The Qurʾānic Narratives Through the Lens of Intertextual Allusions: A Literary Approach by Waleed F. S. Ahmed A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Seminar für Arabistik und Islamwissenschaft Georg-August-Universität Göttingen © Copyright by Waleed F. S. Ahmed 2014 All rights reserved Abstract The Qurʾānic Narratives Through the Lens of Intertextual Allusions: A Literary Approach Waleed F. S. Ahmed 2014 Intertextuality, as an overarching concept concerning the interrelations between texts, can be defined as the ways in which texts refer to and build on other texts. The narratives of the Qurʾān are amongst the clearest manifestations of this intertextual phenomenon. This is not only because they are concerned with pre-Islamic figures who have parallels in Jewish and Christian traditions, but also because many verses in these narratives obviously allude to such extra-Qurʾānic traditions. The present dissertation addresses this issue in Qurʾānic studies, which constitutes a main question in modern research on the intertextual allusions in Islam’s revealed scripture. Hence, it deals with the virtual absence of reliance upon a literary approach to these allusions, informed by contemporary allusional studies. In particular, the dissertation analyzes the intertextual allusions (to such extra- Qurʾānic traditions) evident in three groups of Qurʾānic narrative pericopes. These concern: (1) The story of the biblical Prophet Jonah (Q 68:48-50, 37:139-48, 21:87-8, 10:98, 6:86, and 4:163); (2) The creation account on the sin of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, and of God teaching Adam the names of everything (Q 20:120-121, 7:19-22, 2:31-3 and 2:35-6); and (3) The laughter of Sarah, wife of Abraham, and the story of Abraham’s intercession for Lot’s People (Q 51:24-30 and 11:69-76). The main goal of the dissertation is (by means of a systematic application of an approach primarily based on a method developed in allusional studies) to explore the significance of the intertextual allusions contained in the aforementioned narrative pericopes. Thus it will shed new light on the function of intertextual allusions in the narratives of the Qurʾān and highlight the significance of these allusions in forming an “inter-textual conversation” between the narrative pericopes in the Qurʾān and their i i Jewish and Christian antecedent traditions. It is hoped that the impact of this dissertation will extend beyond the boundaries of the academic study of religion and that its findings will contribute meaningfully to the contemporary dialogue between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. ii i Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of a number of people. Above all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Sebastian Günther, who has offered me excellent academic guidance and advice at every stage of the development of my work. His support has been indispensable throughout. Also, I owe heartfelt thanks to Prof. Dr. Jens Scheiner and Prof. Dr. Mohammed Rustom for their very useful comments on my dissertation. This dissertation has been made possible by a three-years doctoral scholarship from Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and a one-year doctoral fellowship from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). To these granting institutions I am very grateful. Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my family, my mother Fatma Attia, my sisters Amal and Amira Ahmed, and my brother Mohammed Ahmed for their unswerving support of me and their unwavering belief in me. I dedicate this dissertation to them.     iv Table of Contents Title Page i Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv Table of Contents v Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Scholarship and the Intertextual Allusions in Qurʾānic Narratives 26 1. The Cultural Background of the Qurʾānic Narratives: The 26 Available Evidence 2. Muslim Exegesis and the Intertextual Allusions of the Qurʾānic 29 Narratives 2.1 Early and Classical Muslim Exegesis 29 2.2 Modern Muslim Exegesis 38 3. Western Scholarship and the Intertextual Allusions of the 42 Qurʾānic Narratives’ 3.1 Orientalist Scholarship 42 3.2 Post-orientalist Scholarship 48 Chapter 2: Theoretical and Methodological Framework 66 1. Formation of the Qurʾānic Text 66 2. A text’s Statements and their Associated Field of Coexistence 74 3. Reading (Interpreting) Texts 78 3.1 The Intention of the Author (intentio auctoris) 78 3.2 The Intention of the Text (intentio operis) 80 3.3 The Text’s Model Reader (intentio lectoris) 81 4. Diachronic and Synchronic Readings of the Text 86 5. The Intertextual Allusion: A Descriptive and Interpretive Model 95 5.1 The Syntagmatic Manifestations of Allusions 96 5.2 Localization of the Allusion 97 5.3 Dimension(s) of Reference 98 5.4 Modification of Allusions 99 5.5 Semantic Meaning of Allusions 99 5.6 Cotextualization of Allusions 100 5.7 Functions of Allusions 100 6. Conclusion: Theoretical and Methodological Summary 101 Chapter 3: The Qurʾānic Narratives through the Lens of their Intertextual 103 Allusions Case Study 1: The Qurʾānic Story of Jonah 103 1.1 Jonah’s Story 103   v Chapter 3: 1.2 Scholars’ Responses to the Qurʾānic Story of Jonah 106 1.2.1 The Exegetical Responses 106 1.2.1.1 The first problem: The exemption of 106 Jonah’s people from punishment 1.2.1.2 The second problem: Jonah’s anger 107 1.2.1.3 The third problem: Jonah’s mission 110 1.2.2 The Responses of Western Scholars 111 1.3 The Jonah Qurʾānic Story in Light of the Analysis of 113 its Intertexual Allusions. 1.3.1 Jonah’s fault 113 1.3.2 On the second and third problems 116 1.3.2.1 Q 37:139-148, a summary of Jonah’s story 116 1.3.2.2 Q 21:87-88, Jonah departs in wrath 120 1.3.3 The exception (istithnāʾ) of Jonah’s people 122 1.4 Conclusion 123 Case Study 2: The Fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden and 125 God Teaching Adam the Names of everything 2.1 The Exegetical Responses 127 2.2 The Responses of Western scholars 131 2.3 The Narrative Pericopes Through the Lens of their 131 Intertextual Allusions 2.3.1 The first allusion: Adam and Eve are Stripped off 131 their innocence 2.3.1.1 The alluding text 131 2.3.1.2 The alluded-to text 132 2.3.1.3 The analysis of the allusion 132 2.3.2 The second and third allusions: Adam and Eve are 133 wrongdoers (ẓālimūn) and their shame is manifested to them 2.3.2.1 The alluding texts 133 2.3.2.2 The alluded-to texts 133 2.3.2.3 The analysis of the allusions 133 2.3.3 The fourth, fifth, and sixth allusions: On the 134 names-episode and the bountiful fruits of paradise 2.3.3.1 The alluding texts 134 2.3.3.2 The alluded-to texts 135 2.3.3.3 The analysis of the allusions 136 2.4 Conclusion 137 Case Study 3: Sarah’s Laughter and Abraham’s Intercession for 139 Lot’s People 3.1 The Exegetical Responses 141 3.2 The Responses of Western Scholars 144 3.3 The Narrative Pericopes Through the Lens of their 146 Intertextual Allusions 3.3.1 The first allusion: Sarah’s laughter 146 3.3.1.1 The alluding text 146 3.3.1.2 The alluded-to text 146 3.3.1.3 The analysis of the first allusion 146   vi Chapter 3: 3.3.2 The second allusion: Abraham’s intercession for 148 Lot’s people 3.3.2.1 The alluding text 148 3.3.2.2 The alluded-to text 148 3.3.2.3 The analysis of the second allusion 149 3.4 Conclusion 150 Conclusions 153 Bibliography 164   vii Introduction As an overarching concept concerning the interrelations between texts, intertextuality could be defined as “the ways in which texts… refer to and build on other texts.”1 The Qurʾānic narratives are indeed amongst the clearest manifestations of the intertextual phenomenon. This is not only because they are concerned with pre-Islamic figures who have parallels in Jewish and Christian traditions, but also because many of the verses of these narratives often seem to allude to such external traditions. The present study is chiefly a response to a significant problem in the scholarship on the intertextual allusions of these narratives, namely the absence of reliance upon a literary approach to these allusions informed by modern allusional studies.2 When scholars postulate intertextual allusions in any text, the text’s meaning is viewed as particularly influenced by the inter-textual conversation brought about and shaped by these allusions. The importance of applying a satisfactory approach to the intertextual allusions of the Qurʾānic narratives thus cannot be underestimated; an inadequate interpretation of these allusions would directly lead to an inaccurate assessment of the significance of these narratives. The ultimate goal of this study therefore is to suggest and apply a systematic literary approach to the intertextual allusions of the Qurʾānic narratives, primarily based on models developed in allusional studies. It aspires to demonstrate that this approach could remedy much of the current confusion as to the significance of these allusions, which, as I shall argue, mainly results from adopting non-literary and unsystematic methods. The present work thus proposes to shed new light on the intertextual allusions of the Qurʾānic narrative pericopes3 under examination, the inter-textual conversation these pericopes establish with the Qurʾān’s antecedent traditions (through their allusions), and consequently these pericopes’ significance. In addition, it will also bring to light new insights concerning the functions towards which the Qurʾān employs the literary device of allusion. In this regard, so as to ground our analysis in firm theoretical foundations, our investigation will principally rely on one of the most comprehensive classifications of the allusion’s functions to date, Udo J. Hebel’s (to be discussed later in this chapter).                                                                                                                 1 This definition is adapted from Barbara Johnstone. See Barbara Johnstone, Discourse Analysis 2 ‘Allusional studies’ denote the works concerned with the theorization of allusion in literary theory. 3 A ‘pericope’ is a text unit of scripture, narrative or non-narrative. The allusions to the Qurʾān’s antecedent traditions4 in three groups of Qurʾānic narrative pericopes will be analyzed in the present work, specifically the narrative pericopes concerning (1) Jonah (Q 68:48-50, 37:139-48, 21:87-8, 10:98, 6:86, and 4:163), (2) The creation account on the sin of the first couple, Adam and Eve, and on God teaching Adam the names of everything (Q 20:120-121, 7:19-22, 2:31-3 and 2:35-6), and (3) Sarah’s Laughter and Abraham’s Intercession for Lot’s People (Q 51:24-30, and11:69-76). As the analysis in the following chapters will demonstrate, this narratives selection typifies the range of functions towards which the Qurʾān employs the literary device of the intertextual allusion. In order to contextualize my suggested approach to and readings of these pericopes’ intertextual allusions in relation to previous scholarship, past and contemporary responses to these allusions will lead up to and be contrasted with my readings. As for western studies, an inclusive coverage has been possible. However, due to the vastness of Muslim exegetical literature, a selection had to be made. Four key classical5 and modern Muslim exegetical responses to these allusions have been selected, namely the responses of Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Ismāʿīl Abū l-Fidāʾ Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), Burhān al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar b. Ḥasan al-Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480), and Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1386/1966). As will be clear in the following pages, each of these responses represents a key development in approaching the intertextuality of the Qurʾānic narratives over the history of Islamic exegesis. The Intertextual Allusion Ever since Julia Kristeva coined the term ‘intertextuality,’6 a variety of analytical tools for the intertextual reading of texts have emerged; but gradually, the literary allusion came to assume the role of “the over-arching category for an interpretation of                                                                                                                 4 Unless otherwise indicated, the term ‘antecedent traditions’ in this study denotes the Jewish and Christian religious literature redacted prior to the emergence of Islam, including the Bible. 5 Herein, ‘classical’ denotes the period extending from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) to Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505). For the purposes of this dissertation, the history of Muslim exegesis is conveniently divided into four periods: formative (early) (11/632 to al-Ṭabarī’s work), classical (from al-Ṭabarī’s work to 911/1505), pre-modern (911/1505 to the middle of the 19th century) and modern (middle of the 19th century to the present). 6 Julia Kristeva, “The Bounded Text,” in Desire in Language: a Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez, ed. Leon S. Roudiez 35-63 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 36-8; idem., “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” in Desire in Language: a Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez, ed. Leon S. Roudiez 64-91 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 66 (both articles were first published in 1969).   2 verifiable relationships between texts.”7 It was intertextuality’s interest in “the interpretive potential”8 of the allusion’s inter-textual reference that led to new and systematic descriptions of the allusion. These new descriptions indeed far exceeded the allusion’s traditional and limited definition as “indirect or tacit reference,”9 which was found to be an extremely inadequate tool for intertextual analysis. Over the past four decades, allusional studies have shown that utilizing methodical literary criteria and procedures is fundamental in order to adequately describe and interpret allusions. For example, Ziva Ben-Porat points out that the first step in actualizing the allusion starts with the identification of the allusive signal, i.e. its marker.10 And as Carmela Perri contends, “the particular formulation of the marker … and the meaning of the alluding text previous to the marker’s occurrence, suggest the appropriate property(ies) … [of the referent-text’s] intension necessary to complete the sense of the allusion-marker in its context.”11 Thus, not only are literary criteria necessary for proper identification of the allusion, but they are also crucial in determining the referent-text’s connotations evoked by the allusion and in contextualizing these connotations within the alluding text. What Perri sums up in the above quotation, Udo J. Hebel classifies into several distinct categories for describing and interpreting allusions.12 One of these is the “cotextulaization of allusions” within their “immediate lexical surroundings and/or by relation(s) to structural elements such as character or setting.”13 In his view, this category of describing the allusion not only “influence[s] the actualization [of the allusion] … [but also] elucidates the metatextual dimension of the alluding text as it is the dialog between the alluding text … and the intertextual point of reference … that evidences the stance the alluding text takes toward the other text [i.e. the referent- text], person, or event.”14 Indeed, all such recent developments in intertextual theory and allusional studies have increasingly problematized the intertextual readings of                                                                                                                 7 Cf. Udo J. Hebel, “Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion,” in Intertextuality, ed. Heinrich F. Plett, 135-64 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1991), 135. Also, see Hebel’s discussion of the allusion as the overarching literary device that subsumes all other types of intertextual references in Ibid., 135-7. 8 Cf. Ibid., 136. 9 Carmela Perri, “On Alluding,” Poetics 7 (1978): 289-307, 289. 10 Ziva Ben-Porat, "The Poetics of Literary Allusion," PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105-28, 108-9. Carmela Perri is of the same opinion and so is Udo J. Hebel (Perri, “On Alluding,” 290-5 and 300; Hebel, “Towards,” 135-9). 11 Cf. Perri, “On Alluding,” 300. 12 Hebel, “Towards,” 142-56. 13 Cf. Ibid., 154. 14 Cf. Ibid., 156.   3