Abstract Tajalli wa-Ru'ya: A Study of Anthropomorphic Theophany and Visio Dei in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an and Early Sunni Islam by W. Wesley Williams Chair: Sherman A. Jackson Islam is often viewed as the religion par excellence of divine transcendence, God is Miilaf al“Glam, “the absolute divergence from the worid” and this characteristically Islamic doctrine of mukhdlafa “(divine) otherness” precludes divine corporeality. In as much as this latter is conditio sine qua non of visibility, it is axiomatic that the God of Islam in invisible and therefore non-theophanous. This tradition of divine invisibility and incorporeal teanscendence is in radical discontinuity with the Biblical/Semitic and ancient Near Eastern tradition of transcendent anthropomorphism and perilous tisio Dei, according to which God/the gods has/have bodies human of’shape but transcendent in substance, manner of being, and effect. Seeing this transcendently anthropomorphic deity is possible but dangerous for mortal onlookers. The profound disparity between Islamic and Biblical/ancient Near Eastern articulations of divine transcendence raises questions regarding Islam's place among the Semitic religions. ‘This dissertation argues that as a member of the Semitic religions Islam too possessed! tradition of transcendent anthropomorphism, theophany and visio Dei, which «radition fikely originated with the Prophet Muhammad. When read in the context of possible Biblical and ancient Near Eastern narrative/mythological subtexts, rather than affirming divine invisibility the relevant Que'Bnic passages seem to qualify divine visibility and theophany. It is argued here that despite the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic critique of anthropomorphism by rationalist groups such as the Mu'tazila a defining aspect of the traditionalist Sunni ‘agida or creed for the first four centuries (9"-12" CE) was theaffirmation of Muhammad's visual encounter with God. As in post-Maimonidean Judaism, however, the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic revision of the Sunni creed will eventually be so successful that it has resulted ia the near-total forgetting of this earlier Islamic tradition of anthropomorphic theophany and Visio Ds,Tajallt wa-Ru'ya: A Study of Anthropomorphic Theophany and Visio Dei in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an and Early Sunni Islam by W. Wesley Williams A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Near Eastern Studies) in The University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sherman A. Jackson, Chair Professor Juan R. Cole Professor Alexander D. Knysh Associate Professor Brian B. Schmidt© W. Wesley Williams 2008 ‘All Rights ReservedAcknowledgements First, I must acknowledge and thank God, without whom I could have never completed this long and difficult journey. My thanks to Professor Alexander (Sasha) Knysh ‘who, when I felt overwhelmed early in this process and ready to quite, he encouraged me to continue on, My thanks to Professor Sherman Jackson, my advisor and in many ways my ‘mentor. Thank you for your time and guidance. Thanks to my Committee, Professors Sherman A. Jackson, Alexander Knysh, Juan R, Cole and Brian B. Schmidt, To Professor Gary Beckman, Margaret Casazza, Angela Beskow, and all of the staff and faculty at the Department of Near Eastern Studies who were in any way involved in this process with me: thank you for your patient assistance. To Douglas Keasal for all of the much needed financial support he helped me secure: thanks a million, A special thanks to Roger Doster. Quite frankly without your efforts I would not have entered the program, and without your continued efforts I would not have made it through ‘Thank you, thank you, thank you. A special thanks also to Victoria Bells for your great sacrifices. I will always be mindful of them and appreciative of you for them. 1 don’t think any one has willingly sacrificed for this cause as much as has Laurita ‘Thomas, my blessed Mother. Ma, what can I say? Thank you a million times could never adequately convey my gratitude. I love you infinitely. To all of my family: Aunti (Eva), Moe, Courtney, Jaci, Charita, Aunt Charlene, Nanna, Aunt Janet and Uncle GJ, Aunt Denise and Uncle Mike, Paul, DaShanne: without yonr help with childcare, a daughter's hair, and numerous other maiters, this Dad could not have pulled this off. Thank you. To my little sparrows, Ava and Islam: thank you babies. You too have sacrificed so much. I am so sorry iT failed to do some of the things that maybe could have minimized those sacrifices. To Leslie Ann Williams and Dorthea Breckenridge: Ma, Grandma, [ove you and I miss you,Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii Abbreviations vii Chapter: Introduction to this Study 1 1.1. Theophany and Visio Dei in Islamic Tradition? 1 1.2. Western Studies on Visio Dei in Islam 4 1.3. Islam and the Semitic Monotheistic Tradition 10 1.4. The Que’an and Biblical Tradition 4 Seeing and Not Seeing God in Biblical Tradition al 2.1, Deus Invsibtis in the Hebrew Bible? Pa Excursus: Divine Corporeality and Invisibility 30 ‘Transcendent Anthropomorphism and Divine (Invisibility 34 2.2.1. Anthropomorphism and Theophany 40 2.3. Exodus 33: Divine Visibility and Human Peril 45 2.4, Anthropomorphic Theophany and the Prophetic Call 54 2.4.1, The Divine Encounter 58 24.1.1. The Kabéd Glory) Theophany 59 24:1.2. The Angelomorphic Theophany or God Incogyti 64 2.4.1.2.1. Mal’ak yhwh as Yahweh 70 2.5. Concluding Remarks 73 Chapter III: Theophany and Visio Dei: the Qur‘anic Perspective 16 3.1, Deus Invisibilis in the Que’an? 76 3.2, Revelation and Riya 7 3.2.1. Sirat al-Shiira [42]: 50: Veiled, not Invisible 79 3.3. Siirat al-An‘am [6]: 103: Seeing vs. Perceiving 83 4.3.1. Seeing and Not Perceiving 85 3.4. Strat al-A'rdf [7:1 43: Divine Visibility and Human Peril 88 iiiChapter IV: Chapter V: Chapter VIE 3.5. Sitrat al-Bagarah (2):55-56 and Siirat al-Nisa? [4]:15 Vietims of Theophany 3.5.1. The Biblical Subtext 3.5.2. The Rabbinic Subtext 3.5.3. Quranic Text, Biblical/Extra-Biblical Subtexts 3.6, Concluding Remarks Tajalli wa-Ru’ ya: The Quranic Perspective Part IT 4.1, Sizrat al-Najim and the Question of Ru’ya 4.2, ‘One Mighty in Power Taught Him’: Jibril or God? 4.3. ‘He Revealed to His Servant’: Evidence of Theophany 44, Sirat al-Naim and the Throne-Theophany Tradition 4.5. ‘His Heart Lied Not 4.6. Strat al Nagin and the Mitra? 4.7. Rua bi T-basar Vision of the Byes) or Ru’ya bi -qalé (Vision of the Heart)? 4.8, Theophany and the Aydt (Signs) of God 4.8.1, The Greatest of God’s Ayat: His Theophanic Form? 49. Sivat al-Tatzuit vs, Strat al-Najm? 4.10, Concluding Remarks Muhkammad’s Prophetic Call: From Theophany to Angelophany 5.1. The Angel fibril and the Canonical Call-Account 5.3. Muhammad’s Call and the Throne-Theophany Tradition 9.4. The Jibrilian Redaction: From Theophany to Angelophany Did Muhammad See His Lord? The Ru’ya Controversy Among the Sahaba and the Tabi'in 6.1, The Controversy According wo Hadith 6.1.1. ‘Abd Allah b, “Abbas (¢, 688) 6.1.2. Aba Hurayra (4. 678) 92 93, 96 98 100 101 lol 102 106, 110 lt 16 122 124 128, 132 137 139 139 5.2. The Canontical Gall-Account and the Barly Qussds (Storytellers) 147 1486.1.3, Anas b, Malik (4. 709 or 712 6.1.4, Asma’ bint Abr Bakr (1. 692-3) 6.1.5. Umm al-Tufayl, wife of Ubayy b. Ka'b (4. 642) 6.1.6. Aba Dharr al-Ghifiirt (4. 652) 6.1.7.‘Abd Allah b, Mas‘ad (4. 652) 6.1.8. ‘A’isha bint Abi Bakr (4. 678) 6.2, Islam’s Youthful Deity and its History-of Religions Background 6.3, Concluding Remarks Chapter VII: Al-Ru'ya and the Articulation of Sunnism 7.1, Al-Hasan al-Basrt, al-Ruja and Proto-Sunnism 7.2. Ahmad b. Hanbal, a-Rwya and Sunnism 721. Rucya bi Thasar or Rutya bi 'eqald? tom Hanbal’s Doppelgesicht 7.2.2. Ibn Hanbal, Hadith al Shab) and the Sunni Gouesbild 7.8. The Hanabila, al-Ruya and Sunnt Orthodoxy in the 10! ~114 Centuries 7.3.1. Hanbalt Origins 7.5.2. Hanbalism and the Maturation of Sunnism 7.3.3, Defenders of the Faith 7.3.4, AL-Rivya andl the Sunnt ‘Aqida 7.3.4.1, Sunnism’s Youthfit! Deity 7.3.4.2. The Affair of al-Qadi Aba Ya‘la 7.4. ‘Nisha’s Denial and Sunnism’s Affirmation 7.5. Ruja bi T-qalb and Traditionalist Sunnism 7.6. Concluding Remarks Chapter VIII: Transcendent Anthropomorphism, Visio Dei and the Writing of tstamic Theological History 8.1. The Problem of Anthropomorphism in Islamic Historiography 8.1.1. Classical Muslim Authors on Anthropomorphism, 178 180 lez 183 187 190) lot 203 204 204 208 218 220 223 226 227 234 236 238 240 243, 247 251 253 2578.2, Islamic Anthropomorphism? 260 8,3, Transcendent Anthropomorphism 266 Chapter IX: Conelusion 275 Bibliography 278 viABD AcOr ANE ANRW ARW BA BARa BBSMES Bib BibRev BR BSac BSOAS BTB CAD cBQ DDD Et EP EQ ER ERE HAR HB HBT HTR HUCA ic IDB IDBSup IJMES dnt 108 1PQ, Is ISBE JA Abbreviations Anchor Bible Dictionary Acta Oriental Ancient Near East(ern) Auytieg und Niedergang Der Rémischen Welt Archiy fir Religionswissenschaft Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeologist Review Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies Biblica The Biblical Review Bibtical Review Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin fr the School of Oriental and Affican Studies Biblical Theology Bulletin ‘The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute ofthe University of Chicago Cathotie Biblical Quarterly Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Encyclopedia of Istun. First Edition Leiden 1913-38 Encyclopedia of Islam. New Edition Leiden 1954 Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Encyclopedia of Religion Encyclopedia of Religion and ethics Hebrew Annual Review Hebrew Bible Horizons in Biblical Theology Hanard Theological Review Hebrew Onion College Annual Islamic Culture Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Interpreter’s Dictionary ofthe Bible Supplement International Fournal of Middle East Studies Interpretation Israel Oriental Studies Intemational Philosophical Quarterly Islamic Studies International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Journal AsiatiqueJANES JANESCU JAos Je. JETS Tas re NES JNSL FOR 9s FRAS FRelS FSAL ISI JSNT 580 585 jIs LXX MIO MT MTSR Mus MW NOAB NTS OTs RB REI Rel, Stud. RHR Sr SjOT SIRI SR SiPatr SITh THAT mz 1G TDNT TDOT Journal ofthe Ancient Near Easter Society Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Joxrrck of the American Oriental Society “Journal of Biblical Literature “Goal ofthe Braet Theological Sciey Journal of Jewish Studies Jounal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Journal of Near Eastern Studies “Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Jounal of Quranic Studies Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Fouad of Religious Studies Jerusalem Studies in Arabic amd Estam ‘Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies ‘Septuagint Mitteilungen des Insituls fir Orientforschung Masoretic Text Method and Theory in the Study of Religion ‘Le Muséon The Muslim World New Oxford Annotated Bible New Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studién Revue bibligue Reece des Etudes Islamiques: Religious Studies Reaue de Uhistore des religious Studia Istamica Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scotish Journal of Religious Studies Studies in Religion/ Sciences religiouses Studia Patristica Studia Theologica Theologisches Handwiorlerbuch zum Allen Testament, ed. E. Jenni and CW, Westermann “Theologisches Literatur Zeitung Theologe und Geselschaft im 2, und 3. Jaluundert Hidschra, Josef van Ess Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ‘Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament viii‘TLOT TToday TWAT ‘TynBul UF ve VT VISup wrt ZAW Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Theology Today Theologisches Wosterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. CJ. Botterweck and H, Ringgren ‘Eondiale Bulletin Uparitische Forsehungen Vigiliae Christianae Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fir Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete Zeitschrif fir afttestamenttiche Wissenschaft ixChapter I: Introduction to this Study 1.1 Theophany and Visio Def in Islamic Tradition? Until relatively recently it was axiomatic that Judaisin is the religion of the invisible and non-theophanous deity; the God of Israel is heard but not seen.! Critical scholarship, however, has demonstrated that this characterization is inaccurate both for biblical as well as extra-biblical religion.? Indeed, ancient Israel shared its neighbors’ preoccupation with theophany and Visio Dei Daniel Boyarin argues that it is only under Hellenistic influence that Jewish cultures exhibited any anxiety about the visibility of God: ‘The biblical and Rabbinic religions were quite free of such influences and anxieties. ‘Thus I would identify Greck influences on Judaism in the Middle Ages as being the major force for repressing the visual. The Neoplatonic and Aristotelian revision of Judaism undertaken by the Jewish scholastics was so successful that it has resulted in de ‘ear-total forgetting of the biblical and Rabbinic eadicions of God’s visibility.+ ‘This near-total forgetting of an earlier tradition of theophany and Visio Dei finds its parallel, it will be argued, in the history of Islamic theological development. Islam is offen The Rise of 'Martin Jay took it as a given that the God of Judaism was “invisible and non-theophanous” also Jose Hermeneutis and the Crises of Ocularcentriam,” Puctics Tadey 9 (2988): 308 [art=307-326]. § aur, Golden Does with Ser Dot: Smots and Textalty x Rabbinie Tradition Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 29-30: “Verbal representation of God, even in anthropomorphic terms, is common, Doth to Scripture and to the rabbis. What was offensive to the Hebrew was ‘to see’ God; that is, to express iis reality atthe visual level,” 2 See below, Chapter Two. 5 See Jeffery J. Niehaus, Godot Sina: Covenant & Theaphany i the Bible and Ancint Near Eas (Grand Rapids, ‘Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995) and below, Chapter Two. * Boyarin, Daniel. “Phe Bye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic,” Critical Ingui 16 (Spring 1990}: 533-4 [art =532-550},viewed as the religion fer excellence of divine transcendence.) While the post-mortem Beatific Vision would become a cardinal point of Sunni orthodoxy,® this is to be understood against the backdrop of Islam's zealous defense of God’s absolute ‘otherness’ {mukhalafa), The latter precludes divine corporeality, and corporeality is the sine gua non of any object of ocular perception.” No true ‘seeing’ of God, therefore is possible. This is specially true of humans in this world, even the prophets. Mubammad’s revelatory experience was completely audiory.* Though he was hearing the very Speech of God (Kalam Alla), he saw only the intermediating angel Jibril - never God himself. Faruq, Sherif statement in his, A Guide to the Contents of the Qur’an, would be found acceptable to Sunnt and Shy? theologians alike: It follows cleanly from the Qur’anic revelation that Allah does not reveal Himself through incarnation in human form or human attributes. ‘The absolutely transaendent Deity cannot be directly apprehended by mart? 5 See ¢g. William A. Graham, “Transcendence in Islam,” in Edwin Dowdy (ed), Wis of Tenscendene Insights From Major Reigns and Moder Thought (Bedford Park, South Australia: Australian Association 1982) 7-23; Muhammad Fbrahim HLL. Surty, “The Conception of God In Musim Tradition,” 1937 (1993)127f J. Windrow Sweetman (slam and Christen Theol, 3 Parts, 4 vols. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947] pointed out back in 1937 that “(many writers have observed that Islam overemphasies the ranseendence of God." H. U, Weitbrecht Stanton (Te Teaching of the Qu’ [London: Central Board of Missions and Society for Promoxing Christian Knowledge, 1919], 39) Bkewise observed that “The idea of divine ‘transcendence (is) so relenilesly devetoped by Moslem theology in its conception of anzik = removal and smatthaafo = contrariety (between Allah and the creature...” See also W.M. Watt’s comments (‘Some ‘Muslim Discussions of Anthropomorphism,” in idem, Barly lan: Called Artes [Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press, 1990] 87) “We in the West tend to speak of Islam as stressing the transcendence of God, ‘ut it has to be remembered that, while for the West the chief aspect of transcendence is probably God’ might and majesty, for Islam its rather His ohernes ffom His creatures. Tis aspect i present in the Old ‘Testament... but ft che Mfusim outlook it relative importance is greater.” 4 See EP 8:649 sv. Ruyat Allah by D. Gimaret; Anthony Keith Tut, “The Origins and Development of the Controversy over Rua in Medieval Islam and its Relation to Gontemporary Visual Theory.” PAD diss, Universy of Caiforia, Los Angeles, 1979}, Abdus Sublan, “Mu'aziite View on Beatific Vision,” IC 15 (1941): 422-498, 7 On the ‘onthodox’ belefin divine otherness=i onporeality see Watt, “Some Muslim Discussions,” 87-9. * Yagub Zaki, “The Qur'an and Revelation," in Dan Cohn-Sherbok ed) lamina Wald f Diverse Fai, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991) 4, 51-54; Abdullah Saeed, “Rethinking ‘Revelation’ axa Precondition for Reinierpreting the Qur'an: A Quranic Perspective,” 7QS 11999): 101, 108-109 “According to Khalifa Abdul Hakim (Ulam avogy [Pakistan Institute of Ilanic Culture, 1993, 40), “Belin ..an Unseen God is a fundamental postulate of Islam,” See also Nagendra Kr. Singh, Unseen Gad (Chili Qabar, Delhi: Adam Publisher & Distributors, 1997). » (Reding, 1995), 24Western scholars of Islam, of impressed by and even humbled before Islam’s “radical” doctrine of divine transcendence,1” have confirmed for us Islam’s categorical rejection of theophany and Visio Dei. Helmut Ritter, for example argued in 1955: lamic orthodoxy will absolutely not accept atibuting a particular form to God. It concedes tothe foremost of the senses (4ccording to our conception, not that ofthe Arabs) the sense of sight, no share in God's revelation, whereas it sal the more generous with regard to the second sense, that of hearing, To orthodox Islam the idea that God could bave a visible form is an abomination. The advancement in scholarship since Ritter wrote has done little to modify this view of Islam’s revelatory process. Stefan Wild, for example, in explaining why nugill, a technical term for the revelation of the Qur’an, should not be translated by “revelation,” argues: ‘The translation of “revelation” for the Arabic word nuziil is as inevitable as it is problematic. The Christian term “revelation” (Latin raelato, Greek apokalypsi) is a ‘metaphor meaning something like “unveiling”; the word “epiphany” (hiphanea) means “becoming visible and audible for mankind, to reveal Himself.” This concept is foreign to the Qur'an and Islam." Thus, both Muslim theologians and Western scholars tend (o agree that for “orthodox,” “normative,” or “mainstream” Islam, and by implication for Muhammad as well, God's utter ‘otherness’ necessitates divine incorporeality and invisibility and therefore precludes any theophanic encounter for the prophets or any others.!9 Indeed, God is so transcendentally unique that one wonders how a Muslim may experience him at all. eg. Samuel M. Zwemer, “The Allah of Islam and the God of'Jesus Christ,” TTiday 3 (1946): 64-77, Stanton, Tracing ofthe Quran, 3. "Das Meer Der Sle (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955): 439 (=The Ocean ofthe Sol Men, dhe World and God in the Stories of Farid al-Din ‘Auar. Translated and Edited by john O'Kane and Bernd Radtke (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003) $53). We Have Sent Down to Thee the Book With Truth... Spatial and temporal implications ofthe Qurnle concepts of mci, anzil, and nz,” in idem (ed), The Quran as Text (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 996) 437, See also Daniel A. Madigan, The Quian’s Sf Image: Writing and Author in lam’s Senptre (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001) 140 "Theodore Noldeke, Sezies From Easton Hiswry (London; A. Edinburgh, and C. Black, 1892), 23 “Mohammed's transcendental idea of God, asa being exalted altogether above the world, exchudes the thought of direct intercourse herween the Prophet and God.” See also Zaki, “The Qur'an and Revelato idem, “The Concept of Revelation in Islam,” ia Henry Thompson (ed.), Uni ir Dees: Esays in Religion (Baytown, NY: The Seminary, 1984) 59-71; Ismail A.B. Balogun, “Relation between God and His1.2. Western Studies on Visio Dei in Islam. Daring the 8" through the 10% centuries Islam experienced what AJ. Wensinck characterized as a “dogmatic crises.” 5 Various personalities and groups - stimulated both by indigenous cancers as well as foreign influences - contemplated and speculated on a host of theological issues and articulated novel doctrines and ideas, for which some were censured by the more moderate scholars, Many of these controversies revolved around the nature of God and his Attrbutes.'® Of fundamental concern to the disputants was Rua, the Vision of God. While both traditionalists (atl al-haditl) and speculative theologians (mutakallimin) generally denied that God could be seem in chis life - the traditionalists basing their position on prophetic narrations!” and the theologians employing logical arguments as well as qur'anic proofs'® - the two sides polemicized furiously against one another over whether or not God will be seen by the faithful on the Day of Judgment, In the end, the Beatific Vision would become a pillar of Sunnt doctrine.!? Within the larger controversy over Ru‘}a there was the equally vexing issue of whether or not the Prophet himself saw God during his lifetime. Despite the guarantee from both Creation: Revelation and Authoriyin Islam,” in Hans Koechler (ed, The Conf Adrmateion in lam and Christianity. Papers oft InematinalSsmpesionegacized Rome, Ray, 17-19 November 1981, under the patronage of HRH. Coun Prine san of Jordan bythe Iuematinal Progress Organization (Viena, Austria: Wilelm Bra, 1982) 76 fare =71-85) "Thus Abdoldjavad Falatari opens his article, “How can a Muslim Experience God, Given Islam's Radical Monotheism”: "Experiencing God is problem in Islam because, in general, Muslim philosophical and theological thought has understood God as transcending all posible catergories of being, beeause of his absolute unity and uniqueness. God is consequently so separated from man that the most he can hope for isan abstract, rational experience of God, provided he has been thoroughly trained in philasophry.” In Annemarie Schimmel and Abdoldjavad Falatari (edd), We Bele in One God: The Experience of God i (Christianity and Islam (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) 77 ® The Muslin Creed (1922; reprint, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Coxporation, 1979), 831 "John Paviin, “Sunni Aalém and theological controversies,” in Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (cdi), Histny of Istamic Philosophy, 2 vols. (London, New York: Routledge, 1996), 1:105. © AL-Nasa’t reports from the Prophet, “You will not see God until you die.” Al-Sinanal-Kubra, 6 vols (Beirut: Dar g-Kurub al-limiya, 1991), 4419, #7764, 8 See Tull, “The Origins and Development.” "8 Fora look at classic traditionalist defense of the Beatifc Vision see Ahmad b, Hanbal, oRadd ‘ala Zanadiga ws. Jahmiya (Cairo, 1973)‘Muslim and Western gcholars that the God of Islam reveals himself 10 no one, there are numerous reports in the classical Arabic literature describing Muhammad’s visual encounter with his Lord, The subject of this alleged vision of God was even more divisive than that of the Beatific Vision proper. Not only were the traditionalists and speculative theologians divided on the issue, but the hadith literature presents what could be described as a “heated” discussion among the Companions of the Prophet . This, controversy over theophany and Visio Da in Islam has received scant attention in the academic literature. Most handbooks on Islamic theological development say litle or nothing about it.2° Such neglect seems to have been inherited from later Mustim authors for whom God’s mukhalafa militated against any visionary experience by anyone in this ‘world (al-Dunya). Shahrastani (4. 1153), in his Kitab al-milal wa ‘-nihal,2) enumerates ten disputes which occupied the community of the Sakaba, though he says nothing of the controversy which, according to the hadich literature, involved hard feelings, harsh accusations and a great many of the most famous Companions, 19 of which allegedly reported Muhammad's vision of God.” Denial of the experience is attributed to ‘Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife, as well as Aba Hurayra and ‘Abd Allah b. Mas'ad.?3 Other than a brief mention or a discussion of the conflicting interpretations of Sat al- Naim (53:1-18) and its relation to both Muhammad’s Gall and his ascensiost to heaven (omird),2 very few studies have devoted setious attention to this controversy, and those = See for example: Tilman Nagel, The Hisioy of Islamic Thales from Muhammad fo the Prat (Princeton, Nf Markus Weiner Publishers, 2000), WM. Watt, The Formate Prod of lamie Thowpt (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998); John Paviin, “Sunni kalam,”; Ziauddin Ahmed, “A Survey of the Development of Theology in Islam,” 18 1] (1972|: 93-111; Ignaz Goldziber, Invoduction o Islamic Theology and Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981); A'S. Triton, Muslin Theology (Luzac & Company LTD, 1947}; D. B, Macdonald, Delopnent of Muslin Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1903}; Wensinck, Muslin Cred; Louis Gardet and MM, Anawati, /noduction ala Thialogie Musulman: Esai de Thiolrgie Conperte (Paris: Libraitie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1948) 21 Translated by AK. Kazi and .G. Flynn (London; Kegan Paul International, 1984). ” See belyw Chapter VI ® See al-Nawawt, Star Safi Musi 11 vols. (Cairo: Dir al-Hadith, 1994), 2:10f and below. % See eg. B. Schricke, “Die Himmelsreise Mubammeds," Der Islam 6 (1915-16): 20;]. Horovite, “Muhammeds Himmelfahr,” Der Idem 5 (1919) 159F; Richard Bell, "Muhammad's Visions,” A124 (1934): 145-154; idem, Jntoduction tthe Qur'an (Edinburgh: Eainburgh University Press, 1953) 29-36; Rudi Paret, Mokemmed snd der ivan (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1957) 44-46,W., Montgomery Watt, Mukommad at Mecca Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) 39-44; idem, Islamic Relation inthe Modem World (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969) 12-17; Theodor Lohman, “Sure 96 und die Berufing Mubammeds,”that have suffer from too limited a number of relevant sources used and from presuppositions that skewed the researchers perspective and precluded their appreciation of the place of this debate in the history of Islamic theological development. Tor Andrae, in his thesis of 1917,25 was probably the first to recognize the importance tracing this, dispute has for our understanding of the Islamic view of the divine.2° His eighteen-page discussion (68-85) is stil foundational to any treatment of the subject.27 Andrae’s primary interest was Mubammad’s Himmelfalet and it was only in that context that he was able to discuss the dispute over Muhammad's alleged visionary encounter with God, This preoccupation is a major short-coming of the discussion. The ruya-tradition and the irdj-tradition, though at times converging, are different traditions and must be analyzed as such?®; conflating the two only precludes adequate understanding of either, particularly the former. Andrae noted that following the dispute in the sources was difficult due to the conflicting testimonies often attributed to the same authorities, early as well as later. As an example he cites the ‘double-face? (Doppelgesickt) worn by Ahmad b. Hanbal on this issue, at least according to the sources.” But Andrae’s sources were severely limited, a short- coming that limited the value of the entire discussion. We hope to demonstrate that a more comprehensive use of the available source material for Ibn Hanba’s ‘apa (creed), while certainly presenting conificting views on a number of issues, nevertheless allows us to reconstruct the “Imam of Baghdad’s” position on this matter with a measure of ‘MIO 14 (1968): 248-302, 416-459, esp. 279.309; Tuf, “Origins and Development,” 24-32; W. Montgomery Wate and Alford . Welch, Dr Islam: 1 Mohammed und de Frihznit~ Islamisches Recht ~ Reiger Leben 2 vos. (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1980) 1 53-60; Alford T. Welch, “Muhammad's Understanding of Himself: The Koranic Data,” in Richard G. Hovannisian and Vryonis Speros, Jr. (edd), Isan’s Understanding of heel (Giangio Lei Della Vida Conferences) (Malibu, Cali: Undena Publications, 1982) 30 33; Annemarie Schimmel, And Muhammad is His Messenger Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) 158.165; BF? “7:99 s.v. Mi'rad) by B. Schrieke (J. Horovitz}; F.E. Peters, Mukanmad dnd the Origins of Islam (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994) 141-147, 2 Die person Muhammad’ cre und glauben seiner gemende (Stockholm: P.A. Vorstedt og séner, 1912). 2 In der tat st die entwicklung der streiage fir die lamische gottesaulfassung wie fir die schitaung des prophcten von gros belewtung (73)." ® See also his “Die legenden von der berufung Mubamieds,” Le Monde Oriental 6 (1912) 518, exp. 135: % See below, 2 Die perm Muhammeds, 745,confidence. Doing so is important, as Thn Hanbal was che architect of the early Sunnt ‘agida and his followers remained its guardians for centuries thereafter.®° Andrae argued that, “Die legenden, die unbeflangen von der persénlichen begegnung des propheten mit seinem Gotte reden, stellen also volksglauben, nicht theologische lehre dar.”8! We shall argue that this assessment is inaccurate, While many of the reports may in fact be anchored in volksglauben, and this latter was certainly influenced by ahadith al-ru}ya,% still Muhammad’s ncja indeed became thenlogical doctrine. ‘J. Windrow Sweetman included a brief discussion in his Islam and Christian Theology, claiming that “A large number of the orthodox Sunnis” admit such a vision. On the other hand, Hellmut Ritter was adamant that Islamic orthodoxy, admitting to only an acoustic revelation, rejected these reports in sum: “God reveals Himself to His prophets through acts of hearing, not through visions.” The idea of a visible, morphic deity - an idea that was ‘intolerable to orthodox Muslims’- invaded Istam (‘in den Islam ‘ungedrungen ist), maybe from Persian song, and is thus non-indigenous. In his discussion of “Le Probléme de la Vision de Dieu (Ru}a) d'aprés quelques auteurs Sites duodécimains,” Georges Vajda noted that though the problem of theophany occupied an important place in Muslim theological discourse, particularly of the second and third centuries AH, “i n'a pas été... traité de fagon suffisamment ample et encore moins approfondie.”® White our focus here is on the problem as itis discussed in Sunni literature, Vajda’s discussion is limited to Shr literature. Anthony Keith Tut wrote his dissertation on the nia controversy, but he was conces red only with “the 5 See below. 9 “The legends which unabashedly speak of the Prophet's encounter with God depict popular belief, not theological doctrine”: Die person Mukesoneds, 77 52 See below 9 118220-998, 2 “Phieogica I." Darton 17 (1928 255-257sidem, The Ota of be Sul, 453-263 2 “Philologica MI,” 257 » Georges Vajda, “Le Probléme de la Vision de Dieu (Rusa) d’aprés quelques auteurs &tives uodécimains,”in Le Sit isme iminite Colle de Srasboug (6-9 mai 1968) (Pacis: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970) 3.controversy...at its most dramatic level, the vision of God after death.» Daniel Gimaret, in his article on “Ru'yat Allah” for The Eneyelopedia of Islam likewise concentrates on Sunn discussions of the post-mortem Beatific Vision, only briefly mentioning that the question of Muhammad’s vision of God in this world was controversial on account of two contradictory statements attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Aisha. In two separate writings, Gimaret gives a number of the relevant reports extensive treatment;%° but his interest was not in the controversy per se, but in the various interpretations given to these reports by anti-anthropomorphist theologians. ‘The exception to this neglect among Western scholars is Josef van Ess who, in several ‘writings, has expounded on the controversy as it relates to surdt alsNgin{53]:t-16 and the narratives of Mubammad’s Ascension to Heaven, the Mi'rgj. # Surat al-Najm makes a highly ambiguous and enigmatic reference to two visionary encounters of the Prophet at the beginning of his career. Van Ess, following 2 long established Western tradition of reading these verses as expressing Muhammad’s belief (unfounded, for sure) that he had seen God, is convinced, again in agreement with that same Western tradition of reading, that Muhammad will later realize his error and acknowledge that it was only an angel that he had actually scen and mistaken for God, citing here sirat al-Takwir (81]:15-24, which van Ess takes as a later reference to one of the two visions mentioned in strat al Noin.!” Nevertheless, van Ess argued that, though Mustim orthodoxy, both Sunnt and ‘Shi, will come to identify the mar’y or object of Muhammad's visions there recorded as 5 “Origins and Developmen,” 3. See also ibid 3 BP 82649 sv. Ruyat Allah » Dieu a Vimage de Uhomme: les anthropomorphismes de la sunna et leur intrpritation par es théologions (Paris: Cert, 1997), 145M idem, “Au Conard HP RAG, un Hadith Interpol,” in Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezz (ed), Le Hag taique en Toe Dstam Lowviaris: Peters, 1981) 67-82 © Theol nd Geslichaim 2. und 3. Jlrlundert Hidchra (hereafter TG), 6. vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), $:387-895; The Moxering of Mustin Theloy, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006) Chapter Two; “Le MCRRAG et la Vision de Dieu dans les Premieres Spéculations Théologiques cn islam,” in Amir-Moezai, Le Voyage Initatique, 27-56; “Muhammad's Ascension to Heaven and the Beginning of Islamic Theology,” unpublished lecture, 1998, University of Michigan; “Vision and Ascension: Sita aNajm and its relationship with Muhammad's mig,” JQS 1.1 (1999): 87-62; “The ‘Youthful God: Anthropomorphism in Early Islam,” The University Lecture in Religion at Arizona State University, March 3, 2988 (Tempe: Arizona State University, 1988). 4" Le MFRAG cla Vision de Dieu,” 80-31; Flaering of Mastin This, 51-53, 69; “Vision and Ascension,” 49.50,Jibril, the Angel of Revelation, at a earlier period, i. e, the late Umayyad period, “a broad consensus” supported the opposite interpretation: Muhammad saw God.#? But this popular tradition of theophany and visio Dei will not survive the ‘Mu'tazilt onslaught,’ van Ess informs us, As a result of the Mu'tazili critique Sunnism will acquire the anti- anthropomorphist sensbility of ts theofogical enemy and jettison Muhammad's Vision. ® In doing this, however, Sunnism only followed Muhammad’s example, for he too jettisoned the ‘Vision’ when, in Medina surrounded by Jews who knew better, ie learned that God could not be seen.*# In this dissertation we shall present evidence suggesting that this ‘broad consensus’ did indeed survive the ‘Mu‘tazilt onslaught,’ We shall argue that anthropomorphic theophany and Mubammad’s visio Dei remained important, even defining aspects of traditionalist Sunnism long after the critique and subsequent fall of the Mu‘tazila, We shall argue also that this tradition of anthropomorphic theophanyy likely originated with Muhammad himself rather than with later theological reflection," Pace van Ess and others, we shall © Van Bs, “Vision and Ascension,” 55; Flacerng of Mustn Theology, 72; 4 “Unrestricted anthropomorphiam did not withstand the onslaught of the Mu'tazila: their cheofoy inthis respect shaped the Islamic identity und today.” EP 10:343 sv. Tashbwh wa-Tanzth by Josef van Ess (art =$41-344), As « result of this new scandalizing of anthropomorphism the community came to interpret the visions as visions ofthe angel Jibrl (awerng of Muslin Theol, $5; “Muhammad's Ascension,” 9; “Verbal inspiration? Lanquage and revelation in Classical Islamic theology.” in Wild, Qur'an as Tet, 187). Consequently, “ancienne exéyése anthropomorphiste (of Q.53:1-18] survécu, bein que'en marge dela théologie oficielle.” “Le MI'RAG et la Vision de Dieu," 4 "Le MERAG et la Vision de Dieu,” 48-49; Fovering of Mustin Theology, $2; “Vision and Ascension,” 49-50. + Lassume here that the Qur'an s the genuine document of Mubanamad's communications to hie Esters, rather than a later compilation from diverse traditions emanating from a monotheistic sectarian milieu ala John Wansbrouah (Quranic Sts: Stures and Metso Sipura Ierrtation (Oxford: Oxford University ‘res, [977 The Setarin Mili Conet and Compesiton of lame Slsation History [Onford: Oxford University Press, 1978)} See especially Angelika Neuwirth, “Meccan Texts ~ Medinan Additions? Politics and the Re- Reading of Liturgical Communications" in Riidiger Amzen and, Thielmann (edd), Words Tet and Concepts Cruising the Medterancan Sea: Seis onthe sare, content nd nfances of Glan ization and Arabic philosply and scence: Dedicated to Gerhard Braves on is sy ft day Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 71-93; idem, Sui zr Komposton der meldaniscen Siren (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981), On te various views regarding this question sce Angelika Neuwirth “Qur'an and History — A Disputed Relationship: Some Reflections on (Quranic History and History in the Qur'an," 759 2008) 1-18; Harald Motzki, “The Collection ofthe ‘Qur’an: A Reconsideration of Western Views in Light of Recent Meeiodofogical Development,” Der lam 78 (2001) 1-34; What the Korey Realy Sas: languae, tex, and commentary, edited with trarsiations by Toe Warrag (Amberst, NY. : Prometheus Books, 2002); Fred M. Donne, aatics of lami Origins: the baginings of islamic hstrical wring (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1998).argue that there is no evidence that Muhammad changed his position in Medina with regard to his visionary encounters 1.3. Islam and the Semitic Monotheistic Tradition Gerald R. Havting, in taking up and elaborating upon John Wansbrough’s insistence that emergent Islam be seen as a continuation of the Near Eastern Semitic monotheistic tadition,4® makes an observation of great importance for this study: ‘That Islam is indeed related to Judaism and Christianity as part of the Middle Eastern, Abrahamic or Semitic tradition of monotheism seems so obvious and is so often said that it might be wondered why it was thought necessary to repeat i The reason is that although itis often said, acceptance of Islam as a representative of the monotheist religious tradition inal akouys accompanied by wilingnes to tink throwgh th implications of the statement (emphasis added).*? While both Mustim tradition and Western scholarship articulate a recognition of Islam's place within the Semitic monotheistic tradition, not only is there often an unwillingness to embrace the implications of this recognition, but there is also in practice the tendeney to distance Islam from that tradition. This is particularly the case regarding the Islamic Gottetere.Islam’s characteristic doctrine of mukhdlafa, “(divine) otherness,” precludes the attribution to God of anything like corporcality, which is, as the Mu'tazila will argue, condito sine gua now of visibitity.* But such a model of divine transcendence is Hellenistic, not Semitic. The Semitic, and the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) model in general, ‘embraced both ‘otherness’ and corporeality/anthropomorphism: the gods were specially his Secarian Mila © GR. Hawting, The lea of Holaty and the Emergence of slam: From Polonic to Histey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) xia # See Gerald Hawting, “John Wanshrough, Islam, ane monotheism,” MTSR 9 (1997), special issue Ilamie Origins Reconsidered job Wansbrough and the Study of Faly Islam, ed. Herbert Berg. 23-38; Chase F, Robinson, ‘Reconstructing Early Islam: Truth and Consequences,” in Herbert Berg (ed) Mitad and Taory in the Study of Islamic Origins (Leiden: Brill, 2003)102-134. “J, Window Sweetman defined the principle of muthalaf, to which “the majority (of Muslims) adhered “all that i said of God is said with a difference and it has become proverbial that nothing the mind can devise can convey anything about Allah... there can be no doubs that the rejection of the carpareatity of God is estential,” slam and Christian Theology 2 vos. (Landon: Lucterworth Press, 1947), 1, 2:34, 36, See also EF \410f. sy, Allab by Gardet 5 See Excurmus below. 10“transcendently anthropomorphic,’ to use Ronald Hendel’s term.*? That is to say, the gods possessed a form of human shape but of divine substance and quality. Ancient Israel stood in linguistic, cultural and religious continuity with her neighbors in the Levant.5! And as Morton Smith pointed out in a classic article, Israel participated in “the coramon theology of the ancient Near East.”5* This means that the god{s) of Israel and the gods of the ANE actually differed less than has been supposed.5> Like the gods of ® Ronald S Hende, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in Karel van der Toor (ed), ‘The Image and the Book, Ieanic Cuts Anconism, andthe Rise of Book Religion in Lrol and the Ancient Near East (CBE 21; Leuven: Uitgewerig Peeters, 1997) 205-228. ® On transcendent anthropomomphism in ancient Near Eastern and Classical tradition see Hendel, “Aniconism anc! Anthropomorphism”; Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Dim Body, Dazzling Body,” in Michel Feber, Ramona Naddaff and Nadia Tai (edd), Fragments for a Histo ofthe Human Body: Par One (New York: Zone, 1989): 19-47. On ANE anthropomorphism generally see Esther J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men’ Biblical Theophany and Anthropomorphie Realism’ (Ph.D. diss. New York Dniersity, 2004) 191-235; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monti: draet’s Plythitc Background and the Ugaritic Teas (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2001) 27-35; Karen Armstrong, A Histo of Gad: the 4000-Tear Quest of judaism, Cristiani, and Islam (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993) 3-39; Georges Roux, Ancien fag, Third Edition (London and New York: Penguin Books, 1992) 85.98; W.G. Lambert, “Ancient Mesopotamian Gods Superstition, Philosophy, Theology,” RR 204 (1990): 115-40; Maryo Christina Annctee Korpel, d Rit in the Clouds: Ugoitic and Hebrew Descriptions ofthe Divine (Manster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990; but on Korpel’s forced attempt to impute metaphoric intentions to the Canaanites sce the review by Marvin H. Pope in UF 22 {[1996):497-502), Marvin H. Pope and Jefltey H. Tigay, “A Description of Baal,” UF 3 (1971): 117-129; James B. Pritchard, The Gods and their Symbols,” in idem, The Ancient Near Eastin Pictures, Relating tthe ‘Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton university Press, 1954), 160-85, Edwin M. Yamauchi, i his artele “Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions,” BSar 125 (1968): 29-4, adequately understanding neither ancient Near Eastern nor Kael anthropomorphism, overstated the differences between the two, See also fis “Anthropomorphism in Hellenism and in Judaism,” Bae 127 (1970): 212-22, 5 Mark S. Smith, The Harty Hist of God: Yateach and the Other Deities in Ancint Lal, 204 Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002) 19-31; Michae? David Coogan, “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Isradl,” in Patrick D, Miller, J, Paul D. Hanson, and 'S. Dean McBride (edd), Ancient Israeli religion: essays in honor af Fank Moore Cros (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1987) 115-124; Jolin Day, “Ugarit and the Bible: Do They Presuppote the Same Canaanite Mythology and Religion?" in George J. Brooke, Adrian H.W. Curtis and John F. Healey (edd }, Uearit ond ‘the Bible proceedings ofthe Intemational Smposi on Usarit and the Bibl, Manchester, Septomber 1992 (Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994) 35.52. 5 The Common Theology ofthe Ancient Near East” JBL 71 (1952) 135-147, ° Bemhard Lang, The Hebrew Gud: Potato an Ancient Deity (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2002}, Nicholas Wyat, “Degrees of Divinity: Some mythical and ritual aspects of West Semitic kingship,” UF} [1999) 998-87; Edward L-Greenstein, “The God of tsrael and the Gods of Canaan: How Diflerent were they2” Prcradngs ofthe Tnth World Congress of Jeussh Sut, Jeasalen, July 29-August 5, 1997, Division A (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999) 17-58; J.J. M. Roberts, “Divine Freedom and Citic Manipulation in Irae! and Mesopotamia,” in idem, The Bible andthe Ancient Near East: Collet! Bisays (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 72-85; E. Theodore Mullen, je. The Asembly ofthe Gods: The Divine Cou in Conaaite ad Early Hebrew Literature (Harvard Semitic Monographs 24; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), uthe ANE, the god(s) of Isracl and biblical tradition was anthropomorphic. This ancient Near Eastern/Semitic transcendent anthropomorphism stands in stark contrast to normative Islamic notions of divine transcendence. But the latter, as Fazlur Rahman well pointed out, “does not emerge from the Qur'an, but from later theological development in Islam. This ‘later theological development’ included the appropriation of Hellenistic concepts in order to interpret the Qur’an and the Sunna, particularly the statements about God'* and Duad Rahbar correctly drew attention to the “difference between Hellenized Islamic theotogy...and the simple Semitic atmosphere of the world-view of the Qur'an.” This disparity between Semetic and Islamic notions of divine transcendence hecomes more acute when one considers the insistence, by Islamic tradition and Western scholarship, that the deity is the same in the three monotheistic traditions: “The monotheists not only worship one God; he is the same god for all. Whether called ‘Yahweh or Elohim, God the Father or Allah, itis the selfsame deity who created the 5 On bibfical anthropomorphistn and an anthropomorphic deity see below. ° Fazlur Rahman, “The Quranic Concept of God, the Universe ane Man,” 15601967) 2 [ar.=1-19} % Mortis S. Seal, Musin Tha Sag of Oris with Refine othe CharckFahrs (London: Lazac and Company Limited, 1968), RIM. Frank, “The Neoplantnisn of Gabi Tbn Safwan,” Ms 78 (1963) 395- 424; dem, “The Divine Atributes According othe Teachings of Abu L-Fludhayl Al“ Alla” Ze Misem 82 (1968}:451-506; Binyamin Abrahamov,"'Abbab ibn Sulayman on God's Transcendence, Some Notes" Der ln 71 (1994) 109120; idem, "Fabr al-Din al-Razt onthe Knowablity of Go's Essence and ‘Atuibutes," Arabica 49 (2002) 204-230; Tan Richard Neston, dilh Troneomd>t Sues nthe Sct and Sonica aie Phos, Thole and Comte. (London, New York: Routledge, 1989). On Hellenism and Isla se further FE,Peters, “Hellenism and the Near ax,” Bd (Winter 1983) 339; em, las Conmoneeath His of lamin he Near East 600-1200 A.D. (New York: Son and Schuster, 1973) ie, “The Origins of Islamic Paton: The School Tradition,” in Par Morewedge (ed). [danie Pisphical Thos (Albany: State Universi of New York Pres, 1979) 1445; Gustave E. von Grunbawm, "Islam and Heller, "in idem slam and Mel Hellion: Sel and Cla Pate ed, Dunning S, Wilson; Landon: Varorum Reprints, 1976) 21-27; Averl Cameron, “The Eastem Provinces in the Mk Century ‘AD. Hellen and the Emergence of slam,” in S. Said ed) Helenoma sees aot our ue hse de eit seq aces Calo de Sra, 25-27 oe 1989 (Leiden; New York? E, Bil, 1991) 287- 313; W. Montgomery Watt, Ilanic Pip ond Teagan Extended Sure (2 Raton; Edinburgh Usiveniy Press, (985) 37-49; G.W. Bowersock, “Hellenism and Islam,” in idem, Halen in Late Antiity {Jerome Lectures 18; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990 71-82; W-F. Albright, "Islam and the Religions of the Ancient Orient 7408 60 (1940}- 289-901. On the early onthodox rejection of Greek scientific works thought to be “coitamsnated” by theological eror see Ignae Golder, “The Atitude of Orthodox slam Toward the ‘Ancient Sciences," in Mesin I, Swart (ed) Suds on slam (Neve York and Oxdord: Oxford University Press, 1981) 185-213 58 Daud Rahbar, “Relation of Muslim Theology to the Qur'an,” MH’5) (1961): 43[art=#4-49}. Rworld out of nothing.”® What then is the relation between the anthropomorphic and visible Yahweh-E! and the incorporeal and invisible Allah? Part of the reason this disparity is rarely noticed or mentioned®? is because there is operating certain misperceptions regarding the monotheistic Guttesauffassung,®* and these misperceptions inform the study of Islamic theology, Take for example Ritter’s statement that for Islam “God reveals Himself to His prophets through acts of hearing, not through visions,” and that Islam’s “horror of the idea of a visible form of God is a Jewish Jegacy.** Refevant too is W.M. Watt's contention that the early Meccan Muslims abandoned their initial belief that Muhammad saw God because in the course of time, through contact with Jews and Christians and in other ways, the Muslims would realize that it was widely believed that God could not be seen by man in the world-as (Sura) 6.103 puts it, ‘sight reaches him (God) not™and would therefore interpret the figure seen (in Siratal-Najm 1-18)...as that of an angel. Implied in both statements is the common belief that in Jewish and Christian tradition God is incorporeal, and therefore invisible.“ For sure, this is an accurate reading of post- Maimonidean Judaism and hellenized Christianity; but itis certainly a mischaracterization of most forms of Second- and Post-Temple Judaism and early Christianity, Jewish and otherwise." And as will be demonstrated in the first part of this EE. Pevers, The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianiy, Islam Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004) I. See also Sachiko Murata and William G, Chittick, The Vision of Ilan (New York: Paragon House, 1994) xvii: “The Koran, the Hadith, and the whole Islamic tradition maintain that the God of te Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims js a single Gou.” This insistence is of course qur'anic: See 29:6; 42:14, 291300136 © See Chapter I below But cf Peters, Childen of Abra, 2 5 Murata and Chittick’s general observation (Vision, 46) i therefore a particularly apc one here: “Its true that the Koran’s view of chings has a deep kinship with both the Jewish and Christian world views, but most people in the modern world have lite understanding of those world views either.” Das Mer Der Sele, 439 (=The Ocean of te So, 453) WAN. Watt llamie Revation in the Modem World (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969) 13. See Boyarin’s discussion, “The Eye in the Torah.” © On divine corporeality, visibility and theophany in Rabbinic Judaism sec Jacob Neusner, The Incamation of God: The Charade of Dit in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); idera, “Conversation in [Nauvoo about the Corporeality of God,” BYU Studies 36 (1996-97): 7-30; Boyarin, “Eye in the Torah”; 13dissertation, itis patently false in regards the biblical Gattsddiren in their many and at times divergent articulations. 1.4, The Qur'an and Biblical Tradition “co understand the Qur’an outside of the Biblical tradition...vould seem in the end to place the researcher in a rather ridiculous position." Islam is, among other things for sure, clearly a formulation of ancient Near Eastern mythological tradition” and Andrew Rippin rightly insists that the Qur'an in particular David H. Aaron, “Imagery ofthe Disine and the Fhuman: On the Mythology of Genesis Rabba 8 § 1," BITP5 (1995.52 Arthur Green, “The Children in Baypt and the Theophany at the Sea," adaimn 4 {1975}: 446-456; Meir Bar-llan, “The Hand of God: A Chapter im Rabbinic Anthropomorphism,” in Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (ed), Rash 1040-1990 Hommage Ephraim E Urback: Cong pin des Fades ies (Paris: Patrimoines, 1998) 321-835; Eliot R. Wolfon, Tina a Speulom Ba Shier Exon ad nanan in Medial Jas Myiam Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 19), exp. 15-5; Alon Goshen Goren, "The Body a fmage of God in Rabbinic Literauee,” Z77R 87 (1098) 171-195; Jacob Z. “A Signitieant Controversy Between the Sadducees and the Phases" HUCA 4 (1927) 173 205; Louis Finkelstein, "The Oldest Midrash: Pre-Rabbinic Ides and Teachings in the Passover Haggadab,” H7R 3 (1987): 309-312 fare =291-317]; Artur Marmestin The Old Reblinic De of Gide Essasin Athamortiom (Neve York: Kiav, 1987) GilberS. Rosenthal, “Omnipotence, Omistience and a Finite God," Jedatn 39 (1996; 53-72; i wth Christianity and Gnostic se Gills Quel, “Ezekiel 1:28 in Jewish Matic,” VC34 (1980 1-13; Jarl Fossum, "Jewsh-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism," 10.37 (1985: 26-287; idem, “The Magharian: A Pre:Chrinian Jewish Sect and its Signicance for the Study of Gnosticism and Christianity,” Hench 9 (1987) 308-845; Apt D. De Conic, Sek 0 Se Hi cnt an Vision Moco in the Gos of Thomas Leiden: Ef. Beil, 1996), On evine comporeaity in the Church se Roland . Teske, SJ, "The Aim of Augustine's Proof That God tuys 10,26 (1986; 253-268, esp. 285-257; David 1. Paulsen, "Early Chistian Belt in a Corporeal Deity Ongen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses” HTR 83 (1990: 105-116; der, “Reply o Kim Pafenrosh's Comments," HR 86 (1995) 235-395 idem, “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment Restoration, Judeo= Grstian, and Philosophical Perspectives,” BYU Shdys 35 (1995.96): 7.94 Cat W. Grifin and David 1. Paulsen, “Augustine abl the Comporeaiy of God,” ATR 95 2002} 97-118. On Vaio Dim Christian wradion sce firther below © Aswe hope to show, E, J, P and the Deuteronomists explicitly or impliciy recognized the visual theophany, as did the Prophets and Pslamiss © A. Rippin, “The Qur'an as Licerature: Pris, Pitfalls and Prospects,” BBSMES 10 (1983): 45 [art.=38-47], The Quin isnot only a genizah of various trajectories of biblical and near eastern agpdot, but also a kaleidoscope which gives these trajectories a new vision”: Aaron Hughes, “The stranger atthe sea “Mythopoesisin the Qur'an and early tals,” SR 32 (2005): 266 fat =61-279]; "Ii no deprecation of Mohammad’ religious fervour to show his deep roots in ancient Near Easter tradition; itis on the cantray, a but this genius which enabled him to pour new wine into old skins. Neher need we assume direct borrowing ftom contemporary sources, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well at Gostcism and Mandean thought drew these inspiration from the same reservoir of ancien belief, each fling them with new meanings through their own peculiar genius.” Ise 1ihtenstater, "Origin and Interpretation of Some Quranic Symbol," Sau Orta n One di Giogio Levi Dela Vida 2 (1956): 79-80 [ar.=58-80). On Islam and ancient Near Easter mythological tradition see also idem, “Origin and Interpretation of Some Koranie Symbols” in George Makes (ed), Arabic and Islami Suis in Honor of 4be studied in the context of the overall Near Eastern religious milieu which preceded Islam’s emergence.”! It is specifically the ‘oriental monotheism,’ to use John Wansbrough’s characterization of the ancient Near Eastern biblical tradition, to which Islam and the Quran are heir,” a point the latter concedes.” As Roberto Tottoli kas emphasized, a number of Qur’anie verses (e.g. 4:163; 42:13; 3:84) present Mubammad as Hamilton A.R, Gibb (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963) 426-36; Geo Widengren, ‘Mukammad, the Apste of God and His Ascension (King and Savor Vol. 5) Uppsala: AB. Lundrquiseske Bokhandela, and Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1955 Cesar E. Dubler, “Survivances de Vancien Orient dans Islam (Considerations Generales)” S17 (1957) 47-75, See also Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of olan: Religion and Sect in the Near Eat, 600-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) and below m.71 % Rippin, “The Que’sn as Literature,” 45. See also idem, “God,” in Andrew Rippin (ed), Blactvell Cnpanion tthe Quran (Malden, MA: Blaceell Pub,, 2006) 225. This poin was made aswell by Umar F ‘Abd-Allnh, “The Perceptible and the Unseen: The Quranic Conception of Man's Relationship to God and Realities Beyond Human Perception,” in Spencer J Palmer (ed), Monnens @ Musins Spiritual Foundations ‘and Modem Manifeations (Prox, Utah: Religions Studies Center, 2002) 16| [art=153-204} “Accurace understanding ofthe preslamic background within whieb Islam are is essential tothe full understanding ofthe Islamic religion.” See also Mondher Sfa, Le Coan a Bible et POrc! ancien (Paris: Cassini, 1997) ‘Though ancient Arabia sometines thought ofa religiously isolated from the ANE, archeological and epigraphic evidence for North and South Arabia indicate otherwise. As relaively scant as this evidence is, nevertheles it clearly shows pre-Klamic Arabia to have been within the ‘mythological arbi of tke Near East, particularly in terms of motif ofthe gods. For example, motif associated withthe cul of batys the rmotifof the deity and his dhtce byposttie daughters the motif ofthe winged-sk and its tauroform compliment; the divine triad; and ofthe anthropomorphic god surrounded by his divin assembly, all characteristic ofthe ANE mythic tation, were also part of the Arabian mythic tradition ax well. See ‘Wemer Daum, Unenitie Region Stutgar; Brin; Kéln; Maina: Verlag W. Kohlbaromer, 1985) “Hildegard Lewy, “Origin and Significance ofthe Ade Dud! A Comparative Study of the Ancient Religions of Jerusalem aad Mecea,* rchio Orit’ 18 (1950) 320-865; Ut Oldenburg, “Above the Sta of El: Elin Ancient South Arabic Religion” ZAW 82 1970} 187-208, Javier Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in he Greco-Roman New East (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Pres, 1977}; Cyrus H Gordon, “The Daughters of Baal and Allah,” MIV33 (1943) 50:51, Stephanie Dalley, “The God Salmu and the Winged Disk,” Fag 48 (1986); 85-101 72 On the mythological asonance among the three Semitic religions see e.g. AJ. Wensinck, The Ideas of Waster Semies Concerning the Navel ofthe Barth (Mdeeling Lerterkunde, 1916); idem, The Ocean inte Ltatoe of Wesem Semis (Afdecling Letterkunde, 1918); idem, Tree and Bird as Cosmological Symbols in Western six (Afdeeling Leterkunde, 1921), %As Jobn GC, Reeves noted (“Preface,”in idem [ed], Bible and Qurn: Essays in Scriptural Inetextty [Leiden: Brill, 2004] ix) the Qur'an “places itself within the biblical world of discourse”. See also Daniel A. ‘Madigan, The Quran’ Self-Image: Witng and Authority in Islan’s Seipsae (Princeton and Oxford: Princecon, ‘University Press, 2001) 193: “What is often overlooked in discussing che refaionship of Islam to earlier religious traditions is thar the Quen in effect chooses to define itself in their terms,” Wansbrough (Qur dic Siudes, 20) points out that the Qur'an establishes is relevance and authority by situatng itself filly within the context of generic scipaure.” 15“the legitimate continuator of the Biblical tradition and...the sole heir of the progeny of the Israelite prophets”. How is one to define the Qur’an’s relation to biblical tradition? We encounter within the former s0 many biblical characters, themes and parallel narratives that it indeed seems that Isiam’s scripture “could not possibly exist without its scriptural predecessors as subtext.” The Qur’an’s “extremely referential nature” can be seen as an acknowledgement of this biblical subtext. That is to say, instead of reproducing biblical narratives the Qur'an often gives a ‘truncated’ version or makes an obscure allusion to narrative in such a way as to presume on the part of its audience knowledge of the fuller narrative and details.” But the parallels are not usually exact or the allusions ‘accurate? from the perspective of the biblical text 77 Nineteenth and early (wentieth century ‘Orientalists accounted for these divergent parallels by assuming Muhammad's reliance on Jewish or Christian tutors whose lessons Muhammad received poorly.” A newer approach, however, suggests that these ‘biblical materials’ in the Qur'an are indebted to blcal Prophets nthe Qurin and Musin Litrature (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2002) % Robert Tottoi * Rewven Firestone, “The Qur'an and the Bible: Some Modern Studies of Their Relationship,” in Reeves, Bible and Quran, 2-2. See akto Thomas J. O'Shaughnessy SJ., "God's Throne and the Biblical Symbolism of | the Qur'an,” Nimen 20 (1973): 202-291; Dysight Baker, “Islam and the Judaeo-Chyistian Tradition: The Significance of Quranic and Biblical Pareles (si),” Bangalore Theological Forum 14 (1982): $4-68. 2 Sidney H. Grifith, “The Gospel, the Quran, and the Presentation of feusin al-Ya'gib's Tarik" in Reeves, Bile and Quin, Firestone, “The Qur'an and the Bible.” 3; idem, Jones in Hob Lands The Exuiton of hr Abrokon-Lkael Lands amie Bg (Albany: SUNY, 1990) 8 Andrew Rippin, “Interpreting the Bible through the Quen," in G- Hagrting and A. Skaret (ed), Approaches the Qur'an (London and New Vork: Rowledge, 1993) 250-51 fart 249-59) 7 For an illustrative case study see Muhib ©. Opeloye, “Confluence and Conflict in the Quranic and Biblical Accounts of the Life of Prophet Masa,” Ilamochrstiana 16 (1990) 25-41 28 Julian Obermann pointed out the “gross discrepancies, inaccuracies, and delusions” Mubammad invariably exhibits when treating Old Testament data: “Koran and Agada: The Evenes ac Mount Sinai.” AGSL 58 (1941) 25 [art =23-48]. See also Abraham Geiger, (Yas hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthure auenommen? (1835), eeaosiated into English as Judaism and Islam (Madras, 1933}; Charles C, Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of iam (New York: Bloch, 1933); S.D. Goiten, “Muhammad's Inspiration by Judaism,” "9S 9(1958); 149-162; Richard Bell, “Muhammad's Knowledge of the Old Testament,” in CM. Weir (ed), Presentation Volume t Wiliam Baron Suconson (Glasgow: Glasgow University, 1945) 1-20; clem, The Origin of lam in its Criston Environment (London, 1926); Arthur Jeffery, “Had Muhammad a Scripture Teacher?” in George Livingsten Robinson (ed), Fiom the Pyramid: t Paul (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1935) 95- 118, 16local oral, intertextual traditions,”? not the biblical text, and that the Bible and Quran both “share and exploit a common layer of discourse”.®° Underlying such an approach is the insight from the literary-critical study of the Hebrew Bible that the textus reeptus (MT) is but one ‘crystallization’ of ancient oral tradition, other ‘crystallizations’ found in the Versions®! as well as extracanonical, exegetical, and apocryphal biblically affiliated, literatures (so-called ‘re-written’ Bibles). All of these crystallizations, including the lextus receptus, represent ‘versions of the Bible.’ On this reading, both the Bible and the Qur'an, as well as extracanonical biblically affiliated literatures,®* are distinct reifications of traditional lore circulating within a shared discourse environment. These studies suggest that the qur’anic divergences from the biblical text evince authentic Jewish and Christian extracanonical lore occasionally preserved only in the Qur'an, rather than Muhammad’s having ‘gotten it wrong,”#*It scems clear also that at times the (chronologically) tater % On the overwhelmingly oral culture ofthe pre-Islamic Hijaz see Michael Swetler, The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1978) Vernon K. Robbins and Gordon D. Newby, “Phe Relation ofthe Qui'an and the Bible,” in Reeves, Bible and Qua, 42; Reuven Firestone, “Abraham's Journey to Mecca in Islamie Exegesis: A Form-Critical Study ofa Tradition,” S176 (1992) 5-24; idem, jounoys; Marilyn R, Waldman, “New Approaches to “Biblical? Materials in dhe Quan,” MW 25 (1985): 1-16. ©! On the ancient Versions of the Bible sce ABD 6:787-B13 sv. Versions, Ancient 8, Talmon “Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions," in A.D-H. Mayes (ed), Text in Context: Essays by Members ofthe Secety fr Old Testament Sudy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 157; Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in A, Lemaire (ed), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (Leiden: Bril, 2002} 86-108;idem, “The Bible in the Making: The Seriptures Found at ‘Qumnran,”in Peter W. Fint (ed), The Bible at Quran: Tess Shave, and Inepretation (Grand Rapids Michigan and Cambidge, U.K.: Williaa 8. Eercimans Publishing, 2001) 51-66; idem, The Dead Sea Scroll and the Origins ofthe Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Leiden: Brill ‘Academic Publishers, 1999}, See also Emanuel Tov, Textual Crtciam of the Hebraw Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press and Ascen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992); idem, “Textual Criticism (OT),” ABD 6:393- 412 9 On ‘biblically aBliated literatures’ see Talmon “Textual Criticism.” > On the Qur'an as such a ‘crystalization’ see John C. Reeves, “Toward a Rapprochement between Bible ‘and Qur'an,” Religious Studies Neus-SBL Eiition 2.9 (December 2001) at hutp:/ Awww sbl- site.org/Newsetter/12_2001/ReevesFull him © Madigan, The Qur'an’ Seff-Image, 210: “the way the Qui’an alludes to earlier seriptures has long been recognized as incompatible with actual textual dependence, These allusions reflect, rather, a familiarity with oral tradition, both canonical and extra-canonical. In some cases the allusions may even contain ‘remnants of traditions now lost that were once part ofthe common stock of Judaic oral literature," See also Griffith, “The Gospel, the Qur'an, and the Presentation of Jesus,” 154-5; Reuven Firestone, "Comparative 7