Article

Introduction

Many scholars have maintained that some Arab groups in the Arabian Peninsula practiced circumcision before the advent of Islam (J. Wellhausen 1897, 174–175; M. Stern 1974, 3–4; R. G. Hoyland 1997, 82, 540–541; K. Kueny 2003, 162–164; P. Sijpesteijn 2013, 165–167; L. Salaymeh 2016, 109–110; A.S. Jacobs 2012, 35, 207 n. 115; M. J. Kister 1994, 10–30 at p. 14; P. Crone and M. Cook 1977, 12–13; V. Rispler-Chaim 1993, 87). They did so based on biblical, Hellenistic, Christian, and even early Islamic sources Y. Carmeli 2019, 89–90; W.H. Propp 1987, 355–370; L.A. Hoffman 2005, 9–10; D. Gollaher 2000, 7; M. Thiessen 2011, 70–71, 79; Stern 1974, 3–4; Y. Hocherman 2008, 39–40; S. Weitz man 1999, 37–59; S.A. al-Dhīb 2000, 310–312. See also Goudarzi’s demurral: M. Goudarzi 2019, 415–484). The Qurʾān’s silence about circumcision is therefore enigmatic. Aware of this, Muslim scholars of the early Middle Ages interpreted several verses, notably vv. 124 and 130 of the second sūrah (al-Baqara/“The Cow”), as references to the precept of circumcision. These verses report that Abraham was tested “with certain words” (bi-kalimāt; Q 2:124) and instruct the congregation of believers to follow “the religion of Abraham” (Q 2:130).

There is no explicit reference to circumcision here – or anywhere else in the Qurʾān. This silence has led scholars to assign the identification of circumcision with “the religion of Abraham” and with “the words” with which Abraham was tested to the early medieval period (Kueny 2003, 161–182 at pp. 168–169; Salaymeh 2016, 114–115). Q 2:124–130 reference Jewish texts about Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17; m Avot 5:3). I then propose a new reading of Q 2:124–130 as the background for the controversy about the identity of the “chosen son.” The conclusion is that the identification of circumcision with the religion of Abraham need not have been a later innovation. However, dating it to the early days of Islam raises two questions: why did the author of the Qurʾān merely allude to circumcision and not prescribe it explicitly? And why did Muslim exegetes of Late Antiquity fail to note the link between these verses and the precept of circumcision?

Q 2 (Al-Baqara) v. 124

Doubts about an original link between this and other verses and the precept of circumcision are prominent in studies of circumcision in Islam. Kueny and Salaymeh assert that the inclusion of circumcision among the precepts of the “religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm) and as one of the “words” (kalimāt) with which Abraham was tested is a later development, to be identified especially with the commentator and historian Muḥammad al-Tabarī (d. 923) and with medieval jurists and scholars in general (Kueny 2003, 168–169, 178–180; Salaymeh 2016, 114–120). Q 2:124–130 sounds like a reworking of the biblical account of Abraham’s circum cision (Genesis 17). There are many common elements in the two texts. I also see similar terminology that indicates that Q 2:124–130 is a response to the circumci sion pericope in Genesis. In the latter, the Lord commands Abraham to “walk in My ways and be blame less” (Genesis 17:1) (K. Mohammed 2018, 293; cf. A.I. Katsh 1957, 95). When Abraham requests that this covenant apply to Ishmael, God replies, “I will establish my covenant with Isaac” (v. 21). In other words, the covenant of circumcision will apply only to Isaac and not to Ishmael. Now let us return to the second sūrah of the Qurʾān. Verse 124 begins with the test (ibtilāaʾ; lit. pains) to which God subjected Abraham. The Qurʾān does not provide details of this trial other than that it was a test by kalimāt. If this is taken to mean “words” (as Arberry does) rather than “things” (the other common sense of the word), we learn that Abraham fulfilled all the words he was commanded and that God promised to make him “a leader for the people.” In response, Abraham requests that God’s blessing apply not only to himself but also to his offspring. God does not agree in full: the covenant (ʿahd) is only with the righteous and not with “the evildoers.”

This is the first indication that a divine covenant is involved. We see, then, that the Qurʾān, like Genesis, describes a divine covenant with Abraham. Abraham withstands the test to which he is put, and God promises that he will be a “leader for men.” The covenant excludes the evildoers among Abraham’s offspring. Thus, there is a correspondence between the four elements of the two accounts, as demonstrated in Table 1.

Overall, this sūrah focuses on the arguments of the Christians and Jews that only their religious laws are valid. The function of Q 2:124, with the emphasis on God’s rejection of the Jews, stands out in the context, and especially when compared with the verses right before and after it. Q 2:122 addresses the Children of Israel directly and reminds them that God “preferred you above all beings.” Q 2:134 addresses Muḥammad’s audience and tells them that the Jews are “a nation that has passed away.” Q 2:124 annuls the Jews’ narrative of the “chosen people” and leads to the statement that they have become of no account.

The Qurʾān’s desire to emphasize the importance of Ishmael stands out thanks to his inclusion alongside Abraham and Isaac (Q 2:133). In the past, prominent scholars tended to minimize the importance that the Qurʾān as a whole, and Q 2 in particular, assign to genealogy and the preference of Ishmael’s descendants to Isaac’s. This is because they have been persuaded that Islam abandoned the chains of genealogy and created a universal religion (F. Donner 2010, 88, 210, 218; P. Webb 2016, 116–117, 170; A. Neuwirth 2014, 53–75, 62–64). On the other hand, Muhsen Goudarzi did not accept this overlooking of the genealogy in Q 2:124–129. He analyzes those verses as expressing the hope that the Ishmaelites will continue the Abrahamic covenant in place of the Jews. He maintains that although the Qurʾān presents Islam as a universal religion, it nev ertheless emphasizes the special status of the Arab ethnos within it (Goudarzi 2019, 430–438). The inter textual links between Q 2:124–129 and Genesis 17 suits his thesis. If so, we should read these verses as a sort of paraphrase of the biblical history: Abraham was indeed circumcised and became a leader of men, but it is Ishmael who was the chosen son, not Isaac and, a fortiori, his descendants the Jews.

Circumcision, the Binding of Isaac, and Abraham’s Trials

As we have seen, Q 2:124–130 may allude to circumcision, but it does not state it as a religious precept. Circumcision is referred to vaguely as the test that Abraham passed as part of the divine covenant with him and not as a binding obligation for his descendants or for those to whom the Qurʾān is addressed. As such, the Qurʾān rejected the linkage of circumcision and the covenant and stressed that the covenant is a matter of faith and righteous behav ior and hence would “not reach the evildoers,” even, it seems, if they are cir cumcised. The Qurʾān expanded the locution millat Ibrāhīm to include spiritual rather than physical aspects: “one pure of faith (ḥanīf; with the connotation of “monotheist”) … [and] never of the idolaters” (Q 3:67). It is important to emphasize that Q 2:124 alludes to circumcision and empties it of its biblical virtues, even though Muḥammad’s audience evidently did practice the rite. What is more, the Qurʾān uses the phrase “our uncircumcised heart” (qulūbuna ghulf) on two separate occasions (one of them in Q 2) (Q 2:88, 4:155). In both instances it occurs in a passage where the Jews are speaking of themselves, perhaps echoing the biblical references to the Israelites’ “uncircumcised of heart”. This ambivalence about circumcision may reflect the tension between holding on to ancient Arab customs, on the one hand, and the borrowing of biblical nar ratives, on the other, while severing the link between the Muslim community and Judaism. It is important to remember that unlike Paul, who explicitly denounced circumcision as worthless (Jacobs 2012, 21–22), the Qurʾān was not addressed to an uncircumcised audience, so abrogation of the rite would not be a catalyst for the expansion of the new religion and spread of its message. But the biblical account states that circumcision is the sign of the covenant between Abraham and God, a covenant from which Ishmael was explicitly excluded.

In other words, the Jewish covenant of circumcision functions as a symbol of the preference for the favorite son, Isaac, over the rejected son, Ishmael. This tension may have been in the background of the Qurʾān’s ambivalence about the custom: a general reprise of the biblical narrative, on the one hand, but a denial of the special virtues it attaches to cir cumcision, on the other hand. Gabriel Said Reynolds maintains that the “words” with which God tested Abraham refer to the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22). His proof is that the mention of Abraham and his tests is followed by Abraham and Ishmael’s rebuilding of the Kaʿba. Reynolds acknowledges that one motif found in Q 2:124 is totally absent from Genesis 22 – the exclusion of “the evildoers” from the divine covenant with Abraham (Reynolds 2018, 67–68).
It is not impossible, however, that by “words” the Qurʾān had both biblical stories in mind – the covenant of circumcision and the Binding of Isaac. Both stories focus on the election of Isaac rather than Ishmael. This may be why Q 2:124 does not mention circumcision explicitly but only the “words” with which God tested Abraham – so that the reference to both stories will be clearer. All the same, the Qurʾān’s reference to Genesis 17 and 22 is certainly an outlier. In general, the Qurʾān expands biblical stories and adds details to them (Reynolds 2010, 147–155); but here a single verse (Q 2:124) encapsulates an entire chapter. Most conspicuous is the Qurʾān’s use of the vague locution “tested … with words” (ibtalā… bi-kalimāt). The Bible certainly does describe the binding of Isaac as a test, but the Qurʾān refer to tests in the plural without enumerating them. If Q 2:124 does in fact refer to Genesis 17 and 22, why is there no explicit mention of the covenant of circumci sion and of the Binding of Isaac? Why the nebulous language? There are a number of passages, and especially in Q 2, where the Qurʾān drew on tannaitic traditions (e.g., Q 2:71 with m Parah 3:5; Q 2:187 with m Berakhot 1:2; Q 2:210 with m Berakhot 4:5; Q 5:32 with m Sanhedrin 4:5). The phrasing of Q 2:124, “when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them,” is a close fit for the statement in the Mishnah, “With ten temp tations (תונויסנ; lit. trials) was Abraham our father tempted, and he stood stead fast in them all (םלוכב דמעו; i.e. fulfilled them).” Like the Qurʾān, the Mishnah offers no enumeration of those trials, evidently assuming that its readers were familiar with them from Genesis. Similarly, the “words” of v. 124 denote multiple occasions when God put Abraham to the test. The rabbinic tradition of Abraham’s trials evidently passed through multiple versions, in a process that continued until well into the Middle Ages (Barth 1987, 1–48).

1. In fact, this tradition is already present in the book of Jubilees, written in the second century BCE.

Q 2:124 drew on Genesis 17 as well as on the Mishnah in Avot is based on the idea that these traditions, like many others, were passed down orally in Jewish or Arab monotheistic communities before Muḥammad and were accordingly known to the author of the Qurʾān and perhaps even to his audience. To sum up, Q 2:124 opens with an extra-biblical tradition, which exists in multiple versions, of the many trials that Abraham had to endure, including cir cumcision, the expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar, and the Binding of Isaac. Next, the verse offers a brief summary of the dialogue between God and Abraham in Genesis 17:18–21. In this way, the verse severs the bond between Abraham and the descendants of Isaac – the Jews – and, even more so, the link between Abraham’s trials, including circumcision, and his covenant with God.

Millat Ibrāhīm and Ṣibghat Allāh

Thus the Qurʾān’s use of millat Ibrāhīm immediately after Abraham’s test with “words” and the rejection of Isaac’s descendants (“the evildoers”) further emphasizes what separates Muslims from Jews and Christians. The difference is not one of ethnicity; both Jews and Christians are excluded from the covenant inasmuch as they are “evildoers” and not on account of some blemish in their lineage. We can, however, see this as an attempt to provide a rational ground for the preference of Ishmael’s descendants over Isaac’s (Bakhos 2006, 31–45). Thus the reworking of Genesis 17 in Q 2:124–130 may be an example of how the author of the Qurʾān revised and repurposed the biblical narratives to serve its own theology (Reynolds 2017, 303–319). Medieval commentators understood another verse in Q 2, v. 138, as a refer ence to the ritual of circumcision: “the baptism of God (ṣibghat Allāh); and who is there that baptizes (ṣibgha) fairer than God? Him we are serving” ( al-Dīnawarī 1973, 149). The conven tional rendering of ṣibghat Allāh today is that found in Arberry’s translation cited here; the assumption is that the verse looks back to what preceded it (especially v. 135) and to the distinction between the religion of Abraham on the one hand and the religions of the Jews and Christians on the other. In fact, ṣibgha may have other meanings – “color,” “religion,” “circumcision” – in addition to baptism. This last sense may possibly be derived from Syriac; but there seems to be no source, direct or indirect, for the root ṣ.b.gh and the sense of “religion” other than this verse in the Qurʾān (Jeffery 2007, 192; Mathewson Denny 1977, 32–34; Bellamy 1993, 562–573 at pp. 570–571; Gobillot 2005, 43–87 at pp. 71–78; Anthony 2014, 117–129).

Even those who take ṣibghat Allāh in the present verse as a reference to circumcision or to “the religion of God” start from the assumption that ṣibgha means the Christian ritual of baptism. This leads them to posit that the Qurʾān contrasted the Christian ritual with “the baptism of God” – circumcision – or “the religion of God” – Islam. The choice of circumcision as the antithesis of baptism may derive from the fact that the early Church replaced circumcision with baptism as the entry card to the faith. But this reading, too, does not suit the context of v. 138: it is embedded in the midst of verses that reject the superior ity that Jews and Christians arrogate to themselves. Hence it seems unlikely that v. 138 intended to contrast baptism with circumcision, the signature ritual of Jews and Judaism. This possibility (Ibn Qutaybah; Muqātil’S interpretation of the verse) seems to be closer to the uses of the roots ṣ.b.gh in the Qurʾān and ע.ב.צ in Hebrew and also to be better suited to the context of v. 138. That is, in response to the claim by the Jews and Christians that their prophets are superior and that theirs is the true creed, the Qurʾān asserts that every human being was created in the image of God, so there is no hierarchy among the believers except for their innate faith. In this way, the verse fits in with those that precede and follow it and there is no need to make it refer to matters it does not state explicitly, such as baptism or circumcision

Circumcision in Islamic Literature of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages

In the eighth and ninth centuries some of these traditions triggered many discussions of various matters, such as ritual slaughter, prayers, the proclamation of the shahāda, and even the pilgrimage to Mecca by an uncircumcised man (Al-Ṣanʿānī 1972. 483–484). There was a debate about whether a convert to Islam must undergo circumcision. One version of a ninth-century tradition holds that this is required, because the foreskin is a “sign of unbelief” (shaʿr al-kufr). There were also conflicting traditions about the nature of the precept of circumcision, between those who held it to be an obligation (wājib) and those for whom it was only a custom (sunna) (Kister 1994, 23–25; al-Murṣafī 1994, 91–110). Quite naturally, the latter debate found its way into the four schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam: the Hanbali, most Shafiʿi, and a few Maliki scholars hold that it is obligatory, whereas the Hanafi, most Maliki, and a few Shafi’i scholars consider it to be custom (Al-Murṣafī 1994, 23–28). Among the Shiʿites, by con trast, there is a consensus that it is obligatory (Munzer 2018, 1–77 at pp. 56–57; Kueny 2003, 176). There are some relatively early tradi tions that indicate that circumcision was practiced by the first Muslims, but these do not necessary imply that the precept had a special status then (Al-Aṣbaḥī 1985, 45–47 nos. 71, 72, 73, 75; al-Ansārī 1936–7, 13 no. 57). As Kueny and Salaymeh argued, almost all Islamic traditions about cir cumcision include it as an item in a list rather than as a precept in its own right.

Circumcision is included among the attributes of the innate nature or fiṭra (khiṣāl al-fiṭra) of all human beings, along with other matters associated with bodily purity, such as trimming the mustache and paring the nails. These lists vary in both the number and identity of the items included in them; some of them omit circumcision (Al-Aṣbaḥī 1997, 506 no. 2667; al-Naysābūrī 1991, 221–222 no. 257; al-Qazwīnī n.d., 107, nos. 292–294; al-Sijistānī 2009, I, 39–42, nos. 53–54; vol. 6, 262, no. 4198; al-ʿAbsī 2004, 354–355, nos. 2057–2060; al-Bukhārī 1955–6, 324, no. 1257; al-Bukhārī 2002, 826, no. 4740; 1486, nos. 5888, 5889, 5891; 1571–1572, nos. 6297–6300).
Circumcision appears as an item in lists that are part of Islamic traditions that identify the “words” with which Abraham was tested. It is mentioned alongside other tests found in Jewish traditions, such as the escape from Nimrod’s furnace, his emigration from his birthplace, and the Binding of Isaac (Al-Ṭabarī 2001, 506–507; al-Bayḍāwī 2000, 134; al-Zamakhsharī 2009, 95). These traditions are reminiscent of similar ones found in Jewish tradition (Barth 1987, 1–48). There are also a few that see Abraham as the archetype of other customs, including circumcision. Again, however, it never appears alone: Saʿid b. al-Musayyab said, “Ibrahim was the first to be circumcised, the first to give hospitality, the first to trim his mous tache, the first to cut his nails and the first to get white hair.” Another version of the text adds, “the first to wear the sharwāl” (Al-Bukhārī 1955–56, 322; cf. ʿAsākir 1989, 39–40 n. 36).

Unlike Kister and Kueny, Salaymeh stressed that Islamic literature saw circumcision solely as a means to achieve purity and cleanliness but not as evi dence of faith in God (Salaymeh 2016, 134). In my opinion, this accords better with the Islamic texts that deal with circumcision than Kueny and Kister’s suggestion. In particular, it fits with how circumcision is seemingly portrayed in the Qurʾān itself: as a preva lent custom with no spiritual virtues or ethnic attributes. But Salaymeh’s reconstruction of the history of the practice may not be accurate. She held that the idea of circumcision as a matter of bodily purity was an innovation by later scholars and commentators, especially al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), who began to emphasize the link between circumcision and Abraham. We cer tainly cannot deny al-Ṭabarī’s importance in this matter. In his commentary on the Qurʾān, he cited many traditions about the “words” of Abraham’s test, most of which include circumcision (Salaymeh 2016, 119–120). Nevertheless, the assertion by Salaymeh (as well as Kueny) that it was not until the Middle Ages that Islamic scholars started to identify circumcision with Abraham is incorrect.

1. Conclusion
2. Two main tendencies stand out in this chronological survey of the Islamic tradi tions about circumcision. The first is the extremely marginal attention to Abra ham’s circumcision in the seventh and early eighth centuries. This is particularly evident in the sīra by Ibn Hishām, who relates the “religion of Abraham and Ishmael” only to monotheism and the cult of the Kaʿba.77 In two places Ibn Hishām himself refers to the ancient Arab and Muslim custom of circumcision, and from these we can infer that it was deemed to be a practice of no special importance.78 By contrast, Christian sources of the seventh and eighth centuries identified cir cumcision as one of the customs of the “religion of Abraham” practiced by Arab monotheists.79 Hence we conclude that the Christians thought that circumcision was a law of the “religion of Abraham” of the Arab tribes, whereas their Muslim contemporaries saw it as a customary practice with no religious significance. This view weakened in the ninth and tenth centuries, which saw a proliferation of Islamic traditions about the circumcision of Abraham, especially in association with Q 2:124. Another prominent trend was that many traditions began to include circumcision as one of a larger series of customs, trials, or events. These two trends fit in well with how circumcision appears in the Qurʾān. It is never mentioned explicitly, but only alluded to as one of the “words” by which Abraham was tested. It is not justified as an obligation to be followed, but neither is it rejected as meaningless. If there is a normative statement in Q 2:124 with regard to circumcision, it is to dismiss the virtues the Jews ascribed to it. Never theless, when referring to Abraham’s tests, the Qurʾān drew on Jewish traditions (Genesis 17, m Avot 5:3) that facilitated the inclusion of circumcision among those “words.”