ISLAMICJERUSALEM AND THE FIRST QUR'ANIC PROPHECY: A STUDY OF THE FIRST VERSES IN CHAPTER 30 'AL-RUM'

Year 2009, Volume 10, 27 - 59, 01.12.2009

Abdallah Marouf

Abstract

ISLAMICJERUSALEM AND THE FIRST QUR'ANIC PROPHECY: A STUDY OF THE FIRST VERSES IN CHAPTER 30 'AL-RUM' by: Abdallah Marouf Omar , Language: English

Keywords

ISLAMICJERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, 'AL-RUM

Beytülmakdis ve İlk Kuranî Vahiy: Rum Suresi'nin İlk Ayetlerine Dair Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Beytülmakdis ve İlk Kuranî Vahiy: Rum Suresi'nin İlk Ayetlerine Dair Bir İnceleme Abdallah Marouf Omar , Dil: İngilizce

Keywords

Beytülmakdis, Kudüs, Rum

بيت المقدس والنبوءة القرآنية الأولى: دراسة لأوائل سورة الروم

Abstract

بيت المقدس والنبوءة القرآنية الأولى: دراسة لأوائل سورة الروم , عبدالله معروف عمر , باللغة الإنجليزية

Keywords

بيت المقدس, سورة الروم, القدس

References

• Alif Lām Mīm, (2) Ghulibat al-Rūm, (3) Fī Adnā al-Arḍ, wa hum min ba‘d ghalabihim sayaghlibūn, (4) Fī Biḍ‘ sinīn, Lillāh al-Amr min qabl wa min ba‘d, wa yawma’idhin yafraḥ al-Mu’minūn, (5) binaṣrillāh, Yanṣur man yashā’ wa huwa al-‘Azīz al-Raḥīm.
• The Makkan chapters are the chapters of the Qur’ān that were revealed before the Prophet’s migration to Madīnah, even if they were revealed outside Makkah. The chapters that were revealed after the migration are the Madanian chapters, even if they were revealed in Makkah; this is what al-Suyūṭī decides in his book al-Itqān (see al-Suyūṭī (n.d): (1) 9).
• Al-Alūsī (d. 1270 AH / 1853 CE) narrated, in his book Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī (1994: (11) 18), that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110 AH / 728 CE) mentions that only verse 17 of this chapter is Madanian. Yet al-Alūsī argues that this opinion of al-Ḥasan contradicts that of the majority of scholars, so it cannot be accepted. The author, however, argues that al-Ḥasan’s opinion does not make any difference, since the core of this study concentrates only on the first five verses of this chapter.
• Richard Bell (1939: (2) 392) claims that this chapter dates back to a later period, i.e. in Madīnah. He claims that the Qur’ānic expression “To God belongs the whole decision” is not used in the early stages of the Qur’ān, and it was thus used in Madīnah. However, the author argues that Bell depends in his claim on using the Qirā’ah (recitation) of “Ghalabat al-Rūm” (the Byzantines gained victory). He depends on this Qirā’ah to claim that this chapter was actually revealed later when the Byzantines gained victory over the Persians. However, this Qirā’ah in itself is inaccurate as the author will explain later. Therefore, this opinion cannot be accepted.
• Qirā’ah is the way of reading and reciting the Qur’ān; there are ten standard ways of recitation.
• The ten major Qirā’āt are the accepted ten ways of reciting the Qur’ān; all were narrated by ten main Qurrā’ (scholars of the recitation of the Qur’ān) through authentic narrations from Prophet Muhammad. The ten Qurrā’ are: ‘Āṣim, Ibn ‘Amr, al-Kisā’ī, Ḥamzah, Ibn ‘Āmir, Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘, Abū Ja‘far al-Madanī, Ya‘qūb al-Ḥaḍramī, and Khalaf Ibn Hishām (see al-Qaṭṭān 2000: 173). The first seven of the above-mentioned Qurrā’ are the most authentic, but many scholars mention the other three as accepted Qirā’āt since their narrations are authentic.
• والصواب من القراءة في ذلك عندنا الذي لا يجوز غيره: (ألم * غُلِبَت الروم) بضم الغين، لإجماع الحجة من القراء عليه.
• قال المفسرون: بعث كسرى جيشاً إلى الروم واستعمل عليهم رجلا يسمى شهريران فسار إلى الروم بأهل فارس وظهر عليهم وخرب مدائنهم وقطع زيتونهم... وبلغ ذلك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأصحابه بمكة فشق ذلك عليهم وكان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يكره أن يظهر الأميون من أهل المجوس على أهل الكتب من الروم وفرح كفار مكة وشمتوا فلقوا أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا: إنكم أهل كتاب والنصارى أهل كتاب ونحن أميون، وقد ظهر إخواننا من أهل فارس على إخوانكم من الروم، وإنكم إن قاتلتمونا لنظهرن عليكم. فأنزل الله تعالى (ألم غلبت الروم في أدنى الأرض) إلى آخر الآيات... عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: لما كان يوم بدر ظهرت الروم على فارس فأعجب المؤمنون بظهور الروم على فارس.
• These scholars are of the two major schools of Tafsīr, namely the Ma’thūr and the Ra’y.
• Meaning the day of the Battle of Badr between the Muslims and the Polytheists of Makkah. This battle took place in Badr, between Makkah and Madīnah, in the year 2 AH (624 CE), and it is considered the first big clash between the Muslims and the people of Makkah (see al-‘Alī 2002: 218).
• عن أبي سعيد قال لما كان يوم بدر ظهرت الروم على فارس فأعجب ذلك المؤمنين فنزلت (ألم غَلَبت الروم) إلى قوله: (يفرح المؤمنون بنصر الله)، قال: ففرح المؤمنون بظهور الروم على فارس، قال: هذا حديث حسن غريب من هذا الوجه، كذا قرأ نصر بن علي: (غَلَبت الروم). In fact, this narration is very problematic, al-Albānī (d. 1999 CE) (2002: (3) 299) considers as Ṣaḥīḥ bimā ba‘dah (authentic by linking it to those after it). The narration coming after this one in al-Tirmidhī’s book does not mention the battle of Badr at all, and it is considered authentic in itself as al-Albānī argues (2002: (3) 299-300). The meaning of the statement of al-Albānī “Ṣaḥīḥ bimā ba‘dah” means that the first narration is Ḥasan (sound), but it can be considered authentic because it is similar to some extent to the authentic narration that follows it. The author argues that this is not true. It seems that al-Albānī built up his argument after he misread the text of the first narration. He read it as “…and the believers rejoiced in this, the verses: “Alif Lām Mīm, Ghulibat al-Rūm (the Byzantines were defeated)”. This is how this narration is mentioned in al-Albānī’s above-mentioned book. There is a very big difference between Ghulibat and Ghalabat. The original narration in al-Tirmidhī’s book says Ghalabat. The author consulted different copies of these sources and found the same result. It seems that al-Albānī misread this narration, and thus depended only on analysing the Sanad (chain of narrators), which does not reach authentic status, and did not analyse the Matn (text) of the narration. Had he analysed this text, he would have probably found it to be problematic since it is totally different from the authentic narration that follows. It is problematic also since it depends on a rejected Qirā’ah (recitation) of the word غلبت, as the author mentioned earlier, when studying the recitation of chapter al-Rūm. In addition, it contradicts the consensus of the scholars of the sciences of the Qur’ān, in that the first verses of chapter al-Rūm are considered Makkan, and were not re-revealed in Madīnah.
• El-Cheikh (1998: 361) adds al-Zamakhsharī (d. 528 AH / 1134 CE) to the scholars who state that the recitation of this verse is Ghalabat. However, the author disagrees with el-Cheikh, since al-Zamakhsharī mentions the two opinions of the recitation without deciding which is accepted (see al-Zamakhsharī 1995: (3) 451-452).
• أتستبدلون الذي هو أدنى بالذي هو خير (Atastabdilūn al-Ladhī huwa Adnā biladhī huwa Khayr) (2: 61)
• Means that it is أدنى Adnā not أدنأ Adna’, where ( ’ ) refers to the Hamzah (ء)in Arabic.
• Adhri‘āt is noted by al-Ḥamawī (d. 626 AH / 1229 CE) to be a town on the boundaries of al-Shām near Amman and al-Balqā’ (which is in Jordan today) (1990: (1) 158). It is now well known as Dar‘ā in Syria near the Jordanian-Syrian borders, as is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (see Elisséeff 1986: (1) 194).
• Al-Jazīrah was the common name for the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to the north east of al-Shām (see al-Ḥamawī 1990: (2) 156).
• Kaskar is a province in Southern Iraq, its capital was Wāṣiṭ between al-Kūfah and al-Baṣrah (see al-Ḥamawī 1990: (4) 523).
• See ‘Dr. Zaghlūl al-Najjār Official Website’, date consulted: 26-6-2006, http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/Index.asp?Prv=2&Data=535&id=1
• Strategos did not mention the year in his account of the Persian invasion of Islamicjerusalem. He mentions the date and month. This could be due to his interest in registering the information that he thought was more important, i.e. the date and month, and how the invasion took place, assuming that the year of this event would have been known by the reader because of its importance.
• Strategos does not mention the word “battle” when speaking about this event; yet he describes the scene of the field and mentions that Abba Modestus was trapped on a rock and besieged by the Persian soldiers. Yet he was able to survive this hard situation in a miraculous way and arrived at Jericho safely. This shows that there was an actual engagement between the Byzantine and the Persian forces. However, it seems that the weak spirit of the Byzantine army played a major role in their defeat in this battle. In addition, it should be noted that chapter 30 of the Qur’ān does not clearly mention the term ‘battle’ also, which means that the defeat of the Byzantines, mentioned in the Qur’ān, was closer to a flee than to an actual battle that needed an effort from the Persians.
• The author will not name all the exegetes who mention this issue since most give almost the same account regarding the matter. There is a ḥadīth narration in al-Tirmidhī’s Sunan where he mentions a whole story in which Abū Bakr has a bet with some persons in Makkah saying that the Byzantines will defeat the Persians within three (and in some narrations five) years, but when the Prophet knows about the bet, he asks Abū Bakr to make the bet higher and extend the duration to less than ten years. Abū Bakr wins the bet after the Byzantines defeat the Persians within the time limit that the Qur’ān mentions (see al-Tirmidhī 2000: (2) 815-816). This narration is authentic according to al-Albānī (2000 A: 232) and can be found in almost all the Tafsīr sources that deal with this chapter, especially the Ma’thūr ones such as Ibn Kathīr (1994: (3) 561-562) and al-Ṭabarī (1999: (10) 163-166), and also in al-Qurṭubī (1998: (14) 3-5) of the Ra’y school. Yet some of the narrators mention that the duration was nine years, nonetheless; the author argues that the narration that mentions “less than ten years” is more authentic as al-Albānī stated earlier.
• The opinion that Ibn Manẓūr mentions, on the Bid‘ being from 3 to 9, could have depended on a ḥadīth spoken of by al-Tirmidhī (2000: (2) 815) in which the Prophet Muhammad said to Abū Bakr after he bet one of the Polytheists on the Byzantines’ victory over the Persians within a few years: “You should have been more careful Abū Bakr, since the Bid‘ is between 3 and up to 9” (ألا احتطت يا أبا بكر، فإن البضع ما بين الثلاث إلى التسع). The author argues that this narration is weak, as al-Albānī mentions (2000: (7) 363-366). However, another ḥadīth is mentioned also by al-Tirmidhī (2000: (2) 815-816) where Abū Bakr bets a Polytheist and makes the bet’s duration 5 years; when the five years have passed and the Byzantines have not gained a victory over the Persians Abū Bakr loses the bet and mentions this to the Prophet. The Prophet said: “Why did not you make the bet to under ten years” and one of the narrators of the ḥadīth, namely Sa‘īd, comments: “The Bid‘ is what is under ten” (فجعل أجل خمس سنين فلم يظهروا فذكروا ذلك للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: ألا جعلته إلى دون قال: أراه العشر. قال سعيد: والبضع ما دون العشر). This narration is stronger than the previous one, and al-Albānī argues that it is authentic (2002: (3) 299-300). This makes the opinion of al-Fayrūz’ābādī more acceptable than the one mentioned by Ibn Manẓūr.
• Rajab is the 7th month in the lunar calendar.
• According to Wilkinson (1990: 102), the city of Jerusalem was restored by the Byzantines in 628 CE. Strategos does not specify the time between the Persian invasion and the Byzantines regaining the region. He notes some events that took place around the 15th year after the Persian occupation of the city of Jerusalem, and mentions that Emperor Heraclius entered the city in the 17th year after the Persian invasion of the city of Jerusalem. This means that the start of the movement towards re-taking the city of Jerusalem was in 629 CE, and Heraclius entered the city again in 631 CE after a peace treaty with the Persians. Theophanes also mentions a peace treaty and specifies the year 626 or 627 (it is unclear in his account) as being the time when the Persians in “Edessa, Palestine, Jerusalem, and other Roman towns” were allowed “to cross the Roman territory without harm”, when they left for their own lands. Also, the Chronicon Paschale speaks about this peace treaty without mentioning Jerusalem clearly, but the Chronicon Paschale notes that this was in 626 CE. The author argues that Strategos’ opinion on this issue might not be as accurate as his account of the Persian invasion of Islamicjerusalem. This is because he was in the city of Jerusalem at the time of the Persian invasion, but was not present in the region as an eyewitness during the time of the peace treaty between the Persians and the Byzantines. The Chronicon Paschale was written in Constantinople, i.e. at the heart of the Byzantine capital where Heraclius was in the process of forming the peace treaty. Also, Theophanes depends in his opinions and accounts on various narrations and accounts, and this shows that more than one source agrees that the peace treaty took place during 626 or 627 CE. The author, therefore, will take the Chronicon Paschale and Theophanes’ opinions into consideration rather than that of Strategos in this case. The author argues that Wilkinson may have confused the Byzantine conquest of the region with the visit of the Emperor Heraclius to the city of Jerusalem that took place in 628 CE (see Theophanes 1997: 458) (see Chronicon Paschale 1989: 182-188). This marked the crowning of the Byzantine victory.
• By studying the general biography and acts of Heraclius as has been mentioned by many historians, particularly the Chronicon Paschale in Constantinople, the author argues that it seems that Heraclius was religious and a practising Christian. In fact, the Chronicon Paschale notes this clearly when it describes Heraclius as “Our most pious emperor” (1989: 182). Also, Hitti (1951: 409) notes that Heraclius was “hailed deliverer of Christendom and cross to Jerusalem” after he regained power over the region, rebuilt the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and restored the Holy Cross to Jerusalem. This is also the general picture of Heraclius in the Muslim sources as El-Cheikh (1999: 7) argues.
• Baynes does not mention this date in particular, but he says that, according to the historical sources, the actual battle in which Heraclius gained his first ever major victory over the Persians took place 15 days after a moon eclipse on the 23rd January 623 CE. The author agrees with this date, although Theophanes mentions this battle as between 621 and 622 CE, not in 623 CE, and he does not specify the date of the battle. Yet this is not correct since it contradicts many other sources such as Whitby mentions in Appendix 4 of Chronicon Paschale (1989: 203-205), Whitby discusses this issue thoroughly also and finds that Theophanes made some mistakes in this period in particular and may have confused the dates.
• It is noted that the Chronicon Paschale does not fully describe these events as detailed as does Theophanes. The author argues that this might be since the writers of the Chronicon Paschale were located in Constantinople and were more interested in the news of the royal family; they also might not have had a full picture of the events since the book ended at the year 628 CE. This means that the writers of this book were writing about recent events that took place far away from them, which may have affected their description. However, Theophanes wrote his account more than two hundred years after these events and depended on other sources, which justifies his detailed description and analysis of those events.
• The dates, times, and types of the lunar eclipses in the 7th century are listed on NASA website. See ‘NASA Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer for Asia’, date consulted: 13-3-2008, http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html
• The author argues that it is unlikely that the eclipse mentioned in relation with the battle between the Byzantines and the Persians took place in February 622 CE. This is since it would have occurred before the Prophet Muhammad’s migration to Madīnah, which contradicts the Muslim sources that show the huge reputation that this battle had in the Arab Peninsula. None of these sources say that this took place while the Prophet was in Makkah, but in Madīnah.
• At the end of this narration, al-Tirmidhī adds a personal comment from one of the narrators, namely Sufyān, who says: “I heard that they [the Byzantines] defeated them [the Persians] on the day of Badr”. The author argues that this is not a part of the ḥadīth but a personal comment from a narrator, who, as he does not specify a source, gives it little credibility.
• Less authentic than the Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
• The author mentioned and discussed this narration earlier in a footnote.
• The Avars were a people of undetermined origin and language who, playing an important role in Eastern Europe (6th–9th century), built an empire in the area between the Adriatic and the Baltic Sea and between the Elbe and Dnieper Rivers (6th–8th century). (McHenry 1993: (1) 734)
• The author studied all the verses in which the Qur’ān mentions the two terminologies (see ‘Abd al-Bāqī 1996: 451 and 607). It is interesting to note that the Qur’ān mentions the terms عام‘Ām, عاماً‘Āman,عامهم ‘Āmihim and عامين‘Āmayn only nine times, the last time among them was in chapter 31. Whereas it mentions the terms سنة Sanah and سنين Sinīn nineteen times, the last time in chapter 30. The author argues that, when analysing the Qur’ānic texts that mention the terms ’Ām and Sanah and their derivatives, it can be noted that whenever the Qur’ān speaks of the year that it related directly to the Arabs or the Arab Peninsula, such as the time of pilgrimage, it uses the term ‘Ām. The Qur’ān uses the term sanah and its derivatives to refer to the non-Arab years, except in three cases: the story of Uzair (Qur’ān 2: 259) where the Qur’ān uses the term ‘Ām although that person was of the Children of Israel and not Arab, and it uses both terms ‘Ām and Sanah in one verse in the story of the Prophet Noah, who was Arab, when mentioning Noah’s age:
• And We sent Noah to his people and he stayed among them one thousand Sanah less fifty ‘Ām (29:14) ولقد أرسلنا نوحاً إلى قومه فلبث فيهم ألف سنة إلا خمسين عاماً Also, the Qur’ān uses a very interesting expression to refer to the sleeping time of Ahl al-Kahf (the young people who slept in a cave) in chapter 18:
• And they stayed in their cave for Three Hundred Sinīn and added by Nine (18:25) ولبثوا في كهفهم ثلاثمائةٍ سنينَ وازدادوا تسعاً It is noted that every 300 solar years equal 309 lunar years. This clarifies why the Qur’ān expresses the time as being sinīn not a‘wām as it was known among the Arabs at that time. The Qur’ān never uses the term sanah or its derivatives to refer to the Arab years, but only to the solar year.
• The news would have taken around that period to reach Arabia. From Arabia to al-Shām it was about one month’s journey, to Armenia it would be more.
• This difference between the terms Ghalaba غَلَبَand Intaṣara انتصر, and the terms Ghuliba غُلِبَ and Huzima هُزِمَ can be understood when looking at the meanings of these terms in Arabic language dictionaries such as Lisān al-‘Arab (see Ibn Manẓūr 1999: (10) 97-98, (14)160-161, and (15) 90-92)
• العلاء بن الزبير الكلابي يحدث عن أبيه قال: رأيت غلبة فارس الروم، ثم رأيت غلبة الروم فارس، ثم رأيت غلبة المسلمين فارس والروم، كل ذلك في خمس عشرة سنة. The fifteen years mentioned in this text are most likely an estimation, since al-Zubayr did not specify times. He only mentions that these events happened within this period without specifying exact dates. This means that he meant to estimate the period in order to show how close the events were to each other, not to specify the exact period.