Before Orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed

Author:Shahab Ahmed [Ahmed, Shahab]
Language: eng
Format: azw3, mobi, epub
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Published: 2017-04-23T16:00:00+00:00

Riwāyahs 35 to 44: Conclusions

The most remarkable feature in the nine riwāyahs attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (and the tenth, Riwāyah 42, that we have attributed to him bi-al-ma‘nā) is their hermeneutical consistency. On two fundamental points, they all present the same interpretation of the incident: they agree that the Prophet uttered the Satanic verses; and none of them makes any mention of the Prophet’s desire, the default gloss for tamannā within the wording of the narratives being “recitation” [qirā’ah, tilāwah]—which is expressly stated in Riwāyah 37. On this second point, it is interesting to note the gloss of tamannā in another tafsīr transmission attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, that of ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭalḥah al-Wālibī al-Ḥimṣī (d. 143):579 “His words, ‘When he tamannā, Satan cast into his umniyyah’: when he spoke, Satan cast into his speech [idhā ḥaddatha alqā al-shayṭān fī ḥadīthi-hi].”580 Here, too, tamannā is glossed not as “desire” but as the Prophet’s utterances.581

The variations of note in the riwāyahs attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās are three. First is the distinctive hermeneutical elaboration that is present in Riwāyahs 36, 37, and 38, but nowhere else, whereby Satan deceives the Prophet by appearing to him in the form of Jibrīl. Riwāyahs 37 and 38 name the Satan in question as one al-Abyaḍ. These motifs, while absent from the other riwāyahs, effect a hermeneutical elaboration that is additional to but does not contradict the fundamental two points stated above that constitute the common hermeneutical position of the reports attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās. The second variation is in Riwāyah 35, which seems to imply the “repetition” motif contained in Riwāyah 34. However, as noted above, it is unlikely that the reader unaware of Riwāyah 34 would detect the “repetition” motif in Riwāyah 35, and again, Riwāyah 35 in no way contradicts Riwāyahs 36 to 44. On a third point, the two transmission traditions differ: Riwāyahs 40 and 42 from ‘Uthmān b. al-Aswad contain a correction scene, while Riwāyahs 43 and 44 from Abū Bishr do not. We will take up this point again in the discussion of Riwāyahs 40 to 47 below.

Riwāyahs 35 to 44 all present what is essentially the same hermeneutical elaboration of the Satanic verses incident. It is further instructive to note here that my notion that reports may meaningfully be assessed on the basis of shared hermeneutical elaboration is not my methodological innovation: it is apparently shared by Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī, who followed his citation of Riwāyah 36 (from Abū Ṣāliḥ) with Riwāyah 41 (from Sa‘īd b. Jubayr) by saying, “Sa‘īd b. Jubayr relates something similar to that”582 (i.e., something similar to Riwāyah 36). A cursory comparison of the two riwāyahs shows little similarity in wording. In categorizing them as “similar,” Abū al-Layth can be referring only to their shared hermeneutical position. The fact that this interpretation is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās by six different scholars transmitting knowledge in different cities clearly shows that the idea that the Prophet uttered the Satanic verses was seen by the late first- and

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.