Обсуждение:Религия

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Religious Pluralism and the Qurʾān

Article Table of Contents

Qurʾānic vocabulary

Religious communities

Qurʾānic indications of interreligious interactions

Inferring a qurʾānic attitude toward religious pluralism?

Conclusion

Bibliography

In traditional Muslim thought, Muḥammad is the “seal of the prophets,” and his message, contained in the Qurʾān, continues, confirms — and abrogates — all previous prophetic messages.¶ The Qurʾān demonstrates an awareness of those previous messages, at least some of them, and evidences knowledge of a variety of religious groups in its milieu. The earliest commentators on the Qurʾān were alert to these allusions and their efforts at identification became a traditional topic in classical exegetical works (McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 16-31). Such efforts formed part of a larger agenda, that of providing historical specificity to certain segments of the text. The desire to do so was motivated less by an embracive and encyclopedic scholarly attitude than by the desire to determine both the chronological parameters of qurʾānic directives and the precise groups to whom they applied. Among the qurʾānic “sciences” the subfield known as “occasions of revelation” (q.v.; asbāb al-nuzūl) accumulated the results of these narrative elaborations of the qurʾānic text.

Numerous qurʾānic passages allude to individuals, or to groups, who did not accept Muḥammad as a prophet, but are nevertheless identified with one or another “religious” category about which the Qurʾān has a variety of not necessarily uniform opinions. Explicit in its condemnation of polytheists/idolaters (mushrikūn, i.e. q 4:48, 116; 30:31; 39:65; but cf. Hawting, Idea of idolatry, for the argument that the qurʾānic polemic against these mushrikūn reflects “disputes among monotheists rather than pagans and that Muslim tradition does not display much substantial knowledge of Arab pagan religion” [16]), as well as the so-called “hypocrites” ( munāfiqūn, also glossed as “cowards” or those who shirked their military responsibilities; cf. q 4:138, 145; 9:68; 33:73), the Qurʾān does not deny the continued existence of Judaism and Christianity in its own milieu (i.e. seventh century Arabia; for two revisionist arguments ¶ that place the origins of the Qurʾān elsewhere, see Crone and Cook, Hagarism, and Wansbrough, Sectarian milieu; but cf. Donner, Narratives, 35-61) and also alludes to other religious groups who are not directly connected to the qurʾānic message (i.e. the enigmatic Sabians and Magians).

For at least the last century and a half, western scholarship has discussed the “monotheistic influence” on Muḥammad and the Qurʾān (see post-enlightenment academic study of the qurʾān). Examples include A. Geiger's nineteenth century doctoral thesis at the University of Marburg, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (Eng. trans. Judaism and Islam 1898, repr. New York 1970), R. Dozy's Die Israeliten zu Mekka (Leiden 1864); H. Lammens' Les Chrétiens à la Mecque à la veille de l'hégire, in bifao 14 (1918), 191-230; T. Andrae's Der Ursprung des Islams und das Christentum, in Kyrkohistorisk Arsskrift (1923-5), with a French translation, Les origins de l'Islam et le Christianisme (Paris 1955); R. Bell's The origin of Islam in its Christian environment (Edinburgh 1926); and C. C. Torrey's The Jewish foundations of Islam (New York 1933). Other studies have focused on the possible presence of Christian, Jewish or Judeo-Christian sectarian groups in the qurʾānic milieu, and there has been abundant speculation about the identity of the zindīqs of Mecca (Manichaeans and Mazdakites have been suggested; cf. Hawting, Idea of idolatry, 15, for bibliography; see also heresy). Further, it has long been acknowledged that much of the qurʾānic message exhibits knowledge of, and similarity to, aspects of Judaism and Christianity, particularly as regards the narrative accounts of the prophets and several of the religious practices of the nascent community (see narratives; prophets and prophethood; ritual and the qurʾān). Recent work on, for ¶ example, inter-communal similarities continues this long line of scholarship (cf. Donner, Narratives, 64-75 for a discussion of qurʾānic piety in this context).

The Qurʾān categorizes and alludes to the various religious groups that appear to have inhabited its milieu (cf. Rubin, Eye, 45-53, for an overview of the religious communities present in pre-Islamic south Arabia: namely Jews, Christians, polytheists and ḥunafāʾ) in a variety of ways. Additionally, the qurʾānic vocabulary for “religion” (q.v.) is itself multivalent and distinct from the terminology for “faith” (q.v.) or belief (see belief and unbelief; gratitude and ingratitude). This article will discuss the development of the qurʾānic attitude towards religious pluralism by looking first at the vocabulary employed by the Qurʾān to designate either “religion” or the various religious groups with which it expresses familiarity. It will then focus upon the instances of “interreligious” encounter between Muḥammad and his followers and non-Muslims, primarily Christians, recognizing the fluidity of these categories. The final section will examine the qurʾānic passages which have formed Muslim attitudes toward the present plurality of religions.

Qurʾānic vocabulary

In addition to the explicit mentions of various religious groups, Jews, Christians, Sabians and Magians — the so-called “ People of the Book” (q.v.) — as well as of polytheists/idolaters and the enigmatic ḥunafāʾ (sing. ḥanīf), the Qurʾān uses a range of words, both Arabic and Arabized non-Arabic (see foreign vocabulary), to signify what contemporary readers understand as “religion.”

General terms: dīn, milla, ʿibāda Traditional Muslim writings on the religious teachings contained in the Qurʾān ¶ often maintain that there is a sharp distinction between the polytheism that dominated pre-Islamic Arabian religious life and the monotheism preached by Muḥammad. In the late nineteenth century, Goldziher (Muhammedanische Studien) and others took up this theme of the asserted difference and attempted to contrast a pre-Islamic communal, tribal “materialistic” virtue ( muruwwa) with the Islamic and qurʾānic concept of religion as individual affiliation ( dīn; cf. Bravmann, Spiritual background, 2, and more generally, 1-7, for a counterargument that maintains that muruwwa — like dīn — had a moral-spiritual significance, and that “virtus and the virile ethics of the heathen period were appreciated even in the Islamic period, only that in the course of time other qualities, of purely religious character, were added to them”). The most common term for “religion” is dīn (over 90 occurrences), an Arabized word with a diglossic background: the Persian dēn meaning “religion” or “cult” and the Akkadian dānu meaning “judgment” (q.v.; Jeffery, For. vocab., 131-3; cf. Lisān al-ʿArab for other glosses, namely “custom, usage” and also “punishment, reward”). In the Qurʾān the Arabic dīn has both these senses (as, incidentally, in Christian writings does its Syriac cognate, dīnâ/dīn; cf. Jeffery, op. cit., 132-3 for an overview of the complex background of the Syriac term; for additional discussion of the qurʾānic dīn — particularly its eschatological usage — see last judgment). Gardet (Dīn) distinguishes between the usage in the Meccan and Medinan periods: in the former, the sense of “judgment” predominates, whereas the latter emphasizes the sense of “religion,” with echoes of the “practical” or cultic aspect of the Persian dēn. As seen in the exegesis of q 109:6 (“to you your dīn, and to me my dīn”), dīn is a term that can be applied to believers and unbelievers (cf. e.g. Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ad loc., ¶ where the enduring quality of religious affiliation is asserted). But it must be emphasized that when dīn is used with the sense of “religion” it involves the “act of worship,” derived from the Arabic sense of debt, i.e. rendering to God what is his due — that is, the obligations and prescriptions set out in the Qurʾān.

Another term for religion is milla, unattested in Arabic prior to its qurʾānic usage (cf. Bosworth, Milla). Likely of Syriac origin, in which meltâ may signify “word” (Gk. logos) and is used as a technical term for religion (Jeffery, For. vocab., 268-9), in the Qurʾān milla denotes “religion” or “sect,” and is frequently employed to designate the creed of Abraham (q.v.; 8 out of the 15 occurrences: q 2:130, 135; 3:95; 4:125, in which the milla of Abraham is identified with “submission” to God; 6:161; 12:38; 16:123; 22:78). But again, and also like the qurʾānic umma, which is used for the Muslim community as well as for the communities of non-Muslims (even the animals and birds are said to constitute ummas, cf. q 6:38), milla is not the exclusive provenance of “believers” or Muslims: it is used for the religion of prophets prior to Muḥammad (i.e. q 12:38), Christians and Jews ( q 2:120) and polytheists or unbelievers ( q 7:88-9, the religion of the people of Shuʿayb [q.v.]; 12:37; 14:13; 18:20; 38:7). q 12:37 and 38 exemplify most clearly the range of uses: in q 12:37, Joseph (q.v.) says, “I have abandoned the milla of a people who do not believe in God and deny the hereafter (see eschatology),” and in the following verse he says, “I followed the milla of my fathers Abraham and Isaac (q.v.) and Jacob (q.v.); we do not associate anything with God.”

Closely related to the semantic range of dīn, a third general term for “religion” or religious praxis is ʿibāda, “worship” (the nominal form occurs 9 times; various verbal forms of the root ʿ-b-d are much more ¶ frequent). The root meaning, however, is “to make, to do, to work” — from which the sense of “to serve” is derived (see Jeffery, For. vocab., 209-10; see servant). As with dīn and milla, ʿ-b-d is used both in reference to the service of the one, true God and the (albeit vain) service of that which is not God (i.e. q 5:60, 76; 10:104). In later Islamic thought, the “service” to the one God is explained as essentially involving the five “pillars” of Islamic faith, although sometimes other duties, such as marriage (see marriage and divorce) and circumcision (q.v.), are included in the books of law (cf. Bousquet, ʿIbādāt).

Terms conveying qurʾānic approval: islām, ḥanīf, sharīʿa Literally “surrender, submission,” islām (q.v.) occurs 8 times, most notably at q 5:3, wherein God says to Muḥammad: “I have completed my blessing upon you and I have approved al-islām as [your] religion” (cf. q 3:19: “the [true] religion with God is al-islām”). It is not clear from the Qurʾān what, exactly, is meant by islām: most notably, there is no clear differentiation between “faith” ( īmān) and “submission to God” (islām, although cf. q 49:14; for a clear presentation of the relation of these two terms and dīn throughout the history of qurʾānic exegesis see Smith, Historical). Some later ḥadīth (cf. Eng. trans. of one such account in Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, i, 42-3, related on the authority of Abū Hurayra), however, associate islām with the public marks of a Muslim believer, i.e. the five “pillars” of Islam, and īmān with belief in God, his messengers and books, the angels (see angel), and the last day (see Smith, Historical, 12-3, for the various renditions of this tradition; for a rather different understanding of islām and īmān, see Bravmann, Spiritual background, 7-31, and his theory that the former is a pre-Islamic concept implying defiance of death in the face ¶ of struggle with an enemy, while the latter connotes the sense of security associated with the triliteral Arabic root ʾ-m-n, particularly in the context of protection against “fate”; see fate). In light of the ambiguity of qurʾānic language, subsequent theological debates raised the question of whether non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, could be considered “believers” (see Donner, Believers, for a recent discussion). Eventually, however, islām was used for both the “personal relationship between man and God and the community of those acknowledging this relationship” (Smith, Historical, 2). It also must be noted that, although certain people prior to Muḥammad (notably Abraham) are said to have been “ muslims” (the active participle of islām), the Qurʾān is explicit in its insistence that obedience (q.v.) to God involves obedience to his messenger (q.v.), namely Muḥammad (cf. q 4:65; 33:36), an obedience that includes following the prescriptions and proscriptions that the Qurʾān exhorts.

Although ḥanīf (q.v.; 12 occurrences, nearly all of which are explicitly linked to Abraham) is used in the Qurʾān with the sense of a “true monotheistic believer,” a Syriac cognate (ḥanpâ) has the connotations of “pagan” (but see Rubin, Ḥanīf, 402, who emphasizes the significance of the Arabic root meaning “to incline,” as in having abandoned the prevailing religion and ‘inclined’ to a religion of one's own). The tension between the apparent qurʾānic meaning and the close Syriac cognate, which is not always mentioned in contemporary discussions of the topic (i.e. Hawting, Idea of idolatry), has yet to be explained satisfactorily, particularly with regards to its usage in a Muslim framework (see Watt, Ḥanīf; Jeffery, For. vocab., 113-5). Here it should be noted that Crone and Cook's discussion of the term (Hagarism, 13-14) focuses on Syriac Christian accounts ¶ of the seventh century Arab conquests, in which there is an apparent conflation of ḥanpē and mahgrayē (which latter term, in Cook and Crone's reading, designates the “Hagarenes,” a Judeo-Arab group who migrated from Arabia) as terms identifying the conquerors. They maintain that the qurʾānic concept of ḥanīf was an intentional borrowing of the Syriac cognate by the ‘Hagarenes,’ but was used instead to “designate an adherent of an unsophisticated Abrahamic monotheism” in a contrivance “to make a religious virtue of the stigma of their pagan past” (Hagarism, 14; cf. also Watt, Ḥanīf). There is also a lack of scholarly consensus about whether the qurʾānic employment of ḥanīf connotes an actual pre-Islamic religious grouping (see, for example, Rubin, Eye, and Hawting, Idea of idolatry, s.v., for two different viewpoints in contemporary scholarship). According to the semantic analysis of T. Izutsu, the qurʾānic ḥanīf encompasses “(1) the true religion deep-rooted in the natural disposition in every human soul to believe in the One God, (2) absolute submission to this One God, and (3) […] the antithesis to idol-worshipping” (Izutsu, Ethico-religious concepts, 191). See further discussion of this term below, under Religious communities.

Perhaps parallel to the Christian designation of their religion as the “way,” sharīʿa (later used as the comprehensive designation of the Islamic law), with one occurrence at q 45:18, has been understood with the sense of God's having set Muḥammad on the “open way, clear way, right way.”

Terms denoting qurʾānic toleration or ambivalence

Ahl al-kitāb, dhimma

A more comprehensive designation are the so-called “ People of the Book” (or “those who have been given the book,” cf. q 2:121; also “ people of the Gospel,” q 5:47), which ¶ appears over 30 times, with multiple connotations. Although Jews and Christians (the Children of Israel [q.v.]) are considered the prime designates of this terminology and were, subsequently, accorded a “protected” — albeit subordinate — status in later Islamic societies, the Magians and Sabians also appear in the Qurʾān in conjunction with these “scriptured” peoples (cf. q 22:17), leading to their inclusion among the protected minorities in developed Islamic thought (see below, under Religious groups). While in post-qurʾānic times, ahl al-kitāb became nearly synonymous with dhimmī (or ahl al- dhimma, the “protected” persons living in the Islamic state, i.e. religious minorities), the qurʾānic dhimma ( q 9:8, 10), from which these latter terms derive, indicates merely “pact, treaty,” without any specification of the terms thereof, or of the persons to whom it applies. Later Islamic tradition developed these conditions (as exemplified in the so-called “covenant of ʿUmar”; cf. Tritton, Caliphs), and those non-Muslim groups living in Islamic lands to whom they were extended were subsequently termed dhimmīs/ ahl al-dhimma (cf. Cahen, Ḏh̲imma). The designation of a specific group of people with a (revealed) “book” suggests that written scriptures were accorded respect, and those communities that claimed a written revealed text were set apart from others (see orality and writing in arabia). The People of the Book are to be consulted for the meaning of scripture (cf. q 10:94: “If you [Muḥammad] are in doubt about what we have revealed to you, ask those who recite/read [yaqraʾūna] the book before you”), but are also presented in the Qurʾān as people who are in disagreement over the scriptures (cf. q 3:64, 65, wherein the People of the Book are said to be disputing concerning Abraham; see gospel; torah; psalms; book).¶

Parties/factions

In addition to the indicators of religious adherence — generally positive ( ahl al- kitāb, ḥanīf, muslim, muʾmin), negative ( mushrik) and neutral ( dhimma, milla), as well as the religious groups whose adherents are named in the Qurʾān ( Jews, Christians, Magians, Sabians) — there are a few terms that indicate divisions among the adherents of a religion, terms that may also be used for secular divisions. These qurʾānic lexemes include ḥizb (pl. aḥzāb), ṭāʾifa and farīq (the second verbal form of the root f-r-q is also used in this sense; cf. q 6:159 and 30:32, as well as q 20:94 and 9:107), shīʿa (q.v.; pl. shiyaʿ, ashyāʿ, e.g. q 6:159; 15:10, but also q 28:15), zubur ( q 23:53), ṭaraf (e.g. q 3:127), ṭarīqa (pl. ṭarāʾiq, e.g. q 72:11), etc. All of this vocabulary has been variously translated as group, party, sect or division, among other renderings, with the terms generally carrying a negative value. Charges of sectarian division are not infrequent in the Qurʾān and although primarily aimed at the Children of Israel, they are also made against Muslims — as in the designation of those who shirked their military duties as “hypocrites” (see hypocrites and hypocrisy ; cf. Rubin, Between, esp. 117-46). Such accusations became a prominent theme in Muslim polemics against Christians, who were excoriated for multiple and visible divisions (see below, under “Jews and Christians”).

This review of qurʾānic vocabulary demonstrates the complexity of the qurʾānic notion of religion which does not easily map to contemporary Western understandings of religious pluralism. Adherence to the divinely revealed message encompasses more than a profession of faith (i.e. īmān); it entails an entire way of life (namely the behavior implied by sharīʿa, islām, ʿibāda) — both public and private — a communal concept closer to the qurʾānic concept of umma than the ¶ juridical/canonical/liturgical notion more familiar to today's Euro-American societies. Even though the Qurʾān acknowledges the fact of the diversity of religions, it asserts that, had God so willed, he could have made them all one nation ( umma, see q 42:6-9; see parties and factions).

Religious communities

In addition to the terms that connote religion as a collective category, the Qurʾān names adherents of several religious communities. Most mentions, whether of Islam (i.e. those who adhered to the qurʾānic message) or of other religious groupings, point to people and physical structures rather than conceptual abstractions (note the reference in q 5:44 to Jewish “rabbis” [al- rabbāniyyūn] and “religious scholars” [al- aḥbār: also understood to refer to Christian religious authorities in q 9:31, 34]; Christian “priests” [ qissīsīn] and “monks” [ ruhbān] of q 5:82; the mention in q 22:40 of God's prevention of the destruction of four different places identified with religious institutions: ṣawāmiʿ, identified as monasteries, biyaʿ — churches, ṣalawāt — synagogues, and masājid — mosques, lit. places of “prostration”; see church; monasticism and monks). For example, the Qurʾān mentions Christians but has no term for Christianity (but cf. i.e. q 2:62 for a possible attestation of “ Judaism”). Here it should be noted that the Qurʾān does not always link islām with “religion” (but see q 3:19, 85; 5:3), although most of the qurʾānic attestations of islām denote the relationship of a human being to God: e.g. q 9:74; 49:17; 61:7. The concept of Islam as distinct from islām emerged over time, and received differing nuances in different settings (Smith, Historical). Since, as recent scholarship has shown, Christianity and Judaism in the world of late antiquity were not as well-defined as their contemporary ¶ apologists have portrayed them (e.g. Boyarin, Radical Jew; id., Sparks of the logos; cf. also Cameron, Mediterranean world), our inability to designate precisely the referents of these qurʾānic mentions is not surprising. Some of these religious groupings appear a number of times ( Jews, Christians and polytheists), while others are mentioned only rarely ( Sabians, q 2:62; 5:69 and 22:17 and Magians, q 22:17). Often, it is not clear if the qurʾānic concept indicates an actual, contemporary religious group identifiable as such to the qurʾānic audience, a pre-Islamic group or a theological concept (i.e. the enigmatic ḥanīf).

Further, despite the apparent distinction of these groups from one another and from the emergent community that heeded Muḥammad and his message, the specific nature of the various groups to which these people belonged is by no means clear. There is also a range of qurʾānic judgment on some of them, particularly the Jews and the Christians. Indeed, the Qurʾān has many scriptural figures and concepts familiar to Jews and Christians, making analysis of the degree of real separation and distinction among the communities in the qurʾānic milieu difficult. The prevalence of the qurʾānic attestations of “believers” is a case in point: in passages such as q 33:35, believers and Muslims are both mentioned — and it is not clear whether one modifies the other, or if they are separate categories. Might Jews and Christians, particularly those not hostile to Muslims, be considered “believers” (as was the claim of Christian apologists such as Theodore Abū Qurra [d. ca. 214/830]; cf. id., Discussion, 75-6; see also Donner, Believers)? Despite such irenic arguments, the fact that there are different terms for Jews, Christians and Muslims does indicate a significant qurʾānic distinction among these groups. Finally, the long history of qurʾānic commentary has complicated the ¶ identification of, and attitude towards, the following groups and, consequently, their relationship to contemporary religious groups and the resultant behavior towards them demanded of Muslims. A brief sketch of those communities to which the Qurʾān alludes in various ways and in varying detail, follows. See, however, the articles jews and judaism; christians and christianity; sabians; ḥanīf; magians; polytheism and atheism for a fuller discussion of each.

Jews and Christians

As mentioned above, the Qurʾān uses the designation People of the Book and Children of Israel to include both Jews and Christians — with the latter phrase, however, carrying a less obviously Christian valence. But reference to Jews and Christians as separate entities is also made. Often with a negative connotation, “Jews” ( yahūd) are explicitly mentioned multiple times in the Qurʾān ( q 2:113, 120; 5:18, 51, 64, 82; 9:30; cf. also 22:17, etc.), and once the singular appears — in an assertion that Abraham was not a Jew ( q 3:67). Although the origins and the rituals of the Jewish groups in Muḥammad's milieu are not well attested, the qurʾānic evidence, as well as other sources (such as ḥadīth and the sīra; see ḥadīth and the qurʾān; sīra and the qurʾān), point to the presence of Jewish communities in seventh century Arabia. (The qurʾānic identification of the individual who, in q 20:85-95, prompts the Israelites to create the calf of gold [q.v.] as al-Sāmirī may also indicate some familiarity with Samaritans [q.v.]). “Christians” (al- naṣārā and other phrases; cf. McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, esp. 1-5 and 94-128) also appear a number of times in the Qurʾān ( q 2:62, 111, 113, 120, 135, 140; 5:14, 18, 51, 69, 82; 9:30; 22:17) — with only one occurrence in the singular (naṣrāniyyan), again in a denial of Abraham's being one ( q 3:67). But, unlike ¶ the frequent qurʾānic condemnation of “ Jews,” “ Christians” are sometimes commended ( q 5:82: “The nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians’”; see also q 24:37-8). As is the case with the Jews, there is more speculation than knowledge about the exact nature of the Christianity present in seventh century Arabia, but the Qurʾān and other, contemporary sources attest to a Christian presence in the peninsula — although the depth of their penetration is not known (cf. Shahid [Byzantium and the Arabs] and Griffith [Gospel] for varying opinions on the extent of the “Arabic” nature of pre-Islamic Christianity in the Arabian peninsula; Hoyland maintains that although “in the fourth to sixth centuries Christianity made major inroads into Arabia… it was particularly the inhabitants of north Arabia who were won over to Christianity in large numbers”; cf. Hoyland, Arabia, 146-59, esp. 147). Unfortunately — reflecting the paucity of information available for pre-Islamic Arabia — many recent works on Arabia or the Arabs do not explore the religious situation of the inhabitants of the peninsula in depth (cf. Retsö, The Arabs). Apart from epigraphic sources, which are currently inaccessible to many western researchers, there is little historical attestation of the Arabian peninsula other than the Islamic annals — which were composed, at the earliest, in the second or third Islamic century. The following is an outline of the state of current knowledge on the subject (see also epigraphy of the qurʾān; pre-islamic arabia and the qurʾān; south arabia, religion in pre-islamic).

There appears to have been a Jewish presence in the Arabian peninsula since the first century c.e. In the sixth century there was even a south Arabian Jewish “kingdom” of Ḥimyar that flourished for a brief period of time (for details see ¶ Hoyland, Arabia, 49-57; 146-7; Lecker, Conversion, 129-36). Thus, it is not surprising to learn that there were a number of presumably Arabic-speaking Jewish tribes in Medina (q.v.) and its surroundings during Muḥammad's lifetime. These Jewish tribes figure prominently in Muḥammad's struggle for the establishment of a political entity in Medina after his emigration (q.v.; hijra) from Mecca (q.v.), and various qurʾānic verses are traditionally associated with the different stages of this early “Muslim-Jewish” conflict (see Schöller, Exegetisches). For example, the biographers of Muḥammad associate the revelation of q 3:12 f., which alludes to the Muslim victory at Badr (q.v.) as a warning for the disbelievers, and q 5:51-6, which urges the believers not to take Jews and Christians as friends (cf. Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 388, 545-6; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 260, 363; see friends and friendship), with the confrontation and expulsion of the tribe of Qaynuqāʿ (see occasions of revelation). Also, q 59:2-15 (cf. Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 654; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 438) has been connected to the expulsion of the tribe of Naḍīr; and q 33:26 f. (cf. Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 693; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 468) to the extermination of the males [who participated in battle against the Muslims] from the tribe of Qurayẓa (see naḍīr; qurayẓa; qaynuqāʿ for further discussion of the classical Islamic interpretation of these verses).

Although the Christian presence was less localized and less cohesive than the Jewish one, there is ample attestation of Christian communities in pre-Islamic south Arabia. The precise nature, however, of their liturgy, or even their beliefs, is not known (for two different perspectives in modern scholarship on the nature and extent of the spread of Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia, see the above-mentioned works of Shahid and Griffith on this topic). After ¶ the Christological controversies in the early/middle fifth century c.e., the eastern Christians were divided into three groups: those who adhered to the pronouncements of the Council of Chalcedon (451 c.e.; i.e. that in the one person and hypostasis of Christ was a fully human nature and a fully divine one); and two non-Chalcedonian groups, ordinarily known as the Nestorians and Monophysites. Each of these groups existed in south Arabia prior to Muḥammad's lifetime, but the Monophysites, with their connection to Abyssinia, were the politically dominant (cf. the story of the Christian city of Najrān and its famous martyrs). The Persian Nestorians also had a fairly visible role (see below, under “Najrān” in Episodes). In addition to the explicit mentions of “Christians” or Christian doctrines that appear in the Qurʾān, certain verses are understood to be allusions to Muḥammad's (or his followers') encounters with specific Christian groups (see below under Episodes).

Like the Jews, the Christians are included in such categories as “ Children of Israel” and “ People of the Book.” But, rather than a literal translation of the Greek term “Christian” (i.e. the Ar. masīḥiyya), the qurʾānic Christians are termed al- naṣāra, most likely in reference to the nisba of Jesus (q.v.), i.e. the “Nazarene” (for discussion of the possible significations of this term, see McAuliffe, Qurʾānic, 93-128). This term, one that appears to be unique to the Qurʾān, as well as the qurʾānic descriptions of their beliefs, has led to some speculation about the exact nature of the Christians in the qurʾānic milieu: were they (an otherwise-unattested) Jewish-Christian sect (i.e. pace S. Pines, Notes; cf. id., Jewish Christians; id., Gospel quotations; but, for an argument against any Muslim awareness of “Jewish-Christians,” cf. S.M. Stern, New light; cf. also id., Quotations)? Besides the lack of external evidence for the presence of ¶ “Jewish Christians” in the qurʾānic milieu, the polemical intent of the Qurʾān must be considered when reading the passages that allude to other monotheists. If the Prophet's qurʾānic preaching assumes a knowledge on the part of its audience of the phenomena of which it speaks, it would have the liberty to exaggerate and distort — even “name-call” — in its efforts to persuade its own listeners (i.e. once it became clear that the Jews and Christians would refuse to accept Muḥammad as a prophet in the path of Abraham, Moses [q.v.] and Jesus). In this context, the change of both the qibla (q.v.), or direction of prayer, as well as the parameters for fasting (q.v.) have been cited as evidence of the concrete measures that were taken to distance the qurʾānic adherents from the “ People of the Book” (cf. Katz, Body of text, for discussion of the historical arguments for permissible mingling, or mandatory separation, of the communities due to arguments of ritual cleanliness; see cleanliness and ablution; ritual purity). Thus, the abbreviated references to “Christian” or “Jewish” doctrines need not be taken as unambiguous and accurate attestation of the specific tenets (or practices) of these communities, although the qurʾānic indications of Jewish and Christian arguments over Abraham and the Sabbath (q.v.) may well be reflective of such disputes in Muḥammad's milieu. A further indication of the close contact of the first Muslim community with Jews and Christians is found in the early ḥadīth and sīra accounts. The format of the argumentation for Muḥammad's prophethood closely parallels that present in Talmudic and Christian prophetology. Additionally, such discussions often cite Christian and/or Jewish texts as supporting Muḥammad's prophethood (in this regard one may note, respectively, the discussions of Muḥammad as “Aḥmad,” understood by Muslim commentators to be the Johannine Paraclete and as the “ ummī” [q.v.] — or gentile [i.e. goy] — prophet; see McAuliffe, Qurʾānic context; see also illiteracy).¶ The commentaries on the Qurʾān (which probably emerge as separate works at a slightly later date than the sīra and ḥadīth) incorporate these arguments, continuing the trend of inter-communal dependence (for further discussion of the chronology of the early Islamic literature, see Rubin, Eye, chaps. 1 and 14).

Magians, Sabians and ḥunafāʾ

A hapax legomenon, the “ Majūs” (commonly understood to be Zoroastrians) are added to the list of qurʾānic “ Peoples of the Book” in the late Medinan q 22:17. The commentators, however, ordinarily stress the distinctions among all of the groups mentioned in this verse. Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), for example, cites Qatāda in glossing al-majūs as those who worship the sun, the moon and fire (Jāmiʿ, ad loc.).

Whether they are to be considered as “People of the Book” was a debated issue in Islamic law, but, traditionally, the Zoroastrians have been accorded the status of dhimma (protected religious minority) in Islamic states. Originally an ancient Iranian priestly class (closely associated with the ruling elite in Sasanid Persia), in the Qurʾān and later Arabic sources, the term majūs primarily connotes Zoroastrians, the public cult of which involved fire ceremonies, animal sacrifices and liturgical recitations. Manichaeism, Buddhism and conversion to Christianity all contributed to the erosion of the position of the Zoroastrians within Persian areas during Sasanian times; during Muḥammad's lifetime, descendants of Persian soldiers in the Yemen were converted to Islam; in Iraq, units of the Sasanian army converted to Islam; and, by 101/720, the Majūs in al-Ḥīra were ¶ Muslims (Morony, Madjūs, 1111). At the fall of Sasanian Persia to the Muslims in 30/651, the Magians were accorded the status of dhimma so long as they paid the poll tax or jizya (for further discussion, see Morony, Madjūs).

The Sabians appear in three qurʾānic verses ( q 2:62; 5:69; 22:17), always in conjunction with “believers” (allādhīna āmanū, frequently glossed by Muslim commentators as those who believe ‘in the Qurʾān’), Jews and Christians, and once with Magians, as well. Not to be confused with the Sabaeans (i.e. the inhabitants of Sheba [q.v.]), it is not clear exactly which group the Qurʾān intends by this designation (see the ei 2 articles Ṣābiʾ and Ṣābiʾa for the differing opinions of DeBlois and Bosworth as to their identity). Mandaeans and Elchasaites (an ancient Jewish Christian sect that persisted in southern Iraq), as well as Manichaeans, have been proposed (see DeBlois, Ṣābiʾ). It is apparent, however, that they are considered a group separate from the Jews, Christians, polytheists and Zoroastrians (i.e. Magians) and that they were distinct or visible enough to warrant qurʾānic mention. In any event, the qurʾānic Sabians should not be equated with the polytheists in Ḥarrān who adopted the term “Sabian” to designate themselves in the third/ninth century in order to obtain the status of dhimma within the Islamic state (DeBlois, Ṣābiʾ; see also Watt, Ḥanīf, for a discussion of the claims of these Harranian Hellenized pagans to the qurʾānic monotheistic designation of ḥanīf; for further discussion of the exegetical identification of the qurʾānic Sabians, see McAuliffe, Exegetical identification).

As mentioned above, for the Qurʾān Abraham is the prime example of a ḥanīf, or true monotheistic believer — and neither a Jew nor a Christian. Never mentioned in the qurʾānic listings of religious groups (e.g. q 5:69; 22:17), it has been suggested that ḥanīf is a term used specifically by Arabian monotheists who had rejected the idolatrous religion of their families, although it was also used by polytheists who only observed some rites of their religion.¶ Muslim sources indicate that there was a pre-Islamic monotheistic cult or religion of Abraham in Arabia, members of which appeared even to inhabit Muḥammad's milieu (i.e. his wife Khadīja's [q.v.] relative Waraqa b. Nawfal; cf. Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 143-9; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 98-103; see informants for a critique of the traditional Muslim account of the monotheists in Muḥammad's milieu). The Sīra of Ibn Isḥāq (d. ca. 150/767), for example, describes the ḥanīf as turning away from the idolatry of their parents, adopting the religion of Abraham, but not necessarily becoming Muslims (i.e. Zayd b. ʿAmr: Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 144-7; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 99-101; cf. Wansbrough, Sectarian milieu, 4-7; Rubin, Eye, 47-8). Regardless of the status of the ḥanīf in pre-Islamic times, the qurʾānic identification of ḥanīfs with true believers, but not necessarily Muslims, is continued in later Islamic history (although, unlike Jews, Christians, Sabians and Magians, the Qurʾān does indicate that a ḥanīf can be identical with a Muslim — in connection with Abraham, cf. q 3:67). While the qurʾānic Magians and Sabians are not ḥanīfs, in the post-qurʾānic period a group who termed themselves Sabians also appears to have claimed the designation of ḥanīf (see Watt, Ḥanīf). In short, it is not obvious whether — or if ever — the ḥunafāʾ were considered by their contemporaries to be an identifiable religious group.

Polytheists and idolaters

Traditional discussions of the Meccan milieu in which Muḥammad was born identify the majority of Meccans as neither Jews nor Christians, but as practitioners of ¶ traditional tribal cultic practices. In the Qurʾān, these individuals are termed mushrikūn (lit. “associators”), and there are also allusions to people who worship idols ( aṣnām; see idols and images; idolatry and idolaters). Whatever their religious orientation, the mushrikūn are the Meccans who did not acknowledge Muḥammad as a prophet sent from God, or accept his claim that there is only one true God. As presented in traditional Muslim sources, the reasons for their denial of Muḥammad's prophethood fluctuate between their desire to maintain control of the polytheistic sanctuary at Mecca and their jealous protection of the social status that they had attained through the lucrative caravan (q.v.) trade. In one reading of the reasons for the rise of Islam, Muḥammad preached a message that appealed to people who were becoming marginalized within a society of increasing wealth and of sharp disparities between the rich and the poor. Further, the wealthy Meccans feared that the “radical” social component of Muḥammad's message would weaken their hold on the economy of the city, and that his deposing of the gods would disrupt the profitable pilgrimage (q.v.) to the Kaʿba (q.v.). In this version of early Islamic history, Muḥammad eventually appropriated the mechanism established by the Meccan traders, facilitating the spread of Islam (cf. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca; for a revisionist reading of the rise of Islam, see Crone, Meccan trade, where it is argued that rather than Meccan trading interests, local Arab tribal concerns prompted the rise and spread of Islam).

Although it is not clear to what extent, in the qurʾānic purview, Jews, and particularly Christians, might fall in the category of “associators,” later Muslim exegetes have often placed Christians and Jews, despite their status as “ People of the Book,” in this category. The polemical writings of John ¶ of Damascus (d. 135/753) attest that within the first Islamic century, Christians were termed “associators” by the Muslims (although John's Greek text uses the term Saracenes, and not Muslims; cf. his De haeresibus, chap. 100-1 in Sahas, John of Damascus; for further and more recent discussion of early non-Muslim perceptions of Islam, the Qurʾān and Muḥammad see Hoyland, Earliest Christian writings on Muḥammad).

In general, it may be said that, despite the qurʾānic distinction between “ Peoples of the Book” and those who have no book — the Arabian “idolaters” or “polytheists” — as well as the distinctions made between the Jews and Christians, in both the Qurʾān and later exegesis, those who would deny Muḥammad and the Qurʾān — be they associators, Christians or Jews — are viewed as falling within the general rubric of “disbelief” or “ingratitude,” i.e. kufr. q 2:105 and 98:1 are often cited in this context, as well as q 9:31, which accuses Christians of taking their religious leaders and Jesus as “lords” — in place of the one, true lord: i.e. God (cf. Hawting, Idea of idolatry, 49-50 for a fuller discussion of this concept). That being said, however, there is no one formula for the ways in which Muslims interacted with, or categorized, non-Muslims — either in the Qurʾān or later in Islamic history. Pragmatic, as well as doctrinal, concerns affected the treatment of those who were not Muslims. For example, despite the traditional understanding of the so-called Sword Verses ( q 9:5 and 9:29), which exhort the conversion to Islam of “associators” and the “tolerance” of People of the Book, in India, Hindus — not one of the qurʾānic Peoples of the Book — were allowed to practice their religion as long as they paid the poll tax ( jizya; for more on this topic, see below under “Guidance for Muslim behavior”; see also tolerance ¶ and compulsion ; politics and the qurʾān).

Qurʾānic indications of interreligious interactions

Episodes

In addition to the above-mentioned political conflicts with the Jewish tribes of Medina, there are a number of qurʾānic indications of early interactions with non-Muslims of a specifically religious nature. All of these interactions occur with Christians, specifically with Monophysite Christians. In addition to the allusions to the “ Byzantines” (q.v.; al-Rūm, i.e. q 30:2 — albeit in a military context), Muslim commentators have traditionally understood certain qurʾānic passages to refer to two particular Christian polities: Abyssinia (q.v.) and Najrān (q.v.). According to the traditional Muslim sources, Muḥammad and the nascent Muslim community had political and theological exchanges with both, as will be seen below. But first a discussion of Muslim claims that individual Christians attested to the truth of Islam is in order.

Although not mentioned in the Qurʾān, later Islamic sources claim that Muḥammad had personal encounters with Christian monks who, in the Muslim reports, recognized the “signs of prophecy” on the Prophet (cf. Rubin, Eye, 48, for some instances of Companions meeting Christian scholars and hermits in pre-Islamic times, who knew of Muḥammad's impending mission through their own knowledge of their scriptures; see companions of the prophet). Christian sources also describe encounters with Christian monks but in these accounts, the Christian acts as Muḥammad's informant about divine revelation. Interestingly, although frequently this monastic informant is termed a ‘Nestorian,’ the denomination of the informant does vary, ¶ depending upon the community in which the account is relayed. For example, it is likely that the accounts of the Nestorian Sargis- Baḥīrā circulated in a Syrian Jacobite (i.e. “monophysite”) milieu (cf. Griffith, Syriac writers, 48; see also Abel, Baḥīrā, for instances of Jacobite, Arian and iconoclast informants; see also iconoclasm). The most common figure in both the Christian and Muslim accounts is the monk Baḥīrā (for discussion of this figure see Roggema, Christian reading; id., Legend). There are also accounts of a Jewish scribe of Muḥammad who, again, depending on the vantage point of the relater, either instructs Muḥammad in the Jewish faith, or confirms Muḥammad's prophethood (for details, see Gilliot, Informants). Finally, members of the family of Muḥammad's first wife, Khadīja, appear to have been Christian (or at least monotheists in the tradition of Abraham), and to have confirmed his claims to prophesy.

In addition to these non-qurʾānic assertions of independent (primarily Christian) attestation to the truth of Muḥammad's mission, there are traditions about two face-to-face encounters between the nascent Muslim community and Christians and consequent discussions concerning the nature of Jesus, the son of Mary (q.v.), traditions that invoke qurʾānic verses in support of the ‘historicity’ of these meetings.

Abyssinia

An ancient Monophysite Christian kingdom that had ruled part of southern Arabia in the sixth century (see abraha), Abyssinia was also the destination of the first emigration (q.v.) out of Mecca (ca. 615 c.e.) of a small group of Muḥammad's followers. Due to the persecution by the Meccan pagans, Muḥammad encouraged some of the Muslims to leave and to go to Abyssinia (Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, 208; Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 146; cf. Watt, ¶ Muhammad at Mecca, 112-7). The Negus (al- najāshī, i.e. the Abyssinian ruler) is said to have granted them refuge, after asking about their knowledge of Jesus, the son of Mary (cf. Wansbrough, qs, 38-43, for one interpretation of the later Islamic tradition on the welcome accorded the Muslims refugees). q 19:16-21 was revealed just prior to this emigration, and it is this passage that is traditionally considered to have constituted the emigrants' response to the Negus' questioning: “Mention in the book Mary when she withdrew from her family to an eastern place. She placed a ḥijāb [to screen herself; see veil ] from them, and we sent her our spirit (q.v.) who appeared to her as a man, complete. She said: ‘I seek refuge in the merciful from you — if you fear God.’ He said: ‘I am only a messenger of your lord [to tell] you of the gift of a holy son.’ She said: ‘How can I have a son since no man has touched me and I am not unchaste (see chastity)?’ He said: ‘Like this. Your lord says…’” Although most of these first emigrants did not stay in Abyssinia, but returned to Mecca or left for Medina, this memory of Abyssinia and its Christians remained enshrined in later Muslim consciousness.

Najrān

Another early Muslim-Christian encounter, but one of a slightly different nature, concerns a delegation from the Christian martyropolis of Najrān (q.v.; not named in the Qurʾān, but probably alluded to in q 34:18, 85:10 and also possibly in q 85:4-9, although Shahid disputes this last claim; see najrān) sent to Muḥammad in Medina, after the Muslim conquest of south Arabia. Although some sources indicate that this mission had a theological purpose, namely to understand the Muslim position on the nature of Jesus (i.e. Ṭabarī, Tafsīr; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, ad q 3:61), the delegation to Muḥammad seems to have ¶ been prompted by the political exigency of determining the conditions of Christian life under the new Muslim rulers. q 3:61 is believed to have been revealed in response to the challenge posed by the Christians, a challenge in which the parties of the dispute would present their case, pray and invoke the curse (q.v.) of God upon the liars. The delegation from Najrān, however, withdrew from the contest, averting the mutual adjuration ( mubāhala; see oaths). Muḥammad did, however, conclude a treaty with them (the first between the Muslim state and an independent Christian entity), in which they were assured of their freedom of worship in exchange for the payment of the annual tribute (see poll tax; taxation).

The theological orientation of these Najrān Christians is not clear; although traditionally a center of Monophysite Christianity (Shahid, Nadjrān), some of the Nestorian missionaries who followed the trade routes to India settled in the area of the Persian Gulf and south Arabia (Holmberg, Nasṭūriyyūn, 1030). Additionally, the Persian conquest of south Arabia in 597 c.e. may have witnessed an increased Nestorian presence in the area (further to this see Shahid, Nadjrān; Pellat, Ḳuss b. Sāʿida al-Iyādī; Holmberg, Nasṭūriyyūn).

Although contact with Jews appears to have been of a shorter duration (i.e. concentrated in the late Meccan and early Medinan periods), it was much more problematic for the early Muslim community, as it had negative political ramifications when the Jewish tribes of Medina allied themselves with Muḥammad's Meccan opponents in an attempt to undermine his leadership in Medina. The increasingly harsh measures taken against these Jewish tribes — successive expulsions of two of the major tribes in 624 and 625 c.e., culminating in the massacre of the men and ¶ enslavement of the women and children of Banū Qurayẓa in 627 c.e. — appears to have precluded any conciliatory contact (along the lines of that with the Christians) between the early Muslims and Jews. Nevertheless, the picture of early Jewish-Muslim contacts is not entirely bleak: there are accounts, for example, of Jewish converts to Islam — at least one of Muḥammad's Companions, and probably one of his wives, were Jews (see qurayẓa). Finally, it should be noted that there are no attestations of Muḥammad's coming into contact himself with either the “Majūs” or the “Ṣābiʾūn.”

But the qurʾānic discourse concerning non-Muslims is not limited to those incidents in which, according to the traditional interpretations, Muḥammad or the Muslims actually had political and theological discussions with individuals who did not accept the qurʾānic message. In fact, the majority of allusions to the People of the Book or Children of Israel (which references are more numerous than those to Jews or Christians) are understood to be assertions about what these people believe — or how they have gone astray (q.v.) from God's divinely revealed message (see revelation and inspiration) — independent of any precipitating interaction with a Jew or Christian. And this rhetoric has generated a great deal of commentary on the part of Muslim exegetes and, later, spurred the composition of many apologetic treatises by those Christians and Jews living in Islamic lands.

Rhetoric: polemic and apologetic Besides the Arabian “associators,” the Jews and the Christians are clearly the two religious communities with whom Muḥammad and the Qurʾān had the most experience (although it should be emphasized that, aside from the Jewish tribes of Medina and the Christian delegation from ¶ Najrān, Muḥammad seems not to have had contact with any Jewish or Christian community per se, but rather only with individual Jews and Christians). Once the qurʾānic proclamation of an exclusively monotheistic religion is put forth, the mushrikūn are seen as unbelievers who need to be brought to the true faith. Concerning the Jews and Christians, with whom the Qurʾān shares a common scriptural heritage, there is a much more ambivalent depiction. In short, it appears that the qurʾānic attitudes towards these groups fluctuate in accordance with the political situation of Muḥammad and the Muslim community, as well as with regard to these groups' acceptance or rejection of the message that Muḥammad proclaimed. The following provides just a few examples of the qurʾānic rhetoric about, and in response to, Jews and Christians (see also polemic and polemical language).

Polemic

Although the initial and most virulent thrust appears aimed at the Jews, the boundary between anti-Jewish and anti-Christian polemic is quickly blurred. Aside from a few positive statements about Christians that are in marked contrast to those about Jews (i.e. q 5:82), what seems to be a defense of Jesus against Jewish slander (their non-acceptance of his prophetic status; his crucifixion; and the calumny against Mary) is also a chastisement of Christians for “exaggerating” in their religion, particularly as regards the Incarnation and the Trinity. In a passage whose exact meaning varies depending upon its grammatical analysis, Christians are also accused of “inventing monasticism” ( q 57:27). Additionally, there is the rather enigmatic polemical accusation that Jews have taken Ezra (q.v.) as a son of God ( q 9:30). Although the polemic against the ¶ Christians is less pervasive and somewhat less virulent than that against the Jews, in the final analysis, Jews and Christians are considered allies of one another — and are not to be taken as friends by the believers ( q 5:51).

Apologetic

In addition to the negative remarks about Judaism and Christianity mentioned above, the Qurʾān also contains positive assertions about its own message and the prophethood of Muḥammad, assertions that seem to be a clear response to Jewish or Christian challenges (for this theme, see Gaudeul, Encounters, i, 12-19). To the Jewish challenge that racially Muḥammad could not be a prophet (there are no prophets outside of Israel), the Qurʾān responds that Abraham was not a Jew, but was a believer, a Muslim, a ḥanīf ( q 3:67). The argument that Muḥammad's teachings do not conform to the Bible (see scripture and the qurʾān) is also turned against the Jews, for they have broken God's covenant (q.v.; cf. e.g. q 2:27, 63-4), falsified their scriptures (cf. e.g. q 2:77-9; see revision and alteration), and rejected his prophets, among them Moses and Jesus (e.g. q 2:67 f., 87 f.; see also disobedience ; cf. q 2:65). There are also self-conscious rejections of Jewish practices: i.e. the change of the qibla from Jerusalem (q.v.) towards Mecca ( q 2:142), as well as the reduction of the fasting of ʿĀshūrāʾ (cf. q 2:183-5; see Goitein, Ramadan; see also ramaḍān). The response to the Christians focuses mainly on Trinitarian or Christological themes (i.e. q 5:73, do not say God is a third of three, thālithu thalāthatin; cf. Griffith, Syriacisms, for an argument that this is an Arabicized rendition of a Syriac word that, in the new linguistic medium, loses its original sense — i.e. the Syriac epithet thlīthāyâ, a title of Christ), but there are some assertions of what could be read as Christian-¶ Muslim collaboration or complicity (i.e. q 61:6, wherein Jesus foretells a prophet called ‘Aḥmad’). See also apologetics .

Responses

The early ʿAbbāsid period (i.e. 132-441/750-1050) saw a particularly rich production of Muslim and Christian polemic. Intent on disabusing Muslims of the image conveyed in the Qurʾān, and encouraged by an atmosphere of perhaps unparalleled interreligious communication, Christians (and Jews) wrote a number of treatises in defense of their faith. For their part, Muslims went beyond the qurʾānic claims and demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the various religious communities of their own day — even down to the confessional divisions among the Christians (e.g. ʿAbd al-Jabbār's Tathbīt dalāʾil al-nubuwwa; for a survey of the Islamic sources, see Thomas, Anti-Christian polemic, 31-50; Griffith, The monk in the emir's majlis, presents an overview of the earliest such Christian apologetics; see also Ibn Kammūna [d. 683/1284-5], Tanqīḥ al-abḥāth lil-milal al-thalāth, for an example of early Jewish apologetics).

Additional attestation of interest in, and intimate knowledge of, Jewish and Christian literature is demonstrated by the familiarity of Muslim authors with extra-canonical Jewish and Christian lore that is evidenced in the genre of Islamic literature known as Isrāʾīliyyāt, much of which is incorporated in the post-qurʾānic “stories of the prophets” (see McAuliffe, Assessing). The development of both Islamic dialectical theology ( kalām) and Islamic mysticism, which flourished in the early ʿAbbāsid period, may also trace its roots to the interactions with the Christians in the conquered lands, especially those living on the frontier between Byzantium and Persia (see ṣūfism and the qurʾān; theology and the qurʾān).

¶ Although the early debates over the createdness of the Qurʾān (q.v.; see also inimitability) and the Muslim literature on “proofs of prophethood” (e.g. ʿAbd al-Jabbār's Tathbīt) may plausibly have arisen in a religiously pluralistic environment in which Christians, in particular, took part (cf. e.g. Thomas, Christians at the heart of Islamic rule; id., Anti-Christian polemic in early Islam; id., Early Muslim polemic against Christianity), the classical Islamic response to religious pluralism is perhaps best seen in the development of the sectarian and heresiographical genre ( ʿilm al-firaq and al- milal wa-l-niḥal). Representative works of this genre include ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī's (d. 429/1037) al-Farq bayna l-firaq, Ibn Ḥazm's (456/1064) al-Fiṣal fī l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-l-niḥal and al-Shahrastānī's (d. 548/1153) Kitāb al-Milal wa-l-niḥal. Such works catalogue and discuss, variously, heterodox versions of Islam, non-Muslim religions and forms of philosophical speculation. Further reflection on Jewish and Christian material is provided by works that consider the relation of earlier scriptures and the qurʾānic revelation. There is a long tradition of Muslim biblical scholarship that spans works of history, exegesis, and heresiography (McAuliffe, Qurʾānic context).

Inferring a qurʾānic attitude toward religious pluralism?

As already indicated, there is no single qurʾānic attitude towards members of other religions. An uninitiated reader of the Qurʾān might have difficulty in discerning the Qurʾān's opinion of a plurality of religions. Commentators found it helpful, therefore, to see the various — even, at times, conflicting — passages dealing with members of other religions as coming in response to certain incidents in Muḥammad's life. But it is equally important to understand how the passages have been ¶ utilized by later interpreters of the Qurʾān as either supporting or condemning the beliefs, practices — even existence — of non-Muslims within the domain of Islam. The following is a brief overview of a selection of modern Muslim attitudes towards the subject, as well as certain qurʾānic passages that have frequently been used by Muslims in discussions about members of other faith communities, followed by a presentation of some possible qurʾānic “guidelines” for Muslim behavior towards non-Muslims in the face of a plurality of religions.

Approbation and denigration

There is no one qurʾānic judgment about religious plurality. On the one hand, there are statements, frequently cited today by prominent religious spokespersons like Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and other advocates of the virtues of the Islamic state (cf. e.g. Qaraḍāwī, al-Aqaliyyāt wa-taṭbīq al- sharīʿa al-islāmiyya), that may be read as an exhortation to tolerance of other religions (cf. Mottahedeh, Toward an Islamic theology of toleration). In this reading, religious plurality is permissible (at least as far as monotheists/ People of the Book are concerned), as long as Muslims dominate the political sphere and the minorities adhere to the rules put forth in the sharīʿa for the proper comportment of non-Muslims. Behind the qurʾānic statements that allow for the existence of other religions is an implicit acknowledgment of the virtues of adherents of other religions, e.g. references to the notion that Christians have helped Muslims, and Jews and Christians have some knowledge of scripture. On the other hand, contemporary extremists such as Usāma b. Lādin, in the tradition of exegetes like Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1966), may cite certain verses (e.g. q 9:5) in support of a rejection of the plurality of religions, and a negative ¶ judgment on non-Muslims. In this reading, there can be no legitimate compromise or collaboration with non-Muslims, or, for that matter, with bad Muslims. Qurʾānic themes such as the eschatological punishment of non-Muslims, their opposition to Muḥammad (q.v.), Islam as the only true religion in God's eyes, Jews and Christians having gone beyond the bounds of their religion — form part of this reading of the qurʾānic denigration of other religions, and a resultant denial of the legitimacy of religious plurality. In the light of these conflicting qurʾānic themes, the question remains: What does the Qurʾān exhort Muslims to do in the face of a plurality of religions?

Guidance for Muslim behavior

While verses such as q 109:6 have been understood to acknowledge the existence of a plurality of religions (“to you your dīn and to me mine”), there have been various interpretations of what this means: it was directed to those of the Quraysh (q.v.) who mocked (al- mustahziʾūn) Muḥammad's monotheism (Muqātil, Tafsīr, iv, 887-8; see satanic verses); it is an affirmation of the distinction between the religion of the Muslim and the mushrik (and not “true” Jews, for Jews worship God; ibid.), it is a disavowal of everything in which the idolaters are involved (Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, ad loc.). Likewise, q 2:256, “there is no compulsion in religion,” thought to have been revealed after the submission of the Arabs (cf. Muqātil, Tafsīr, ad loc., for a discussion of the distinction between the terms of submission for the People of the Book and those who were not such; also Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, ad loc., where reference is to the situation of children of the Helpers who were being raised among the Banū l- Naḍīr at the time of their expulsion; see emigrants and helpers), indicates a qurʾānic acknowledgment that ¶ not everyone will accept the truth of the Qurʾān's message. But this, too, has received a variety of interpretations: Muḥammad did not compel any of the Meccans to accept Islam; the people of the two books and the Magians may pay the jizya and live peaceably in an Islamic state; there is never force against anyone who has paid the jizya (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ad loc.) A survey of Muslim exegesis, however, reveals that there is certainly no glorification of the diversity of religious belief. Rather, it is accepted as an inevitable aspect of human existence. Generally, the exegetes do not interpret the Qurʾān as exhorting a forcible conversion to Islam. But there is also no false irenicism: those who do not heed the qurʾānic message are promised punishment in the afterlife (see reward and punishment). The passages that extol the virtues of peoples of other faith communities are almost universally interpreted with a limited sense, i.e. those commendable individuals are people who did not go beyond the bounds of their religion, or who in some way assisted the Muslims or at least did not harm them. They know their proper place and do not put themselves above Muslims.

Although qurʾānic passages such as q 2:256 (“there is no compulsion in dīn”) or q 109:6 (“to you your dīn and to me mine”) are often cited as prooftexts for an Islamic tolerance of non-Muslims, as noted above, they have been variously interpreted over the course of Islamic history. Further, historical examples like the contrast between medieval Spain's expulsion of Jews and Istanbul's welcoming of them are frequently offered to argue for the benefits to non-Muslims of living in an Islamic polity, past or present (cf. Qaraḍāwī, al-ʿAqaliyyāt). But there are other passages that are not at all ambiguous in their exhortations of Islam as the true religion and their warnings to maintain ¶ a distance from (adherents of) other religions.

q 9:5 and 9:29 are perhaps the most famous or infamous of the qurʾānic verses that prescribe ‘proper’ behavior towards non-Muslims (see McAuliffe, Fakhr al-Dīn). But there are other, less frequently cited, verses that shed light on what may be called the “qurʾānic attitude to non-Muslims.” The following is a sampling of these verses: q 5:3, “I have approved Islam for your religion”; q 30:30, “That is the right religion” (cf. q 30:43; 39:3; 61:9; 98:5); q 30:32, “those who have divided up their religion and become sects”; q 2:193, “fight them until there is no persecution and the religion in God's”; q 24:2, “let no tenderness for them seize you in the matter of God's religion”; q 4:171, “ People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion” (cf. q 5:77); q 40:26, “I fear that he may change your religion.”

Taken as a whole, the Qurʾān does evince a negative judgment on the People of the Book, claiming that they have exaggerated in their religion and even altered their scriptures (see also distortion; forgery; provocation). The Muslims, therefore, should keep their distance and, when necessary, fight them — as well as other non-Muslims. It is the later exegetical literature, however, and the doctrine of abrogation (q.v.), that have formed the lenses through which the Qurʾān is viewed, and which have informed the traditional Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims. For despite the preponderance of qurʾānic passages that allude to the eschatological punishment of non-believers, it is the tendency of later exegetes to place all non-Muslims, even People of the Book, in that category that has encouraged a reading of the Qurʾān that can support an antagonistic attitude towards non-Muslims, and even towards Muslims who are considered not to be ‘true’ Muslims (cf. McAuliffe, ¶ Christians in the Qurʾān, for further discussion of the distinction between qurʾānic pronouncements and the later exegesis thereof).

Conclusion

It is generally established that by the end of the Umayyad period (ca. 132/750) Islam had come to be seen as the “religion of the Arabs.” Emblematic of this association is the famous ḥadīth in which Jews and Christians are banned from the Arabian peninsula (based on the ritual impurity of “associators,” mentioned in q 9:28; cf. Rubin, Jews; cf. Katz, Body of text, for discussion of the “impurity” of the People of the Book), a situation still in evidence today (signs outside of Mecca and Medina prevent non-Muslims from entering the city limits). But whether Muḥammad intended such a situation is difficult to determine. In any event, Christian Arabs after the advent of Islam have experienced an inevitable crisis of identity (as “Arab” came to be all but synonymous with “Muslim,” an identification that appears to have occurred at an early date; cf. the legal ruling in al-Shāfiʿī's Kitāb al-Umm that Christian Arabs are not “People of the Book,” cited in Tritton, Caliphs, 92, and the Christian Arab refusal to pay the jizya on the basis of their being Arabs, cited in ibid, 89) and since the classical period Jewish tribes in Arabia have been all but unknown. In keeping with the qurʾānic injunction found in q 9:29, Christians (and Jews, and, to a lesser extent, Mandaeans and Zoroastrians) have lived in Arabic-speaking areas of the Muslim world as protected (religious) minorities ( dhimma), subject to their own religious authorities in legal cases, at least those that do not involve Muslims. As for their situation in non-Arab lands, there has been a relaxation of the traditional exclusion of polytheists from the status of protected religious minority. For example, in India, ¶ Hindus were extended the protection of the Islamic state in exchange for a payment of the requisite tax, as was noted above. In keeping with the qurʾānic differentiation between Muslims and non-Muslims, and also with the qurʾānic injunctions of tolerance for non-Muslims, these non-Muslims have been allowed to live in Islamic lands, albeit as “second-class” citizens (and, it should be remarked, often subject to Islamic law).

History, however, continues to shape the reception of the Qurʾān and its interpretation. Considering the Crusades, the era of capitulations, colonialism and the more recent establishment of the state of Israel, a long sequence of events which is associated with the aggression of western imperialism, contemporary Muslim exegetes have tended to consider the qurʾānic verses that exhibit a more welcoming or tolerant attitude towards non-Muslims as abrogated by those that contain a harsher judgment of people who will not accept the truth of Islam, particularly when they are living in an Islamic polity.

---

Bibliography

Primary

ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad al-Hamdhānī, Tathbīt dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, ed. ʿA. ʿUthmān, Beirut 1966

Theodore Abū Qurra, La discussion d'Abū Qurra avec les ulémas musulmans devant le calife al-Maʾmūn, [in Arabic] ed. I. Dick, Aleppo 1999

Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Eng. trans. M.M. Khan, The translation of the meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari (Arabic — English), 9 vols., New Delhi [1985]5

Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, ed. Wüstenfeld

Eng. trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume

Ibn al-Kalbī, Hishām b. Muḥammad, The book of idols, trans. (of Kitāb al-Aṣnām) N.A. Faris, Princeton 1952

Ibn Kammūna, Tanqīḥ al-abḥāth lil-milal al-thalāth, Berkeley 1967

trans. M. Perlmann, Ibn Kammūna's examination of the three faiths, Berkeley 1971

Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, ed. Y. al-Bakrī and Sh. al-ʿĀrūrī, Riyadh 1997

Muqātil, Tafsīr

Rāzī, Tafsīr

D.J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam. The “heresy of the Ishmaelites,” Leiden 1972

Ṭabarī, Tafsīr¶

Secondary: I. ʿAbbās, Two hitherto unpublished texts on pre-Islamic religion, in La signification du bas moyen âge dans l'histoire et la culture du monde musulman, Aix-en-Provence 1976, 7-16

A. Abel, Baḥīrā, in ei2, i, 922-3

M. Accad, The Gospels in the Muslim discourse of the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. An exegetical inventorial table (parts 1-4), in Islam and Christian-Muslim relations 14/1-4 (2003), 67-92; 205-20; 337-52

T. Andrae, Les origins de l'Islam et le Christianisme, Paris 1955 (Fr. trans. of his Der Ursprung des Islams und das Christientum, Uppsala 1926)

J. Beaucamp, F. Briquel-Chatonnet and C. Robin, La persécution des chrétiens de Nagrān et la chronologie himyarite, in aram 11-12 (1999-2000), 15-83

R. Bell, Muhammad and previous messengers, in mw 24 (1934), 330-40

id., The origin of Islam in its Christian environment, Edinburgh 1926

H. Birkeland, The Lord guideth. Studies on primitive Islam, Oslo 1956

C.E. Bosworth, Ṣābiʾa, in ei2, viii, 675-9

id., F. Buhl, Milla, in ei2, vii, 61

G.-H. Bousquet, ʿIbādāt, in ei2, iii, 647-8

id., Les grandes pratiques rituelles de l'Islam, Paris 1949

D. Boyarin, A radical Jew. Paul and the politics of identity, Berkeley 1994

id., Sparks of the logos. Essays in rabbinic hermeneutics, Leiden 2003

M.M. Bravmann, The spiritual background of early Islam, Leiden 1972

C. Buck, The identity of the Ṣābiʾūn.

An historical quest, in mw 74 (1984), 172-86

H. Busse, Der Islam und die biblischen Kultstätten, in Der Islam 42 (1966), 113-47

id., Monotheismus und islamische Christologie in der Bauinschrift des Felsendoms in Jerusalem, in Theologische Quartalschrift 161 (1981), 168-78

C. Cahen, Ḏh̲imma, in ei2, ii, 227-31

N. Calder, From midrash to scripture.

The sacrifice of Abraham in early Islamic tradition, in Muséon 101 (1988), 375-402

A. Cameron, The Mediterranean world in late antiquity. a.d. 395-600, London 1993

id. and L.I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East. i. Problems in literary source material, Princeton 1993

J. Choksy, Purity and pollution in Zoroastrianism. Triumph over evil, Austin 1989

L. Conrad, Abraha and Muḥammad.

Some observations apropos of chronology and literary topoi in early Arabic historical tradition, in bsoas 50 (1987), 225-40

P. Crone, Meccan trade and the rise of Islam, Princeton 1987

id. and M. Cook, Hagarism. The making of the Islamic world, Cambridge 1977

P. Crone and M. Hinds, God's caliph. Religious authority in the first centuries of Islam, Cambridge 1986

F.C. DeBlois, Ṣābiʾ, in ei2, viii, 672-5

D.C. Dennett, Conversion and the poll-tax in early Islam, Cambridge 1950

F. Donner, From believers to Muslims.

Confessional self-identity in the early Islamic community, in al-Abhath 50-51 (2002-3), 9-53

repr. in L.I. Conrad (ed.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East. iv. Patterns of communal identity, Princeton (forthcoming)

id., Narratives of Islamic origins. The beginnings of Islamic historical writing, Princeton 1998

R. Drory, The Abbasid construction of the Jahiliyya.

Cultural authority in the making, in si 83 (1996), 33-49

T. Fahd, La vie du prohète Mahomet, Paris 1983

id., Le panthéon de l'Arabie centrale à la veille de l'héjire, Paris 1968

N.A. Faris and H.W. Glidden, The development of the meaning of the koranic ḥanīf, in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 19 (1939), 1-13, esp. 6-9 for pre-Islamic material

A. Fattal, Le statut legal des non-musulmans en pays de l'Islam, Beirut 1958

J. Finkel, Jewish, Christian and Samaritan influences on Arabia, in The Macdonald presentation volume, Princeton 1933, 145-66

R. Firestone, Journeys in holy lands. The evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael legends in Islamic exegesis, Albany 1990

id., The Qurʾān and the Bible. Some modern studies of their relationship, in J.C. Reeves (ed.), Bible and Qurʾān. Essays in scriptural intertextuality, Atlanta, GA 2003, 1-22

Y. Friedmann, Tolerance and coercion in Islam, Cambridge 2003

L. Gardet, Dīn, in ei2, ii, 293-6

J.M. Gaudeul, Encounters and clashes. Islam and Christianity in history, 2 vols., Rome 2000

A. Geiger, Judaism and Islam, repr. New York 1970 (Eng. trans. of Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?)

H.A.R. Gibb, Pre-Islamic monotheism in Arabia, in Harvard theological review 55 (1962), 269-80

M. Gil, The origin of the Jews of Yathrib, in jsai 4 (1984), 203-24

C. Gilliot, Informants, in eq , ii, 512-18

S. Goitein, Ramadan. The Muslim month of fasting, in id., Studies in Islamic history and institutions, Leiden 1966, 90-110

Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, esp. i, 1-39

S.H. Griffith, The Gospel in Arabic.

An inquiry into its appearance in the first ʿAbbāsid century, in Oriens christianus 69 (1985), 126-67

id., The monk in the emir's majlis.

Reflections on a popular genre of Christian literary apologetics in Arabic in the early Islamic period, in H. Lazarus-Yafeh et al. (eds.), The majlis. Interreligious encounters in medieval Islam, Wiesbaden 1999, 13-65

id., Syriac writers on Muslims and the religious challenge of Islam, Mōrān ʿEthō Series 7 (1995), 1-52

id., Syriacisms in the Qurʾān's Arabic diction.

Reflections on the Aramean context of early Islam: Who said ‘Allāh is Third of Three?’ (paper delivered in Budapest, May 2003; forthcoming)

S. Gündüz, The knowledge of life. The origins and early history of the Mandaeans and their relation to the Sabians of the Qurʾān and to the Harranians, Oxford 1994

G. Hawting, The idea of idolatry and the emergence of Islam, Cambridge 1999

id., The significance of the slogan lā ḥukma illā li'llāh…, in bsoas 41 (1978), 453-63

id. and Shareef (eds.), Approaches

B. Heller, The relation of the Aggada to Islamic legends, in mw 24 (1934), 281-6

J.W. Hirschberg, Jüdische und christliche Lehren im vor- und frühislamischen Arabien. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Islams, Krakow 1939

J. Hjärpe, Analyse critique des traditions arabes sur les Sabéens Ḥarraniens, Uppsala 1972

B. Holmberg, Nasṭūriyyūn, in ei2, vii, 1030-3

R. Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs. From the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam, London 2001

id., Earliest Christian writings on Muḥammad, in H. Motzki (ed.), The biography of Muḥammad. The issue of the sources, Leiden 2000

id. (ed.), Muslims and others in early Islamic society, Burlington, VT 2002

id., Sebeos, the Jews and the rise of Islam, in Studies in Muslim-Jewish relations 2 (1996), 89-102

id., Seeing Islam as others saw it, Princeton 1997

T. Izutsu, God and man in the Koran, Tokyo 1964

id., The structure of the ethical terms in the Qurʾān, Tokyo 1959

repr. as Ethico-religious concepts in the Qurʾān, Montreal 2002

Jeffery, For. vocab.

id., Materials

M. Katz, Body of text. The emergence of the Sunni law of ritual purity, Albany 2002

M.J. Kister, Ḥaddithū ʿan banī isrāʾīla wa-lā ḥaraja.

A study of an early tradition, in Israel Oriental studies 2 (1972), 215-39

id., Social and religious concepts of authority in Islam, in jsai 18 (1994), 84-127

id., Studies in jāhiliyya and early Islam, London 1980

M. Lecker, The conversion of Ḥimyar to Judaism and the Jewish Banū Hadl of Medina, in id., Jews and Arabs in pre- and early Islamic Arabia, Aldershot 1998, no. XIII: 129-36

id., Muslims, Jews and pagans. Studies on early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995

id., Wāqidī's account of the status of the Jews of Medina.

A study of a combined report, in jnes 54 (1995), 15-32

D.A. Madigan, Reflections on some current directions in qurʾanic studies, in mw 85 (1995), 345-62

J.D. McAuliffe, Assessing the Isrāʾīliyyāt.

An exegetical conundrum, in S. Leder (ed.), Story-telling in the framework of non-fictional Arabic literature, Wiesbaden 1998, 345-69

id., Christians in the Qurʾān and tafsīr, in J. Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim perceptions of other religions. A historical survey, New York 1999, 105-21

id., Exegetical identification of the Sabiʾun, in mw 72 (1982), 95-106

id., Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī on āyat al-jizyah and āyat al-sayf, in M. Gervers and R.J. Gikhazi (eds.), Conversion and continuity. Indigenous Christian communities in Islamic lands, eighth to eighteenth centuries, Toronto 1990, 104-19

id., Persian exegetical evaluation of the ahl al-kitab, in MW 73 (1983), 87-105

id., Qurʾānic

id., The qurʾānic context of Muslim biblical scholarship, in Islam and Christian-Muslim relations 7 (1996), 141-58

F. Millar, Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus and the origins of Islam, in Journal of Jewish studies 44 (1993), 23-45

A. Moberg (ed. and trans.), Book of the Himyarites, Lund 1924

G. Monnot, Islam et religions, Paris 1986

id., L'histoire des religions en Islam.

Ibn al-Kalbī et Rāzī, in RHR 188 (1975), 23-34¶

M. Morony, Madjūs, in EI2, v, 1110-8

R. Mottahedeh, Toward an Islamic theology of toleration, in T. Lindholm and K. Vogt (eds.), Proceedings of the Seminar on Human Rights and the Modern Application of Islamic Law, Oslo 14-15 February 1992, Copenhagen 1993, 25-36

Y. Nevo, Towards a prehistory of Islam, in jsai 17 (1994), 108-41

J. Nielsen, Contemporary discussions on religious minorities in Muslim countries, in Islam and Christian-Muslim relations 14 (2003), 325-35

H.S. Nyberg, Sassanid Mazdaism according to Muslim sources, in Journal of the Krlama Oriental Institute 39 (1958), 1-63

Ch. Pellat, Ḳuss b. Sāʿida al-Iyādī, in ei2, v, 528-9

S. Pines, Gospel quotations and cognate topics in ʿAbd al-Jabbār's Tathbīt in relation to early Christian and Judaeo-Christian readings and traditions, in jsai 9 (1987), 195-278

id., The Jewish Christians of the early centuries of Christianity according to a new source (Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. vol. ii. no. 13), Jerusalem 1967

id., Notes on Islam and on Arabic Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity, in jsai 4 (1984), 135-52

id., Studies in Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity based on Arabic sources, in jsai 6 (1985), 107-61

Y. al-Qaraḍāwī, al-ʿAqaliyyāt wa-taṭbīq al-sharīʿa al-islāmiyya, in al-Muʾtamar al-thāmin li-Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, 2 vols., Cairo 1977, i, 210-31

J. Retsö, The Arabs in antiquity. Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads, London 2003

A. Rippin, RḤMNN and the ḥanīfs, in W.B. Hallaq and D.P. Little (eds.), Islamic studies presented to Charles J. Adams, Leiden 1991, 153-68

B. Roggema, A Christian reading of the Qurʾān.

The legend of Sergius-Baḥīrā and its use of Qurʾān and sīra, in D. Thomas (ed.), Syrian Christians under Islam. The first thousand years, Leiden 2001, 57-73

id., The legend of Sergius-Baḥīrā.

Some remarks on its origin in the east and its traces in the west, in K. Ciggaar and H. Teule (eds.), East and west in the crusader states. Context — contacts — confrontations. ii. Acta of the Congress held at Hernen castle in May 1997 [Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica, 92], Leuven 1999, 107-23

U. Rubin, Between Bible and Qurʾān. The Children of Israel and the Islamic self-image, Princeton 1999

id., Eye

id., Ḥanīf, in eq , ii, 402-4

id., Jews and Judaism, in eq , iii, 21-34

A.A. Said and M. Sharify-Funk (eds.), Cultural diversity in Islam, New York 2003

R.M. Savory, Relations between the Safavid state and its non-Muslim minorities, in Islam and Christian-Muslim relations 14 (2003), 435-58

M. Schöller, Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie. Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden, Wiesbaden 1998

I. Shahid Byzantium and the Arabs in the fifth century, Washington, DC 1989

id., Byzantium and the Arabs in the fourth century,¶ Washington, DC 1984

id., Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Washington, DC 1995-

id., The martyrs of Najrān, Leuven 1971

id., Nadjrān, in ei2, vii, 871-2

M. Sharon, The birth of Islam in the holy land, in id. (ed.), Pillars of smoke and fire. The holy land in history and thought, Johannesburg 1988, 225-35

J. Smith, An historical and semantic study of the term ‘islām’ as seen in a sequence of Qurʾān commentaries, Missoula, MT 1975

W.R. Smith, The religion of the Semites, New York 1972 (repr.)

M. Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabishcer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen and Juden, Leipzig 1877

S.M. Stern, New light on Judaeo-Christianity? in Encounter 28/5 (May 1967), 53-7

id., Quotations from apocryphal gospels in ʿAbd al-Jabbār, in Journal of theological studies [N.S.] 18 (April 1967), 34-57

D. Thomas, Anti-Christian polemics in early Islam. Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq's ‘Against the Trinity’, Cambridge, UK 1992

id. (ed.), Christians at the heart of Islamic rule. Church life and scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq, Leiden 2003

id. (ed. and trans.), Early Muslim polemic against Christianity. Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq's “Against the Incarnation,” Cambridge 2002

A.S. Tritton, The caliphs and their non-Muslim subjects. A critical study of the Covenant of ʿUmar, London 1970

J. Waardenburg, Towards a periodization of earliest Islam according to its relations with other religions, in R. Peters (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the Union Europeene des Arabisants et Islamisants, Amsterdam 1978, Leiden 1981, 304-26

id., Un débat coranique contre les polytheists, in Ex orbe religionum. Studia Geo Widengren oblata, 2 vols., Leiden 1972, 143-54

Wansbrough, qs

id., The sectarian milieu, London 1978

S. Wasserstrom, Between Muslim and Jew. The problem of symbiosis under early Islam, Princeton 1995

W.M. Watt, Ḥanīf, in ei2, iii, 165-6

id., Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953

id., The Qurʾān and belief in a high God, in Der Islam 55 (1979), 205-11

A. Welch, Allah and other supernatural beings.

The emergence of the qurʾanic doctrine of tawhid, in jaar 47 (Dec. 1979: Thematic issue, Studies in Qurʾan and tafsir), no. 4 S 733-53

Cite this page

Wilde, Clare and McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, “Religious Pluralism and the Qurʾān”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00171>