The parables are also a preferred illustrative device of the Qurʾān; there are around thirty-nine parables mentioned in the Qurʾān that are scattered throughout its various chapters. According to Muslim accounts, most of these parables were revealed in Mecca and some in Medina. Like the Gospel parables, Qurʾānic parables provide the audience with an illustration of complex religious concepts and moral teachings in the imagery of everyday life in seventh-century Arabia (Wadad Kadi (al-Qāḍī) – Mustansir Mir, “Literature and the Qurʾān”, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe (Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 2001), 1/209). Despite the apparent similarities between the parables of the Bible and the Qurʾān (Christopher Buck, “Discovering”, The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’ān, ed. Andrew Rippin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 32), relative less attention has been illustrated.
An additional benefit of studying the parables of the Qurʾān in this way also pertains to its relationship with the New Testament. As will be shown below, there seems to be a consensus among biblical scholars that parables are the most authentic units of the New Testament that contain the actual teachings of Jesus. Given that the textual originality of the Qurʾān has also been established (See fn. 30), investigating the similarities that exist between the parables of the New Testament and those of the Qurʾān becomes more significant for establishing the nature of the connection between these texts.
- Andrew Rippin, “Literary Analysis of Koran, Tafsir, and Sira: The Methodologies of John Wansbrough”, The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, ed. Ibn Warraq (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), 355-361
- “Parables are earthly stories that illustrate heavenly truths” (Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, 27). Jesus used parables to teach his message about God and God’s relationship to humanity (Young, The Parables, 5). C. H. Dodd offers what is perhaps the most comprehensive definition of parables: “At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought” (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (Glasgow: Collins Fount Paperbacks, 1988), 16).
The Parables of the Qurʾān
There have been a number of critiques of the views of the revisionists that have largely succeeded in dispelling their hypotheses about the textual history of the Qurʾān. Furthermore, it has been established by recent scholarship that the Qurʾānic text most probably is the work of the Prophet Muḥammad and that its historical origins lie in seventh-century Arabia (Behnam Sadeghi – Mohsen Goudarzi, “Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān”, Der Islam 87/1-2 (March 2012): 1-129; Walid A. Saleh, “The Preacher of the Meccan Qur’an: Deuteronomistic History and Confessionalism in Muḥammad’s Early Preaching”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 20/2 (June 2018), 74-111; Marijn van Putten, “‘The Grace of God’ as Evidence for a Written Uthmanic Archetype: The Importance of Shared Orthographic Idiosyncrasies”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 82/2 (June 2019), 271-288). Qurʾān also utilises parables to convey complex religious concepts to its audience in the form of simple narrations. As both Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions, it may be possible to locate similarities between the parables contained in their respective sacred texts, especially regarding the faith in an omnipotent God. The following Qurʾānic verse may be taken as a confirmation of this fact: “We have certainly diversified (ṣarrafnā) this Qurʾān for the people with every [kind of] parable, but most people are only intent on ingratitude.” (Q 17:89).
It seems reasonable to hypothesise that while the details of the Qurʾānic and Gospel parables might differ because of differences in the localities of their respective audiences, they contain the same message. There are approximately thirty-nine parables contained within the Qurʾān, and these are found in 55 verses spread between the following chapters:
The Parable of the Sower and the Use of “Soil” in the Qurʾān
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples: “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?” In this way, Jesus points to the significance of the parable as a means of understanding his innermost teachings (Birger Gerhardsson, “The Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation”, New Testament Studies 14/2 (January 1968), 165). The parable of the sower is included in all synoptic Gospels (as well as the Gospel of Thomas) and is widely believed to be something that Jesus authentically taught. However, it is also believed that the interpretation of the parable (found in Mark 4:14-20, Matthew 13:18-23, and Luke 18:11-15) was added to the original story at a later stage (Anna Wierzbicka, What Did Jesus Mean?: Explaining the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables in Simple and Universal Human Concepts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 257).
In his interpretation of the parable, Jeremias notes that the parable of the sower fits in the traditional sowing methods used in Palestine. Therefore, it is relevant to the conditions of Palestine where the parable was told. Unlike the generally implemented method, in Palestine, sowing took place before ploughing (Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 11-12). Hence, he concludes that the parable is historically accurate. Despite the diversity of the opinions, as it was stated by Wierzbicka, the interpretation of the parable may be divided into two main categories: first, Mark’s original interpretation included in the Gospel of Mark, which frames the story as a warning against the dangers of worldliness and tribulation (M. F. Wiles, “Early Exegesis of the Parables”, Scottish Journal of Theology 11/3 (September 1958), 293). Second, the eschatological interpretation mostly championed by Joachim Jeremias: “In essence, Jeremias (1972) argued that the harvest in verse 8 symbolises an impending world crisis—the coming of the kingdom of God—and that the parable promises the final victory of this kingdom. Jeremias insists that the parable refers not only to “doing the word” but also to the kingdom of God. Jeremias calls this the eschatological point of the parable, which he interprets in terms of an impending crisis: “God’s hour is coming … in spite of every failure and opposition, God brings from hopeless beginnings the glorious end that he has promised.” Mark, on the other hand, saw the parable as speaking about hearing, understanding, and responding to the Word of God” (Wierzbicka, What Did Jesus Mean?, 259).
Gerhardsson refers to the Shema’ as the oldest fixed daily prayer in Judaism, which has been recited morning and night since ancient times. This prayer contains the covenant between God and His people and is mentioned in various parts of the Bible: Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. In short, it calls the human being to total submission to God’s will, in heart and in deed. In other words, it calls him to have full faith in the words of the Creator. One of the occurrences of the parable of the soil in the Qurʾān’s chapter al-Baqarah includes the explicit reference to the parable of the “rocky soil” as it was used in the parable of the sower to describe the faith. A number of basic similarities between Qurʾānic parables and Gospel ones are apparent: They are presented in clear and simple language, and they are related to objects found in the everyday life of seventh-century Arabia, such that even the most uneducated people could grasp their basic meaning with minimal effort. This gives an important clue about the audiences of Jesus and Muḥammad; their audiences were the same; the common people. Early Christianity and Islam address mainly the lowest levels of their societies, who often have less influence in the society but higher in numbers. So, both Jesus and Muḥammad wanted to reach out to as many people as possible to preach their teachings.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 606/1210) influential Mafātīḥ al-ghayb discussion:
In addition to this mention in the Chapter of al-Baqarah, there is an explicit acknowledgement of the parable of the sower in the Qurʾān, in which soil is referred in relation to the various ways in which human beings receive and respond to the divine message:
The theme of representing the heart with soil is the common feature of both the New Testament and Qurʾān, which reaffirms the fact that both Palestinian Jews to whom Jesus preached and Muslims of Medina to whom Prophet Muḥammad preached were mainly farmers (Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010), 35). Therefore, the parable of soil was chosen to describe a receptive and unreceptive soul, as this image of sowing was relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of Palestine and Medina in their respective times. One might argue that parables and farming are fairly generic features of both the New Testament and Qurʾān context, but this was not always the case. Because a significant portion of the Qurʾān was revealed in Mecca, which was basically a desert environment, hence no farming could have occurred. In Mecca, the main occupation was trade (of commodity and slave) and religious service in Kaʿbah. Hence, it was not a suitable context for farming; consequently, there was no reference to farming in Meccan verses. First, hypocrites who momentarily believed in the revelation, but then their hearts returned once again to disbelief while they pretended outwardly to be Muslims. This group of hypocrites are mentioned in the Chapter of al-Munāfiqūn (the Hypocrites): “Because, they believed first and then disbelieved…” (Q 63:4). Second, hypocrites who never accepted the revelation but still pretended to be Muslims. It appears the reason more verses are allocated to the discussion of the hypocrites is that the beginning section of the chapter al-Baqarah was revealed when the Prophet entered Medina, which is where he first had to deal with the problem of the hypocrites.
3.1. The First Category: Disbelievers
Looking at the Qurʾānic equivalent of the first group mentioned in the parable of the sower, it can be found in the beginning verses of alBaqarah, immediately before the parables that describe the hypocrites (Q2:6-7). The style of the verse is certainly different from the parable of the sower, but it uses words that indicate a similar reaction to God’s Word – namely, that it has no influence on the heart of these listeners. Whether or not God’s Messenger tries to sow the seeds of faith in the hearts of these disbelievers, the disbelievers will not be affected by hearing God’s Word. This is because “God has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil” or “the birds came and ate it up.” Interestingly, in the Qurʾān, a sealed heart – one which is utterly turned against the message of God– is also associated with the image of being eaten by birds (Q22:31).
The similarity between the Gospel and Qurʾānic parables in their description of disbelievers is striking. Those people whose hearts refuse the divine message are considered like seeds fallen into barren soil, and birds –used here to symbolise Satan– come and take away such hearts. The use of birds to symbolise Satan is salient in both examples. In the example of the Qurʾān, the individual choice of disbelief is equated with the self-destructive behaviour of throwing oneself from a height only to be devoured by birds. Birds in this context implicitly refer (Al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Fakhr al-Rāzī, 2/222-223) to Satan, whose influence would push disbelievers further away from God and intensify the process of their self-destruction in the Hereafter. In both examples, however, the source of disbelief is not Satan. Rather, the disbelief is the result of an internal process or a lack of receptiveness of a person’s heart (or fertile soil) to the divine message. Elsewhere, the Qurʾān makes it clear that it is individuals who initiate their state of disbelief by the choices and actions they take, and Satan intensifies this process: “Because of their disbelief, God set a seal [on their hearts]” (Q 4:155). In another example: “Have you seen someone who has taken his own desire as god. God misguided him despite the knowledge he had and sealed his ears and his heart and veiled his vision…” (Q 45:23). Once the heart and mind are set on disbelief, the consequences of the individuals’ choice amplify their experience of disbelief, which is then depicted as giving Satan dominion over them – as illustrated by the phrase “God set a seal [on their hearts].”57 The natural consequence of God setting a seal on disbelievers’ hearts is to place them under the guidance of Satan: “… And those who disbelieve, their guardians are the evil ones/Satan will take them from light to darkness…” (Q 2:257). In both parables, the external role of the birds or Satan is clear. They are there to devour what has been consciously left unprotected.
