Religion (1990) 20, 161-175

Neal Robinson

After briefly describing the principal non-Muslim and Muslim approaches to the Qur’anic material about Jesus and Mary, the author explores four aspects of this material which have been relatively neglected. In the first section he shows how the representation ofJesus and Mary is integrated in the structure of the Qur’anic discourse. In the second section he lists the similarities between Muhammad and the Qur’anic Jesus. In the third and fourth sections he draws on the Qur’an and on Islamic tradition in order to show that both ‘Aisha and Muhammad had a number of thin,gs in common with Mary. In the concluding discussion he states that the Qur’anic story of Jesus and Mary serves to authenticate the prophetic ministry of Muhammad and then makes some more specific remarks about the observations listed in the four main sections.

The Qur’gn narrates a number of episodes from the lives ofJesus and Mary. It acknowledges that Jesus was a prophet who worked miracles but it emphatically denies that he was the Son of God. It also seems to deny that he was crucified. Although the material about Jesus’ adult life is somewhat sparse there is a wealth of detail concerning the events surrounding his nativity. The virgin birth is apparently affirmed and God is said to have chosen Mary above all the women of the worlds.

Needless to say the Qur’anic representation ofJesus and Mary has attracted the attention of countless Christian writers. Most studies of the subject by Christians have had a distinctively polemical, apologetic or historical orientation. Anti-Muslim polemicists have argued that the Qur’an gives a garbled and heretical version of the Christian tradition. Christian apologists have tried to show that the Qur’sn does not explicitly deny the divinity of Christ or the crucifixion and that its statements about Jesus and Mary provide stepping stones towards full-blown Christian faith. Historians have endeavoured to throw light on the Qur’anic material by investigating the penetration of Christianity into pre-Islamic Arabia, by noting apocryphal parallels and by sifting the evidence concerning Muhammad’s encounters with Christians. Understandably the work of these Christian scholars has been predominantly Christocentric. That is to say they have usually taken orthodox or heretical Christian representations of Jesus and Mary as the basis for elucidating the Qur’anic material about them. Of course some of the more astute Christian scholars have recognised that this material has been moulded by Muhammad’s

0048-721X/90/02016l + 15$02.00/O 0 1990 Academic Press Limited

162 N. Robinson

religious experience and adapted to serve the theological purposes of the Qur’an as a whole’ but they have not, in my opinion, realised the full extent of the moulding and adaptation that has taken place.

Muslims have also produced a wealth of literature concerning the Qur’anic representation of Jesus and Mary. Much of this is incorporated in encyclopaedic commentaries on the Qur’an. The predominant form of Muslim exegesis is traditional. It purports to retail authoritative interpretations which can be traced back to the Prophet Muhammad, his Companions or their Followers. The Prophetic &&th provide convenient defence against Christian polemic and apologetic by explaining away an apparent error in the Qur’an* and by relativising its extravagant statement about God’s choice of Mary above all the women of the worlds.3 They also incorporate an Islamicised form of the Christian belief in Jesus’ future return, an attenuated version of the immaculate conception and a few statements about the occasions on which the Qur’anic material was revealed. The traditions attributed to the Companions and Followers are too numerous to be summarised. They include haggadic expan- sions ofthe Qur’anic narratives which make it clear that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and equally clear that a look-alike substitute was crucified. in his place. In theory Muslims hold that the interpretation of the Qur’an by the Qur’an is even more authoritative than interpretation based on received tradition. In practice however, the commentators only comb the Qur’Zn for parallels when they are faced with a rare word or grammatical construction or when there is a need to respond to Muslim heresy or Christian apologetic. A good example of the latter is their marshalling of evidence to show that neither the virgin birth nor the miracles differentiate Jesus from other human messengers of God.4

In this article I wish to explore certain features of the Qur’anic represen- tation of Jesus and Mary which have been relatively neglected by Christian and Muslim scholars alike. I shall begin by discussing the way in which the material which concerns us is mediated by the structure of the Qur’anic discourse. The structure itself has been analysed by Mohammed Arkoun5 but its relevance to an assessment of the material about Jesus and Mary is rarely appreciated, least of all by Christian apologists. In the second section I shall highlight the affinity of Muhammad and Jesus as portrayed in the Qur’an. That such an affinity exists is universally acknowledged but its extent is not well known. In the third and fourth sections I shall break entirely new ground by pointing out that in important respects there is also an affinity between ‘A’isha and Mary and between Muhammad and Mary.

JESUS AND MARY IN RELATION TO THE QUR’ANIC DISCOURSE Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God which was brought down by the angel Gabriel. They further believe that although the revelations were

Jesus and Mary in the Q&an 163

addressed in the first place to the Prophet Muhammad they were destined for a wider audience: the people of Mecca and Medina and ultimately all mankind. Whether or not these beliefs are well grounded theologically and historically they are consonant with the structure of the Qur’anic discourse. The Qur’anic discourse implies an Omniscient Magisterial Speaker (God) who addresses a privileged individual (Muhammad) and requires him to relay the message to others.

One of the striking features of this discourse is that the Omniscient Magistetial Speaker employs the first person singular (I, Me, My), the first person plural (We, Us, Our) and the third person singular (He, Him, His) when speaking of Himself.’ Moreover, He sometimes shifts quite unexpectedly from one self-designation to another. For instance in the following passage where He employs all three modes of speaking:

God’s are the fairest names. Invoke Him by them. Leave the company of those who blaspheme His names. They will be requited what they do. Of those whom We created there is a nation who guide with the truth and establish justice with it. And those who deny Our signs-step by step We lead them on whence they know not. I give them rein. Behold! My scheme is strong. (7:180-183)’

The Omniscient Magisterial Speaker knows the intimate details of events that took place in the remote past and speaks as though they were the result of His activity. A striking instance of this is the account of the young men who took refuge in a cave to avoid persecution and were made to sleep for many years until the persecution was over:

We narrate their story to you in its true form. You would have believed them awake though they were asleep, and We caused them to turn over to the right and to the left, whereas their dog stretched out his paws on the threshold. If you had observed them you would certainly have fled from them, you would have been filled with terror. (18:13,18)

The Omniscient Magisterial Speaker also knows the innermost thoughts of the privileged individual whom He addresses:

We know that the things they say cause you grief. . (6:33) Your Lord has not forsaken you nor does He hate you. (93:3)

Despite the fact that the revelations are always vouchsafed to the privileged individual, the Omniscient Magisterial Speaker sometimes addresses the wider audience directly and refers to the privileged individual as ‘him’:

If he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We would have siezed him by the right hand. Then We would surely have severed his artery and not one of you would have been able to defend him. (69:44-7)

164 N. Robinson

Moreover, although the privileged individual is frequently in the forefront of the message he himself never makes intrusions into the discourse to provide elements of prophetic autobiography. Thus from start to finish it is implied that the Qur’anic discourse is the utterance of the Omniscient Magisterial Speaker.

Turning now to the material about Jesus and Mary, we should first note that this too is the utterance of the Omniscient Magisterial Speaker who designates Himself He, We and I:

The Messiah Jesus Son of Mary was only a messenger of God and His word which He conveyed unto Mary. . . (4:171) And We caused Jesus Son of Mary to follow in their footsteps . . . (5:46) And when God said ‘0 Jesus Son of Mary remember My favour unto you and unto your mother; how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit . .’ (5:llO)

In this material there is one striking instance where the Omnipresent Magisterial Speaker emphasises that the privileged individual addressed did not witness the events narrated:

This is the tidings of the Unseen which We reveal to you. You were not with them when they cast their reeds [to decide] which of them should have charge of Mary. You were not with them when they disputed. (344)

This oblique reference to the casting of lots to decide who should be Mary’s guardian occurs like a cinematographic flash-back in the course of the narration of the annunciation. It has the effect of enhancing the verisimilitude of the story and of giving the impression that the narrator-the Omniscient Magisterial Speaker-observed the events in question.

It is also implied that the Omniscient Magisterial Speaker knows the innermost thoughts ofJesus for He is able to report in advance what Jesus will say when challenged:

And when God says ‘0 Jesus son of Mary, did you say to mankind “Take me and my mother for two gods beside God.“?‘Jesus says ‘Glory be to You! It is not for me to say what I have no right to say. If I had said it You would know it. You know what is in my inner self but I do not know what is in Your inner self.’ (5: 116)

Like everything else in the Qur’an this authoritative revelation of the story ofJesus and Mary is addressed in the first place to a privileged individual but is destined for a wider audience. There are three Byas which are of particular interest because they mention Jesus in lists of prophets which also include the privileged individual addressed. Two of these fyas are couched exclusively in We-you discourse directed at the individual:

We have revealed to you as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, Jesus and Job,

Robinson R138 teri

Jesus and Mar3, in the Q&an 165

Jonah and Aaron. . . . (4:163) And when We exacted a covenant from the prophets and from you and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus Son ofMary . . (33:7)

The third Pya is more complex. It combines We-you discourse addressed to the privileged individual with He-you discourse addressed directly to the wider audience. This is quite clear in Arabic but it is difficult to represent in modern English where ‘you’ can be either singular or plural. I have therefore included explanatory glosses in square brackets:

He has appointed for you [Muslims] as religion what He enjoined on Noah and what We have revealed to you [0 Prophet] and what We enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus . . (42:13)

All three dyas indicate quite clearly that in the Qur’an the story ofJesus serves, like the stories of the other prophets, to authenticate the prophetic ministry of Muhammad and to emphasise the authority of the message ofwhich he is the mediator.

MUHAMMAD AND JESUS It is well known that the Qur’Bn depicts Jesus as one of a series ofpraphets sent by God, a series beginning with Adam and culminating in Muhammad the privileged individual to whom the Qur’sn itself is addressed. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Qur’ln depicts Muhammad and Jesus as having a number of things in common. Nevertheless the extent of their affinity is not generally appreciated.

Like Muhammad, the Qur’anic Jesus is called a ‘prophet’ (nabs), a ‘messenger’ (rus~l) and a ‘servant’ (‘abd) of God. Like him too he is said to have been sent as a ‘mercy’ (r&za). He received a revelation called ‘the Gospel’ just as Muhammad subsequently received the Qur’ln. Jesus’ teaching and the teaching of the Gospel are referred to as ‘wisdom’, ‘right path’, ‘guidance’, ‘light’ and ‘admonition’-terms that recur as descriptions of the Qur’anic message. Jesus declared licit some of the things that were forbidden to the Jews (3:50) j t us as Muhammad did, for some of the more detailed food laws were a punishment imposed on the Jews because of their disobedience and thus were relaxed for Muslims (6: 146f). Nevertheless, the Gospel, like the Qur’gn, was a confirmation of previous Scriptures (3:3). Its central thrust was identical with the central thrust of the Qur’an-the summons to serve and worship God. Jesus is said to have threatened idolaters with hellfire (5:72) and to have promised paradise to those who died fighting in God’s cause (9: 11 I)- threats and promises which correspond to those made in the Qur’gn. Moreover Jesus is said to have practised ritual prayer (s&t) and almsgiving (zakct) (19:31), and two fundamental religious obligations of Islam. In view of all this it should come as no surprise that the Qur’gn also states that the revelation

166 N. Robinson

addressed to Jesus’ disciples urged them to believe in God and His messenger and that they declared that they were ‘submitted’ (mzlslimzin, i.e. Muslims? 5:lll) and wished to be enrolled ‘with those who bear witness’ (ma‘s al- shzhidin, i.e. ‘with those who recite the shah&da’? 3:53).

From what has been said so far it should be clear that the Qur’anic representation ofJesus serves to legitimise Muhammad by giving the impression that he was doing what Jesus had done before him. In one very striking instance this becomes quite explicit:

0 you believers! Be God’s helpers as when Jesus Son of Mary said to the disciples ‘Who will be my helpers in God’s way?’ The disciples said, ‘We are God’s helpers.’ A group of the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved. We upheld those who believed against their enemies and they gained the victory. (6 1: 14)

Although this passage is very condensed its purport is clear enough. The believers are urged to fight at Muhammad’s side on the grounds that in so doing they will be following the example of Jesus’ disciples and that like them they will prove victorious.8 The word ‘helpers’ (an@) is pregnant with meaning. It is the official title given to the people of Medina who rallied to Muhammad’s cause (9: 100,107). It also puns with na@, the Qur’anic name for Christian.

There would have been no need for a promise of victory if Muhammad and Jesus had not met with mockery and opposition. Muhammad’s critics mocked him for needing to eat food (25:7). Yet Jesus and his mother had had similar needs (5:75). The ‘signs’ which Muhammad brought as proof of his authority -the inimitable revelations of the Qur’an-led to allegations of sorcery (2 1:3, 38:4f., 43:31). Yet although Jesus’ miraculous ‘signs’ had been rather different they too had provoked this response (5:l lo).’ So was Muhammad to expect the same fate as Jesus? There can be no simple answer to this question because the Qur’an’s statements about Jesus’ death are themselves so notoriously ambiguous and controversial. lo Nevertheless, even here there are some tanta- lising similarities between what is said about Muhammad and what is said about Jesus:

(1) Muhammad’s status as a messenger of God was no guarantee that he would not die or be killed:

Muhammad [is] only a messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed will you turn upon your heels . . ? (3: 144)

The phrase ‘have passed away before’ (qad khalat min qabli) occurs a number of times with reference to past generations and vanished peoples but the closest parallel to this particular aya is a statement about Jesus:

The Messiah Jesus son of Mary [was] only a messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. (5:75)

Jesus and Ma7y in the Qur’an 167

(2) Muhammad’s opponents schemed against him but God was also scheming:

When those who disbelieve plot to keep you in bonds or kill you or drive you out, they are plotting and God is plotting. God is the best of plotters. (8:30)

Similar things are said about the opposition to other prophets including Abraham (14:47) and Salih (27:50) but the phrase ‘God is the best of plotters’ occurs elsewhere only in connection with Jesus:

They plotted and God plotted. God is the best of plotters. (3:54)

(3) The verb tuzmf$ (‘cause to die’ or ‘receive alive’) occurs three times with Muhammad as the object of the action. As the meaning of the verb is disputed I shall translate it as ‘receive’ to preserve the ambiguity:

Whether We cause you to see something of what We have promised them or whether We receive you (mztawaffayanna-ka), on you is incumbent only the preaching and on Us the reckoning. ( 13:40) Whether We cause you to see something of what We have promised them or whether We receive you (natawaffayanna-ka), unto Us is their return (marji‘u- hum) and God is witness (shah@“) over what they do. (10:46) Whether We cause you to see something of what We have promised them or whether We receive you (natawaffayanna-ka), unto Us they will be returned (yurja%z) (40:77)

There are only two other ayas where this verb is used in the active voice with God as the subject and with one ofhis prophets as the object. In both instances the prophet is Jesus. Moreover there is a similar emphasis on God’s witnessing man’s actions and man’s return to Him for Judgement:

[Remember] when God said ‘0 Jesus I am about to receive you (mutawaffi-ka) and raise you to myself and purify you from those who disbelieve. I am setting those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the day of resurrection. Then to Me shall be your return (ma@%-kum) [all ofyou] . . . (3:55) Wesus said] I was a witness against them as long as I remained with them. Then when You received me (tawaffayta-nF) it is You who were the watcher over them, You are witness (shahidu”) of everything (5: 117).

‘A’ZSHA AND MARY There is one instance in which Mary is cited for an explicitly hortatory purpose. This occurs at the end of the sixty-sixth sura. The passage states that God has proposed the wife of Pharaoh together with ‘Mary daughterbf Imran who guarded her chastity’ as examples for the believers (66: 13-14). This is directly related to the first part of the sura which is concerned with a domestic problem occasioned by Muhammad’s wives. The details of that problem need not detain us and in any case thaannot be deduced directly from the text. Suffice it to note that the trouble was caused by two wives (66:3f) and that it

168 N. Robinson

was suggested that unless they had a change of heart &y might be divorced and replaced with women who were better Muslims, either women who had already been married (i.e. like Pharaoh’s wife?) or virgins (i.e. like Mary?) (66:4f). According to the most plausible tradition the two wives who caused the trouble were H&a and ‘A’isha. They would certainly fit the bill admirably for Muhammad married H&a after she was widowed whereas ‘A’isha was his only virgin bride. ”

Taking our lead from this passage we may enquire whether any of the other things that the Qur’&n says about Mary were relevant to Muhammad’s &ge. If the Qur’anic information about the Prophet’s wives is supplemented with details derived from early Muslim tradition, and if attention is focused on ‘A’isha some quite remarkable parallels emerge.

When the Prophet moved to Medina he was about fifty years old and had only one wife, Sawda, who was at least thirty. The residence which was built for him also served as the first mosque. ‘* It consisted principally of an enclosed courtyard in which he conducted business, addressed his followers and led communal prayers. In the pre-Islamic period marriage,was uxorilocal, that is to say wives used to remain in their family homes where they were visited by their husbands. Muhammad departed from this custom and established virilocal marriage as the norm. Thus Sawda lived with him in the mosque or rather in her own apartment which opened onto the courtyard. Muhammad soon contracted a further marriage with ‘A’isha. His relationship with her must to begin with have been more that of a guardian than a husband for she was only nine and was allowed to keep her toys. Nevertheless, ‘A’isha had to leave her family and live at the Prophet’s residence.13 Quarters were built for her resembling those of Sawda and opening onto the eastern side of the courtyard. In addition to being separated from her folk, ‘A’isha was screened off from them because of a revelation instructing Muslims to speak to the Prophet’s wives from behind a ‘curtain’ (&jdb 33:53). There are various traditions as to why the &@b was introduced but the underlying reason was that the mosque was frequented by large numbers of people and it was undignified for the women to be exposed to all and sundry. God wished to g:i them (33:33) an d give them unique status as mothers of the believers

: . Many of these details tally with what the Qur’gn says about Mary. The two

principal versions ofher story associate her with Zechariah. He was a prophet, advanced in years and married to a woman who was barren. He is mentioned in connection with an important place ofworship. While Mary was still only a girl she was put in the car&of Zechariah because her mother had dedicated her to God. In one version of the story it is implied that Mary lived in the mi@b (3:37) which was either the place ofworship itself or a chamber adjoining it. In the other version she is said to have withdrawn from her folk to an ‘easterly’

Jesus and Ma? in the Quur’an 169

place and screened herself from them with a ‘curtain’ (&fib 19: 16). ‘* Moreover, she was told by the angels that God had ‘purified’ her and preferred her above all the women of creation (3:42).

There is a further important resemblance between ‘A’isha and Mary: both were accused of sexual immorality. l5 When the Muslims were returning from a campaign ‘A’isha was accidentally left behind at the camp site. Apparently her howda had been loaded onto the camel while she was in the privy and because she was so light no one had realised that the howda was empty. Tongues began to wag when she returned to Medina accompanied by a handsome young man who had also fallen behind for some reason and had not spent the night with the troops. The accusations provoked a serious crisis which was only resolved when Muhammad received a revelation declaring her innocence. Tradition identifies this revelation as 24: 1 lff. The passage does not name ‘A’isha but it clearly refers to a false accusation of unchastity made against an eminent Muslim woman. The accusers are lambasted for speaking lies and not bringing four witnesses. The believers are reprimanded for listening to scandal-mongering and not dismissing it as slander; they should have realised that it was ‘a tremendous calumny’ (b&t& ‘c&n 24: 16). The case of Mary is of course different in as far as she was visited by God’s Spirit and returned to ,her people with a child. There are, however, a number of similarities. In the first place, the encounter with the Spirit took place when she was alone and he presented himself to her in the form of a perfect mortal (19: 17), that is to say, as a handsome young man. Second, her people suspected her of unchastity and her virtue had to be defended by revelation (19:27-33). Finally, the Qur’an criticises the People of the Book for having spoken ‘a tremendous calumny’ against Mary (4:156).i6

MUHAMMAD AND MARY In addition to having to deal with the slanderous suggestions about ‘A’isha, the Prophet had to face accusations that were even more damaging. His enemies alleged that he himself was deluded or a fraud and had not really received revelations. Once again there are similarities to the story of Mary and Jesus. This time, however, the parallels are between Muhammad and Mary rather than ‘A’isha and Mary. For the sake of clarity I shall list them one by one together with relevant quotations:

(1) God’s agent who brought the revelations to Muhammad was the angel Gabriel who is sometimes referred to as the Spirit:

Say, ‘Who is the enemy of Gabriel when it is he who sent it down on your heart by God’s permission . . . ?’ (297) Say, ‘The Holy Spirit sent it down from your Lord in truth and to confirm those who believe and to be a guidance and good news for the Muslims.’ (16: 102)

170 N. Robinson

Mary also received angelic visitations (3:42) and God’s agent at the annunci- ation/conception is referred to as the Spirit (19: 17).

(2) The Spirit or Gabriel sometimes appeared to Muhammad in human form. According to a well-known hadith the Prophet said:

At times the angel presented himself to me (tumaththaba 1-i) as a man (rujuZnn) and spoke to me. ”

Moreover the Qur’an itself mentions that Muhammad’s critics once hinted that his so-called revelations came from a fellow human being:

And We ‘know very well that they say, instructing him.’ (16: 103) I8

‘It is only a mortal (bashar) who is

The Spirit also looked like a man on the occasion when he was sent to Mary:

And We sent unto her Our Spirit who presented himself to her in the form of a perfect mortal (tamaththala la-ha bashale” sawiyy”” 19: 17) .lg

Moreover, Mary’s folk evidently thought that a man had made her pregnant (19327f).

(3) Satan seeks to impart false revelations but Muhammad was protected from his wiles by a simple expedient:

When you recite the Qur’an [0 Prophet] seek God’s protection against the accursed Satan. He has no authority over those who believe and trust in their Lord

. . (16: 980

Satan also seeks to tempt human beings to engage in sexual immorality (24:2 1) but Mary would not have succumbed to such temptations because at her birth her mother supplicated God with the words:

‘I seek your protection for her and her offspring against the accursed Satan.’ (3:36)

And when the Spirit presented himself to Mary she herself said:

‘I seek the protection of the Compassionate against you if you are God-fearing’ (19:18)

(4) Many of Muhammad’s revelations were first uttered in his sermons at Medina. According to tradition, to begin with the mosque did not have a minbar for Muhammad to preach from:

It was on the trunk of a palm tree that the Prophet used at first to lean.*’

According to the Qur’Bn Mary gave birth to Jesus in a similar setting:

The labour pains drove her to the trunk of the palm tree. (19:22)

(5) Muhammad’s critics desired firmer evidence of his inspiration. We should perhaps infer from the following passage that they expected to see God

Jesus and Mary in the Q&an 17 1

address him directly:

It is not for any mortal that God should speak to him, except by inspired communication (wahJnn), or from behind a curtain (min ~aru’~” h@6’“) or that He should send Cyursilu) an [angelic] messenger (rtil) who would then communi- cate Cyz@u) by His permission what He wishes. (42:5 1).

The interpretation of this is much disputed. Muslim theologians assume that the noun retaby and verb aw@ denote Gabriel’s recitation of the words of the Qur’an to Muhammad. On the other hand, Watt makes out a good case for thinking that the fundamental sense is ‘the communication of an idea by some quick suggestion or prompting’.*r Fakhr al-Din al-Rizi argues that the reference to a curtain must be metaphorical and that what is meant is that when a man hears speech without seeing the speaker it is as though the speaker were behind a veil or curtain. ** Note that we have already met with the expression ‘from behind a curtain’ for it occurred in its literal sense in connection with the Prophet’s wives. 23 Should we infer that Muhammad often presented revelations which he claimed he had received when he was behind the curtain in his wives’ quarters?

It can hardly be fortuitous that terms ‘communicate’, ‘curtain’, ‘send’ and ‘[angelic] messenger’ occur in close succession in one of the accounts of the annunciation and conception. Zechariah was alone when he received a revelation and was struck dumb. The rest of mankind neither saw nor heard anything but:

He came out of the mihrab to his people and communicated (a~&) to them (19:ll)

Mary was in seclusion when the Spirit came to her:

She took apart from them a curtain (&j~?b”~) and we sent (arsalnd) to her Our Spirit . (19:18f) He said ‘I am only an [angelic] messenger (rasul’) of your Lord , . .’ (19:19)

Thus the mystery of Mary’s conception ofJesus like the mystery of Muhammad’s reception of the Qur’an was hidden from profane eyes.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION What are the implications of these observations? I have already stated that the Qur’anic story of Jesus serves to authenticate the prophetic ministry of Muhammad and to emphasise the authority of the message of which he is the mediator. I will now attempt to draw some more specific conclu.sions from each of the four main sections of this paper.

In the first section we saw that the image of Jesus is mediated by the structure of the Qur’anic discourse and is inseparable from it. It follows that any attempt to translate what the Qur’an says about Jesus into a series of

172 N. Robinson

propositions is likely to reduce the impact of the Qur’anic version of the story and thus to seriously misrepresent it. This is equally true of the Gospels, although there the structure of the discourse is very different for there is an implied human narrator who tends to recede behind the story which he is telling and to leave Jesus at the centre of the stage.

Let us next consider the resemblance between what the Qur’an says about Muhammad and what it says about Jesus. Michaud, who was aware ofsome of the parallels which I have listed, thought it unnecessary to postulate that Muhammad had deliberately contrived to produce them. His own explanation had two parts to it. First, following Harnack and Schoeps, he assumed that Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Christianity and that consequently he initially believed that the religion which he preached closely resembled that of

;

esus. 24 Second, Michaud sugg ested that later on the traditional data about esus, which did not fit the image of him as a model prophet, were partially

harmonised with it by a slow and profound spiritual travail which took place within Muhammad.25 I accept the likelihood of both the Jewish Christian influence and the long-term spiritual travail but I question whether they are sufficient to explain all the similarities that we have observed. Take, for instance, the three sets of ayas in which similar statements are made about the fate ofMuhammad and that ofJesus. Michaud does not mention these. Yet the similarities are striking. Moreover, in all three cases the statements about Jesus were revealed shortly after the statements about Muhammad.26 Are we really to believe that this degree of harmonisation was brought about entirely unconsciously?

My account of the similarity between ‘A’isha and Mary depends partly on details drawn from tradition. I suggest that here we must almost certainly reckon with Muhammad’s deliberate attempt to indicate that such a similarity existed. His domestic arrangements in the mosque at Medina were, I think, consciously made with that end in mind. His primary motive was probably the desire to compensate for the aura surrounding Mary and the virginal con- ception-features of the traditional Christian story which were hard to reconcile with the belief that Jesus was merely a model prophet. In the process, however, he also blazed the trail for the establishment of virilocal marriage.27 The Qur’anic aya exonerating ‘A’isha from the charge of unchastity came later. It would have made sense to the Muslims who were by then long familiar with the story of how Mary’s innocence had likewise been defended by revelation. Just in case they failed to see the similarity, the charge against ‘A’isha was referred to as ‘a tremendous calumny’.

The parallels between Muhammad and Mary are more difficult to interpret. It is impossible to be certain of the degree to which Muhammad was conscious of them. They are, however, undeniably there. They have a twofold effect. First, they relativise the miracle of Mary’s conception of Jesus by making it an

Jesus and Mav in the Qur’an 173

analogue of Muhammad’s recejtion of the Qur’k. Second, they provide a precedent for the mysterious circumstances that led to Muhammad being suspected of fraud.

NOTES 1

2

3 4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

For example, Henri Michaud, J&s selon le Coran, Delachaux et Niestlt, Neuchatel, 1960 and Claus Schedl, Muhammad und Jesus, Vienna, Herder, 1978.

According to hadith the reference to Mary as ‘Sister of Aaron’ (19:28) does not imply that she has been confused with the Old Testament .Miriam. It was customary in Mary’s time to name people after pious individuals of former ages. By stating that she was the most excellent woman of her time. See Neal Robinson, ‘Creating Birds from Clay: a Miracle of Jesus in the Qur’an and Classical Muslim Commentaries’, Muslim World, vol. LXXIX/l, 1989, pp. l-13. Mohammad Arkoun, Lapense’e arabe, Paris, P.U.F., 1979, pp. 10-13. For a discussion of the significance of this see Neal Robinson ‘The Qur’an as the Word of God’ in A. Linzey & P. Wexler (eds), Heaven and Earth: Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics, Worthing, Churchman, 1986, pp. 38-54. Translations of the Qur’an are made by the author from the standard Egyptian edition ofthe Arabic text. The first figure refers to the sura, the second to the ayas. It is possible that as a result of typological exegesis or confusion Jesus is here portrayed as the Old Testament figure ofJoshua. The whole passage seems odd to us but would have made sense to Muhammad’s audience because of the Byzantine Christians’ conquest of Palestine. See John Bowman, ‘The Debt of Islam to Monophysite Syrian Christianity’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrii 19 (19645), pp. 177-201. Jesus’ miracles are referred to as a sign (Zya) at 3:49. Passages of the Qur’an are referred to as signs at 2: 106. There are challenges to unbelievers to bring a sura or ten suras like the Qur’an at 2:23, IO:38 and 11: 13. This is the basis of the doctrine that every prophet is given a miracle as proof of his mission and that the chief miracle given to Muhammad was the inimitable Qur’an itself. In this connection it is worth noting that Muhammad’s revelations (e.g. 2:97) and Jesus’ miracles (3:49 and 5: 110) occur ‘by permission’ ofGod. Note also that one ofJesus’ miracles involves God’s ‘sending down’ of something (5: 1140, a word frequently used of the ‘sending down’ of the Qur’anic revelations. Traditional Muslim exegesis interprets all the relevant Qur’anic texts in the light of 4:157 which is taken to imply that a substitute was crucified in Jesus’ place. Many Christians and some Muslims think that Jesus’ death is implied at 19:33, 3:55 and 5: 117 and argue that 4: 157 could simply be a denial of the Jews’ claim that they crucified Jesus. The various traditions are summarised in N. Abbott, Aisha The Beloved Of Muhammed, London, Al-Saqi Books, 1985 pp. 44f. where references to the original sources are given. For Hafsa’s former marriage see W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, O.U.P., 1956, p. 396. For ‘A’isha’s vaunting the fact that she was Muhammad’s only virgin bride see N. Abbot, op. cit., p. 65. For the description of the mosque see Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed, E. T. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 197 1, pp. 149f. For the change to virilocal marriage see W. M. Watt, op. cit., pp. 272-277. The information about ‘A’isha is conveniently set out by W. M. Watt, “A’isha bint Abi Bakr’, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 1, pp. 307f.

174 h? Robinson

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24 25 26

27

According to Muslim tradition this passage was revealed at Mecca, i.e. before the &jib was introduced for Muhammad’s wives. Christian historians argue that the Qur’anic reference to Mary adopting a veil is based indirectly on The Protoevangthn of James 10: 1 which states that she was engaged in making a veil for the temple, For the accusation against ‘A’isha and the incident that provoked it see N. Abbott, op. cit., pp. 29-38. N.B. The expression ‘a tremendous calumny’ (buht& ‘a@m) occurs only twice in the Qur’an-at 4: 156 in connection with Mary and at 24: 16 in connection with ‘A’isha. Bukhki sahih ed., Ahmad Muhammad Shikir, 9 parts bound in 3 volumes, Beirut, ‘Alam al-Kutub nd., part 1 pp. 2f. The second half of the aya states that the speech of the person to whom they blasphemously alluded was ajamzjy whereas the revelations were in clear Arabic. The word ayamiyy could simply mean ‘indistinct’ but Muslim exegesis usually takes it to mean ‘foreign’. The traditions traced to the early generations of Muslims disagree as to who the person was; see Ibn Kathir, tafsir al-qur%n al- ‘acim, 7 volumes, Beirut, dir al-andalus, 1385 H., vol. 4, p. 226. N.B. Muslim exegesis does not link the Qur’anic passage wth the hadith in the way that I have done. On the contrary they are kept apart because ofother hadith which state that Gabriel at times looked like Muhammad’s companion Dihya; see Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Sahih Muslim, New Delhi, Kitab Bhavan, 1977, vol. 1, p. 108 & vol. 4, p. 1308. Dihya’s speech was neither foreign nor indistinct because he was an Arab and was used by Muhammad for ambassadorial purposes: see A. Guillaume, The life of Muhammad: a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford, O.U.P., 1955, pp. 655f. Mary at first mistook him for a human being. It is interesting to note that there was another occasion when the contrary happened and a human being was mistaken for an angel. The human being was the patriarch Joseph who successfully resisted the governor’s wife’s attempt to seduce him. When she subsequently brought him out to be viewed by the women who were gossiping about her they cried, ‘God help us! This is not a mortal (bashaP”). It can only be a noble angel’. (12:31)

For Muslim exegesis of 19: 17 see Neal Robinson, ‘Fakhr al-Din al-Razi on the Virginal conception’, Islamochristiana 14 (1988), pp. 1-16. Bukhari, op. cit., part 2, p. 11. R. Bell & W. M. Watt, Introduction to the Qur’an, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1970, pp. 20-22. See Michael L. Fitzgerald, ‘The Manner of Revelation: The Commentary of Al-RBzi on Qur’an 42, 51-53’, Zslamochristiana 4 (1978), pp. 115-125. The expression ‘from behind a curtain’ (min wani’i @jib’“) occurs only twice in the Qur’an-at 42:51 in connection with the manner of revelation and at 33:53 in connection with the Prophet’s wives. Michaud, op. cit., p. 42. Ibid., p. 91. One cannot of course be dogmatic about the precise chronological order of the suras but in this instance both Noldeke’s chronology and the traditional Muslim one lend support to my claim. See the tables in Bell & Watt, op. cit., pp. 206-213. There is another feature of the story of Mary which probably served to reinforce Muhammad’s social reforms. Mary’s mother was distressed at giving birth to a daughter rather than a son but God accepted the child and miraculously fed her (3:6f). This fits in well with Muhammad’s eradication of the pre-Islamic practice of burying girl children alive because of the shortage of food (cp. 16:58).

Jesus and Mav in the Qur’an 175

NEAL ROBINSON is Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at the College of St Paul and St Mary, Cheltenham. He is a graduate of Oxford University and gained a Birmingham Ph.D. for work on the New Testament. He is currently completing a book on the representation of Jesus in the Qur’an and the classical Muslim commentaries which will be published by the Macmillan Press under the title Christ in Islam and Christianity.

3 Hatherlty Lodge, 29A St Stephen’s Road, Cheltenham, GL515AB, U.K.