THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Produce your proof if you are truthful (Q 2:111) The Qurʾān in Christian Arabic texts (750-1258 C.E.) A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By Clare Elena Wilde Washington, D.C. 2011 This dissertation by Clare Elena Wilde fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Church History approved by Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D., as Director, and by Jacques Gres-Gayer, Ph.D., and Shawqi Talia, Ph.D., as Readers. _____________________________ (Sidney Griffith, Ph.D.), Director _____________________________ (Jacques Gres-Gayer, Ph.D.), Reader _____________________________ (Shawqi Talia, Ph.D.), Reader ii DEDICATION In memoriam Robert Wilson Wilde Myles M. Bourke John J. O’Connell James P. Griffin Let me no more my comfort draw From my frail hold of Thee In this alone, rejoice with awe Thy mighty grasp of me iii GAUDIUM DOMINI EST FORTITUDO NOSTRA iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations vi Preface vii Acknowledgements xxix Introduction 1 Theodore Abū Qurra, the Anonymous Monk of Sinai Ar. 434 and Paul: Reflections of “Oriens Christianus” Chapter Two 50 Qurʾānic Studies – and Christian Arabic Chapter Three 113 Christian-Themed Qurʾānic Passages Chapter Four 174 Passages Read with “Christianizing” Glosses by Paul, Theodore and/or the Anonymous Monk Chapter Five 212 Arab Christian ‘Anti-Semitism’ … or Messianic Assertions? Chapter Six 253 Qurʾānic “Corruption”? Christian Employment of Qurʾānic Verses without Judeo-Christian Themes Conclusion 299 Qurʾān as – Christian – Burhān? Postscript 346 Glossary 362 Bibliography 366 v ABBREVIATIONS EI = Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. Edited P.J. Bearman et al. 12 vols. + Index. Including Supplement. Leiden: Brill, 1960-2004. EQ = Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Edited Jane Dammen McAuliffe. 5 vols + Index. Leiden: Brill, 2001-2006. vi PREFACE The inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.1 (Benedict XVI, 12 September 2006, Regensburg, Germany) While biblical faith and Greek philosophy may indeed have converged in the Roman empire to create ‘Europe’, the Christianity of the Arabic speaking ‘Islamic’ world has, arguably, yet to receive due scholarly attention. Once the gates of inquiry are more fully opened, its “historically decisive character” will also come to light, adding to our appreciation for the catholicity of the church universal. And, particularly in the post-9/11 world, discussion of the contributions of Christians and Christianity to Islamic civilization, as well as examination of theological (and other) trends particular to Arabophone Christian communities living under Muslim rule, may prove to be a welcome contribution 1 Benedict XVI, “Faith, Reason and the University,” Vatican Archives, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_b en-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html (accessed February 3, 2011). vii to our dialogue of civilizations, as it will highlight how difficult it is to draw clear lines between the ‘Islamic’ and the ‘Christian’ worlds.2 ‘Islamic’? The designation ‘Islamic’ is multi-faceted. Is it a religious (dīn) or political/communal term (umma)? Regional (dār) or legal (shar’), or practical/interpretive (madhhab)? Does it designate a public or a private realm? Is it at the level of the individual or the community? If religious, is it a matter of (private – individual?) ‘faith’ (Ar. īmān) – belief in God, his angels, his messengers, his books, the Last Day or (outward – collective?) ‘praxis’ – that is, the five ‘pillars’ (Ar. islām)? Is it generally upright behavior (iḥsān) or ‘piety’ (taqwā: cf. Q 49:13)? Would it be marked by rule of the (religious) scholars (ʿulamāʾ – or, in Shiite tradition, ayatollahs)? A (centralized) body of (learned – religious?) advisors: those who ‘loose’ and ‘bind’ (ahl al-ḥall wa-l-ʿaqd)? The (decentralized) authority of a variety of legitimate ‘religious’ authorities (imam, mufti, qādī, khaṭīb, etc.)? If political, is it ‘dār al-islām’ under a caliph, whose name is mentioned in the Friday congregational prayer, and who can collect zakat and call his male Muslim subjects to offensive jihād once a year? Until 1924, the caliph served as a central point for the umma, or community of believers (although the early 2 This is not a novel suggestion, or endeavor. See, for example, Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbasid Society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries) (London: Routledge, 1998) and Richard Bulliet, The Case for Islamo- Christian Civilization (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). viii Constitution of Medina arguably includes Jews in this umma,3 and, as discussed below, later Christian Arabophone authors would speak of the ‘umma’ of the Christians or the Jews). Traditionally, the caliph was the ‘commander of the faithful’ (amīr al-mu’minīn), the ‘viceregent’ of the Messenger of God (khalīfat rasūl allāh), the imām (or ‘leader’ of prayer; although this eventually shifted to the mention of his name in the Friday congregational prayer as the leader of the state), as well as the protector/guardian of the ‘two sacred sites’ (Mecca and Medina)4. The collection of zakat (alms tax) and declaration of jihad were under his authority. Jurists would debate the distinctions between the first four (for Sunnis, ‘rightly guided’) caliphs (khulifat al-nubuwwa) and the later, dynastic caliphates (e.g. Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottoman: khulifat al-mulk)5. Could there be more than one caliph at a time? What if the caliph was known to be unjust? Or a sinner? And, while Shiites did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the (Sunni) institution of the caliphate, instead of advocating revolt against the caliphs, Shiites developed the doctrine of taqiyya (dissimulation), for life under an illegitimate and sometimes hostile regime. And, in these discussions, the world was often divided between the ‘region of Islam’ and the ‘region of war’ (dār al- islām and dār al-ḥarb; as well as – especially in Shiite discourse - the ‘region of security’ or that of ‘safety’: dār al-aman/dār al-ṣulḥ). 3 In Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, Sīrat rasūl Allāh , trans. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sirat rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 231-3; Fred Donner, “From Believers to Muslims,” al-Abhath 50-51 (2002-2003): 9-53. 4 Today, the king of Saudi Arabia uses the title “khādim al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn” – Custodian of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. 5 See the classic discussion in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khaldūn, The Muqaddimah. An introduction to history, trans. Franz Rosenthal, abr. and ed. N. J. Dawood, new intro. Bruce Lawrence (1967; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 154-83. ix Is it a region of the world in which mosques are seen and the call to prayer is heard? Is it a region in which men and women each ‘lower their gazes’ and behave modestly (Q 24:30-31)? In which the state ‘commands the good and forbids the wrong’? In which the principles of the ‘sanctity’ (ḥurma), ‘dignity’ (karāma) and ‘inviolability’ (salāma) of human life are honored? One in which maṣlaḥa (concern for the general welfare) is exhibited? Is it marked by a legal system in which all human acts are divided into those that are ‘man-God’ (ʿibādāt) and those that are ‘man-man’ (muʿāmalāt), and in which the appropriateness of a deed is discerned – by scholars – from the Qur’ān, traditions of Muhammad and (by analogy with?) previous juridical decisions? Is it a pluralistic or homogeneous milieu? Is there diversity of religions (each of which has its own rule, or sharʿ) and/or ‘Islamic’ interpretive traditions? Or, is it a system in which a central state enforces a particular interpretation of ‘sharīʿa’, with a visible emphasis on ‘ḥudūd’ punishments (with or without the traditional evidentiary requirements)? Sharīʿa = Via, vita, veritas? Given the current confusion over the concept of sharīʿa, the following comment of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) is worth quoting: People … do not understand clearly the distinction in the meanings of the word Shari’a as employed in the Speech of God and His Apostle (on the one hand) and by common people on the other…Indeed, some of them think that Shari’a is the name given to the judge’s decisions; many of them even do not make a distinction between a learned judge, an ignorant judge, and an unjust judge. Worse still, people tend to regard any decrees of a ruler as Shari’a, while sometimes undoubtedly the truth (ḥaqīqa) is actually contrary to the decree of the ruler. x