Intertextuality and Coherence in Meccan Suras (Islam Dayeh)

Article

The idea of surahs forming pairs, triplets, or quadruplets is itself not entirely new. For example, the Pakistani Qurʾan scholar Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1903–1997) expounded the notion of surah pairs and groups which he regarded as a central task of exegetical activity (see Mir, Coherence in the Qurʾan, esp 75–98). Others have proposed surah groups, which include, for instance, the so-called al-Raḥmān surahs; this group of surahs bears a frequent occurrence of the divine attribute al-Raḥmān (Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns (henceforth GQ), vol 1, 121; and, Robinson, Discovering, 89–92). Another such group is al-Musabbiḥāt, i e , surahs that begin with the verb sabbaḥa and its variants yusabbiḥu and sabbiḥ; there are also the Ṭawāsīn, i e , surahs which begin with the disconnected letters ṭā sīn. They are surahs 26 (ash-Shuʿarāʾ), 27 (an-Naml), and 28 (al-Qaṣaṣ) Hans Bauer notices that these three surahs all begin with the Moses narrative (Bauer, “Über die Anordnung der suren und über die Geheimnisvollen Buchstaben im Qoran,” 333)

1. Meccan Surahs and Chronology
2. Late Meccan surahs share several characteristics:
   • (a) the verses appear longer than the early Meccan surahs, but equal in length to the verses of middle Meccan surahs, ending with the penultimate -ūn and -īn
   • (b) the themes are similar to the preceding Meccan surahs: they preach monotheism and recount the Prophet’s disputes with the Meccans over the resurrection, the day of reckoning, and the falsehood of the Arabian deities
   • (c) the targeted listener is addressed with the formula “oh you people” (yā ayyuhā n-nās), a vocative formula that denotes an engagement with several discourses (pagan, Jewish, and Christian)
   • (d) since these surahs were revealed just before the emigration to Medina, many instances of Medinan interpolations are to be found in them—an indication of a need for revision due to the change of circumstances in Medina ater the Hijra. On the notion of Medinan revision and interpolations, see Watt, Bellʾs Introduction to the Qurʾan, 86–100, and nagel, Medinensische Einschübe in mekkanischen Suren In this context, it should be noted that the notion of the surah as a coherent unit should not necessarily imply a particular opinion about when a surah reached its inal form surahs may be conceived of as entities for quantifying Qurʾanic material which belong to a particular period or setting Coherence is thus gradual and relative
   • (e) In addition, I would add, this period is characterized by a certain mood of worry and anxiety present throughout the surahs which appears to relect the exasperation caused by the adamant resistance to the Prophetic recitations his aspect will appear in the thematic analysis below

Noldeke chronology:

There are problems with Nöldeke’s chronology of these surahs. Alternative and much earlier chronologies may shed some light on our problem Let us consider now the chronologies of these surahs proposed by Muslim exegetes, as quoted by the author of al-Itqān, as-suyūṭī (d 911/1505) they are:

• 1. 39 (az-Zumar) → the Ḥawāmīm surahs, without specifying the chronology among the surahs [attributed to Abu Jaʿfar al-naḥḥās’ an-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh]
• 2. 39 (az-Zumar) → 40 (Ḥā Mīm al-Muʾmin) → 44 (Ḥā Mīm ad-Dukhān) → 41 (Ḥā Mīm as-Sajda) 17 → 42 (Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf) → 43 (Ḥā Mīm az-Zukhruf) → 45 (al-Jāthiya) → 46 (al-Aḥqāf) [attributed to al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil an-Nubuw wa]
• 3. 39 (az-Zumar) → 40 (Ḥā Mīm al-Muʾmin) → 41 (Ḥā Mīm as-Sajda) → 42 (Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf) → 43 (Ḥā Mīm azZukhruf) → 44 (ad-Dukhān) → 45 (al-Jāthiya) → 46 (al-Aḥqāf) [attributed to Ibn aḍ-Ḍurays’ Fadāʾil al-Qurʾān]

Formula Criticism

In a tentative evaluation of formula criticism, Angelika neuwirth observes that, in light of her studies on the structure of the Meccan surahs, the idea of the Qurʾanic text being composed and recomposed during oral performance is hard to maintain she avers that

• [t]hough such a performance practice may apply to many early sūras, it can hardly be assumed for the bulk of the qur’ānic corpus some early sūras that were already composed without written assistance attest to an origin in nocturnal vigils, rather than in public performances Later sūras, comprised of multipartite verses with little poetic shaping and thus devoid of efective mnemonic technical devices, strongly suggest an almost immediate ixation in writing, or may even have been written compositions to begin with (neuwirth, “structural, Linguistic and Literary Features,” 100).

Neuwirth’s insights are highly significant and underline a major limitation of the application of formula criticism to Qurʾanic composition: any application of formula criticism must take into account the structural features of Qurʾanic composition, features that are suggestive of an immediate ixation in writing or that the surahs may have been written compositions to begin with hus, the Parry-Lord notion of a formula composed for the purposes and under the pressure of oral performance must be applied with caution when discussing Qurʾanic composition. The Qurʾan, inasmuch as it is the lectionary and recital of the Muslim community, it is also the irst Arabic book; it is the irst Arabic literary text to have been committed to writing he Qurʾan thus signiies an important transitional stage in the history of Arabic language and literature he Qurʾan witnessed and actively contributed to a transformation of literary culture from a predominantly oral to a written one his transformation was not limited to the technological, but let great impressions on modes of composition, narration, and rhetoric While the Qurʾan strives to establish itself as the literary canon of the Arabs, it does so in a predominantly oral environment, whose literary sensibilities and modes of rhetoric are deeply rooted in performance, persuasion, and oral verse-making ingrained in formulaic language hus, the literary and technological conditions in which the Qurʾanic text emerged shaped the way in which it was composed Residues of oral literature, such as public speech and persuasion, and formulaic language, are evident throughout the Qu’ran. One may describe Qurʾanic composition as a literaturization of ancient Arabic rhetoric (Classical Rhetoric, 2f).

1. Thematic Complementarity
2. The surahs treat corresponding and recurring themes, and that this recurrence is not simply redundant repetition, but rather reveals a thematic correlation that functions as conversations and dialogues between the surahs Islāḥī called the recurrence of themes in several surahs complementarity, giving emphasis thereby to this signiicant aspect of Qurʾanic composition, while stressing that the nature of this correlation is one whereby a surah complements another surah Iṣlāḥī’s meticulous eforts in identifying surah-surah relations led him to identify six diferent types of complementarity, which are:
   • (a) Brevity and detail, e g the relation between surahs 73 (al-Muzzammil) and 74 (al-Muddaththir) While the irst is brief, the second is detailed
   • (b) Principle and illustration, e g the relation between surahs 58 (al-Mujādala) and 59 (al-Ḥashr)
   • (c) Diferent types of evidence, e g the relation between surahs 12 (Yūsuf) and 13 (ar-Raʿd)
   • (d) Diference in emphasis, e g the relation between surahs 2 (alBaqara) and 3 (Āl ʿImrān)
   • (e) Premise and conclusion, e g the relation between surahs 105 (al-Fīl) and 106 (Quraysh)
   • (f) Unity of opposites, e g the relation between surahs 65 (aṭ-Ṭalāq) and 66 (at-Taḥrīm) 28 hese types intimate various manifestations of one core idea, which, put in plain words, is the presence of germ ideas that are expounded and retold according to the considerations and contexts of subsequent recitations

1. The Arabic Nature of the Qurʾan (qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan)
2. One of the more striking aspects of some of the passages in our corpus is the overt concern with the language of the Qurʾan (see Q 39:1 2:28, Q 40:2, Q 41 throughout, but especially verses 2:3 26:44, Q 42:3 7:17 and 51–53, Q 43:2–4, Q 44:4, Q 45:2 28–29, and Q 46:4 9:12) Why do these surahs insist over and over again that the Qurʾan is composed in Arabic? Is the language of the text not evident to its audience? A close reading of these passages will show that the Qurʾan is not deining the language in which it is composed, for that is evident, but what it is in fact stating is that the language employed is a comprehensible one, a language that the audience of the Qurʾan can understand. Why an Arabic revelation? The Qurʾanic response recurs throughout the corpus: bi-lisānin ʿarabiyyin mubīn, qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan ghayr dhī ʿiwajin, qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan la-ʿallakum taʿqilūn, al-kitāb al-mubīn, allāhu anzala aḥsana l-ḥadīth, and wa-hādhā kitābun muṣaḍḍiqun lisānan ʿarabiyyan li-yundhira alladhīna ẓalamū wa-bushrā li-l-muḥsinīn In plain words: a clear and comprehensible language so that the audience may understand its message he Qurʾan therefore makes a clearly conscious and courageous preference for a comprehensible language which the audience will comprehend, over a scriptural language whose only virtue is its antiquity Furthermore, the passages hint at a theory of divine communication that is essentially pragmatic: qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan litundhira umma l-qurā wa-man ḥawlahā. This notion is emphasized in other passages in the Qurʾan, cf Q 14:4: wa-mā arsalnā min rasūlin illā bi-lisāni qawmihi li-yubayyina lahum.

The Refusal of the Prophetic Message (at-takdhīb)

Another theme which these surahs dwell upon is the reaction of the unbelievers to the prophetic message (Q 39:24 25 32 41 45 59 60, Q 40, throughout the surah, but especially verses 4 5 68–70 83, Q 41:5 8– 15 23–33 41, Q 42:7–16 48, Q 43:7 22 23 40 47 51–53 58, Q 44:13 14, and Q 46:4 9 12) he treatment of this highly important aspect of prophetic experience is well elaborated throughout the corpus I will underline several chief issues which appear in these surahs First and foremost, the reader will notice a conscious efort to handle this rejection. We are told about this rejection overtly, and are provided with a catalogue of forms in which this rejection manifests itself: mockery, ridicule, unwillingness to listen, turning away, and accusations of sorts his rejection is characterized brilliantly by several narratives such as that of ʿād and hamūd in surah 41 and the people of Abraham in surah 43 But by far, the most exemplary typiication of this rejection of the Qurʾanic message is Pharaoh’s attitude to Moses and the Israelites his narrative occurs in surahs 40, 43 and 44 two characters are particularly interesting here he irst is a man from the people of Pharaoh, muʾmin āl irʿawn, who conceals his faith in the Mosaic prophecy and stands deiant against the tyranny and rejection of Pharaoh (Q 40:28f ) he second is a man from among the Israelites, presumably a Jew of Arabia, who acts as witness to the truth of the Qurʾanic message, wa-shahida shāhidun min banī isrāʾīla ʿalā mithlihī (Q 46:11) he similarities between the two characters are remarkable and allude to a particular concern with the attitude of the unbelievers throughout the corpus and the likely presence of supporters even among the rejecting community in Mecca Rejection of the Qurʾanic message brought about even greater and far more complex challenges than that concerning the linguistic nature of the text one of these evident and fundamental challenges was the question of prophetic diversity and genealogy If the Muhammadan claim of belonging to a prophetic genealogy is true, then what precisely characterizes this message (the Qurʾan)? Wouldn’t this claim only inlict more conlict and struggle among the adherents of these prophets? And a more fundamental question, what was the cause of this conlict in the irst place? hese questions and their cognates were provocative and evidently hostile, but they were nevertheless signiicant challenges that the Qurʾan had to debate (cf for instance surah 42:7–16).

1. Oppression
2. Intimately related to the theme of the rejection of the prophetic message is the theme of the oppression that his community sufered at the hands of the unbelievers (Q 40: throughout the surah, especially 35–36 45 51–57 60 77 83–85, Q 41:15 35 38, Q 43:51–53, Q 44:19 31, Q 45:13, Q 46:35) he unbelievers are designated here as tyrant oppressors (al-mustakbirūn), whereas the believers are designated as the oppressed, the weak (al-mustaḍʿafūn) hese designations appear noticeably in surah 40 (Ghāir), in which a central theme is the oppression and the sufering of the believing community, the doom of the oppressors, and consolation of the community by a promise of a victory that awaits them he surah therefore begins with a set of appellatives attributed to God stressing his might and sovereignty over the oppressors Moreover, the surah contains a frequent occurrence of words denoting might, strength, and power (baʾs, shidda, kibr, qahhār, etc ), cf 40:35 56 60 75 76 he Qurʾan instructs the oppressed believers to practice perseverance and to endure oppression until divine victory is granted them (40:51 52 54) In this context, ṣabr becomes part of the Qurʾanic discourse and appears as a virtue typiied in several exemplary prophets (40:35, 42:43) In surah 42:43 (ash-Shūrā) there is an allusion to the merit of perseverance and forgiveness: wa la-man ṣabara wa-ghafara inna dhālika min ʿazmi l-umūr In Q 46:35 (al-Aḥqāf), this virtue becomes a characteristic of a certain group of prophets, whom are given the appellative ulū l-ʿazm, and the Qurʾanic command then is to endure like the endurance of those prophets: fa-ṣbir kamā ṣabara ulū l-ʿazmi mina r-rusul he veneration of these prophets, ulū l-ʿazmi mina r-rusul, in these particular passages calls for a literary analysis of how the refusal of the Qurʾanic message and the subsequent persecution of the community were creatively appropriated and refashioned such that it would become an integral part of the Qurʾanic Heilsgeschichte and further evidence to the truth of the prophetic claim 30 he Ḥawāmīm would appear to be a good place to start.

Reflection on Emigration

Anthropology

Eschatological Imagery