Note on Transliteration
4 The Evils of the Clergy
Having expounded upon the role of prophets, their teachings and ethics, as well as their righteous entourage we now turn our attention to another subject shared by both the Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions, namely the evils of the clergy.1 It is clear from the scriptures attributed to them that there was no love lost between the prophets Jesus and Muh.ammad on the one hand, and the clergy of their day on the other. This chapter discusses how the Aramaic Gospel Traditions and the Qur’ān’s dogmatic articulation thereof fulfill another duty of prophetic tradition, namely to utter words of condemnation—primarily directed against evils committed by the clergy—and warn their audience against misguidance.
Condemnation
The self-image of the Qur’ān and the Gospels as champion of the spirit of the Jew-ish Law and critic of Rabbinic authority—accused of preaching the letter of the law and abusing its power (Matthew 23:23)—is the context in which their com-mon language of condemnation is manifested. This language can be expressed directly, as in curses, warnings of impending doom, or indirectly, as in hostile, critical, or unflattering portrayals of certain persons or groups. By reproaching Jewish groups specifically, the Qur’ān was participating in the larger sectarian polemical discourse of its day. Such is evident in Syriac homiletic works like Aph-rahat’s (d. ca. 345) Demonstration on the Sabbath and various homilies against the Jews by Isaac of Antioch (d. ca. 460) and Jacob of Serugh (d. 521).2
The Qur’ān accuses the Jews and especially their clergy of various offenses.
This may also be the result of the tendentious relationship that developed between Muh.ammad and the Jewish groups during his lifetime.3 Thus, where some
1 Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, 142–52 discusses the ambivalence of holy men from the desert towards the institution of the clergy in the late antique world.
2 Aphrahat, “Demonstrations,” 1:541–72 (On the Sabbath); cf. also ibid. 1:785–816 (On Jesus Christ); 931–90 (On the Persecution). On Isaac of Antioch, see S. Kazan, “Isaac of Antioch’s Homily Against the Jews,” Oriens Christianus 45, 1961, 30–53; Jacob of Serugh, “Homélies contre les Juifs,” PO 38, 1976, 44–181. See further Reynolds, The Qur’ān and its Biblical Subtext, 251.
3 Ibn Qirnās, Sunnat al-awwalīn, 164–83 argues that the animosity between Muh.ammad and Jew-ish groups can be gleaned not only from a critical reading of the Sirah literature but is, more importantly, latent in several qur’ānic verses.
The Evils of the Clergy 115 passages acknowledge the legacy of the children of Israel (banū isrā’īl) or Jews (al-ladhīn hādū) for being God’s chosen nation or receiving the blessing of scrip-ture (Q 2:47, 62),4 others exhibit expressions of condemnation directed towards them, sometimes along with Christians (al-nas.ārā; Q 2:120; 5:18, 31, 64, 82; and so on). Q 4:62–63 implies, furthermore, that some Jews posed as believers and misbehaved in the same manner as the Scribes and Pharisees of old. Elsewhere in the Qur’ān, the excessive measure of Jewish dietary prohibition is criticized and doubt is cast upon its scriptural origin. It states,
All food was made lawful (h.illan) to the children of Israel (banū isrā’īl), except that which Israel made unlawful (h.arram) upon himself before Hebrew Scripture (lit. al-tawrāh) was revealed. Say, “bring the Hebrew Scripture and narrate it, if you are truthful!”
(Q 3:93) The implication of this verse is that the Children of Israel—the Jews—have lost their scripture (see in relation Chapter 1), meaning their dietary prohibitions are a fabrication. The idea of excessive Jewish dietary prohibition is alluded to elsewhere in the Qur’ān, where it mentions that Jesus came to “confirm that which was before [him] of the Hebrew Scripture and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden to [Israel] (Q 3:50).” The excessive nature of Jewish dietary—and legal—prohibitions in the Qur’ān, as well as its account of Jesus as making for-merly unlawful matters lawful reflect a number of quotes ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels.5 One instance of this is where Jesus scolds the Pharisees, “listen and understand! It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles” (Matthew 15:10–11; cf. Thomas 14).
Christians came to perceive that this verse “makes lawful” the kosher restrictions.
Another instance to which the Qur’ān may be alluding is when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees who reproach his hungry disciples for picking grain in the fields on the Sabbath, which is unlawful. He sanctions the breaking of the Sabbath by analogy to David, who “entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful (d-lā šalīt. hwā)” (Matthew 12:4). Jesus further disparages the Pharisees, “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice (h.nānā/ rah.mē s.ābē ēnā w lā dēbh.tā),’ you would not have condemned those who are without fault/innocent (Matthew 12:7; Diatessaron 7:44–45; cf. Hosea 6:6).”6
He quotes from Hosea 6:6 to show that “sacrifice” is merely an external, symbolic ritual act. What truly matters is the internal component of sacrifice—
“mercy,” or what Nabil Khouri dubs “inward righteousness.”7 The dichotomy of
4 It is worthy of mention that al-yahūd in the Qur’ān is never used in a positive light. See Q 2:113, 120; 5:18, 51, 64, 82; 9:30.
5 See in relation Asad, The Message of the Quran, 214.
6 See variant readings in Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, 4:156.
7 N. Khouri, “Selected ethical themes in the Qur’ān and the Gospel of Matthew,” 205. Cf. in rela-tion Biqā‘ī, Naz.m, 5:205–6.
116 The Evils of the Clergy
God desiring inward, and not external, sacrifice is equally present in the Qur’ān (Q 22:37; cf. Isaiah 58; Didache 14:4).8
It would be erroneous, nonetheless, to understand Jesus’s disdain for the “letter of the law” as a disdain for the law itself. This is far from the case. It is evident from numerous instances in the Gospels where Jesus makes legal judgments to the Pharisees about what is “lawful” (Matthew 19:4–7; 22:17–22; Luke 14:1–4;
and so on), that he is a strong proponent of the moral spirit behind the law.9 The qur’ānic reference to Jesus’s confirmation of Hebrew Scripture (see above) is likely a dogmatic re-articulation—a paraphrasing—of Matthew as it states, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets (d-ētīt d-ēšrē nāmūsā aw nabīyē); I have come not to abolish but to fulfill (lā ētīt d-ēšrē ēlā d-ēmalē);
(Matthew 5:17; Diatessaron 8:46–47).”
Thus, Jesus objects to the literalist reading of the law promoted by the more affluent priestly classes of Pharisees and Sadducees, because rather than accom-modating “those who are without fault,” like his hungry disciples, the law is used as tool of oppression. This is because Jesus was motivated by the practical needs of the poor and downtrodden elements of society with whom he socialized (see Chapter 3).
In the same way, the Qur’ān shows contempt for representatives of the clergy.
Rabbinical authorities like scribes (al-ah.bār) and priests (al-ruhbān),10 are cor-rupted by wealth, power and strict observation of rituals. Hence, it states,
They [that is, the Jews and Christians] have taken their scribes (ah.bārahum) and their priests (ruhbānahum) as lords (arbāban)11 above (min dūn) God, and the Messiah the son of Mary. And they were not commanded but to wor-ship one God . . . O you who believe, indeed many of the scribes and priests devour the wealth of people falsely (ya’kulūn amwāl al-nās bi al-bāt.il) and obstruct [others] from the way of God (yas.uddūn ‘an sabīl allāh). And those who hoard gold and silver (al-ladhīn yaknizūn al-dhahab wa al-fid.d.ah) and do not spend it in the way of God (wa lā yunfiqūn fi sabīl allah), warn them of an agonizing torment (fa bashshirrhum bi ‘adhāb alīm).
(Q 9:31, 34) The verse is highly polemical of Rabbinical authorities who, according to the Qur’ān, abuse their power, wrongfully appropriate wealth, being over-praised and obstructing others from the way of God. The final two offenses, namely hoarding gold and silver, and not spending in the way of God, are likely a paraphrasing of
8 Q 22:37 states, “The meat and blood of [sacrifice] do not reach God, but rather your piety reaches him.”
9 Jeffery, The Qur’ān as Scripture, 82; Khouri, “Selected ethical themes in the Qur’ān and the Gospel of Matthew,” 187.
10 See Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, 49. For the background of these terms in Hebrew Scripture, see Lüling, A Challenge to Islam for Reformation, 80–81.
11 Cf. In relation De Blois, “Nasrani and Hanif,” 9 fn. 49, which derives ruhbān and ah.bār from a Chrisrian context in the Persian sphere.
The Evils of the Clergy 117 Jesus’s position in Matthew where he disdains both gold and silver, and where he continually curses the Pharisees for their greed (Matthew 10:9; 23:16–29; cf.
Gēnzā Rbā R2:63).12 In fact, the curses ascribed to Jesus which he unleashes upon the clergy of his day—principally the Pharisees—are a hallmark of the Gospels, even in the Qur’ān’s milieu.
License to Curse: From David to Jesus
The Qur’ān frequently illustrates the insubordination and rebelliousness of the Israelites towards their prophet Moses (Q 2:54, 61, 71, 92; 5:20; and so on). How-ever, one verse exhibits an intriguing, uncharacteristic break from this pattern,
Cursed (lu‘in)13 were those who rebelled from the children of Israel (al-ladhīn kafarū min banī isrā’īl) on the tongue of David and Jesus the son of Mary (‘alā lisān dāwūd wa ‘īsā ibn maryam), because they disobeyed and contin-ued to cause offense.
(Q 5:78)14 Aside from oblique parallels with Psalms 10:3, 7,15 this verse is very much in the spirit of the Gospels, where Jesus is identified closely with David (see in relation Chapter 3) and provides scathing invectives against the Jewish authori-ties—namely the Pharisees and Sadducees.16
The place of David is magnified by Syriac Christian authors who exalted him as an archetype of prophecy as well as repentance. Thus, the Syriac speaking churches likely played a role in keeping his religious potency alive in the Qur’ān’s milieu. Not only do Syriac lectionaries begin with a reading from the Psalms (the book of King David),17 some Syriac authors like Jacob of Serugh held David in exceptionally high regard (see Chapter 3). It is plausible that the mention of Jesus’s Davidic lineage, which begins in the Gospels and remains popular among Syriac speaking Christian communities, soon reached the Qur’ān’s milieu, and was in turn afforded a terse dogmatic re-articulation in Q 5 in connection with condemning the representatives of Rabbinic authority.
12 Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an, 198.
13 See Dhuyayb, al-Mu‘jam al-Nabat.ī, 147 for attestations of l-‘-n in Nabataean inscriptions.
14 For more on qur’ānic curses with la‘an and earlier uses in Nabataean Aramaic see J. Healey, “The realities behind tomb inscriptions: Imagining Nabataean law,” in Z. al-Salameen (ed.), Proceed-ings of the First Nabataean Symposium, forthcoming; idem, “Fines and curses: Law and religion among the Nabataeans and their neighbours,” in R.G. Kratz and A. Hagedorn (eds), Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean, forthcoming.
15 See also Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 4:367–9 for David’s curse against his insincere advisor Ahithophel.
16 The internal Jewish sectarian disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees are evident in the Qur’ān where it states, “When Jesus came with the proofs, he said, ‘I have come with wisdom and to clarify some of that which you are disputing over. So fear God and obey me’”(Q 43:63). See also Asad, The Message of the Quran, 239–40.
17 Cf. the high frequency of quotes from the Psalms in Francis Burkitt, The Early Syriac Lectionary System, London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1923.
118 The Evils of the Clergy
Persecuting the Righteous Entourage and Struggling in the Way of God The Rabbinic authorities, and by extension, their followers did not welcome the mission of Jesus, nor that of his closest disciples and the rest of his righteous entourage. To the contrary, we recall from the Beatititudes that their suffering is likened to the persecution of the prophets before them. It states,
Blessed are you when people dishonor you (mh.asdīn lkūn), persecute you (rādfīn lkūn), and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake (mēt.ūlātī). So rejoice and be glad (h.dawū wa rwazū), for your reward is great in heaven (d-agrkūn sagī ba-šmāyā); like this did they persecute the prophets before you (hākanā . . . rdapū la-nbīyē d-mēn qdāmaykūn).
(Matthew 5:11–12; Diatessaron 8:35–36) These words of encouragement amid the persecution they withstood may pre-serve some measure of historicity. They were, furthermore, the subject of discus-sion by Aphrahat’s Demonstration on Persecution as a result his argument against Jewish interlocutors in which the stories of the prophets are narrated, accentuating the significance of persecution (see in relation Chapter 2).18 Incidentally, the liter-ary style behind this genealogy of persecution reflects that of Q 26:4–190.
At any rate, Matthew 5:11–12 and the reflections of Syriac Christian authors like Aphrahat upon these verses were the inspiration for various qur’ānic passages of encouragement. These verses were likely revealed to Muh.ammad and uttered by him for the sake of consoling his righteous entourage and persecuted Muslim following as a whole (for example, 2:214; 3:140). In the Qur’ān, they cry out to God in prayer that He may reward them for their faith, sacrifice and endurance of suffering (Q 3:192–194). God responds, stating,
So their Lord answered them, “I do not squander the works of any hard worker among you, neither male nor female, each of you is like the other. As for those who migrated (hājarū), were expelled out of their homes (ukhrijū min diyārihim), and were harmed in My way (wa ūdhū fī sabīlī)—who fought and were killed (wa qātalū wa qutilū)—I will indeed blot out for them their sins (la-ukaffiranna ‘anhum sayyi’ātihim) and I will indeed enter them into gardens underneath which rivers flow (jannāt tajrī min tah.tihā al-anhār) as a reward from God (thawāban min ‘in allāh).” And God possesses the best reward.
(Q 3:195) This verse is—in part—a dogmatic re-articulation of Jesus’s words in Mat-thew, which has been suited to the particular circumstances of Muh.ammad’s
18 Aphrahat, “Demonstrations,” 1:953–82 (On Persecution). Cf. furthermore the opening of ibid., 981–84 and Q 2:252–53; 3:108; 11:49; 45:6. Cf. further the style of Narsai, Narsai Homiliae et carmina, 1:287–8 (An Exposition on the Mysteries 287–8); Q 19:2, 16, 41, 51, 54, 56; 38:41, 45, 48. For more on the “topical wandering” shared by the Qur’ān and Syriac Christian homiletic literature see Reynolds, The Qur’ān and its Biblical Subtext, 250.
The Evils of the Clergy 119 community (migration, expulsion, and retaliation).19 The Arabic third person plural passive perfect verb referring to those who “were harmed (ūdhū)”—that is, persecuted—encapsulates the Aramaic reference to those who are blessed when people “dishonor you (mh.asdīn lkūn), persecute you (rādfīn lkūn), and say all kinds of evil against you falsely.” The qur’ānic and Matthean syntax is also paralleled where the persecution of the righteous entourage is followed by Arabic fī sabīlī, “in My way,” reproducing the Aramaic mēt.ūlātī, “for my sake.” One characteristic which underscores the dogmatic nature of the Qur’ān’s re-articulation of the Gospel text is that where Matthew portrays the righteous entourage as working for “the sake” of Jesus—which is in violation to the strict monotheism espoused by Muh.ammad—in the Qur’ān they work in “the way”
of God. And where their reward is given anonymously in Matthew, God is the explicit possessor and giver of the reward in the Qur’ān. The syntax of both passages continues in parallel as the penultimate statement made is the prom-ise of a “reward” (Arabic thawāb, Aramaic agrā). The final statement in Mat-thew 5:11–12, namely “like this did they persecute the prophets before you”
(hākanā . . . rdapū la-nbīyē d-mēn qdāmaykūn), does not quite match anything in Q 3:195, but is approximated elsewhere in the Qur’ān as it states, “and like this did We create for each prophet an enemy from among the criminals” (wa kadhālik ja‘alnā li kull nabī ‘aduwwān min al-mujrimīn) . . . (Q 25:31; cf. Q 83:29–36), where the Arabic introductory marker kadhālik is analogous to the Aramaic hākanā.
Unlike the Gospels which portray Jesus as a pacifist (Matthew 26:52; although cf. Matthew 10:34), one of the consequences, on Muh.ammad’s part, of identify-ing the sufferidentify-ing in his own community with that of Jesus in the Gospels was its gradual evolution into an ideology of communal protective warfare, social strug-gle, and internal taxation. The sequence of this evolution is outlined later in this chapter.
We have already seen earlier that Q 3:195 adds those who “fought and were killed” (qātalū wa qutilū) to the list of the persecuted righteous entourage. This is because warfare played a vital role in establishing earliest Islam, not merely as a prophetic tradition, but more importantly as an intertribal, national, state pol-ity, or “ummah.”20 At its very core, the Qur’ān is concerned with the welfare and protection of the downtrodden members in Muh.ammad’s community, especially fostering the rights of women and “the downtrodden among the orphans” (al-mustad.‘afūn min al-wildān; Q 4:127). For this purpose Q 4:74 sanctions fighting on the battlefield and exalts martyrdom. The next verse goes on to implore its believing audience, stating,
19 Khouri, “Selected ethical themes in the Qur’ān and the Gospel of Matthew,” 93–4, 112, also put Q 2:214 in dialogue with Matthew 5:11–12. Furtermore, on retaliation, see ibid., 128–9, 168–70.
20 Cf. the “constitution of Medina” in Marco Schöller, EQ, “Medina”. Furthermore, the term ummat muh.ammad, “Muh.ammad’s nation,” occurs in the early Arabic papyri of Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri, 164.
120 The Evils of the Clergy
So why do you not fight (tuqātilūn) in the way of God and the downtrodden (fī sabīl allāh wa al-mustad.‘afīn) among men, women, orphans and those who say, “O Lord release us from this town whose people are oppressive; and create for us, by Your doing, a champion (nas.īran)?”
(Q 4:75) Aside from the messianic undertones of the “champion” (nas.īr; cf. in relation 1 Samuel 8:4–5; Isaiah 42:13),21 it is clear from this verse that combat is a commu-nal duty whose inspiration and purpose stems from a strong desire to fend for the downtrodden. In due course, the phrase fī sabīl allāh wa al-mustad.‘afīn affirms that “the way of God” is itself “the way of the downtrodden.” Concerning those martyred in such warfare, similar to Matthew 5:11–12 and Q 3:195 it states, “And indeed do not think that those who were killed in the way of God (al-ladhīn qutilū fī sabīl allāh) are dead. Nay [they are] alive with their Lord receiving recompense (Q 3:169; cf. Q 47:4).”22
As Muh.ammad’s community grew, projects of migration (hijrah)23 expanded into military duty (qitāl; see also 4:84; 22:58–60) and, later on, socio-military struggle (jihād; see Q 4:95, 100; 8:72, 74; 9:20, 38, 41, 111 citing in relation the tawrāh and injīl). Concerning this struggle it states,
Indeed those who believe are those who believed in God and his messenger, then had no doubt, and struggled with their wealth and their selves in the way of God (wa jāhadū bi amwālahum wa anfusahum fī sabīl allāh). They are the sincere ones (al-s.ādiqūn).
(Q 49:15; Cf. Q 61:11) Socio-military struggle (jihād) was waged in the “way of God” (sabīl allāh), which beyond setting the foundation for “holy war”24 served the greater function of being a community welfare system. This system had two functions. One func-tion required believers to provide voluntary financial support (amwālahum) and the other function required them to provide voluntary military service (anfusa-hum) in the way of God (fī sabīl allāh). Furthermore, by recasting those who struggle (al-ladhīn . . . jāhadū) as the sincere ones (al-s.ādiqūn), this ensured the militarization of the righteous entourage in the Qur’ān.
It is worth mentioning that as the military campaigns of Muh.ammad’s army began to yield substantial wealth and—perhaps—once they formed a unified polity of sorts, military service lead to the taxation of war booty. Thus 20 percent of all war booty (khums) collected went directly to Muh.ammad and the poor and downtrodden members of society, including kindred, orphans, the poor, and wanderers (Q 8:41).
21 See in relation Beeston, Dictionnaire sabéen, 98.
22 Farrā’, Ma‘ānī al-qur’ān, 3:58; Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān, 34, 221 cites “fought,” qātalū, instead of “were killed,” qutilūpreserved in Q 3:140–146 and 47:4 of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s and ‘Umar’s codex respectively.
23 This sequence of events is how Ibn Ish.āq, Sīrah, 1:211–60; 314–47 is framed.
24 Dmitry V. Frovlov, EQ, “Path or Way.”
The Evils of the Clergy 121 On the other hand, those who rebelled (al-ladhīn kafarū) fight “in the way of misguidance” (fi sabīl al-t.āghūt)—where t.āghūt (see also Q 2:256–7; 4:51; 60, 76; 5:60; 16:36; 39:17), its active participle t.āghiyah, “abomination” and its
The Evils of the Clergy 121 On the other hand, those who rebelled (al-ladhīn kafarū) fight “in the way of misguidance” (fi sabīl al-t.āghūt)—where t.āghūt (see also Q 2:256–7; 4:51; 60, 76; 5:60; 16:36; 39:17), its active participle t.āghiyah, “abomination” and its