by URI RUBIN · 1979 · Cited by 22 — ABU LAHAB AND SURA CXI. By URI RUBIN. The studies of Sfira cxi 1 have not yet arrived at satisfactory results, hence the meaning of this
17 pages
57 KB – 17 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access tohttp://www.jstor.orgYour use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 2 ============
ABU LAHAB AND SURA CXI By URI RUBIN The studies of Sfira cxi 1 have not yet arrived at satisfactory results, hence the meaning of this sfira is still obscure. The present study tries to present a better basis for its understanding.2 1. The date and background of the sira Sira cxi deals with Abfi Lahab, whom all the Muslim sources identify as Muh.ammad’s paternal uncle, ‘Abd al-‘Uzza b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib of the clan of Hashim. The clue to the date and background of this sira is to be found in a tradition recorded by al-Waqidi (d. 207/823).3 This tradition is about al-‘Uzza, the greatest deity of Quraysh, whose sanctuary was at Nakhla, near Mecca. Quraysh also worshipped al-Lat whose sanctuary was at al-Ta’if. A third deity, Manat, whose sanctuary was at Qudayd, was worshipped mainly by the people of Yathrib (al-Madina). All three were known as ‘daughters of Allah’ (bandt Alldh).4 The tradition of al-Waqidi relates that the custodian (sidin) of the sanctuary of al-‘Uzza was Aflah b. al-Nadr al-Shaybani of the tribe of Sulaym.5 Before his death, Aflah told Abfi Lahab that he was afraid lest al-‘Uzza should be neglected once he was dead. Upon hearing this, Abdi Lahab said: ‘Do not grieve; I shall attend to her after you go ‘. After that, Abii Lahab used to say: ‘If al-‘Uzza triumphs, I have already earned a ” hand” 6 which she has (to my credit) with her, for attending upon her,7 and if Muh.ammad triumphs over al-‘Uzza-which I do not believe will happen-then be it my nephew (who has a “hand” to my credit with him)’. Thereupon, Allah revealed Sira cxi. This tradition had been noticed by Barth,8 but he seems to have over- looked its great significance. Al-Waqidi chose to record this tradition within 1 J. Barth, ‘Abii Lahab ‘, EI, first ed.; A. Fischer, Der Wert der vorhandenen Koran- ilbersetzungen und Sura cxi, Leipzig, 1937; D. Kiinstlinger, ‘Eschatologisches in Sura 111’, OLZ, XLI, 7, 1938, 407-10; T. Lohmann, ‘ Ab-i Lahab (Sura cxi) ‘, Zeitschrift fur Religions und Geistwelt Geschichte, xviii, 1966, 326-48; R. Paret, Der Koran, Kommentar und Konkordanz, Stuttgart, 1971, 529. J. Wansbrough in his Quranic studies (Oxford, 1977) does not refer to our s-ira. This is quite disappointing, because a scholar who denies any historical connexion between the Qur’An and the ‘ Arabian prophet ‘ ought to say something about the identity of Ab-i Lahab and his wife. 2References to the commentaries quoted in the following pages: al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan f f tafsfr al-Qur’dn, BildIq, 1323/1905, xxx, 217-21; al-Tabarsi, Majma’ al-baydn ft tafsir al-Qur’&n, Beirut, n.d., xxx, 266-71; al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshdf ‘an baqd’iq al-tanzfl, Cairo, 1968, iv, 295-7; al-Baydawi, Anwar al-tanzfl wa-asrdr al-ta’wfl, Cairo, 1955, 317; al-RAzi, al-Tafsfr al-kabir, repr., Tehran, n.d., xxxii, 166-73; Abii Hayydn, al-Babr al-muh.t, Cairo, 1328/1910, viii, 524-7; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’dn al-‘azm, Beirut, 1966, vii, 399-402; al-Al-isi, RJib al-ma’&nf, repr., Beirut, n.d., xxx, 259-65. SSee al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghdzf, ed. J. M. B. Jones, London, 1966, Ii, 874. See also al-Azraqi, Akhbar Makka, ed. Wiistenfeld, I, 81-2. 4 Details about those deities are to be found in J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, Berlin, repr. 1961, 24 ff. 5 The Ban-i Shaybdn of Sulaym were the confederates of the clan of Hashim. See Ibn Hishdm, al-Sira al-nabawiyya, ed. al-Saqd, al-Abyari, Shalabi, four vols., repr., Beirut, 1971, I, 86. 6 The meaning of’ hand’ will be explained below. 7 in tazhar al-‘uzz&, kcuntu qad ittakhadhtu yadan ‘indah5 bi-qiydmT ‘alayhi. 8 Barth, loc. cit. Fischer did not refer to it at all. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 3 ============
14 URI RUBIN a chapter dealing with the destruction of the sanctuary of al-‘Uzza in the year 8/629, shortly after the conquest of Mecca. This led Barth to conclude that according to al-Waqidi, Abd Lahab was still alive after the conquest of Mecca.” Thereby he rejected this tradition as a false one, because Aba Lahab had actually died long before, immediately after the battle of Badr. The truth is, however, that this tradition belongs to the time when both Ab-i Lahab and Aflah b. al-Nadr were still alive, that is, before the Hijra of Muhammad to al-Madina.10 Al-Waqidi placed this tradition within a later chapter dealing with the actual destruction of al-‘Uzza, after the conquest of Mecca, because the conversation between the sadin of al-‘Uzza and Ab-a Lahab referred to the same subject, i.e. the forthcoming end of al-‘Uzza. A second version of the same story is recorded by Ibn al-Kalbi.1 Ibn al-Kalbi located the story in its proper chronological place, that is, immediately after the abrogation of Muh.ammad’s temporal recognition of the ‘ daughters of Allah ‘. This event was known as the affair of the ‘Satanic verses ‘. In these verses, Muh.ammad had recognized the divinity of al-Lat, Manat, and al-‘Uzza, and especially their authority to intercede with Allah for their believers. Some time later, these verses were abrogated, being ascribed to Satan’s influence upon the prophet. They were replaced by new verses denying the existence of these three deities (Qur’an LIII, 19-23).12 Ibn al-Kalbi relates that Muhammad’s denial of al-‘Uzza was a great blow to Quraysh (fa-shtadda dhilika ‘ald Quraysh); thereafter he recounts the story about Abdi Lahab. According to Ibn al-Kalbi, however, the person to whom Abi Lahab talked was Abfa Uhayha Sa’id b. al-‘As, and not Aflah b. al-Nadr. At the time of the declaration of the ‘Satanic verses ‘, this Abil Uh.ayh.a was a very old man.13 Ibn al-Kalbi’s version contains some remarkable details. According to this version, Abi Lahab assured Abfi Uhayh.a that the veneration of al-‘Uzza would not cease after his death. Thereupon Abil Uh.ayh.a said: ‘ Now I know that I have a successor (khalifa) ‘. And he admired Ab-i Lahab’s eagerness for her worship. The conclusion to be drawn from Ibn al-Kalbi and al-Waqid! is that Sfira cxI was revealed in Mecca after Muhammad no longer recognized al-‘Uzza, when Ab-a Lahab, on his part, took it upon himself to defend and support this goddess against Muhammad’s new monotheistic course. In this connexion it may be noted that according to Ibn Ishaq,14 our stira was revealed after Abil Lahab had abandoned Muhammad and the rest of the Hashimites in the ravine (shi’b) of Abfi Talib, where they had been put under a boycott by Quraysh. Abil Lahab had joined Quraysh in expressing his wish to support al-‘Uzzd. These events took place in the seventh year of Muh.ammad’s prophecy, i.e. only a 9 See also Lohmann, art. cit., 330. o10 That Aflah b. al-Nadr was Ab-i Lahab’s contemporary, and not the last sadin of al-‘Uzz& who was killed by Khdlid after the conquest of Mecca, was already pointed out by Wellhausen, op. cit., 38. The last sddin was named Dubayya b. H.arami, see Ibn al-Kalbi, Kitdb al-asnam, ed. Ahmad Zaki Bashi, Cairo, 1914, 25 ff. 11 Asndm, 23; cf. also Wellhausen, op. cit., 36. 12 On the ‘Satanic verses’, see al-Tabari, Tafsir, xvi, 131 ff. (on Qur’dn XXII, 52); idem, Tdrikh, Cairo, 1939, II, 75-7 (from Ibn Ishiq and other sources); Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa ‘l-nihdya, repr., Beirut, 1974, III, 90-1; al-Zurqini, Sharh al-mawdhib al-laduniyya, repr., Beirut, 1973, I, 279 ff.; Ibn Shahrdshilb, Mandqib Al Abi Tdlib, Najaf, 1375/1956, I, 46; al-‘Asqaldni, Fath al-bdri bi-shar4 Sab4ib al-Bukhdri, Biillq, 1300/1883, viii, 332-4; al-Q5di ‘Iyid, al-Shifd’ bi-ta’rif huqfq al-Mustafd, Cairo, 1950, II, 106 ff.; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqdt al-kubrS, Beirut, 1960, I, 205-6; Ibn Sayyid al-Nis, ‘UyiZn al-athar, repr., Beirut, n.d., I, 120-1; W. M. Watt, Mubammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953, 102 ff.; Paret, op. cit., 461. 13 See Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 205. On his last illness see ibid., iv, 95-6. 14 Ibn Hishdm, op. cit., I, 376. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 4 ============
ABY LAHAB AND CXI 15 short time after the abrogation of the ‘Satanic verses ‘.15 Abii Lahab was probably anxious to secure his economic position which was threatened by the boycott of his clan. By leaving the ravine of Ab-i Talib, he could maintain his connexions with Quraysh and their sanctuaries. That the revelation of Sfira cxi was caused directly by Ab-i Lahab’s departure from Hashim, may also be concluded from the Qur’anic codex of Ubayy b. Ka’b.16 This codex reportedly contained an additional verse, located between verses 1 and 2 of our siara: h.lafa ‘l-bayta ‘l-wadi’a ‘ald ‘l-bayti ‘l-rafN’i fa-shughila bi-nafsihi, thumma shughila ‘He became allied to the inferior house against the exalted house, and he was occupied only with himself, and indeed he was’. By the ‘ exalted house’ the clan of Hlshim is probably meant, which Ab-i Lahab abandoned, allying himself with a certain unspecified clan, which is considered inferior to Hashim. Some early verses ascribed to Hassan b. Thabit shed more light on the matter.’17 These verses condemn Abi Lahab for forsaking Muhammad and stress at the same time that Ab-i Lahab was not a true son of ilashim, being, in fact, the son of a person from the tribe of Lihyan (to whom his mother had been married before marrying ‘Abd al-Muttalib). The clan of Hashim is described as being high with noble traits, while Abi Lahab is described as being low with his shame.’s Both these verses and Ubayy’s verse allude to the fact that Muhammad was deeply injured when Ab-i Lahab abandoned him.19 This may lead to the conclusion that before leaving Muhammad, Abfl Lahab had bestowed his protection upon the prophet and extended to him much aid and support. Muhammad’s attack upon the ‘daughters of Allah’ and the boycott of Hashim forced upon Ab-i Lahab a completely different attitude towards the prophet. Muhammad’s dismay was fully expressed in S-dra cxi which was then revealed. 2. Verse 1: tabbat yadd Abi Lahabin wa-tabba The most intriguing phrase in verse 1 is yadd Abi Lahabin ‘the two hands of Ab-i Lahab’. According to the above-mentioned tradition of al-Waqidi, Abii Lahab had supported al-‘Uzza and thus gained a ‘hand’ which was with her to his credit. The Arabic clause expressing it runs as follows: kuntu qad ittakhadhtu yadan ‘indaha. Yad here means ni’ma, that is to say: ‘favour’ or ‘benefaction ‘. The meaning of the whole clause is: ‘I did her a favour (yad) and she is obliged to reward me for it’. The expression ittakhadha ‘indahum yadan is explained by Lane 20 as follows: ‘He did to them a benefit, 15 According to al-Wgqidi, the proclamation of these verses occurred in the fifth year, i.e. two years before the boycott of Hdshim (Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., 1, 206, 209). Therefore the abrogation must have happened shortly before the boycott. Al-Tabari, on his part, mentions the affair of the ‘ Satanic verses ‘ only after the beginning of the boycott. See Tdrikh, II, 74, 75 ff. See also al-Zurqini, op. cit., I, 278 ff. 16 A. Jeffery, Materials for the history of the text of the Qur’&n, Leiden, 1937, 180. Quoted from Jeffery by Fischer, p. 10, without any comment. 17 See Hassdn b. Thdbit, Dfwdn, ed. W. ‘Arafat, London, 1971, 1, p. 390, no. 214. is wa-lkinna Lihydnan abfka warithtahf/ wa-ma’wd ‘l-khand minhum fa-da’ ‘anka hdshimd/ samat hdshimun lil-makrumati wa-lil-‘uld/ wa-ghfdirta ff ka’bin mina ‘l-lu’mi jdthima. 19 That Abii Lahab’s conduct during the period of the boycott of Hdshim had a serious effect on Muhammad is indicated also in some early verses ascribed to Abi Talib (Ibn Hishlm, op. cit., II, 11). In these verses Abii T.lib urges Ab-i Lahab not to abandon his nephew, stressing the importance of his protection. Abii Tdlib swears by the ‘ house of Allh ‘ (the Ka’ba) that the Hdshimites will protect the prophet till the end. The background of these verses can easily be established, as the shi’b is mentioned in the last verse. 20 An Arabic-English lexicon, s.v. a.kh.dh. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 5 ============
16 URI RUBIN or favour, as though he earned one for himself in prospect, making it to be incumbent on them as a debt to him ‘. It follows that yad in this context denotes simultaneously the benefaction and its prospective reward. Al-Waqidi’s tradition leads to the conclusion that the Qur’an has labelled Abi Lahab’s attendance upon al-‘Uzza as yad, that is to say, an honourable act of help and support, for which he deserved a due recompense from this goddess. The Qur’an, however, mentions the ‘two hands’ of Abi Lahab. This is due to the fact that not only a single act of support is meant, but rather all Abi Lahab’s good deeds, including those which were performed for Muham- mad’s sake. For there is some evidence that at a certain stage, Abii Lahab bestowed protection upon Muh.ammad.21 Still, although the Qur’an refers to all Ab-a Lahab’s good deeds, it has nevertheless preferred the dual form, yadd, to the plural, aydi. Yad&, it seems, was much more natural, since the concrete meaning of yad (a hand) had not been wholly neglected. Hence, it was impossible to mention more than two ‘hands’ of a single person. Abf Lahab had indeed several’ hands’ to his credit in Mecca. As a generous wealthy man,22 this was quite to be expected of him. Ibn Ishaq has preserved for us some early verses in which Abfl Lahab appears as a most generous and helpful person.23 The verses are ascribed to H.udhayfa b. Ghanim, whom Abai Lahab redeemed after he had been seized for a debt of 4,000 dirhams. We shall adduce but one verse.24 In this verse Abfl Lahab is called Ibn Lubna, after his mother Lubna bint Hljar of Khuza’a: 25 wa-1d tansa md asdJ bnu Lubnd fa-innahi qada sdi 26 yadan mah.qiqatan minka bi ‘l-shukri ‘And do not forget what Ibn Lubna has granted, for he has granted a “hand ” that deserves your thankfulness’. The original meaning of the phrase yadd Abi Lahabin was preserved not only in the above-mentioned tradition of al-Wdqidi, but also in some rare exegetical traditions included in the direct commentaries on our siira. The commentary of al-Aliasi (p. 261) contains the following passage: wa-fi ‘l-ta’wildt al-yadu bi-ma’nd ‘l-ni’ma. wa-kdna yuhsinu ild ‘l-nabi (s) wa-ild quraysh wa-yaqidu: in kdna ‘l-amru li-Muhammadin fa-li ‘indahu yadun, wa-in kina li-qurayshin fa-ka-dhilika ‘ There are some interpretations saying that yad denotes benefaction. (Abfi 21 Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 211. It is related that Abfi Lahab protected Muhammad only after Abfi Tdlib had died, i.e. much later than the revelation of Sfira cxi. It is more likely, however, that Muhammad had enjoyed the protection of Abfi Lahab before the revelation of this sfira which marked the end of the friendly relations with his uncle. The present form of the account apparently reflects a Shi’i tendency to promote the impression that as long as Abii Tdlib (‘Ali’s father) was alive, he was Muhammad’s only protector. At any rate, both Abfi Tdlib and Abdi Lahab are said to have earned something in return for their kind attitude towards Muhammad. Abi Thlib, who died as an unbeliever, was said to be only in the shallow fire of hell (dahd.b). Abfi Lahab was said to have water to ease his torture in hell as a reward for setting free his slave Thuwayba, who was Muhammad’s wet-nurse. See al-Suhayli, al-Rawd al-unuf, ed. ‘Abd al-Ra’iif Sa’d, Cairo, 1971, III, 67; al-‘Asqaldni, Fath4 al-bdrf, ix, 124-5. On Abil Lahab and Thuwayba see also al-Bukhdri, Sabhb, Cairo, 1958, vii, 12; Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 108; al-Bayhaqi, Dald’il al-nubuwwa, ed. Muhammad ‘Uthmin, Cairo, 1969, I, 120; Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Waft bi-ahwal al-Mustafd, ed. ‘Abd al-W4hid, Cairo, 1966, I, 107; al-‘Asqalni, al-Isba fsf ma’rifat al-.ahdba, ed. al-Bijwli, Cairo, 1970, vii, 549; al-Zurqini, op. cit., I, 138. 22See e.g. Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 93: wa-klna jawddan. 23 Ibn Hishdm, op. cit., I, 184 ff. 24ibid., 187. 25 ibid., 115; Ibn Sa’d, loc. cit. 2 6For: qad asd5. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 6 ============
ABt LAHAB AND SrRA CXI 17 Lahab) used to perform good deeds for the benefit of the prophet and Quraysh. He used to say: ” if the victory is with Muhammad, I have a ‘hand’ to my credit with him, and if the victory is with Quraysh, the same applies to them ” ‘.27 Finally, it may be remarked that yad denoting benefaction, occurs in a further Qur’anic passage as well. Qur’an ix, 29 says: qdtilft ‘lladhina lta yu’minfina bi-lldhi. . . mina ‘lladhina ?uti ‘l-kitaba hatti yu’taf ‘l-jizyata ‘an yadin. The true meaning of the phrase al-jizyata ‘an yadin has been pointed out by M. M. Bravmann.28 Bravmanx, contrary to Kister’s opinion,29 renders this verse as follows: ‘combat those non-believers who are possessors of a book (i.e. Christians and Jews) until they give the reward due for a benefaction (since their lives are spared) ‘. There is, however, some difference between the two verses. The phrase yadd Abi Lahabin refers mainly to the supporter himself, i.e. Abia Lahab, whereas the expression ‘an yadin refers to those who were granted the benefaction, who must make a reward for it. Besides, in Qur’an ix, 29 yad means a benefaction consisting in sparing somebody’s life, whereas in our slira, yad means benefaction in the sense of material support. In both cases the benefaction must be duly rewarded or recompensed. Our s-ira is directly connected with Slira LIII which abrogates Muhammad’s former recognition of al-‘Uzza’s existence. Verse 1 conveys the idea that the ‘hand’ which Ab-i Lahab believed he had to his credit with al-‘Uzza, has become worthless; he can no longer count on al-‘Uzza’s reward for serving and supporting her, as she became a false goddess due to the abrogation of the ‘ Satanic verses’. At the same time, the Qur’an, as a retaliation against Ab-i Lahab who abandoned Muh.ammad for his own interests, proclaims the end of his credit with Muhammad, the latter being no longer obliged to reward Aba Lahab for his former protection. The word which signifies the new condition of Abi Lahab’s ‘ hands’ is tabbat. Qatada (d. 118/736),30 as quoted by al-Tabari, interprets it as khasirat, i.e. ‘failed to produce profits or reward; became worthless’. The explanation of tabbat as khasirat accords with the Qur’an itself, in which the infinitive tatbTb is replaced by takhsir (Qur’an xi, 101: wa-ma zadifhum ghayra tatbibin; xi, 63: fa-mi tazidinan7 ghayra takhsirin). According to a further interpretation recorded on the authority of Yaman b. Ri’ab,31 tabbat means: ‘have become devoid of any benefit (safirat min kulli khayrin) ‘.32 Similarly, one of al-Tabarsi’s interpretations says that verse 1 means: ‘his hands have not gained any benefit at all, and he himself incurred loss as well, i.e. he has been lost in all respects (wa-ma’ndhu annahu lam taktasib yaddhu khayran qattu, wa-khasira ma’a dhalika huwa nafsuhu, ay tabba ‘ald kulli h.lin) ‘. The final thing to be explained concerning verse 1 is the meaning of the name ‘Ab-i Lahab’, i.e. ‘the father of flame’. According to Lohmann,33 ‘ Abfi Lahab ‘ stands for the person who was first to kindle the fire, that is to say, the first person of Quraysh to break off friendly relations with Muhammad. 27 Abfi Muslim (probably al-Kashshi, d. 292/904, see Sezgin, GAS, I, 162), as quoted by al-Rdzi, says that yad5 abi lahabin means his fortune (ya’ni mdlahu) which is also denoted by the expression dhit al-yad. This interpretation is close to the interpretation of yad as ni’ma, in the sense of material support. 28 See M. M. Bravmann, The spiritual background of early Islam, Leiden, 1972, 199 ff. 29 See M. J. Kister, ‘” ‘An yadin ” (Qur’dn, ix, 29) ‘, Arabica, xi, 3, 1964, 272-8. 30 Sezgin, GAS, 1, 31 ff. 31 On whom see al-Dhahabi, Mizdn al-i’tiddl, Cairo, n.d., iv, 460. 32 See al-Tabarsi, al-Rdzi, and Abfi Hayyan. 33 Lohmann, art. cit., 334. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 8 ============
ABV LAHAB AND SVIRA CXI 19 when S-ira cxi was revealed, Abfi Lahab became angry and showed his enmity, causing people to grow suspicious and to disbelieve in what he had said about the prophet. Thus his efforts (against the prophet) failed, and his aim was missed. And perhaps the ” hand ” has been mentioned because he used to strike with it on the shoulder of the person who had come to see the prophet, saying: “turn back, for Muhammad is possessed (majniln) “. Usually, when a man sends another man away, he puts his hand on the latter’s shoulder, pushing him away’. Al-Razi records a further interpretation on the authority of ‘At’: ‘tabbat means: “has been defeated (ghulibat)”; (Ab-i Lahab) believed that his hand would (triumph) over (Muhammad), and he would expel him from Mecca, humiliating and defeating him (but his own hand has been defeated) ‘. Verse 3 of our stira has a pure eschatological significance. This stimulated more new interpretations attaching a similar meaning to verse 1 as well. Thereby, verse 1 was treated as though dealing not only with the failure of Ab-i Lahab’s worldly sins against the prophet, but also with his prospective punishment in hell. Al-Tabarsi interprets: ‘his deeds have proved unsuccessful, and he himself has failed, being condemned to hell’ (khasira ‘amaluhu wa-khasira huwa bi ‘l-wuqf’i fi ‘l-ndr).37 Verse 1 was eventually interpreted as if referring solely to the world to come, tabbat being no longer interpreted as denoting a present worldly dis- advantage, but rather as an invocation (du’d’) for the same, due to come upon Abli Lahab in hell. This interpretation is reflected in the reading (qird’a) of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’tfid: tabbat yadi abi lahabin wa-qad tabba; ‘may the hands of Ab-i Lahab be lost, and indeed he has been lost’. This qird’a is based on a structure of invocation common in old Arabic; it contains two verbs, the latter being preceded by wa-qad, denoting the inevitability of the invocation expressed by the first. Al-Tabari adduces two examples of this structure: ahlakaka ‘llihu wa-qad ahlakaka; ja’alaka sdlihan wa-qad ja’alaka.38 In acquiring the meaning of invocation, the phrase tabbat yaddhu was assimilated later on to genuine Arabic phrases of invocation connected with ‘hands’, such as shallat yaddhu and taribat yaddhu. Unlike the Qur’anic expression tabbat yaddhu, these phrases are to be found in many verses of old Arab poetry.39 In the following rajaz verse, the Qur’anic phrase tabbat yaddhu has already been adapted to its new usage of invocation. According to Lisin al-‘Arab (s.v. tbb), this verse refers to somebody who has bought fasw, i.e. a commodity from which no great utility is derived. akhsir bih mrin safqatin lam tustaqal tabbat yadd sdfiqiha midhi fa’al ‘What a great loss (was caused by) this deal that was not abrogated, May the hands of him who made this deal be lost, what has he done! ‘ 40 37 See also al-Suhayli, op. cit., II, 109. 38 Regarding tabbat as an invocation, Fischer considered this qird’a to be the original one. Paret (op. cit., 529), however, has shown that the lectio difficilior is not wa-qad tabba (Ibn Mas’fid) but rather wa-tabba, thus affirming that Ibn Mas’iid’s reading is secondary. The qird’a of Ibn Mas’iid was indeed known as an ‘easy’ one, containing many explanatory additions to the original text. See al-Suhayli, loc. cit. See also I. Goldziher, Richtungen, 8 ff. 39 See references in Fischer, op. cit., p. 20, n. 1. 40 Fischer, loc. cit., adduces this verse as an illustration that tabbat yadi abi lahabin is an invocation. This verse, however, seems to be a later reflection of a somewhat similar rajaz verse included in the original story about the person who bought fasw. This man, so the story goes, was named Baydara; he bought the fasw of the tribe of Iydd. The original rajaz verse referring to him does not yet have tabbat yaddhu but still : shallat yaddhu. See e.g. Ibn Durayd, Jamharat al-lugha, Hyderabad, 1344/1925, I, 23. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 9 ============
20 URI RUBIN The view that verse 1 invokes evil upon Abfi Lahab is put forward by many traditions, some of which are widely current in the various commentaries on our sira. This view represents, in fact, the consensus (ijma’) of the Muslim scholars with regard to the meaning of verse 1. The main idea of the traditions presenting this view is that the phrase tabbat yadi abi lahabin forms an antiphony to the invocation tabban lahu uttered by Abfl Lahab himself before the revela- tion of the sflra. One of the earliest of these traditions is that of Ibn Ish1q.41 According to Ibn Ishaq, Abfi Lahab used to say: ‘Muhammad promises me things that I do not see, which he says will come after my death. What has he actually put in my hands (except promises) ?’. Then he would blow on his hands and say: ‘May you be lost (tabban lakumJ). I see in you nothing of what Muhammad says’. Therefore Allah revealed the sfira. According to more developed traditions, Abfi Lahab directed the imprecation not to his own self, but rather to the Islamic religion. A tradition to this effect is recorded by al-Tabari on the authority of Ibn Zayd (d. 182/798).42 Abil Lahab allegedly uttered the words tabban li-hadha min dinin tabban, when Muhammad refused to grant him an exceptional position among the Muslims, as a reward for his embracing Islam. The most current traditions, however, are those relating that Abfi Lahab’s curse was directed to Muhammad himself. These traditions say that when Muhammad was ordered to start warning his nearest relations of the Last Judgement (Qur’an xxvi, 214: wa-andhir ‘ashirataka ‘l-aqrabina ), he summoned them all in order to convey his mission. Upon hearing his words, Abni Lahab said: ‘Is this what you summoned us for ? May you be lost (tabban laka)’. Thereupon Sfira cxI was revealed. This story implies that Sfira cxi was revealed at the very beginning of Muhammad’s prophetic activity. Al-Tabari records no less than five versions of this story, four of which are from al-A’mash (d. 148/765),43 with an isnad traced back to Ibn ‘Abbas. This story was admitted into the canonical hadith,” as well as into books of asbib al-nuziil.45 Its secondary nature is attested most clearly by the fact that in the earlier versions of the story about the beginning of Muhammad’s mission among his fellow tribesmen, there is not a single word concerning Sfira cxI.46 In later versions of the above traditions, Abfi Lahab’s hostile acts against the prophet assume a more aggressive nature. According to al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi, Abfi Lahab not only abused the prophet, but also picked up a stone with the intention of throwing it at him, thus provoking the Qur’anic damning of his hands.47 Explaining why the Qur’an has mentioned the hands of Abfi Lahab, al-Tabarsi and al-Razi quote a tradition on the authority of the sah.bi .Tariq al-Muh.ribi,48 according to which Abfi Lahab used to follow the 41 Ibn Hishim, op. cit., i, 376. 42 Sezgin, GAS, I, 38. 43 ibid., 9. 44 See al-Bukhari, op. cit., vi, 140, 221-2; al-Tirmidhi, Sa?ih (in ‘Ari4at al-ahwadhi, by Ibn al-‘Arabi), xii, 259. See also Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 74-5, 200. 45 e.g. al-Wdhidi, Asbab al-nuzill, Cairo, 1968, 261-2. 46 See al-Tabari, TrMkh, IX, 62-3 (from Ibn Ishiq). Cf. also Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 187. 47 A similar story is told about the wife of Abfi Lahab who, after the revelation of the stira, intended to throw a big stone at Muhammad. Allah, however, concealed the prophet from her. See Ibn Hishdm, op. cit., i, 381-2. Cf. al-‘Asqalini, Fath viii, 567; al-HIikim al-Naysabfiri, al-Mustadrak ‘ai ‘l-.aisabayn, Riyad, 1388/1968, II, 361; al-Bayhaqi, op. cit., I, 443-4; Ibn al-Jawzi, op. cit., I, 325; al-Suyditi, al-Khasd’is al-kubrd, ed. Hards, Cairo, 1967, I, 318-19; Ibn Sayyid al-Nds, op. cit., i, 102-3; Ibn Shahrishfib, op. cit., I, 61; al-Khargfishi, Sharaf al-Nabi, MS BM Or. 3014, fols. 40a, 127a. 48 On whom see Isaba, mI, 511. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAGE – 10 ============
ABr LAHAB AND SrRA CXI 21 prophet and throw stones at him, when the latter preached Islam to Arab tribesmen in the market of Dh-i ‘l-Majaz.49 This tradition was already recorded by al-Tirmidhi.50 An earlier version of the same story, however, does not mention any such act on the part of Abf Lahab, nor is there any allusion to the connexion of this event with our sira.51 A further tradition, recorded by al-Rzi, relates that Ab- Lahab had torn off the ‘hands’ (i.e. the front legs) of a kid (jady) that believed in Muhammad, and this brought about the cursing of his own hands in the Qur’an. This legendary tradition applies the most aggressive touch to Aba Lahab’s negative image.52 The view that verse 1 invokes evil upon Aba Lahab eventually caused a considerable change in the meaning of tabbat and wa-tabba. Al-Zamakhshari explains these verbs not in the meaning of khasira, but rather in the sense of halaka, i.e. ‘to perish’. Al-Baydawi explains that tabdb means khusrdn (i.e. failure or loss) that brings about halak (i.e. perdition). The shift from khasira to halaka accords with the general tendency illus- trated above, to conform verse 1 to the eschatological spirit of verse 3. This tendency is most evident in one of BaydawI’s interpretations, to the effect that the perdition of Aba Lahab’s two hands stands for his own total perdition in this world as well as in the world to come (dunydhu wa-ukhrdhu). This interpretation is closely connected with another interpretation offered by al-Zamakhshari. wa ‘l-murdd: halik jumlatihi ka-qawlihi ta’dld: bi-mJ qaddamat yadika ‘The meaning (of the perdition of Aba Lahab’s hands) is the perdition of his whole person; this is like the verse (Qur’dn xxii, 10): ” for what your two hands have done” ‘ This interpretation takes the ‘two hands’ to be a synecdoche, i.e. denoting the whole person to whom they belong. It may be noted, however, that the 49A Shi’i tradition relates that al-‘Abbis participated with Abfi Lahab in these deeds. Abfi Tilib defended the prophet against them both. See Ibn Shahrdshfib, op. cit., I, 51. 50 Quoted from al-Tirmidhi in Isaba, loc. cit. 51 See Ibn Hish5m, op. cit., II, 64-5; Ibn Sayyid al-Nis, op. cit., I, 101; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., mn, 41; Ibn Shahrishfib, op. cit., I, 51. Cf. also Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 216. In the course of time, Abfi Lahab’s name was included in the list of those Qurashis who plotted to kill the prophet before the Hijra. See Ibn Sa’d, op. cit., I, 228. In Ibn Hishim, n, 125, his name is still absent from that list. Similarly, later sources (Ibn Shahrdshfib, I, 66-7, cf. Ibn Sayyid al-Nds, I, 113) include his name in the list of the mustahzi’iin, from which his name is still absent in the earlier sources (e.g. Ibn Hish5m, II, 50-1; al-Tabari, Tafsir, xIv, 48-9. See also al-Bayhaqi, op. cit., n, 85-6; al-Suyfiti, op. cit., I, 365; Ibn al-Jawzi, op. cit., I, 329-30; al-Khargfishi, op. cit., MS Tiibingen M.a. VI, 12, folios 44b-45a). It is also worthy of note that in later sources Abfi Lahab is said to have performed deeds which were ascribed originally to Abfi Jahl (of Makhzilm), probably due to the likeness of the names. In the earlier sources it is related that Abfi Jahl plotted to kill Muhammad with a stone, while the latter was absorbed in prayer (Ibn Hishim, op. cit., I, 319-20; see also al-Bayhaqi, op. cit., I, 438-40; al-Suyfiti, op. cit., I, 315-16, 320-1; Ibn al-Jawzi, op. cit., I, 327; al-Khargfishi, op. cit. (BM), fol. 114b; Wensinck, A handbook of early Muhammadan tradition, 7, and also the commentaries on Sfira cxvi). In later sources the same story is transferred from Abfi Jahl to Abfi Lahab. See Ibn Shahrdshfib, op. cit., I, 68-9. 52 Finally Abfi Lahab has become the archetype of Muhammad’s enemies, whom all the Muslims are urged to curse. Ibn Kathir (Bidaya, IT, 41) informs us that STira cxi was recited on the minbars being included in the exhortations and the Friday sermons. And see further Fischer, op. cit., passim, Lohmann, art. cit., 339, 331-2. It is interesting to observe, however, that certain circles (probably of the Shi’a) produced several traditions to the effect that Muham- mad had forbidden the Muslims to curse the members of his own family. This had been done after Abfi Lahab’s daughter had complained to the prophet of being insulted by the Muslims for being the offspring of the’ fire-wood of hell ‘ (ibnat hatab al-nar). According to some traditions the prophet announced on that occasion that his intercession (shaf&’a) would save all his blood relations at the Last Judgement. See al-‘Asqaldni, IsJba, vii, 634 ff.; al-Khargfishi, op. cit. (Tiibingen), 18b, (BM) 50b-51a; al-Zurq~ni, op. cit., I, 185-6; Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Sawd’iq al-mubriqa, Cairo, 1965, 172. This content downloaded from 132.66.223.134 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 06:40:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
57 KB – 17 Pages