€xn_CÐešd>íçЎHún=`š˜>èÐ}i
āЌcUíºÐ|)‹chUÎq›_=nYíºÐ|w-ÚéjHÌøí ŠLna=niÌnY "énS
” Ð}x|iíÐEZ=f›_=
ëÌO΋4nbYgšiЏšAÐE›TЎUnSí na—TnfhdLÊ5—UЃbHjRЎUnS
º=nf_@Ð}>5=‰ed_RfLènfUjH5L‰Uj—fHnỉ=ڋdLnYÌЎUnS
iÌnf`d={S =nfšþ@nY‰fYŠ˜bi3Ùκnf= inɎw5=èF¶í 537)
ŒYki ø -āÐí -niÎí Œ1}UÐ U énbx pY5hUn= Š@Ú Ð|) ‰ed_x 5iÎ
.133 dwÌOÎnfx~A{e7æWiЋ? Ð{=̌1}Un=
}g^RºÒ{AЎ=Ójx‹dRºÓÐ~œ_Ypd+ŒLìŽUjH‡hTî}>ĆRÌénS
EQøºìí}TÙï|UЌ1}UÐëË}bUЍed_xënT5i΍iÌ
133
Sources for this story provided by Al-Qarnî, p. 537, note 5.
109
(535) He said4GDQG®OCBLKC®Q®LK®P@J®O@BID @KC-R·@JJ@C
did not bring any miracle, neither any breach of the law of
nature. 134 He said: Proof of that is the story mentioned in the
Book of the Siyar 135, that the nobles of Quraysh gathered
134
DSM 36: “Ad probandum quod Machometus non facit miracula. Sequitur
de tertio, scilicet de miraculo, per quod verus propheta ostendit
certitudinem sue prophetie. Et ostenditur his quod Mocahometus
nunquam fecit miracula et per consequens non potuit dare
certitudinem quod esset verus propheta”.
135
According to our Christian author, there apparently was a book
entitled Kitâb al-Siyar which he was using as a source. (See also, below,
in text No.66, p. 558 of Al-Qarnî’s edition). In a note on p. 535, Al-Qarnî
states that all three available manuscripts –which are very close to the
autograph copy of Ibn al-ώûfî, having been copied from or collated with
it- read “Kitâb al-Siyar.” He therefore, quite correctly, maintained that
reading in the main text, though he considered it erronuous and
proposed to correct it into “Kutub al-Siyar” (= the books of the [early
Muslim] campaigns; cf. e.g. the Kitâb al-Jihâd wa-al-Siyar in Al-Bukhârî’s
collection of traditions, which deals with the jihad and the early
campaigns in Islam). In the extracts from the Christian work presented
by Al-άûfî, we are dealing with stories that figure in the books of the
personal biography of the Prophet, not of the early campaigns.
Therefore, our Christian author, apparently confused about the correct
title of the work, is in fact referring to a Kitâb al-Sîra. This can be
identified here with Ibn Hishâm’s Sîra, where the whole story figures
almost verbatim (volume 1, p. 297; edition Wüstenfeld). Ramon Martín
maintains this idiosyncrasy. See J. Hernando i Delgado, Le “Seta
Machometi” du Cod, 46 d’Osma, oeuvre de Raymond Martin (Ramón
Martí). « Islam et chrétiens du Midi (XIIe-XIVe s.) ». Cahiers de Fanjeaux
18(1983), 351-371, esp. p. 352. See also idem (ed.), Ramón Martí (s. XIII) :
De Seta Machometi o De Origine, Progressu et Fine Machometi et
Quadruplici Reprobatione Prophetiae eius. Introducción, transcripción,
traducción y notas por J. Hernando i Delgado, pp. 18, 7: “Secundum quod
legitur in libro qui vocatur Ciar, Actus Machometi.” 18, 18 (“in eodem
libro”), 18-20 (“dicitur ibidem”) and 22-24 (“in libro qui vocatur Ciar”;
four quotations in all; all of these traced by the editor to Ibn Hishâm’s
Sîra). For the translation of this passage I have made use of A.
Guillaume’s translation, The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Is·âq’s Sîrat
Rasûl Allâh. Oxford 2004 (17th impression), 133-134. DSM 38 gives an
extensive summary of these episodes, based on the extracts of the
Christian-Arabic author.
110
together near the KaԞba. They said: No one has ever treated his
people as you have treated us. You have insulted our
forefathers, blamed our religion and cursed our gods. If you
want leadership, we will make you a leader; or money, we will
make you rich; or if it is a spirit which has got possession of
you, we will exhaust our money to have you cured. But he
answered: Nothing of that all. God sent me to you as an
announcer and a warner. They said: If you won’t accept any of
our propositions to you, you know that no people are more short of
land and have a harder life than we, so ask your Lord – if you are a
prophet – to remove for us these mountains which shut us in, and to
straighten our country for us, and to open in it rivers, like those of
Syria and Iraq, and do resurrect for us the forefathers who have
passed away. And let there be, among those who have passed away of
QGDJ 1Rυ@VV®AK+®I¹A ELOhe was a true shaikh, so that we may
ask them. If they say you are speaking the truth, and you do what we
have asked you, we will believe in you 136, and we shall know what
your position with God is, and that you are His Messenger. He
replied to them: I have not been sent to you with such an object. 137 I
came only to you to convey to you His message. They said: So
ask God that He sends with you an angel to confirm what you say and
contradict us on your behalf. And ask Him to make for you tents and
castles and treasures of gold and silver, to dispense you from what we
see you striving for in the markets and the livelihood you are seeking
as we do. He replied: I will not do this, and will not ask my Lord for
136
The passage in italics runs as follows in DSM 38: “Tu scis quod non
sunt alii homines qui habeant magis strictam civitatem quam nos, nec
qui minus habent de aquis et minus de victualibus vel magis strictam
vitam quam nos. (The last words seems to be an erronuous repetition,
VK). Si ergo es sicut dicis, quod sis propheta et nuntius Dei, pete pro
nobis ad Deum Dominum tuum, qui misit te, quod removeat a nobis
istos duos montes qui constringunt nos. Et quod amplificet nobis terram
nostrum. Et quod manent hic rivi ut sunt rivi terre orientalis. Et quod
resuscitet nobis aliquos de patribus nostris, et quod unus ex illis sit
Coray (presumably: Cocay, VK), quia ille fuit senex verax. Et
interrogabimus eos de hoc quod tu dicis : utrum sit verum aut falsum. Et
si dicerent te esse vderacem et feceris quod petivimus, credemus tibi. »
137
The passage in italics runs as follows in DSM 38: « Respondit eis
Machometus: Non sum vobis missus cum hoc, scilicet miraculis. »
111
such things, neither was I sent to you with this. But God sent me as
announcer and a warner. 138 They said: Then let the heaven be
dropped on us in pieces. And they added many other things,
before saying, finally: Did not your Lord know that we would ask
you these questions and instruct you how to answer us (537), and
inform you about what he was going to do with us, as we did not
accept the message you brought us? Information has reached us that
you have been taught by this fellow in al-Yamâma called Al-2@·J¹K and by God, we will never believe in Al-2@·J¹K 4GDK -R·@JJ@C
went away to his people, in grief. 139
He said: Behold how they asked him for a whole series of
miracles. But he did not perform one of them. And it appears
that no one else taught him the Koran than the Al-2@·J¹K
whom they mentioned.
[63]
ÒڎH : énS nY Ò~œ_Y }g^x 3 iŽT DL pUØúÐ ŒYí énS (551)
õ Uó }œa÷ >ó ­šA‰ó Uó ŒYõ kô÷ iŒUó ЎUô nSí ÊГüÐ
õ Ú÷ óúÐ
÷ Œó Ynf
UŽSOÎnð LŽ˜ô ÷fxó ß
ó
ó
÷
ó
óô
138
The passage in italics runs as follows in DSM 38: “Iem dixerunt ei: …
et pete a Domino Deo tuo quod mittat tecum angelum qui ostendat te
esse veracem super hoc quod dicis, et respondat nobis per te ; tet pete a
Deo tuo quod det tibi palatia et thesaurum auri et argenti et sic dicet te
de hoc quod vidimus te petere. Tu enim vadis per fora et adquiris
victum tuum, sicut nos adquirimus. (…) Respondit eis Machometus :
Istud non faciam. Non sum ego ille qui petit a Domino Deo suo istud et
non sum vobis missus cum hoc, sed Deus misit me annuntiantem et
premonentem. »
139
The passage in italics runs as follows in DSM 38: “O Machomete,
numquid non sciebat Dominus Deus tuus quod nos sederemus teum et
interrogaremus a te et peteremus et petivimus? Quare ipse Deus non
prevenit te et docuit te quid responderes nobis et nuntiaret tibi quod
faceret de nobis ex quo non recipiebamus s te illud cum quo venisti ad
nos, quod quidam homo de Ymenia (read : Ymema), qui dicitur Rahmen,
docet te hoc, scilicet quod dicis ? Et nos per Deum nunquam credemus
illi Rahmem. Tunc recessit Machometus tristis rediens ad suos. »
112
õ ùn÷ õ=Šó Hõ }ôië÷ Ìó nf_ófYnYíUŽSíøŽ
ð Hô Úó Ðð Pó =ó ø­ õÎq÷ô fTô Š÷ wó -¬ Úó ën
ó ˜÷ Hô
Ónx
ó ó
÷
÷ )
ó Uô í­ óúÐn
Ónxùn=ŠH}x3iÌÒØngI‰˜—AíëŽ
ó õ Ñó |ó­ Të÷ Ìó ø­ õÎ
(551) He said: Another proof of the fact that he did not perform
any miracle is what he said in Sûrat al-Isrâ’: ‘And they say: We
will not put faith in thee till thou cause a spring to gush forth
from the earth for us’ (17:90), up till and including: ‘My Lord be
Glorified! Am I aught save a mortal messenger?’(17:93). And
also his words: ‘Naught hindereth Us from sending portents
save that the folk of old denied them’ (17:59). Let this be a
sufficient testimony for you that he was not sent with
miracles.” 140
[64]
:hdLЎ"ÌíºÒŽ˜fUn=U‹gRÐGLÐodJ:‹ghdLæ“ÌnCíénS(555)
‹w}œ”‹^Lº‹ghdLëË}bUÐÒíĆ>EQfY}g^xøŽwíºÓnxùÐodJ
ó ë÷ õÎ ‹­ gô d­ UÐ ‹gAnhÉ: ЎUnbR ºÐŽ?n`šHÐí fY Ўœ” šA
Žó wô Ð|w ënT
õ —UÐ ŒYð
õ
õ
õ
õ õ õ ÷
ò _ó õ=nfõš÷ýÐ íõ Ìó Ê5
énS ‹ò hõUÌó ÑÐ|
ó Anfh÷ dó Ló }÷ ]Y÷ jó Ró èó {÷fL Œ÷ Y ˆ­ "Ð
ó
­ ó ÒÚnœ
nYí‹ghdLD>ëj=Ú|šLЉUÙîÌÚ5dRºÚ¦‹gb"øípxv=‹*jx‹dR
ó
pxùЋ÷ ghõ õRq÷
ó iÌó í‹÷ )ô ó |¬ _ó hô õ Uô­āÐënT
(555) He said: When he insisted on them in seeking their
recognition of his prophethood, and they pressed him in
demanding miracles, while he did not produce anything else
than reciting the Koran to them, their irritation increased until
they shouted at him and appealed for help, saying in their cry:
‘O God, if this be indeed the truth from Thee, then rain down
140
SM 38: “Item in Alcorano, in tractatu Ascensus, dicitur quod Arabes
petierunt a Machometo similia et adiderunt dicentes ei quod facer et
celum cadere super eos. Non dixerat se facturum et tandem respondit
quod ipse non erat nisi homo, nuntius, quasi diceret : Non possum
facere quod petitis. »
113
stones on us or bring on us some painful doom!’ (8:32). He said:
But he did not bring them a miracle, neither befell them any
harm. When he saw that, he apologized by reciting to them:
‘But God would not punish them whilst thou wast with them’
(8:33), until the end of the verse.
[65]
Ñ|L‡hcR‹ghRŽwí‹)|_xøëŽ=|cCÐìÍÐ{LÌënTÐÙnRénS (557)
ÈpLn+‹gfYŠšSíЎY~wí{AÌêŽxÑnÉÌ
(557) He said: If He did not punish his enemies who were calling
him a liar while he was among them, why then did he punish
the companions of QGD$@VLE5·RC who fled, while a group of
them was even killed?
[66]
ÒnI{eC Ó{wÌÔ}"Ðqf=ofxÛëÌ E—UÐ :Ên@í énS (558)
ngfY èĆR ºng˜² ënT iú ºâÐÚ|UÐ : ‹—UÐ ŒY Ó}›TÌí phd[Y (559)
‰dgRpebUngfYãnHjRÚí}_YŒ=ÊÐFUЌ=P=_Yíng`—x‹dRp`\Y
çnHí êŽe—Y iÌ ©FžhU ‹^_UÐ Ð|w ëÎ énSí šebU {e7 „aUí
‹d_x ëÌí º~œ_Cn= ”ÐŽCÐ ˆAÌ ”ŽCÐ Ð|w ënT {Sí énS p[bUÐ
‹^_UÐ Ð|w ëÎ UŽS nYÌí :énS ˜AnÉ F¶í ŠTúÐ ofšœhR én"n=
˜Zxë̊˜SìFBÌëŽcxëÌnY΍iúyh[=hdRêŽe—Yij=©FžhU
šdTj=ÓnYšAÐP=F¶3‹dRéíúÐënTëlR‰UÙ{_=í̍šebUP=
èøNAŽwAíÚÕnL~iÐíén"Ð:P=ӎYUFžCnR©n›UÐënTëÎí
FhB pdTÌ qUÐÛ nY UŽS ŠhU{= >ŽY o˜H qinTí pYŽe—CÐ pebdUÐ
î})Ìq_]SëÐíÌÐ|wënTšA©Øn_>
114
(558) He said: It is said in Al-Siyar141 that Zaynab bint al-Ά¹O®QG
presented a roasted lamb (559) to Muhammad, and she did a
lot of poison in the shoulder, because he liked [that part]. He
chewed a morsel of it but did not swallow it. Bishr ibn al-Barrâ’
ibn MaԞrûr who was with him took a bit from it and swallowed
it, whereupon he died. 142 -R·@JJ@C PM@Q G®P JLOPDI LRQ @KC
said: This bone tells me it is poisoned, and then he told the
[whole] story. He then said: This place was the most appropriate
of places for a miracle, in that he would have known at once
[the danger at stake] and have refrained from eating, and had
informed his companion. He [also] said: As for his words: ‘This
bone tells me it is poisoned’, that is not correct: It would either
have informed him before Bishr swallowed his bit, or after
that. In the first case, why did he not inform Bishr, before he
died by eating it? In the second case, it was [in fact] the death
of Bishr that informed him at once, as well as the uneasiness of
his mind when he tasted the poisoned morsel which was the
cause of his death, witness his words: ‘The meal of Khaybar 143
keeps coming back to me, as if this was the time my life vein
was cut’.
[67]
3iÌÚn[šBøЈx}JDLëË}bUЁf=‰Unfh={SŒingRénS (562)
rx{A }TÙí ˬ‹w{fL yh[UÐ rx{"Ð ŒY ‰UÙ N˜>í Ò~œ_e= Ójx
d›YDLŒYËnYÓnxùЌY]LÌ{SøÎÊnh˜iúЌY˜iŒYnY‹d—Y
‹w}›TÌëŽTÌëÌЎ@ÚÌíOÎāЏAíÌnhA퍚h>íÌï|UÐënT5iÎíP˜UÐ
141
Al-Qarnî refers here to the Sîra of ibn Hishâm, vol. 2, pp. 337-338. See
also our note to Text 62.
142
DSM 50: R.M. transferred this passage to his concluding section on
the accidents, illness and death of Muhammad: “Item dicitur in libro
Actus Machometi quod quedam iudea nomine Zeyneb obtulit Machometo
ovem assatum et posuit venenum in ea et specialiter in brachio eius; de
qua cum comederet Byir, socius Machometi, statim mortuus est.”
143
The story is said to have happened in Khaybar.
115
ҎgZ=Ún[šiøÐêÐÚíºUo[_šUÐéínAŒeRénS .144 pYnhbUÐêŽxn_=n>
Ned—CÐ Ê5dL {fL ÒØíØ}CÐ ÓÐ~œ_edU ØnAùÐ Šbf= ‰—ešUn= —ai
›x{Aí ºiË}bU Ñ|cY ŽgR ºÓÐ~œ_CÐ ŒY nþhI fÉí Š_R iÎ énbR
‹w}›TÌ ëŽTÌ ëÌ Ž@Úú ©Î rx{"Ð : UŽSí énS
(563)
yh[UÐ
OÎ ìŽ_˜šY Ñ|cUÐí ŠJn˜UÐ ŠwÌ h+ ëlR U ‹d—Y pYnhbUÐ êŽx n_=n>
ëŽ_˜šxÊøkwOÎp˜—fUn=ëŽdhdS‹wŒx|UЈ"ЊwÌí pYnhbUÐêŽx‹fg@
peýÐ{UÐÒnh"ÐOÎyh—CÐni{hH
(562) He said: We thus proved to you already by the text of the
Koran in a concise manner that he did not bring a miracle. This
®P DS®CDKQ ;@P TDII= EOLJ QGD ·@Cîth they consider authentic”,
@KCGDJDKQ®LKDCQGD·@CÂQGLE-RPI®J: There is no prophet who
had not been given a token of the kind that would convince
mankind. Me, however, was only given a revelation which God
revealed to me. 145 I hope that on the Day of Resurrection I will
have the most numerous followers of them [viz. of the
prophets]. He said: Whosoever tries to take his side and aims at
triumphing with a passionate soul by sticking to the
transmission of isolated reports about miracles which are
[even] rejected by Muslim scholars, and (563) says: He really
did one miracle or another, is denying the Koran and the
@RQGDKQ®BΆ@CÂQGHe said [also]: His words in the ͥadîth: I hope
that most of them will be following me on the Day of
Resurrection, are accepted, because all the adherents of
144
Muslim, kitâb al-îmân, bâb wujûb al-îmân bi-risâlat Muͥammad (AlQarnî).
145
DSM 38: “Item dicitur in libro qui vocatur Bochari, in tractatu Fidei,
quod Machometus dixit: Non fuit aliquis propheta cui non sit datum
facere miracula propter quod homines credebant ei. Sed illud quod
michi datum est fuit inspiratio quam Deus inspiravit michi. » (Bochari is
probably a slip of R.M’s pen for Muslim).
116
falseness and untruth will follow him to Hell on the Day of
Resurrection 146, while the adherents of the truth who are few
in comparison with those, will follow our lord Christ to
everlasting life.
[68]
ï{xN=ngY{SÒ~œ_e=Ššx3iÌ:êĆcUЌYnfQ}RÙÎíénS (585)
ëË}bUÐ éŽbx ëÌ øÎ âÛnfC ‰—ešY ĆR º‰UÙ {_= nw}gKÌ øí ìЎLØ
ŒYÑ}bšUАwpAn[aUÐëúº‰UÙ:pœAøíénS šAn[aUÒ~œ_Y
àP=f_CÐDL„adUÐpUø؊hSí êĆcUЎZAŒY{Ln˜šUÐíºph`˜UÐ
ÐÙÎí ºnwÚn[šBÐí ánaUúÐ pdSí
(586)
ºYn^ií f_CÐ @í Ön\xÎ
>jš>øíºf_CЍ@íy”Ž>ø>ÐÚn˜L}›TÌÓ{@íëË}bUÐ h+qdYj>
‹wØ{LÒ}›T YŒx’aCÐë̉UÙDLŠhU{UÐíoHnfYên^iDLhin_Y
ºpdxŽ]UЇhin[šUЍhRëŽaf[xídxíj>:æƚBøÐ:‹wÚ5LÌëŽfax
Øn\šUÐíâÐ~fUÐèÚn_YŒLëŽd[afxøíºÓnaUnžCÐíPUЋgfh= bxí
ºpU~š_CÐí
(587) ºpx}c˜UÐí pxŽd_UnT p˜bdY nS}R ëŽS}ašxí ºìE—a> :
Œ_dxí n\_= ‹g\_= }acx ºÒ{x{L ‡ýЎJ ŒY ‹wEQí ºpx}_IúÐí
ŠwÌ ˆašx E—a> DL ëŽ_bx øí êŽS ow|Y êŽS y˜bxí n\_= ‹g\_=
To this, Al-ώÌEÂ O®MLPQP ¡4GDPD @OD A@C J@KKDOP TG®BG @OD KLQ
befitting [to be used towards] the common people, and certainly not to
their nobles, leave alone to the prophets, the masters of the generally
acknowledged creeds and rules. But this Christian may of course be
excused for this stupidity, because he was all his life living in the land of
Islam in a state of humiliation and despisement, obliged to pay the poll
tax and bound by the legal rules of the Islamic faith. He was unable to
cure his wrath, so he cured his anger secretly by acting stupidly” (583).
146
117
ìnfdSnCëË}bUÐÒØngI‰UÙ:‰hacxínw}]IøíhdL‹gšdeœ=pdCÐ
7ëÐ}eLéËāÐø΍dxíj>‹d_xnYíéŽbxrhA
(585) He said: As we have terminated our discussion that he was
not endowed with a miracle, and did neither produce it before
pronouncing his claim, nor following it, the only argument
someone who wants to dispute this can cling to is to say: the
Koran is the miracle, because of its eloquence. He said: And
there is no proof of that, because eloquence is to approach the
intended meaning [as much as possible], and to stay away from
stuffing speech [with unnecessary words]. It is said that an
expression points to its meaning on the condition of
elucidating its objective and of being well-structured. (586) It
should [also] use as few words [as possible] and be concise. If
you now consider the whole Koran you will find that most of
the expressions do not elucidate their objectives, neither come
their meanings expressed in an appropriate fashion. Proof
thereof is that the exegetes, notwithstanding their large
number, are wasting their life in disputes about different
interpretations of it, and compose extensive works thereon.
Among them arise maliciousness and contrasting views, they
do not refrain from battles of controverse concerning its
exegesis. They split up in sectarian groups with their own
names, like the ‘Alawiyya, the Bakriyya (587), the MuԞtazila,
and the AshԞariyya and numerous other sects that declare each
other to be infidels and curse each other, while one group of
people smears the method of the other group. They do not
reach any interpretation about which the adherents of [your]
religion as a whole agree, not even half of them. The testimony
of the Koran to what we are saying should suffice you here,
where it says: ‘None knoweth its explanation save God’ (3:7).
118
[69]
: ÚÐ}cšUÐ ÒE›T ºÚn[šBøÐ pdhdS KnaUÌ n\xÌ Ó{@íí énS 592)
ó }ô õRncU÷ Ð n0́ó Ìó nx Š÷ Sô Òڎ—T ‰UÙ EQí [bUÐ ìØÐ}xÎ
ÒڎHí º1 ëí
.‰xØn_Y= eb>í‰hf_xnYnghR{9‰ilRŒ
ô 1÷ }UÐ
­
He said: I also found its expressions rarely concise, often
repetitious in presenting stories and other items, like in Sûrat
Yâ Ayyuhâ al-Kâfirûna (109) and in Sûrat al-2@·J¹K 9LR
will find in them sufficient evidence to convince yourself and
your opponents.
[70]
ÒڎH:UŽbToHnfšYên^iDLÕÚnBEQn\xÌì{œiíénS593)
õ fUЌYõ ‹ôcUó ÑnJnYЎõc÷inRó YnšhU÷ Ð:Ў
õ
õ
Ên—¬
ó ÷
ó
ô
ó õ ]ô —b÷ >ô ø­ Ìó ‹ô÷ ša÷ Bë÷ õÎó Ên—fUÐ
ó ?ô íf›÷ Yó
ÖnciN=íºYnšhUÐ:é{_UÐN=p˜HnfYøíénS ân=
ó Úí
ô ÔĆ
‡hUj>øíºUên^iøºÚŽ›fYêĆTiÌN˜šxìEQíÐ|4íºÊn—fUÐ
(593) He said: We also find him [sometimes] not proceding
according to an appropriate order, like his words in Sûrat alNisâ’: ‘And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans,
marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or
four’ (4:3). He said: There is no correlation between the fair
dealing of orphans and the marrying of women. Therefore, as
well as for other examples, it is evident that it is a loosely
connected (prosaic) speech, without any order and
composition.
[71]
DL‰RŽSí YŒcUíºn\_=\_=‚bfx ‚SnfšYŽw‹?énS 597)
Ð|w ÛnœLÎ ëÌ LØÐ ŒY Šg@ ŒY ‹^LÌ Šg@ ïÌ éŽb> ânCüÐ Ð|w
}œ"Ðí ºn—˜x }˜UÐí º niЎhA Ø5!Ð ÑĆbinT Ҏ˜fUÐ Ón˜?Î : ÑnšcUÐ
119
ëÎ yh—edUÞ}=úÐíeTúÐÊÐ}=Îí>ŽCÐÊnhAlTíHŽCnfhL{d[UÐ
ˆýnYŠwn!Ð|w
(597) He said: Moreover, it is contradictory, one part
contradicting another part. Once you come across this
indication, you will say: Which ignorance is greater than the
ignorance of the one who claims that the miracle of this book
in establishing prophethood is like the transformance, for
Moses, of an inanimate body into a [living] animal, of the sea
into dryness, and of a solid rock into a spring, and, for Jesus,
the revival of the dead and the curing of the lame and the
leper? This man is indeed ignorant and stupid.
[72]
UnfdS Ò}]aUЁSniNc—YDLÐ|w:Ün˜šUАb=ëÎíénS 602)
DLÚn@iÌíº‚Snf>øíhRÚÐ}c>ø yh[RëË}bUÐëÌß}aién_>
ëÌ~œ_CÐà ŒYhU̺UÐÛnœLΉUي_œiíºhin_Y:{AÐíên^i
ºêĆcUÐ h+Š\axøêĆTŽwÙÎÈÒØnš_CÐén_RúÐf@EQŒYëŽcx
º{AÐíf@ŽgRpd”naCÐípd?5CЍhR b>íº}›TúÐíŠSún=‡dš¶5iÎí
Ñ}_UÐ ŒY Ên`d˜UÐí Ên˜]#Ð }ýnH êĆT N=í fh= Š”našUÐ o—=í
ŒYénfhRpAn[aUЌYp˜>}e=†hd=yh[RŠTDLҎ˜fUÐâێš>Œx{hœCÐí
šAn[R˜@Žš—>nYҎ˜fUÐ
He said: And if any doubt about this remains to some
deplorable, deficient person, I will tell him: Let us stipulate
that the Koran is eloquent, that it contains neither repetition
nor contradiction, that it follows one order in its meanings,
and let us assume that is its miraculousness. Is it not a
condition of a miracle that it does not belong to the ordinary
activities, while the speech (of the Koran) does not surpass all
120
other speech together but only differs from it in more or less.
Therefore it is subject to analogy and comparison, and,
consequently, of one kind. And through the rivalry between it
and the speech of the other Arab and highranking preachers
and eloquents prophecy is distributed among every eloquent
who is skilfull in using the correct literary language, in
accordance with his rank of eloquence. Thus, every person
whose eloquence is sufficient, will reach the level of prophecy.
[73]
3íÜnfUЌY{A̍”Ún_x3iÌpg@ŒYìÛnœLÎqdSëlRénS 607)
Œõ þõ Uó Š÷ Sô iË}S : ÜnfdU Šbx 3 Ð{e7 ëÎ nfdS d›Y ŒY Òڎ—= Ójx
õ _eóš@Ð
õ }bô U÷ Ð Ð|w
õ÷ ÷ô iüÐ
õ÷ q
ó >j÷ xó ø ëË
ó Šõ ›÷ eõ õ= Ўô>j÷ xó ë÷ Ìó DLó Œ´ !Ðí
õ õd›÷ eõ õ= ëŽô
ó ó ÷
÷
õ Òò ڎ
in]dH}gKíºšHnýÚq—Hj>ëÌ{_=ø΍õ õd›÷ Yõ Œ÷ Y
ó —ô õ=Ўô>j÷ Ró UŽSí
–fUÐâ nC‰U|UíÈnYØ}]b>RnhHÌ퍚”Ún_YDLê{bxënTŒeR
nYÌí pdšS dšbRoUnJ-̌=MLhU΂¹Ìš”Ún_Y:Ô}"Ќ=
ng_Y{AÌê{bxøpeh^LNed—CÐèŽdYæŽh—=fLpx5"nR>ŽY{_=
>ŽY {_= ¢f_UÐí ºï}_CÐ ÊĆ_UÐ Ž=Ì ”ÚnL {Sí º‰UÙ DL(608)
øíº}@nwí‰=}UŠ[Rº}w5!Ðènfh]LÌni΍Uš”Ún_YŒY퍔ÚnL
:ŽwíºUŠhSí ؎_UÐDLodɉUي@úíº}AnHí}RnTŠT ]>
‰fLŒYn”niÌíºØŽ_UÐDL‰=}UŠ[RºØŽe_UÐènfh]LÌniÎod[UÐ
.؎_>øëÌ
He said: If you say: its inimitability consists in that nobody
could imitate him or come with a similar sura, I will answer:
Mohammed only said in his Koran: ‘Say: Even if mankind and
jinns would come gather in order to produce a Koran similar to
121
this one, they would not come with a similar one’ (al-Isrâ: 88),
and his words: ‘Come then with a similar sura’(2:23), after his
rule had been established and his might had become evident.
Who would then come forward to oppose him, while the
swords were dripping of blood? Therefore, when al-Na͍ir ibn
al-ͤârith started to oppose him, he incited against him ԞAlî ibn
Abî άâlib, who killed him in a most evil way. After his death, it
enjoyed an enormous protection by the swords of the kings of
the Muslims. No one would come forward to do that. But Abû
al-ԞAlâ al-MaԞarrî imitated it147, and al-ԞAnasî after his death
imitated it (as well). From his imitation is (the following
passage): ‘We have given you the multitudes (al-jamâhir). So,
pray to your Lord and emigrate (hâjir). And do not obey every
infidel and magician (kâfir wa-sâͥir).’ While he was hanging on
the cross, it was said to him: ‘We have given you the shaft (alԞamûd). So, pray to your Lord on the wood (al-Ԟûd). And I
guarantee you that you will not return (taԞûd).’ 148
[74]]
é{@íÌâÐ~iUb=íºnwniØÚí̐šUÐpUØúÐì|) fbx3ŒYíénS (619)
ŽgRLÛnfYpSĆ_=‰—/íinh=íìØn—RÖn\xÎ Y{e7Œx،YÊ¡:
è}šxng˜iِb=íngHÌÚ ]Sph"nT
He said: Whosoever is not convinced by the proofs we have
presented and continues to contest or dispute something in
Mohammed’s religion, notwithstanding its obvious depravity,
while clinging to the object of his contestations, is like a snake
whose head has been cut off, but whose tail continues to move.
The book in which he imitated the Koran is al-FuΣûl wa-al-ghâyât fî
muͥâdhât al-suwar wa-al-âyât. It was printed. Its editor, ͤasan Zanâtî,
called it al-FuΣûl wa-al-ghâyât fî tamjîd Allâh wa-al-mawâԞiϓ (Al-Qarnî).
148
Al-Qarnî remarks that he has been unable to trace these sayings of al‘Anasî, p. 706, note 3.
147
122
[The Fourth Condition: The Harm
mony between the Natural and
the Divine Law]
[75]
E#Ð : 545Tí ºŒx{UÐí p_xPUÐ Œ—A =Ð}UÐ àPUÐ énS 619)
āÐ oA DL pYúÐ ‚A fxØ Œe\šx ëÌ ‰UÙí ºpU{_CÐí Š\aUÐí
ën—iüÐo²ëÌíº5*øЎYíÒØn˜_UЌ—AíyUn[UЊe_UÐíì{hAŽ>í
Œx{dU ˆRЎY Žw Šw Š@}UÐ Ð|w ŒxØ FšžfdR —afU o² nY ìE`U
ŠwíÈìEQíHŽeTdHÚn)ŠHÚ̐šUÐāÐ ýÐ íڎT|CА_h˜]UÐ
ÈøêÌâ~fCÐÐ|wDLpxÚn@w
(619) He said: The fourth condition is that the creed (al-PG@OÂՀ@ and law (al-dîn) [he prescribes] are good and perfect in
blessing, kindness and fairness. This implies that his (i.e. the
prophet’s) law encompasses the urging of the community to
love God, to believe in His oneness, to do pious deeds and acts
of devotion and keep to them both, without interruption. And
also that a man likes for the other what he likes for himself. Let
us, then, probe the law of this man: is it in accordance with the
natural law as described before 149 and with the laws of God
which he revealed by His envoys like Moses and others? Are
they following this objective or not? 150
149
See above, Text 15.
DSM 42, omitting the distinction between “natural law” and “divine
law”, presents the introductory passage as follows: “Sequitur de quarto
quod debet habere propheta qui venit cum lege, scilicet quod lex quam
affert sit sancta et bona, ut dictum est supra. Ostendetur autem hic per
libros ipsius quod lex quam tradidit non fuit talis sed potius inmunda,
nociva et mala, per consequens nec fuit a Deo auctore nec nuntia vel
propheta ipsius, quod manifesta patet per leges quas tradidit, ut in
sequentibus continetur.” Possibly, also the last sentence of this passage
figured in the Christian-Arabic text but was omitted by Al-άûfî as
redundant.
150
123
[1 – Polygamy]
[76]
Œó Yõ ‹ô÷ cUó ÑnJnYЎ
ô õc÷inRó Ên—fUÐÒڎH:}TÙ{SìnfxÌ}RénS
ó
622)
õ fUÐ
ó ?ô í f›÷ Yó Ên—¬
Ûn@jR º‹ô÷ ciô 5x÷ Ìó qó
÷ cdó Yó nY í÷ Ìó UŽS OÎ 3 ân=
ó Úí
ô ÔĆ
ïÌ DL ڎ[7 Ø{L EQ OÎ NehUÐ ‰de= UÐí Ҏ—i =ÚÌ Önci
nY‰U|TÊnInYé{˜š—xíÊnInYŠ@}UЈd]xëÌíënxØúЌYŒTŒxØ
ÝnL
He said: We see dat he mentioned in Sûrat al-Nisâ’: ‘… then
marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or
four’, until his words: ‘…or those your right hand possesses.’
(4:3) He thus permitted to marry four women and to take an
unlimited number of slave-girls in his possession as
concubines, to whatever religion they might adhere. He (also
permitted) that a man repudiates whatever woman he wishes
and replaces whatever woman he wishes as long as he lives. 151
[77]
ƒ_x3On_>āÐëÌn4íÌ ÒE›Tsœ=Ð|wëĆ]=N˜iíénS 623)
{h=j> ‰U|= N˜šhU d\UÐ ŒY ngbdB šUÐ wí Ò{AÐí p@íÛ øÎ êØË
ŒLcAÐ|4íº{—!ÐÊn\LÌN=p˜CÐ{h=jšT5gfh=p˜CÐíp˜[UÐ
151
DSM 42: “Dixit Machometus in Alcorano, in tractatu Mulierum, in
principio: ‘Contraitis quantum cum mulieribus que placebunt vobis et
possunt esse bine et terne et quaterne; et si temeruitis quod non
potestis omnibus sufficere equaliter, ducite unam; aut haneatis de
mulieribus que placebunt vobis quod possedit dextera vestra.’ Hec est
lex : quod haberent de ancillis concubinas quod possent emere vel
habere. E t secundum hanc legem quilibet sarracenus potest habere
quattuor uxores et unam concubinam vel decem vel centum vel mille
vel amplius, si potuerit et voluerit ipsas tenere. »
124
ÒÌ}YÐqheHe"ŒY‹"íYn^LŒY‹^Lì|wénSiÌÒÐڎšUÐ:êØË
š@íÛê~dxíYÌíìn=Ìën—iüÐèGx‰U|dRºÊ}CЌYÓ|BÌn¹ú
Ò}›T:ënTŽUÙκ{AЎUÒ{AÐíëŽc>Ò}]aUÐo—=iÌN˜šxÐ|)í
d—i}›chU3n_UÐ:Ð{AÐíënTiúºn)OíÌêØËëncUpdh\RÓn@í~UÐ
He said: We are going to explain the futility of this by many
proofs. The first of these is that God Most High gave Adam only
one wife whom He created from his ribs so that the everlasting
companionship and love between them would thereby become
clear, like the everlasting love between the limbs of the body.
Therefore, it is told of Adam in the Tawrât that he said: This is
a bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She was called
woman (imra’a) because she was taken from a man (al-mar’).
Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and adheres
to his wife. 152 By this, it is evident that according to nature one
woman should belong to one man, because, if there were a
advantage in polygamy, Adam would have been most entitled
to it, as he was alone on the world, to multiply his offspring. 153
[78]
`˜fhR ŠHnfšUЊ_R:Nf?ÐøÎ e9øp_h˜]UÐëlR n\xÌíénS627)
Ò{AÐíp@íÛøΊ@}dUëŽcxøëÌ
(627) He said: And also because nature only unites two in the
act of procreation. Therefore, it is befitting that a man should
only marry one woman.
152
Genesis 2:23-24.
DSM 42: “Hanc autem legem constat esse falsam, cum nullus possit
habere simul plures uxores sed unam tantum. Deus enim, insitutor
mundi, in principio mundi non concessit Ade nisi unam. Et, si voluntas
eius fuisset quod quilibet homo aliquando plures posset habere, inde
videretur quod ei concessit plures, pro eo quod, cum solus esset, maior
erat necessitas, quod per usum plurium uxorum multiplicaretur genus
humanum. »
153
125
[79]
›iÌ øÎ ngfY }T|dU hU ÓniЎh"Ð ŒY ÐE›T ëlR n\xÌí énS 628)
ën—iünR ڎh]UÐ }›TjTí º‹ýng˜UÐ ŒY nªEQí Ñ{UÐí {HúnT Ò{AÐí
ҎgZdUn_eS‰U|=Oí̍dbLp[h[#
(628) He said: Also, the males of many of the (various kinds of)
animals have only one female, like the lion and the bear and
other beasts, and also most of the birds. Because of the special
trait of his reason, it is (even) more appropriate for man, in
order to curb his lust. [80]
‹?Ò|dUÐøpxÚ|UÐN@í~UÐ:ŠHnfšUÐpUËÒ{ýnRëlRn\xÌíénS 629)
pUùÐé5_šHЌcUº_”ŽUÐ{[bUn=øºn_˜>ng˜[>qinTëÎíÒ|dUÐ
.oiَw‰U|Uí ‹hbš—CÐé5_šHøЌLŠýnYʎHé5_šHЃbRÒ|dU
(629) He said: The (principal) virtue of the procreational
apparatus in both spouses is the offspring, not the pleasure,
then (also) the pleasure, although it only comes with it as a
consequence of it, not by express purpose. But the use of the
apparatus for pleasure only is an evil use, and a twisting of the
right use. That is a sin.
[811]
R{> Š= ºÒ{ýnR Ñƚ@Ð n¹jI hU ‹dUÐ Ò|U n\xÌí énS 630)
}e#nT n¹lR ºpcdgY pxØÚ p—h—B ng—ai : wí phinAí}UÐ {ýЎaUÐ
ped^YëŽh_UÐE[xÑn˜\UnTíº>ŽSow|>í©n—iüЌw|UÐ}c—>
ö
(630) He said: The pleasure of the flesh in itself does not yield
any virtue, but (rather) turns away spiritual virtues, and (lust)
in itself is mean, evil and destructive. Like wine, it intoxicates
the human mind and takes its force away. Like fog, it makes
the eyes gloomy.
126
[82]
æW>gRºphd_UÐphinAí}UÐÚí’UÐâЎiúÒØn\Yn¹úíénS 634)
ºE#ЌYnþhIoh]š—xĆRºodbUÐçíÙ{—axÙκngfLphdcUn=afUÐ
ø phUÛúÐ phinAí}UРڎYúР뎘h]š—x Œx|UÐ ëÌ Žwí ºc_UÐ : 5T
ngfLëŽ=}0ín¹Žw}cxŠ=phiÐ{—!ÐÓÐ|dUÐ뎘h]š—x
He said: And because it is contrary to various kinds of lofty
spiritual joys, it completely turns away the mind from them. It
corrupts the taste of the heart so that it does not find delight
in anything good. To the contrary, those who find delight in
eternal spiritual matters, do not find delight in corporal
pleasures but detest them and run away from them.
[83]
pLn]šHÐo—=b˜>ë̏`˜fxphedUÐÒ|dUÐëj=ën={bRénS 635)
ºn)ƚ@ø nþhI Še_> ø ëÌ OíjR ºb˜> ëÌ o@ЎUÐ ënT ÐÙÎí p_h˜]UÐ
énAŠTDLb˜>ëÌân]š—xørhA eb>íé{_>ë̏`˜fhR
(635): He said: Thereby it is clear that carnal lust should be
maintained in accordance with the possibility of nature. And
while it is obligatory to maitain it, it is more appropriate that
nothing is done to attract it. Therefore, it should be kept under
control and be suppressed wherever it is not possible for it to
be contained.
[84]
DL Wšbx Š= ºïÚЎ!Ðí Ón@í~UÐ }›cx ø ëÌ `˜fhR énS 636)
ÓnhinAí}UЊh[Ļì{[SëŽcxíÒ{AÐí
(636) He said: Therefore, (man) should not take many wives
and concubines, but restrict himself to one, and his objective
should be to attain spiritual matters.
127
[85]
˜šiëÌnfU`˜fhRºnwÊn=ËÒØnL ˜š>Ê5—UÐڎhJí‹ýng˜UÐí énS 637)
Ón@í~UÐ E›c> ëÌ =Ð}UÐ Ò{AÐí p@íÛ øÎ U Œcx 3í nfh=Ì ÒØnL
p_h]bUÐí o\`UÐí ºŒ)ŽdS qhšZ>í ºŒw{HnšU o@ŽY ïÚЎ!Ðí
=}YjxøíºPUЊ_axĆRº‚7EBāÐíº ‰UÙí
(637) He said: The beasts and the birds of heaven are following
the habit of their parents. Thus, we (also) should follow the
habit of our father (Adam), who had only one wife.- The fourth
(proof) is that multiplication of wives and concubines leads to
mutual jalousy as well as divisiveness, wrath and alienation,
and that is evil. But God is pure good and does not do any evil,
neither does He order to do so.
[86]
õ iÌó ‹ôc?ó }AЎô>j÷ Ró ‹ôcUó Ô
õ
ñ }÷ A
‹ô÷ šþ÷ I­
ó ‹ô÷ TÍô n—iÒ}b˜UÐÒڎH:íénS641)
÷ ÷ó
÷
Ð|wíénS ˬÒ}={Yípd˜bY‹šþI@íï̌Yf_xE—ašUÐ:énS 223)
bdBed_xāÐë̌LĆ\Rº‹ýng˜UЍfY‡cfš—>‹hd_>
He said: And in Sûrat al-Baqara it is said: “Your wives are a
place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of
cultivation however you wish.” (2:223) In the (works of)
exegesis is said (as an explanation): Meaning, from whatever
side you wish, from the front-side or from the back-side. He
said: This is a doctrine even the animals would be ashamed of,
leave alone that God would teach it to his creatures. 154
154
DSM 44: “Dixit Machometus in Alcorano, in tractatu Vace: ‘Mulieres
vestre sunt ratio vestra, ergo intrate ad rationem vestram quocumque
modo volueritis’. Ubi dicit glosa Sarracenorum expositorum Alcorani
super istud verbum: ‘quocumque modo’, scilicet, ante et retro. Hanc
detestabilem turpdinem et inordinationem onerosam intellectus
manifeste intelligit esse contra Deum et contra rationem. Primo…
Tertio : quia lex nature iam dicta hoc detestatur et prohibet, quod patet
128
[87]
õ ó Ró ngbó d­ Jó ë÷ õlRó UŽSOÎën>
õ }YçĆ
Š´ ĻĆ
­ ó ô ]­ UÐÒڎ—UÐì|w:íénS644)
õ
øK}bUÐpLnRÚÒÌ}YÐrx{A}TÙíìô Eó ÷ Qó nð @í÷ Ûó yó õc÷f>ó ­šA
ó ô{_÷ =ó Œ÷ Yô Uó
çÐ}RÚnciÐì}TÙnYŠÉnAëjTíº‰šdh—Lçí|x퍚dh—LSí|>šA
Š@úÒÌ}CÐè}>Ûn@ŽUíénS 쎝iíoh_UÐíÌß}CÐíÌçĆ]Un=ÒÌ}CÐ
ˆR}UÐOÎՎAÌn¹ú ‰U|UŠ@}UÐè}>ÒÌ}edUÛn!ºÑŽh_UЌYÊ¡
Š@ú oh_UÐ ÓÐÙ ÒÌ}CÐ ën/ ëÌ `˜fx Š= énS
(645)
nga_\U n)
ß}CÐénA˜AnÉçÚnRÐÙΌx{wn_šCÐ{AÌëúçÚna>øíÒÚí–UÐ
nfýnBnhHnS ö{LÒÚí–UÐí
(644) He said: And in this Sûra is said: “Divorce is twice”, until
His words: “And if he has divorced her [for the third time],
then she is not lawful to him afterward until [after] she
marries a husband other than him.” (2:229-230) He then
NRLQDCQGD·@CÂQGLEQGDTLJ@KLE2®E¹Հ@@I-1RO@ϵ¡.L RKQ®I
you have tasted his drips of honey and he yours.” 155 The sum of
what he said was that he rejected separation by repudiation or on the
ground of an illness or a defect, and the like. He said: If it were
permitted to leave a woman because of some defect, then it
(also) should be permitted to a woman to leave her man for
that same reason, because she is more in need of a kind
treatment than he in view of her weakness. (645) He said: Nay,
the defect itself should be taken care of, because of the bare
need. And she should not be separated, because if one of the
two contracting partners separates from the other in the time
etiam in brutis animalibus, que non patiuntur talem inordinationem…. »
R.M. presents a more extensive version with five arguments, four of
which were probably omitted by Al-ά­F¡
155
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-shahâdât, bâb shahâdat al-mukhtabâ, and
elsewhere (Al-Qarnî).
129
of illness or bare need, he is considered to be harsh and
treacherous. 156
[88]
:5Tº‡h_”o˜—=íÌo˜HĆ=ÒÌ}CÐèG>ëÌÛn@ë΋?énS (649)
Ón@í~UÐ Šx{˜> OÎ o\`UÐí Ò}œ4Ð o˜—= ‰UÙ mRÌ Ned—CÐ pdY
ŒgT}>í Únc=úÐ ßn\šRÐí ºî}BÌ {_= Ò{AÐí Œg—hœf>í ÒE›cUÐ
æĆB ‰UÙí ºŒgýn=}SÌí Œg@ÐíÛÌí Ên—fUÐ N= ‚`˜UÐ Ôڎx ‰UÙí
ÒÊí}CÐípinh[UÐí_h˜]UЌx{UÐ
(649) He said: Moreover, if it is permitted that a woman is left
without reason or for a weak reason, as is the case in the
religion of the Muslims, then that will lead , because of their
abandonment and the (ensuing) wrath, to the exchange and
defilement of many women, one after the other, and to the
deflowering of many virgins and their abandonment (as well).
That will create hatred between women and their husbands
and relatives, which is contrary to the natural law and the to
the (rules of) protection and honour.
156
SM 42-44: “Lex super repudio. Dizit Mahometus in Alcorano, in
tractatu Vace: Repudium uxorum vestrarum licet vobis bis, etcetera; si
aliquis repudiaverit uxorem suam tertio, non licet ei reducere eam
quousque uxor cognoscatur ab alio viro. Secundum hanc legem
Sarracenus potestdimitter uxorem vel uxores suas sine omni causa et
ratione legitima quocumque vult. Quodquam inconveniens sit et
iniquum patet ex hoc : Est manifeste contra legem naturalem et contra
rationem quoniam vir et uxor non adimpar iudicantur quantum ad
contratum ; et quod licet viro devet licere uxori quantum ad legem
contracti non sit ancilla vel subjecta, sed potius equalis et socia ; et
insuper propter sui sexus fragilitatem in culpis et in penis cum eis
mitius est agendum. Legem predictam Sarraceni non faciunt sed potius
totum contrarium.
130
[89]
Ć=ŒghdLçĆ]UÐâŽSŽ=Ên—fUЋdKëŽcxnY{IÌnYn\xÌíénS653)
oiÙ
He said: there is no harder injustice against women than the
REPUDIATION pronounced against them without having
committed any sin.
[90]
EB‹^L̎wï|UЊ—fUÐân]biÐOÎĿaxÐ|wëlRn\xÌíénS 654)
ºŒgbd]xín_=ÚÌÕí~šxëÌêŽhUÐ:‹gfY{AÐíŠcUێ«ÙÎÕÐí~UÐ:
ÊĆb_UÐ pfH q—hU ì|wí ºinYÛ h+ : ‰U|T ŒwEQ n_=ÚÌ |Bjxí
.Ee"ÐíÑĆcUÐpfHŠ=º}wЎ_UÐíÚnœaUÐpfHŠ=ÊnaLúÐí
(654) He said: This also leads to the breaking off of procreation
which is the greatest blessing of marriage, because it allows
everyone of them to marry four and repudiate them on the
same day, and also to take four other women at every time.
This is not the lifestyle of the intelligent and virtuous but of
the insolent and adulterers, nay the lifestyle of dogs and
donkeys!
[91]
OÎ ngSĆJ {_= ÒÌ}CÐ âŽ@Ú ‡SŽ> fIÌí y˜SÌ nY n\xÌí énS 655)
æĆB‰UÙíºÒÌ}CÐíŠ@}UÐai‰Uُ=j>ÙκìEQÖnciDLng@íÛ
{HúnT ڎh]UÐí ÑÐí{UÐ ŒY E›T OÎ Š= ÜnfUÐ OÎ p˜—fUn= p_h˜]UÐ
›iÌ OÎ î{_šx ø âЎiúÐ ì|w ÞnžIÌ ŒY {AÐí ŠT ëlR ºÑ{UÐí
}BùÐ
How ugly and detestable also is the conditon that a woman,
after a separation, cannot return to her husband without a
131
prior marriage to another man, as this is (even) refused by
both men and women themselves. It is also against nature with
respect to mankind, nay even to many animals and birds, like
the lion and the bear, because every individual of these kinds
does not assault the female of the other.
[92]
p_šYŒLÜn˜LŒ=ЊþHénS ‹d—YŒY‰HnfCÐÑnšT:íénS 657)
énSº}=n@ŒLE=~UÐ-̌LfYÖncfUÐÑnšT:íºnghRB}Rs"Ð
}TÙí ºāÐ éŽHÚ {gL DL ºˆhS{UÐí }ešUÐ ŒY p\˜bUn= šeš—i nfT
énSN[A 658)Œ=ëÐ}eLrx{Aíºfg!ÐÒFHŒ= h=}UÐrx{A
ëË}S é~fx 3í āÐ éŽHÚ Y nwnfd_aR ºāÐ ÑnšT : p_šCÐ pxË qU~iÌ
Ð|wŒYÚ|SÌpHnœiíÌpZAnRŠgRénS ˬÓnYšAngfLfx3íngY}²
Ð|w n)i~hR=•}>nYÒÌ}CЏ]_xën—iüÐâØÈÑĆcUÐ:Š_aUÐ
p_šCÐ ŽwÐ|wí āÐ}YÌø ën]hZUÐ }YÌÐ|w ºEQøni~UÐ
(659) â~fY
¤2»Ûnœ"Њw̌YE›Tíº‰UٌYëŽacfš—xNed—CЌYÊĆb_UÐí
ëùÐOÎnghdLëŽSn=pcYí
(657) And in the Book of the Ceremonies of the Pilgrimage in
the work of Muslim it goes that Ibn ԞAbbâs was asked about the
the marriage of pleasure (the temporary marriage) during the
Pilgrimage for which he conceded permission.157 And in the
Book of Marriage of the same work is said on the authority of
Abû al-Zubayr from Jâbir: We used to practice the marriage of
Muslim, kitâb al- ͥajj wa-al-Ԟumra, trad. 145. DSM 44: “Lex super
conductionem mulierum. Dicitur in libro qui vocatur Muzlim quod
Machometus concessit et licentiavit suis quod possent conducere
mulieres ad cognoscendam eas ut ad certum terminum et tunc ipsas
dimittere pro voluntate sua. »
157
132
pleasure in exchange for a handful of dates or flour in the time
of the Envoy of God. 158 He thereby quoted the ͥadîth of al-RabîԞ
ibn Sabara al-Juhanî and that (658) of ԞImrân ibn ͤaΣîn who
said: The verse of temporary marriage was revealed in the
Book of God, whereupon we acted accordingly together with
the Envoy of God. No (other) Koranic verse was revealed to
prohibit this and he did not forbid this until he died. 159 He said:
Is there a more filthy scandalous deed than this practice
among dogs? Leave aside a man giving a woman what she
desires and committing adultery with her. This is the (clear)
intent of committing (659) adultery, nothing else. This is an
order of Satan, not an order of God. This is the mutԞa in reality.
Intelligent Muslims prohibit that practice, but many of the
inhabitants of the ͤijâz and of Mecca continue to practise it up
till the present day.
[93]
ëΐ˜fUÐénSénSÒ}x}w-̌LïÚnž˜UЌYˆš_UÐÑnšT:íénS661)
º‹dc>í̍=Še_>3nYnwÚí{ɍ=qHŽHí5LšYúÛín9āÐ
(661) He said: And in al-Bukhârî’s Book of Manumission from
Abû Hurayra it is said: The Prophet said: God disregards for my
community what their hearts incite them to do, as long as they
do not act accordingly or talk thereof. 160
[94]
‹?Š@}UÐ Yn«ë̎wíénS Ên—fUЌLé~_UÐrxØnAÌ}TÙí662)
DLÚnLéÙÚyh˜SŽwíénSºn@ÚnBfCЏbdhRºng@}RŒLì}TÙé~_x
dLnR
Muslim, kitâb al-K®H¹· A¹AK®H¹·@I-mutՀa (Al-Qarnî).
Muslim, kitâb al-ͥajj, bâb jawâz al-tamattuԞ, trad. 172 (al-Qarnî). DSM
44: “Et ista lex duravit tempore vite sue nec in morte revocavit eam. »
160
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-Հitq, bâb al-HG@Ϗ@Ÿ T@-al-nisyan fî al-Հitâqa (AlQarnî).
158
159
133
(662) And he mentioned the traditions of coitus interruptus (in sexual
intercourse with) women, saying: That is when the man has
intercourse and then withdraws his penis from her vulva,
ejaculating the sperm outside. He added: That is an ugly and
despicable deed, a shame for him who commits it. 161
[95]
õ õi ŒYõ pó Zó Ana
õ U÷ Ð N
­ Ên—fUÐ ÒڎH :í énS 665)
OÎ ‹ô÷ cýn—
ó õ>j÷ xó .õ ĆUÐí
÷
õ ¹nh
õ õ>j÷ x ëÐ|
õ U­ ÐíUŽS
ô Ùô vRó ‹ô÷ c÷fYn
iÌîÙúÐ:ëí’aCЍUnSnY}TÙínªí
ó
іUÐí º{hUÐí ën—dUn= ŠhfUÐ íÌ Êna!Ðí o—UÐ íÌ ºzh=ŽšUÐí Eh_šUÐ
â5š@ÐÚ|_š=NhiÐ~UÐ e]Uni~dUE›c>Ð|w:íénS 쎝iíºén_fUn=
ø ÙÎ p=Žb_UÐ ì|w ‡_\Uí ºnª}Jí nh\bx šA ºn˜UnQ ؎gI p_=ÚÌ
o\`Y }YÌ ˆd#Ð : LŽSí ni~UÐ phL í Š_aUÐ Ð|w ŒL ngd›Y }@~x
ºÑnb_UÐ{x{Z>‹—²ë̐`˜fhR]žH퍚ebiéŽdAo@ŽYíºÑ}dU
ÐÚØniøÎ bxøšA
(665) He said: And in Sûrat al-Nisâ’:: “Those who commit
unlawful sexual intercourse of your women…” until His words:
“And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both.”
(4:15-16). And he related what the exegetes say about al-adhâ
(dishonouring), viz. that it is putting shame upon them and
rebuking them, or insulting them and treating them in a rough
manner, or reaching out to them verbally or physically, as well
as hitting them with slippers, and the like. He said: in this
161
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-nikâͥ, bâb al-Ԟazl (al-Qarnî). DSM 44: “Lex de
effusione seminis extra vas debitum. Machometus concessit et
licenciavit suis quod possent iacere cum mulieribus sic quod
effunderent semen extra vas debitum. Et super hoc sunt multe historie
et dicta Machometi in libris qui vocantur Muzlim et Bochari. Quod, cum
manifeste sit contra legem divinam et contra bonum prolis, non indiget
alia probatione. »
134
there lies an increase of adultery and of the desire of the
adulterers, because of the impossibility of bringing together
four witnesses in most cases, with the result that their goal will
be realised. And because of the weakness of this punishment,
as it does not prevent this act and (in fact) legalizes adultery,
its occurrence among men is infuriating the Lord and a cause
of the descendance of His revenge and His wrath. Therefore,
the punishment needs to be hardened, so that (tis crime) will
only occur rarely.
[96]
énbRāÐéŽHÚéjHĆ@Úë̋dȞ={xیLjJŽCÐ:íénS 671)
‹? nwÚÐÛÎ {ZšU āÐ éŽHÚ énbR ȂýnA wí .Ì}YÐ ŒY < Š² nY
nwĆLj=‰ijI
(671) He said: And in al-Muwaέέa' (it is related) “from Zayd ibn
Aslam that a man asked the Envoy of God saying: What (part)
of my wife is permitted to me when she is menstruating? The
Envoy of God answered: Tighten her trousers and go about her
upper part. 162
[97]
éŽH}UénSÒØn˜LŒ={_Hë̋d—YŒY‹@}UÐÑnšT:íénS 673)
p_=Új= .Ë šA dgYÌ Ć@Ú .Ì}YÐ Y Ó{@í ©Ì ŽU qxÌÚÌ āÐ
‹_iāÐéŽHڍUénSÈÊÐ{gI
(673) He said: in the Book of Stoning of Muslim it is said that
SaԞd ibn ԞUbâda said to the Envoy of God: What is your view
when I find a man with my woman? Shall I grant him respite
until I can come with four witnesses? The Envoy of God
answered him: Yes.
Al-Muwaέέa, bâb mâ yaͥillu li-al-rajul min imra’atihi wa-hiya ͥâ’i͍
(Al-Qarnî).
162
135
[98]
ø āÐí énbR deš—x Ên@ rhA HŽY -Ì rx{A :í énS 674)
-āÐíniÌíº‹cd1āЊ=º‹cšd1niÌnYénbRìŽUj—R ‹gd1‹?‹cd1Ì
ŒLÓ}aTøÎngfYŒ—AÌnwEQîÚjRNexDL‡dAÌø -āÐÊnIëÎ
EBŽwï|UÐqh>Ìífhex
(674) He said: And in the ͥadîth of Abû Mûsa when he came
asking him to provide him with a camel to carry him, he said:
By God, I do not carry you, but he then (in fact) carried them.
So they asked him and he said: I did not carry you but God
carried you. And I –God willing- do not swear an oath (to do
something or refrain from doing something) without expiating
my oath when I see a better possibility and act accordingly. 163
[99]
L{Bped—YŒ={e7ëÌíºæ úЌ=o_TŠšSrx{A}TÙí 677)
êƗUЍhdL-˜fUÐëÙl=‰UÙíºdšbRfYŒcešHЏšA 678)
(677) And he mentioned the ͥadîth of the killing of KaԞb ibn al-Ashraf
and that Muͥammad ibn Maslama cheated him (678) so that he
obtained access to him, whereupon he killed him, and that with the
permission of the Prophet (p). 164
[100]
oL}Un=ÓWiM˜S{Ǎg]_x3n—2qh]LÌrx{A}TÙí 681)
3í‹ýnf`UÐ<qdAÌíºÐڎgJíÐ{œ—YßÚúÐ<qd_@íº}gIÒE—Y
163
164
Al-Bukhârî in several places (Al-Qarnî, p. 674, note 3).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-rahn, bâb al-rahn al-P®I¹·!I-Qarnî).
136
YŽS OÎ r_˜x ˜i ŠTí ºpLnaZUÐ qh]LÌí ºM˜S {Aú
682)ŠĻ
pYnLÜnfUÐOÎq›_=í pÉnB
(681) And he related the ͥadîth: I have been given five things that
were not given to anyone before me. I was assisted by (the
installing of) fear at a traveling distance of one month. Also,
the earth was made to me a place of prayer and a pure space.
Moreover, (the taking of) spoils was permitted to me, but it
was not permitted (682) to anyone before me. Also, I was given
intercession. And every prophet was sent to his (own) people
especially, but I was sent to mankind in general. 165
[101]
ÑÍn›šUÐì}cxíºÜn]_UÐo²āÐëÎ-êƗUЍhdL-UŽS}TÙí682)
nY ìØEdR ‹T{AÌÑÊn›> ÐÙlR ën]hZUЌY ŽgR ÑÍn›šUÐ nYÌí UŽS OÎ
ën]hZUЍfY‰”ÑÊn›>ÐÙ΍ilRân]šHÐ
And he mentioned his words (p): God likes sneezing but hates
yawning, until his words: as for yawning, it is from Satan. Thus,
when one of you yawns, let him try to withhold that as much
as he can, because Satan is laughing about him when he yawns.
166
[102]
ø‹ciÎénSí pa[UÐí =nÉúЈ_d=}YÌāÐéŽHÚëÌ}TÙí 684)
ºngb_dxšAì{xy—exĆR‹T{ÅTÌÐÙ΍UŽSí pTFUЍxö Ì:ëíÚ{>
ng—ex ëÌ Š˜S ì{x ˆ_dxí =nÉÌ Ôƛ= ŠTjx ënT iÌí ngb_dx íÌ
ŠTÌ {fL 얲 šA Ê¡ ŠT {fL ‹T{AÌ –² ën]hZUÐ ëÎ UŽSí
165
Al-Bukhârî, in the beginning of kitâb al-tayammum, and elsewhere
(Al-Qarnî).
166
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb bad’al-khalq, bâb Σifat Iblîs wa-junûdihi, and
elsewhere (al-Qarnî).
137
685)‹?ºîÙ̌Yn)nYƒehdRpebdUЋT{ǍYƒbHÐÙlRºYn_J
._=nÉ̈_dhdRã}RÐÙÎíën]hZdUngL{xøíºngdTjhU
(684) And he related that the Envoy of God ordered to lick both the
fingers and the bowl. He said: You do not know in which of these
(fingers) there is blessing. 167 And (he related) also his words: When
someone of you eats, let him not wipe off his hand before
having licked it or licked them, 168 and that he used to eat with
three fingers and to lick his hand before whiping it off. 169 (He
also quoted) his words: Satan keeps the company of everyone of
you in every matter, even when eating your food. Thus, when
anyone of you drops a morsel, let him wipe off any harmful
matter from it, then (685) eat it and not leave it for Satan, and
let him lick his fingers after having finished. 170 [103]
odcUÐí ÒÌ}CÐí Ú5"Ð ÒĆ[UÐ ]bx ÚÙ -Ì rx{A }TÙí 685)
. ën]hI؎HúÐodcUÐénSíºØŽHúÐ
And he related the ͥadîth of Abû Dharr: The Σalât is broken by a
donkey, a woman and a black dog. He added: The black dog is a
devil. 171
167
Muslim, kitâb al-ashriba, bâb istiͥbâb laԞq al-aΣâbiԞ (al-Qarnî).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-aέԞima, bâb laԞq al-aΣâbiԞ (al-Qarnî). DSM 46: “Lex
de modo comendi. Dicitur in libro qui vocatur Muzlim, in tractatu
Ciborum, quod Machometus mandavit suis quod lamberent digitos et
parapsidem. Et dicunt alibi quod Machometus dixit: Quando comederit
aliquis vestrum non tergat manum suam quousque lambat aut suggat
eam aut lambat eam sibi aliquis. Et ipse Machometus lambebat manum
suam et antequam ipsam tergeret. Hoc autem inmundum et bestiale ac
ridiculosum est. »
169
Muslim, kitâb al-ashriba, bâb istiͥbân laԞq al-aΣâbiԞ wa-maΣΣihâ (alQarnî).
170
Muslim, kitâb al-@PGO®A@ A¹A ®PQ®·A¹A I@ՀN @I-@υ¹A®Հ @KC DIPDTGDOD
(al-Qarnî).
171
Muslim, kitâb al-υ@I¹Q A¹A J¹ Q@V@PP@O@ @I-JRυ@IIÂ DSM 32: “Item
dixit quod canis niger est diabolus.” R.M. transferred only this short
168
138
[104]
ö
(690):BÚ{SíénS
rx{"Їdš8:p˜hšSŒ=ЌL }TÙí (689)
Ên”ÚÎ :í ºÜnfUÐ N= ÖĆÉüÐ ;í ºpL{B iú Ñ}"Ð : Ñ|cUÐ
DLænBí̺‹dKÐÙκʡO΍fhex:ïڎxë́BÚíºdẘ@}UÐ
: p[B}UÐ ÓÊn@í adš—Y îŽi nY EQ ïŽfx ëÌ pxڎšUÐí —ai
Ñ|cUЌLpAí{fYnghRëΊhSí‚xÚn_CÐ
And he related from Ibn Qutaiba’s Mukhtalaf al-ͥadîth, saying: And
he conceded permission to lie in warfare because that is a form
of cheating, and also in making peace between people, or when
a man wants to conciliate his family. He also conceded
permission to to simulate in an oath something in case one is
oppressed or has to fear for one’s life. Such a concession was
also granted in the case of ambiguous language. It was said that
(in using such language) there is an ample scope to avoid lying.
172
[105]
©}S DL d]> eZUÐ ëÎ F#Ðí }^fUÐ =|cx rx{A énS (691)
Ê5—UÐ OÎ †d˜> nií}S ën]hZdU Ўd_œR ˬngLŽd]U Ўd[> ĆR ën]hI
Y‹wíºhi}SN=ï}9ÓÐ}YßÚúЊ›YwšUÐeZUÐЎd_@í
én"Ðì|w:ŽgRê{UÐî}6êØˌ=ЌYï}«ën]hZUÐëÌëŽeL~xÐ|w
è}>pdLЎd_@íºÊ¡ŠTŒY‹^LÌén"Љd>:íÊ¡ŠTŒY‡]UÌ
passage from the discussion of the first condition (« veracity ») to that
of the fourth condition of prophecy, as a mere gloss, viz. to explain the
meaning of « the black dog » as a synonym of the Devil, leaving out the
remainder of the ͥadîth.
172
Al-Qarnî refers to Ta’wîl Mukhtalaf al-ͥadîth, pp. 34-35.
139
āM[CÐDLnYíºhi}SN=ŒYngLŽdJeZUÐâŽdJqSí:ºÒĆ[UÐ
ÒĆ[UЌY fexn,Ð|w:nYíÈën]hZUЩ}SN=eZUÐq@}BÐÙÎ
Èā
(691) He said: A ͥadîth refuted by reflection as well as by
tradition is: “he sun rises on the two horns of a Satan, so do not
pray at sunrise. 173 They attribute horns to Satan reaching into
Heaven and they let the Sun which is many times the size of
the earth go forth between his horns. Nevertheless, they think
that Satan is as close to a human being as his own blood. In the
latter case, he is very subtle, but in the former he is of an
enormous size, bigger than anything else. They make the time
of the rising of the sun from between his horns the cause of the
prohibition to perform the prayer. But how does it affect
someone who prays to God, when the sun rises between the
horns of Satan? What is there in this which prevents him from
praying to God?
[106]
fYq=}b>nLÐÚِfYÑ}b>ŒYÚÙ-ÌíÒ}x}w-Ìrx{A}TÙí (701)
.pUí}wšh>ÌVex©n>̌YíºnLn=
And he mentioned the ͥadîth of Abû Huraira and Abû Dharr:
Whosoever approaches me one armlength, I will approach him
one fathom, and whosoever comes to me walking, I will come
to him in quick pace. 174
[107]
}aQn=n—šAÐíni5xÎÚ{bUÐpdhU‹bxŒYÒ}x}w-Ìrx{A;íénS (706)
U}aQn=n—šAÐíni5xÎën\YÚênɌYrx{A}TÙ퍘iٌYê{b>nYU
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb bad’al-HG@IN A¹Aυ®E@Q)AIÂPT@-junûdihi (al-Qarnî).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-tawͥîd, bâb qawl Allâh taԞâlâ: wayuͥadhdhirukum Allâhu nafsahu (al-Qarnî).
173
174
140
fhYj>ˆRÐíŒeRºÐŽfYö jRênYüЌYö ÌÐÙ΍UŽSíº˜iٌYê{b>nY (707)
êŽxŠ—šQЌYë5dHrx{A퍘iٌYê{b>nYU}aQpcýĆCÐNYn>
N=ífh=nYU}aQUŽSOÎrx{"Ð}gJŒYân]šHÐ5=}g]>íºp_e!Ð
ênxÌp_˜HŠT:Š—š`xë̋d—YŠTDLˆAUŽSíî}BúÐp_e!Ð
ŒYéŽbx˜fUÐq_eH˜L-Ìrx{Aíì{—@íHÌڍhRŠ—`xnYŽx
āsAŒYUŽSí ÚnfUÐDLāЍY}AāЊh˜H: ìnY{SÓFQÐ (708)
˜fUÐénSénSÚÙ-Ìrx{AíY̍>{UíêŽhT @ڈ—ax3írR}x‹dR
ÓnYŒYỉšYÌP=énSºÒ}"n=ŠxF@©FB̋dHíhdLāÐDÉ
‹_i énS Èç“ ëÎí niÛ ëÎí qdS pf!Ð ŠBØ nþhI ān= èPx ø
©ÐWfUÐ}TÙí(709) }e#ÐÑ ëÎíp›Un›UÐ:énSšAºn?Ć?nwÚ}T
ān=èPxø‰šY̌YÓnYŒYŠxF@<énSrx{dU}B˄aU:
{xÚÌíºn)ŽL{xҎLؐ˜iŠcUUŽSíÚnfUЊB{x3ípf!ЊB{hHnþhI
ëŽ_—>í p_—> ā UŽSí .Ò}BùÐ : šYú pLnaI .ŽLØ ÿ˜šBÌ ëÌ
DÉ ŒY UŽSí pf!Ð ŠBØ øÎ {AÌ ng^a² ø ºÐ{AÐí øÎ pýnY º5HÐ
N?Ć?ín?Ć?ÒĆɊT}=Ø:āÐy˜HŒYUŽSípf!ЊB،xØFUÐ
}˜UÐ {=Û Š›Y (710) qinT ëÎí ìnxn]B fL Ó}aT UŽS OÎ rx{"Ð
.āЍ@í‰U|=`š˜x āÐø΍UÎøénSŒYÚnfUÐDLê}A{SUŽSí
141
šUÐp_=ÚúÐàíPUЌYÊ¡hR{@Žx3iÌ}gK{bR©ÐWfUÐénS‹?
˜fUÐ:{@Ž>ëÌ-{=øí-`˜fx
(706) He said !KC ®K QGD ·@CÂQG LE !AÌ (RO@VO@ ®Q ®P P@®C
Whosoever stays awake during Laylat al-Qadr in faith and in
expectation of a reward in the Hereafter, his past sins will be
forgiven. 175 (D @IPL NRLQDC QGD ·@CÂQG: Whosoever fasts during
Ramadan in faith and in expectation of a reward in the
Hereafter (707), his past sins will be forgiven. 176 He also quoted
[the Prophet’s] words: When the imam says: Amen, you have to
say: Amen, as well. Whosoever says Amen at the same moment
when the angels say Amen as well, his past sins will be forgiven
for him. 177 (D@IPLNRLQDCQGD·@CÂQGLE3@IJ¹K Whosoever washes
himself on Friday and purifies himself as much as possible, and
QGD ODPQ LE QGD QDUQ LE QG®P ·@CÂQG RKQ®I G®P TLOCP “his sins
committed between that Friday and the previous one will be
forgiven for him. 178 He also quoted [the Prophet’s] words: It is the
duty of every Muslim that he washes his head and body once
every seven days. 179 !KC;@IPL=QGD·@CÂQGLE!A̞!AP I heard the
Prophet say: Whosoever (708) covers his feet with dust in God’s
way, will be kept away from Hell by God. 180 And his words:
Whosoever goes on pilgrimage to God without committing any
obscenity or depravation, will return to the state wherein his
mother gave birth to him. 181 And the ͥadîth of Abû Dharr: Gabriel
informed me in the ͤarra: Tell your community that
whosoever dies without attributing any partner to God, will
enter Paradise. I said: Even if he had committed adultery or
Al-"RHG¹OÂ ADF®KK®KFLEH®Q¹AE@ͯII@VI@Q@I-qadr (al-Qarnî).
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-υ@TJ A¹A J@K υ¹J@ 2@J@ͯ¹K ÂJ¹K@K T@·Q®P¹A@K@I-Qarnî).
177
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-âdhân, bâb jahr al-imâm bi-al-ta’mîn (al-Qarnî).
178
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-jumՀa, bâb lâ yufarraq baina ithnain yawm al¯RJՀ@@I-Qarnî).
179
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-jumՀa, bâb man lam yashhad al-¯RJՀ@FGRP®I@J®K
al-nisâ’wa-al-υ®AV¹K(al-Qarnî).
180
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-jumՀa, bâb al-mashy ilâ al-¯RJՀ@@I-Qarnî).
181
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-·@¯¯ A¹AE@ͯI@I-·@¯¯@I-mabrûr (al-Qarnî).
175
176
142
had stolen? He answered: Yes, indeed. This he repeated three
times, while in the third time even adding: even when he had
been drinking wine. 182 (709) And the Christian said: In another
wording of the ͥadîth, he said: Whosoever of your community
dies without acknowledging anything as God’s partner, will
enter Paradise and not enter Hell.183 And his words: Every
prophet has an invocation, but I want to conceal my invocation
in order to intercede for my community in the Hereafter. 184
And his words: God has ninety-nine names, i.e. a hundred but
one. Whosoever memorizes these will enter Paradise. 185 And his
words: Whosoever performs the prayers of the early morning
and of the evening, will enter Paradise. 186 And his words:
Whosoever praises God following each prayer thirty-three
times, followed by the rest of the ͥadîth until his words: I will
liberate him from his sins, even if they are (710) as numerous
as the foam of the sea. 187 And his words: Whosoever says: There
is no god but God, seeking thereby God’s face, will be exempted
from entering Hell. 188
The Christian then said: Thus it has become apparent that
nothing of the four conditions that have to be found in any
prophet, are found in him.
[108]
Ò}x}w-Ìrx{AŒY ‹d—Y îíÚnYbA;‰UÙO΋\fxíénS 714)
ëÌ:-ÚqiÙjšHÐénbRºUŽAŒYc=Ìíc˜RYÌFS˜fUÐÚÐÛénS
182
Al-Bukhârî in several places (al-Qarnî).
See below, note 188.
184
Muslim, kitâb al-îmân, bâb ikhtibâ’ al-K@AÂ C@ՀT@Q @I-PG@E¹Հ@ I®ummatihi (al-Qarnî).
185
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-C@Հ@T¹Q A¹A I®II¹G® J®Ÿ@Q ®PJ FG@®O T¹·®C @KC
elsewhere (al-Qarnî).
186
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb mawâqît al-υ@I¹Q A¹AE@ͯIυ@I¹Q@I-fajr (al-Qarnî).
187
Muslim, kitâb al-J@P¹¯®C A¹A ®PQ®·A¹A @I-CG®HO A@ՀC@ @I-υ@I¹Q @IQarnî).
188
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-υ@I¹Q A¹A@I-masâjid fî al-buyût (al-Qarnî).
183
143
éŽHÚnxénbRāÐéŽHÚOΊ@ÚÊn@énSí<ëÙkx‹dRn4}a`šHÌ
ÚnfUÐ:èn=Ìí-ÌëÎénSÈ-̌xÌāÐ
He said: 4LQG®PPGLRICAD@CCDCBLKBDOK®KFG®JQGD·@CÂQh of
Abû Huraira related by Muslim: The Prophet visited the grave
of his mother and wept, causing to weep [also] the people
around him. He said: I asked God permission to pray for
forgiveness for her, but He did not grant me permission. 189 He
[also] said: A man approached the Envoy of God and asked him:
O, Envoy of God, where is my father? He answered: My father
and your father are in Hell. 190
[109]
øí hdL é~ijR ÈïЎ=Ì Š_R nY ï}_I qhU n\xÌ énSí énS 715)
õ É÷ Ìó Œ÷ Ló Šô þó —ô÷ >
÷ Ñn
‹õ hõ ó!Ð
He said: He also said: If I only knew what my parents did?
Thereupon was revealed to him [the verse]: ‘Thou wilt not be
questioned about the inhabitants of Hell’ (2:119). 191
[110]
ïÚõ Ø÷ Ìó nYíUŽbToh`UЋd_xøiÌqfe\>šUÐގ[fUÐ}TÙí(716)
÷ Œó Yõ Ó
Eõ ÷ ó#Ð
ô }÷ ›ó c÷ šó H÷ øó o
ó h÷ `ó U÷ Ћô dó L÷ Ìó q÷ô fTô Ž÷ Uó íUŽSí‹ô÷ cõ=øí-õ Šô _ó a÷ xô nY
ºPUÐofš@ÐíºE#Ðodš@øoh`UЋd_xënTŽUiÌFBjRénS (717)
nð _a÷ ió ¢õ a÷ ófõU ‰ô õdY÷ Ìó øUŽbTí U`˜fx5=}Y̊cU{_šHÐí
Цøí
ă ó
õ ó {÷õ fL
õ ‹ôcUó éŽ
ô Sô Ìó øíUŽSí
ø©¬ õΊ÷ Sô UŽSío
ó ÷h`ó U÷ Ћô dó L÷ Ìó øíõ­āЌô ýÐ~Bï
÷
Muslim, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb isti’dhân al-K@AÂ υ O@AA@GR Հ@WW@ T@jalla fî ziyârat qabr ummihi (al-Qarnî).
190
Muslim, kitâb al-ÂJ¹K A¹AA@V¹K@KK@J@KJ¹Q@Հ@I¹@I-kufr fa-huwa
fî al-nâr (al-Qarnî).
191
Al-Qarnî refers to the Tafsîr of Al-ώ@A@rî and other sources.
189
144
õ
¦
ëŽcx5=F¶Ð{e7ë̋LیYpZýnLéŽSíÐð {Ió ÚøíÐ
ó
ă ó ‹ô÷ cUó ‰ô dY÷ Ìó
õ
ÓÐí5
—UÐ
­ :õ Œ÷ Yó ‹ô dó _÷ xó ø Š÷ Sô éŽbx āÐí āÐ DL px}aUÐ ‹^LÌ {bR
õ Ú÷ óúÐí
÷
.ô­āÐø­ õÎo
ó ÷h`ó U÷ Ðß
(716) And he mentioned the texts that convey [the message] that he
did not know the Unseen, like his words: “Nor know I what will be
done with me or with you” (46:9), and his words: “Had I
knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of
blessing” (7:188). (717) He said: He thus related that if he would
know the Unseen, he would attract blessing and repulse evil in
order to prepare for everything in an adequate manner.
Similarly, he also said: “For myself I have no power to benefit,
nor power to hurt” (7:188), and: “I say not unto you: I have the
treasures of God nor: I have knowledge of the Unseen” (10:31),
and: “I control not hurt nor benefit for you” (72:21), as well as
the words of ‘Â’isha: 7GLPLDSDO BI@®JP QG@Q -R·@JJ@C
predicts the future, lies against God. 192 Moreover, God [Himself]
says: “Say: None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the
Unseen save God” (27:65).
[111]
DL WfUn= {AÌ êŽx Ned—edU ì{Lí ‰UÙ OÎ ‹\fxí énS 720)
ӒciÐíŽwÖ}@íЎY~wíЎdšbR ‹wFBÌnYæƞ=ëncRº‹wí{L
UŽb=‹ghUÎÚ|šLЍ=|TN˜>nC‹?g@í:}a`CЈdAŠBØíºšhLn=Ú
õ
õ ó h=Úõ _Y Šóó >nS õ˜óiŒYõ Œxjóó Tí
õ õ˜Hó :õ ‹÷ )nÉ
nYíõ­āÐ Šh
ó Ró Eñ ›óT ëŽ
´¬ ô ó ó
ô ó Ìó nCЎôfwó í5
Ą ÷ ÷ ¬
pxùÐ146ëÐ}eLéË ÐŽôincóšHÐ
÷ nYó íЎaô _ô ”ó
192
Muslim, kitâb al-imân, bâb maՀnâ qawl Allâh: wa-laqad ra’âhu
nazlatan ukhrâ (al-Qarnî).
145
NY{bšCÐÊnh˜iúÐëlR ŠJn=iúºì{Lí‡dBŒYy˜SÌìÚÐ|šLÐíénS
NLŽiDL
Ênh_IÌíÊnhYÚÐíénhS~AŠ›YâŽZ#ÐípaJĆCÐíNdUn=ÐíÊn@nª{AÌ
ÚnacUÐ ‹wÍÐ{LÌ Š= ºìŽeÉnB øí ºÐ{AÌ ÐŽ=Ún² 3 ‹wŽií
ŠšS øí Ñ}A : ‹gfY {AÌ Ššbx3í ‹wŽdšSí ‹wŽ=|_R ‹wŽa_\šHÐ
ÊÐ{LúÐDLڎg^UÐíºāÐ{fLŒY{hxjšUn=ÐíÊn@©n›UÐ (721) FA_Y
nYŽxê~wøíÑ}A:‹gfY{Åšbx3íºNTPCÐЎ_ebR‹4}gbUÐí
ë5hdHíØíÐØíHŽYŠ›YFAøí-ڍ_YŠšSøíºÐ{AÐí
Œx|w {AÌ ŒY hU iÌ qedL º{e7 éЎAÌ qdYj> ÐÙÎ qiÌí énS
{xÌøíéíúÐâŽfUЌYëŽchRâŽ\BøíâŽZž=Ójx3iúºNLŽfUÐ
©n›UÐâŽfUЌYëŽchRìÊÐ{LÌn)}gbxÒ~œ_e=
dhœiÎ : énS rhA yh—CÐ ni{hH fL Ú|A ï|UÐ âŽfUÐ ŒY Žw ‹_i
ëj\UÐ Ün˜U : ‹ciŽ>jx Œx|UÐ ºN=Ð|cUÐ Ênh˜iúÐ ŒL ÐíÚ|Ļ }wn]UÐ
‹¹ŽR}_>‹*Ð}e?ŒYíºpaJnBÑnýٌJn˜UÐ:‹wí
He said: To this must be added his promise to the Muslims of
QGDS®BQLOVLSDOQGD®ODKDJVLKQGDC@VLE5·RC4GDLRQBLJD
was the contrary of what he had told them. They were killed
and put to flight, while he was wounded and his canine was
broken and the chains of his coat of mail penetrated into his
face. But when his lie became manifest, he apologized to them
saying: ‘And with how many a prophet have there been a
number of devoted men who fought [beside him]. They quailed
146
not for aught that befell them in the way of God, nor did they
weaken’, to the end of the verse (3:146).
He said: His apology was more rejectable than not having kept
his promise, because it was false. The arlier prophets were of
two kinds. Those of the first kind came with gentleness,
kindness and modesty, like Ezechiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah etcetera,
who did not wage war or quarrel with anyone. On the contrary,
their infidel enemies suppressed them, tortured them and
killed them. None of them was killed in a war, and no priest
was killed in his company. (721) Those of the second type came
with God’s [direct] support to overcome their enemies and
subject them. So they subdued the polytheists. None of them
was killed in a war, neither was any priest or pious man killed
in their company, like Moses, David and Solomon.
He said: )EVLRBLKP®CDOQGD B®OBRJPQ@KBDPLE-R·@JJ@C VLR
know that he did not belong to either of these types: he
brought no reverence or humility characteristic of the first
type, neither was he assisted by a miracle to subdue his
enemies in order to belong to the second type. Nay, he
belonged to the type of which our Lord Christ warned when he
said in his Holy Gospel: “Beware of false prophets who come to
you in the cloths of sheep, while in their inner they are
rapacious wolves. They will be known from their fruits.” 193
[112]
Š_axi̍hUΊh¶ënTšAº}H˜fUÐëÎpZýnLrx{A}TÙí (729)
d_axøíÊVUÐ
And he mentioned the tradition of ‘Â’isha: The Prophet was so
enchanted that he imagined that he did something while he
did not do it [at all]. 194
193
194
See above, text 1.
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-;έibb, bâb al-siͥr (al-Qarnî).
147
[113]
ڎ˜S Ðí|ĺÐ îÚn[fUÐí ؎ghUÐ āÐ Œ_U pZýnL rx{A }TÙí (729)
|žšxëÌVBiÌEQºìFSÛ}=ú‰UÙøŽdRqUnSº{@n—Y‹gýnh˜iÌ
Ð{œ—YìFS
And he mentioned the tradition of ‘Â’isha: May God curse the Jews
and the Christians for having adopted the graves of their
prophets as places of worship. She said: Were it not for that
reason, he would have made his grave in a more prominent
way; however, he was afraid that his grave would be adopted
as a place of worship. 195
[114]
ï|UÐên_]UÐ3Ì{@ÌéÐÛÌnY”}Y:-êƗUЍhdL-UŽS}TÙí (732)
ï})Ì ]SëÐíÌÐ|gR Fhž=qdTÌ
And he mentioned his words – peace be upon him- during his illness: I
still feel the pain of the food I ate at Khaybar. This was the time
of the slitting of my life vein. 196
[115]
āÐ éŽHÚ –A nC énS Ün˜L Œ=Ð ŒL ïÚnž˜UÐ rx{A }TÙí (733)
énbRì{_=Ўd\>øn=nšT‹cUošTÌЎedwénS én@Úqh˜UÐ:íӎCÐ
āÐÑnšTnf˜—AëË}bUЋT{fLí @ŽUЍ˜dQ{SāÐéŽHÚë΋g\_=
ø n=nšT ‹cU ošcx éŽbx ŒY ‹gfeR ºÐŽe[šBÐí qh˜UÐ ŠwÌ ‡dšBnR
énSæƚBøÐíƒ`dUÐ}›TÌ5dR ‰UÙEQéŽbxŒY‹gfYí ì{_=Ўd\>
195
196
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb mâ yukrahu min ittikhâdh al-masâjid Ԟalâ al-qubûr (al-Qarnî).
See above text 66 with the complete story, where the source is
indicated.
148
N=ŠhAnYpxÛ}UЊTpxÛ}UÐëÎéŽbxÜn˜LŒ=ÐëncRЎYŽSāÐéŽHÚ
ÑnšcUЉUÙnfUošcxëÌN=í-‹dHíhdLāÐDÉ-āÐéŽHÚ
And he mentioned the tradition of Al-Bukhârî from Ibn ‘Abbâs,
saying: When the Envoy of God was about to die, while there
were men in his house, he said: Let me write you a document
after which you will not err. Then some of them said: The
Envoy of God is overwhelmed by pain, but you have the Koran;
the Book of God is enough for us. Then the people of the house
differed of opinion and disputed with each other. Some of
them said: Let him write a document after which you will not
err. Others, however, expressed a different view. When the
confusion and the differences increased, the Envoy of God said:
stand up [and go away!] Ibn ‘Abbâs then said: Verily, a great
calamity has prevented that the Envoy of God has written for
us that document! 197
[116]
hRÓnYï|UЍ”}Y:éj—xënT˜fUÐëÌpZýnLrx{A}TÙí (741)
rhAëŽcx@ÐíÛ̍UëÙjRºpZýnLêŽx {x}xÈÐ{QnǐxÌÈÐ{QnǐxÌ
\˜bRºhR MLÚí{xënTï|UÐêŽhUÐ:ÓnYšAšh=:ëncRÊnI
ö
ŒYYnxÌ}BË:bxڐbxڃUnBíºï}iíï}HN˜UHÌÚëÎíºāÐ
198
ì{_={AúӎCÐÒ{Iì}TÌøšAӎCЍhdL{šIÐ{bUínhi{UÐ
And he mentioned the tradition of ‘Â’isha, that the Prophet was
asking during the illness in which he died: Where am I
tomorrow? Where am I tomorrow? He wanted [it to be] the day
of ‘Â’isha. His wifes permitted him that he could be wherever
he wished. So he was in my house until he died on the day he
used to call on me. God took him away while his head was
197
198
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-Ԟilm, bâb itâbat al-Ԟilm, and elsewhere.
3LROBDPLEQG®P·@CÂQGC®PBRPPDCAV!I-Qarnî, p. 741 notes 4 and 5.
149
resting on my bosom. My saliva mixed with his saliva on his
last day in this world.199 His death agony became so unbearable
for him, that I never abhorred the death-agony of anyone after
him any more. 200
[117]
Ò|UŒLŠa`x3iÌnª{AÌ Ng@íŒYhRéÐk—UЍ@ííqdS (742)
Ò{IëÌ©n›UРӎCÐß}Y:šA‹[#Ð{fLÚnLwšUÐÖncfUÐ
ŒYìni{@ínY}BËÐ|wí(745)ºngbš—xënTiÌé{Rºp=ŽbLhdLӎCÐ
ºbš—xnYāЌYaf[YDLÑnšcUÐÐ|w
I said: his question here is twofold. First of all, that he did not neglect
the pleasure of intercourse, which is a shame according to our
opponent, even during the illness [leading to] his death. Secondly, that
the agony of [his] death was a punishment for him, which proves that
he deserved it. (745) Here ends the book as it lies in front of us. May
the author receive from God what he merits!
Al-Bukhârî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâbmâ jâ’a fî qab al-K@AÂυ @I-Qarnî).
The last sentence in al-Tirmidhî, kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb mâ jâ’a fî alQ@PGCÂCՀ®KC@@I-mawt (al-Qarnî).
199
200
150
Bibliography
Aquina, Thomas : Summa contra gentiles. Translation with
introduction and notes by Anton G Pegis. Notre-Dame 2009
(original edition 1955), 5 vols.
M. Asín Palacios, Huellas del islam. Sto. Tomás de Aquino, Turmeda,
Pascal, S. Juan de la Cruz. Madrid : Espasa-Calpe 1941.
Bardenhewer, O: Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift über das reine
Gute bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de Causis. Freiburg im
Breisgau 1888.
Berthier, A: «Un maître orientaliste du XIIIe siècle : Raymond
Martin O.P.» Archivum Fratrum Predicatorum 6(1936), 267-311.
Burman, Thomas E: Religious Polemic and the Intellectual History of
the Mozarabs, c. 1050-1200. Leiden 1994.
Colomer, E: “La controversia islamo-judeo-cristiana». SantiagoOtero (ed. 1994), 229-257.
Cortabarría, A: «Les sources arabes de l’Explanatio Symboli du
Dominicain catalan Raymond Martin. Mélanges de l’Institut
Dominicain d’Etudes Orientales du Caire (MIDEO), 16(1983), 95-116.
Cortabarría, A: «La connaissance des textes arabes chez
Raymond Martin, O.P., et sa position face de l’islam». Cahiers de
Fanjeaux 18(1983), 279-300
Cortabarría, A: «Fuentes árabes del ‘Pugio Fidei’ de Raimundo
Martín : Algazel (1058-1111)». Ciencia Tomista 112, 76(1985),
581-596.
151
Cortabarría, A : «Los textos árabes de Averroes en el Pugio
Fidei del dominico catalán Raimundo Martí». Actas del XII
Congresos de la U.E.A.I. (Málaga 1984). Madrid 1986, pp. 185-204.
Cortabarría, A: «Avicenne dans le ‘Pugio Fidei’ de Raymond
Martin». MIDEO 19(1989), 9-16.
Dahan, Gilbert : «L’Usage de la ratio dans la polémique contre
les juifs XIIe – XIVe siècles». Santiago-Otero (ed, 1994), 289-308.
Demiri, Leila : Muslim exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cairo. Najm
ad-Dîn al-ώÌEŸP #LJJDKQ@OV LK QGD #GO®PQ®@K 3BO®MQRODP.
Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Fidora, Alexander, und Andreas Niederberger, Von Bagdad nach
Toledo. Das “Buch der Ursachen” und seine Rezeption im Mittelalter.
Lateinisch-deutscher Text, Kommentar und Wirkungsgeschichte des Liber de causis. Mainz 2001.
Guillaume, A: The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Is·âq’s Sîrat
Rasûl Allâh. Oxford 2004 (17th impression).
Hasselhoff, G. K: “Some remarks on Raymond Martin’s (c.
1215/30 – c. 1284/5) use of Maimonides”. Trumah 12(2002), 13348.
Hernando i Delgado, J : Le “Seta Machometi” du Cod. 46
d’Osma, oeuvre de Raymond Martin (Ramón Martí). « Islam et
chrétiens du Midi (XIIe-XIVe s.)». Cahiers de Fanjeaux 18(1983),
351-371.
--- : «De Nuevo sobre la obra polémica atribuida a Ramon
Martí, dominico catalán nel siglo XIII». Sharq al-Andalus»
8(1991), 97-108.
152
Ibn ԞAέiyya al-Gharnâέî, al-Muͥarrar al-wajîz fî tafsîr al-kitâb alԞazîz. Ed. al-Raͥͥâla al-Fârûq a.o. Qaέar 2007, 8 vols. (2nd
edition).
Ibn ͤazm.- I·sân ‘Abbâs (ed.), Rasâ’il Ibn Άazm al-Andalusî. Bayrout,
19877, 4 vols. (2nd edition).
Ibn Kabar.- Wilhelm Riedel (ed.), «Der Katalog der christlichen
Schriften in arabischer 3MO@BGD SLK !Aֹ I-"@O@H֡Q», Nachrichten der kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
philologisch-hist. Klasse 5, 1902, p. 635-706.
Ibn Kabar.- 3AMIR +HALIL 3AMIRœD Ibn Kabar, Abû al-Barakât.
-IǶB•ͥ AL-ϓULMA Fč I͑•ͥ AL-KHIDMA VOL ,E #AIRE -AKTABAT AL+ARUZ -
Ibn Rushd.- M. Bouyges, Averroès Tahafot at-Tahafot. Texte arabe
établi par ---. 2me édition Beyrouth: Dar el-Mahreq, 1987.
Khouzam, Michel: L’Illumination des intelligences dans la science
des fondements. Synthèse de l’enseignement de la théologie coptoarabe sur la révélation chrétienne aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles d’après les
écrits d’Abu 'l-Khair ibn at-Tayyib et Abu 'l-Barakat ibn Kabar. Rome
1941.
+®KC Հ!AC@I--@P·- 2®P¹I@Q Հ!AC !II¹G ®AK )PJ¹ՀÂI @I-Hâshimî ilâ
Հ!AC@I--@P·®AK)P·¹N@I-+®KCÂV@CՀÌGRA®-hâ ilâ al-islâm wa-risâlat
Հ!AC@I--@P·®I¹@I-(¹PG®JÂV@ORCCRA®G¹Հ@Iaihi wa-V@CՀÌGR®I¹@IK@υO¹K®VV@. London 1885.
Lavajo, J C: “The apologetical method of Raymondo Martí
according to the problematic of Raymond Lull”. Islamochristiana
11(1985), 155-76.
Maimonides, Moses: The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated with
an Introduction and Notes by Shlomo Pines. With an
introductory essay by Leo Strauss, Chicago, 1963.
153
Maimonides-ΆRP@®K!Q@VDC -@VJÌK®AKž5A@VC!II¹G@IAndalusî, k. Dalâlat al-·â’irîn. Cairo, s.a.
Martí, Ramón : «La ‘Explanatio Simboli’ obra inédita de Ramón
Martí, autor del ‘Pugio Fidei’». Publicació y prólech por Joseph
Ma. March y Battles S.J. Extret del Anuari del Institut d’Estudis
Catalans, MCMVIII. Barcelona 1910.
--- (ed.).- Ramón Martí (s. XIII) : «De Seta Machometi o De
Origine, Progressu et Fine Machometi et Quadruplici
Reprobatione Prophetiae eius». Introducción, transcripción,
traducción y notas por J. Hernando i Delgado. Acta Historica et
Archeologica medievalia No. 4, 1985, 9-63.
Martini, Raimundus: Capistrum Iudaeorum. Texto crítico y
traducción Adolfo Robles Sierra OP. Würzburg, 1990-1993, 2
volumes.
Mérigoux, J.M : « L’ouvrage d’un frère prêcheur florentin en
Orient à la fin du XIIIe siècle, le Contra Legem Sarracenorum
de Riccoldo da Monte di Croce ». Memoriae Domenicae (Pistoia),
17(1986), 1-144.
Monferrer Sala, Juan Pedro, and Philippe Roisse: « Una versión
árabe andalusí de la ‘Epistola apócrifa a los Laodicenses ».
Qurέuba 3(1989), 113-151.
Rizzardi, G : « Il contra legem Saracenorum di Ricoldo da
Montecroce. Dipendenza ed originalitá nei confronti di San
Tommaso ». Teología 9(1984), 59-68.
Schwarb, Georg : “Die Rezeption Maimonides’ in der christlicharabischen Literatur”. Judaica. Beiträge zum Verstehen des
Judentums. Band 63, 2007, 1-45.
154
---: “The 13th century Copto-Arabic reception of Fakhr al-Dîn
al-Râzî: Al-Rashîd Abû al-Khayr Ibn al-ώayyib’s Risâlat al-bayân
al-aϵhar fî al-radd ‘alâ man yaqûlu bi-l-qaͯâ wa-l-qadar”.
Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 2(2014), 143-169.
Sidarus, Adel: « Le Livro da Corte Enperial entre l’Apologétique
Lullienne et l’expansion catalane au XIVe siècle». SantiagoOtero, ed. (1994), 131-172.
Szpiech, Ryan: Citas árabes en caracteres hebreos en Pugio
Fidei del Domínico Ramón Martí : Entre la autenticidad y la
autoridad. Al-Qanέara 32(2011), 71-107.
Suhrawardî, Shihâb al-Dîn: Kitâb al-Tanqî·ât. %CՀ)V¹ͯ®AK.¹JÂ
al-Sulamî. 2006, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, 512 pp.
Tartar, Georges: Dialogue islamo-chrétien sous le Calife Al-Ma’mûn
(813-834). Les éptires d’Al-Hâshimî et d’Al-Kindî. Paris, 1985.
Santiago-Otero, Horacio (ed.): Diálogo filosófico-religioso entre
cristianismo, judaismo e islamismo durante la Edad Media en la
Península Ibérica. Brepols 1994
Tolan, John: Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Traveletti, D : Front commun. Raymond Martin, al-Ghazâlî et les
philosophes. Analyse de la structure et des sources du premier livre du
Pugio Fidei. Fribourg 2011 (Thèse), 369pp.
ώûfî, al-: A·mad Άijâzî al-Saqqâ (ed.), Al-Intiυârât al-islâmiyya fî
‘ilm muqâranat al-adyân, ta’lîf Najm al-Dîn al-Baghdâdî al-ώûfî.
Cairo, Maktabat al-Kulliyyât al-Azhariyya, 1983 (2 vols).
ώûfî, al-: Al-Intiυârât al-islâmiyya fî kashf shubah al-naυrâniyya.
Ta’lîf Sulaymân ibn ‘ Abd al-Qawî al-ώûfî al-τarυarî al-Άanbalî (t.
155
716). Dirâsa wa-ta·qîq Dr. Sâlim ibn Mu·ammad al-Qarnî. AlRiyâͯ: Maktabat al-‘Ubaykân, 1999 (2 vols).
WadîԞ, A: Dirâsa Ԟan al-Mu’taman ibn al-ԞAssâl wa-kitâbihi « MajmûԞ
uΣûl al-dîn » wa-taͥQ¡QIHI#AIRO
Zâhidî, Najm al-Dîn Mukhtâr al- (d. 1260): al-Risâla al-K¹υ®O®VV@
Ed. al--@υOÂ!I-Kuwait 1994. KK4. (Directed to Khâqân Baraka,
and composed in 1260, in the time around the conversion of
the Mongols, contemporaneous to al-Saif al-Murhaf).
156