Обсуждение:Походы и сражения во времена пророка Мухаммада
Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān
Экспедиции и битвы
Поездки проводятся в военных целях, в том числе рейды с целью грабежа и убийства, а также одиночные вооружения вооруженных и / или конных сил, каждая из которых намерена решительно победить. Термин «битва» также может быть использован в переносном смысле и относится к борьбе с ¶114 / 1) своим духовным и психологическим «я», то есть битве против эго, жадности, зависимости и т. Д. Оба смысла имеют отношение к использованию этого словаря в Коране. В Коране есть несколько терминов, которые относятся к актам агрессии, некоторые из которых прямо ссылаются, а другие косвенно - на экспедиции и битвы. Qur'ānic словарь для акта агрессии заключается в следующем: 1) корень f-t-ḥ (засвидетельствованный тридцать восемь раз), который может просто означать «открыть», имеет смысл предоставления победы, избавления. Что касается завоевания (q.v.), то оно появляется только пять раз (q 48: 1, 18, 27, 57:10, 61:13), хотя и здесь ссылка на физическое сражение не ясна; может быть предусмотрена духовная победа. 2) Корень f-t-n имеет отрицательную коннотацию и появляется шестьдесят раз, с рядом значений, которые простираются от пробного до мятежа. В качестве женского существительного, фитны, двенадцать выступлений кажутся уместными, иногда означают преследование (см. Q 2: 191, 193, 217, 8:39), в то время как в других случаях передается идея о мятеже или беспорядке и намекает на гражданские беспорядки. 3) Корень gh-l-b (засвидетельствованный тридцать один раз) означает победить, победить, победить. В контексте экспедиций и сражений он появляется восемь раз; пять раз как несовершенный глагол (yaghlibu), в два раза превосходящий совершенный пассив (ghuliba, q 7: 119; 30: 2) и один раз в качестве вербального существительного (ghalab, q 30: 3). 4) Активное причастие корня gh-w-r, mughīr, т.е. рейдер, появляется только один раз (q 100: 3). 5) Корень gh-z-w появляется как активное причастие, то есть рейдеры, один раз (q 3: 156). 6) Корень ḥ-rb обеспечивает широкую прямую ссылку на войну (qv): она встречается четыре раза в качестве вербального существительного ḥarb, означающего «war» (q 2: 279; 5:64; 8:57; 47: 4); и дважды в третьей словесной форме, как совершенный глагол (Шараба, q 9: 107), «он сражался», и в несовершенном (yuḥāribu, q 5:33). 7) Слова, основанные на корневом j-h-d, появляются сорок раз и имеют смысл борьбы за Бога или усилия (jahd, ¶ означает «самый серьезный», здесь не уместен). Этот последний корень неоднозначен тем, что он не обязательно относится к физическому акту боевых действий. Он появляется в третьей вербальной форме как совершенный глагол джахада, что означает «он боролся / боролся, он стремился» пятнадцать раз. Несовершенство (yu jāhidu) происходит четыре раза. Он появляется семь раз как императив, джахид; как номинальный глагол, джихад (q.v.), означающий борьбу / борьбу за Бога четыре раза; и как активное причастие, муджахид, четыре раза. 8) Корень q-t-l встречается 165 раз по сравнению с боевыми действиями в целом. Как совершенный глагол «он убил» (qatala), он появляется 19 раз; в совершенном пассивном значении «может ли он быть убитым или погибнуть, может ли смерть схватить его» (кутила), семнадцать раз. Как номинальный глагол, относящийся к акту убийства / убийства, он появляется десять раз; как императив (qātil), десять раз; как пассивный глагол (yuqtalu), три раза; и как словесное существительное, означающее «битва, битва» (qitāl), тринадцать раз. Присутствие такого агрессивного словаря кажется подходящим: согласно исламу, Мухаммад, получатель Корана, был одним из многих пророков, призванных Богом бороться за свои убеждения (см. Пророки и пророчества, путь или путь) и фактически занялся оружия в защиту их. Рассказывая нам о сражениях, совершенных пророками, Коран представляет ислам как кульминацию траектории борьбы, через которую эволюционировал монотеизм (см. Политеизм и атеизм). Такие эпизоды qur'ānic свидетельствуют о смысле в жизни, потому что, несмотря на многочисленные и страшные испытания (см. Испытание), Бог прокладывает себе путь, он всегда на стороне тех, кто поступает правильно. Термин maghāzī (от корня gh-z-w), который лучше всего переводит выражение «экспедиции и битвы», не встречается в Коране, хотя производная происходит в q 3: 156. Это важный комментарий об отключении, которое существует между Кораном и традициями (ḥadīth и akhbār, ¶ см. Ḥadīth и qur'ān). Арабская среда, в которую был введен Коран, характеризовалась постоянными рейдами (ghazwā, pl. Maghāzī), благодаря чему одно племя стремилось разграбить собственность другого, с минимальным риском для жизни. Традиции раннего ислама, игнорируя это различие, свободно используют этот термин для обозначения многочисленных экспедиций и сражений, приписываемых Пророку. Действительно, набег стал символизировать каждое достижение Пророка, так что сам жанр литературы, рассказывающий о его экспедициях, обычно перечисляемый после его эмиграции в Медину (хиджра, см. Эмиграцию), называется maghāzī; ярлык сира-махази применяется к литературе, в которой рассказывается о всей жизни Пророка (см. sīra и qur'ān). Мусульмане считают, что Коран был раскрыт по частям с момента, когда Мухаммад был назначен Пророком до самой его смерти. Тем не менее, ахронологический и поэтапный характер коллекции Корана (q.v .; см. Также хронологию и qur'ān) затрудняет размещение своих стихов, особенно тех, которые касаются борьбы, в контексте жизни Пророка. В значительной степени qur'ānic exegesis (tafsīr) представляет собой традицию использования ранних мусульманских общин традиций для внедрения реалий ислама и жизни Пророка в Коран, с тем чтобы сделать интерпретацию, связанную с его учением (см. Экзегезу qur'ān : классический и средневековый). В то же время в махазиской литературе важные отрывки из Корана связаны с походами Пророка, создавая соответствующий материал об обстоятельствах откровения (см. Случаи откровения). Таким образом, сира-магхази и тафсир имеют тенденцию пересекаться, хотя они не всегда подтверждают друг друга. В сборниках Ибн Исхака (d. 150/767, в рецензии Ибн Хишама д. 218/834) и аль-Вакиди (д. 207/823), только два примера литературы сира-махази, сохранившиеся в их ¶ Сегодня все эти события, которые, как представляется, выступают в качестве мнемонического устройства для запоминания отдельных куранических пассажей, представлены в хронологической последовательности, что неизбежно указывает на прогрессирование соответствующих стихов.
В Коране упоминаются многочисленные пророки, чья борьба с идолопоклонством (см. Идолопоклонство и идолопоклонники) и грех были введены в качестве сообщений о поощрении Мухаммада в его затруднительном положении. Ной (q.v.), Авраам (q.v.), Иосиф (q.v.), Лот (q.v.) и т. Д., Возможно, не принимали воинские пропорции Пророка Ислама, но они сражались, тем не менее, за причину монотеизма.
Четыре места, в частности, 17: 4-8, 30: 1-5, 85: 4-9 и 105: 1-5, интерпретируются как относящиеся к заметным историческим событиям, имевшим место до или в течение жизни Мухаммада, ссылки минимальны, и точные случаи трудно определить. Они обеспечивают уверенность Мухаммада в том, что Бог будет стоять рядом с ним. Каждый проход имеет свой собственный набор проблем, которые по-разному разрешаются разными экзегетами, которые могут и не согласны с точным историческим событием, на которое делается ссылка. Это керигма, воплощенная в жизнь рассказом, сотканным вокруг стиха, что имеет значение. Оценка экзегета его собственной религиозной и общественно-политической среды является, таким образом, важным аспектом того, что он привнес в его интерпретацию. Более того, существует значительное религиозное намерение, которое направляет экзегета, когда он формирует свое исполнение: установить Мухаммада как последнего и лучшего из пророков и сделать очевидным чудесную природу или Иджаз Корана, который включает в себя способность пророчествовать ( см. неотвратимость).
Muqātil b. Сулейман (д. 150/767), который, как полагают, изучал экзегезу с евреями и христианами и, следовательно, хорошо информирован о своих традициях, признает в q 17: 4-8 ссылку на три разрушения Иерусалима, которые он приписывает Навуходоносору, Антиоху и Титу, соответственно. По его словам, евреи потеряли свое святилище в Иерусалиме, потому что они убили пророков, а уничтожение Тита Иерусалима было вызвано убийством Иоанна Крестителя (q.v.). Утверждая, что именно мусульмане в конечном итоге восстановили и перестроили сайт, он подчеркивает мусульманское требование к Иерусалиму (Тафсир, ii, 519-23).
Неповторимый характер Корана, отраженный в его способности пророчествовать, обозначается аль-Шабари в его интерпретации q 5:57 как предсказание и оправдание победы Абу Бакра над людьми отступничества (qv; ridda, Ṭabarī, Tafsirr , х, 411-4, цитируется в Кистере, Илла би-Шаккихи, 40), многие из которых были определены своим отказом платить налог на милостыню (заккат, см. милостыню), а не отказом от Бога и его посланника. Однако шиитские экзегеты признали ссылку на битвы Али против тех, кто нарушил свои обеты верности (Шалха и Зубайр), те, кто отклонился от истинной веры (Хаварий, см. Хараджи) и тех, кто был несправедливым (Муавия, cf Кистер, Илла би-ḥaqqihi, 40-1).
Самые известные экспедиции и сражения Пророка были связаны с арабскими немусульманами в Бадре, Удюде, Аль-Хандаке («Траншее»), Муте, Мекке, Лунайне (qv) и Табуке, а также против евреев Кайнука (qv), Naḍīr (qv), Qurayẓa (qv), Khaybar и Fadak. Коранские ссылки на эти события кратки и неясны - и в тексте упоминаются только Бадр, Мекка, Юнайн и Ятриб (или Медина). Тем не менее, широкий консенсус относительно их случаев откровения, который часто означает социально-экономические изменения, отражен в литературе тафсир и махази. Таким образом, считается, что: q 2: 217, который оправдывает боевые действия в течение священных месяцев, был обнаружен после экспедиции в Нахлу (623 г.н.э.), рейд, в котором Мухаммед лично не участвовал (Ибн Исхак-Гийом, 288, Вакиди, Магхази, 18). q 8:41, который устанавливает, что пятая часть добычи (qv) должна быть отведена для Бога и его посланника, близ родственников, сирот (qv), нуждающихся и путников, была открыта после чудесной победы мусульман над более многочисленные курайшиты в Бадре (624 г., Ибн Исхак-Гийом, 321; Вакиди, Магхази, 134); q 16: 127, который, как понимается, запрещает увечье мертвых своего врага, был обнаружен после битвы при Удюде (625 с), где Мухаммад был не только ранен, но и погиб от смерти своего дяди Шамзы (см. ḥamza b .'abd al-muṭṭalib), чье тело искалечено врагом, который вернулся, чтобы отомстить за свое недавнее поражение (Ибн Исхак-Гийом, 387, Вакиди, Магхази, 290). q 59: 6, в котором указывается, что имущество, взятое без силы (fay'), целиком принадлежит Пророку, было обнаружено во время рейда на Бану-Нахир (625 ce), которые сдались без боя, когда Муψаммад осадил их, открыв свой замысел убить его (Ибн Исхак-Гийом, 438; Вакиди, Магхази, 381). Более сложные вопросы, касающиеся стихов от q 33 (Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, «The Clans»), связанные с битвой при аль-Хандаке, кульминацией которой является исполнение Бану Курайны (627 г. с.э.); и от q 9 (Sūrat al-Tawba, «Repentance»), связанные с рейдом на Tabūk (629 c.e.) и отказом от соглашений с многобожниками, более подробно обсуждаются ниже.
Значительный консенсус, который сложился вокруг «экспедиций и битв» Мухаммада, привел к тому, что современные историки, такие как Ватт (Мекка Мухаммада) и Уэлч (Мухаммад, 153), утверждают, что исторический материал о Пророке можно получить из Корана. В то же время историки от Каэтани до Джонса прокомментировали хронологические различия, которые характеризуют экзегетические и биографические традиции (Jones, Chronology, 259). Согласно Кроне, эти традиции - это рассказы, вдохновленные Кораном (торговля Меккой, 204). Саэдина, рассматривая концепцию джихада, несколько иначе выражает дилемму: «... эти экзегеты и юристы отвечали на вопросы ... как личности ... их работы отражают их индивидуальные и независимые рассуждения в попытке сформулировать адекватный ответ на общественно-политические реалии исламского общественного порядка »(« Развитие джихада », 36).
Существуют проблемы: необходимо учитывать двусмысленность терминологии: корневые буквы j-h-d обычно затушевываются как «стремление», но могут означать «сражение»; f-t-ḥ - это не просто «завоевание» и «открытие», но также «решение» и «результат»; и f-t-n обозначает либо «раздутие», либо «неверие». Различные потенциальные глянцы арабских корневых букв в сочетании с существующим отсутствием консенсуса относительно хронологии стихов qur'ānic допускают различные толкования затронутых вопросов. |
Expeditions and Battles
Journeys undertaken for military purposes, including raids for the purpose of plunder and assassination, and single engagements of armed and/or mounted forces, each of which is intent upon decisive victory. The term «battle» may also be used in a figurative sense, and refers to a struggle with ¶114/1) one’s spiritual and psychological self, i.e. a battle against ego, greed, addiction, etc. Both senses are relevant to the use of this vocabulary in the Qurʾān. There are several terms used in the Qurʾān to refer to acts of aggression, some of which make reference directly, and others indirectly, to expeditions and battles. The qurʾānic vocabulary for acts of aggression is as follows: 1) The root f-t-ḥ (attested thirty-eight times), which can simply mean "to open, " has the sense of granting victory, deliverance. With reference to conquest (q.v.), it appears but five times (q 48:1, 18, 27; 57:10; 61:13) though, even here, the reference to a physical battle is not clear; a spiritual victory could be intended. 2) The root f-t-n has a negative connotation and appears sixty times, with a range of meanings that extend from trial to sedition. As the feminine noun, fitna, twelve appearances seem pertinent, sometimes meaning persecution (cf. q 2:191, 193, 217; 8:39), while at other times conveying the idea of sedition or tumult, and insinuating civil strife. 3) The root gh-l-b (attested thirty-one times) means to overcome, to prevail, to conquer. In the context of expeditions and battles it appears eight times; five times as an imperfect verb (yaghlibu), twice as the perfect passive (ghuliba, q 7:119; 30:2), and once as a verbal noun (ghalab, q 30:3). 4) The active participle of the root gh-w-r, mughīr, meaning raider, appears only once (q 100:3). 5) The root gh-z-w appears as an active participle, meaning raiders, once (q 3:156). 6) The root ḥ-r-b provides a broad, direct reference to war (q.v.): It occurs four times as the verbal noun, ḥarb, meaning «war» (q 2:279; 5:64; 8:57; 47:4); and twice in the third verbal form, as a perfect verb (ḥāraba, q 9:107), "he fought, " and in the imperfect (yuḥāribu, q 5:33). 7) Words based on the root j-h-d appear forty times, and have the meaning of struggle for God or endeavor (jahd,¶ meaning "most earnest, " is not relevant here). This last-mentioned root is ambiguous in that it does not necessarily refer to the physical act of fighting. It appears in the third verbal form as the perfect verb jāhada, meaning "he struggled/fought, he strove, " fifteen times. The imperfect (yu jāhidu) occurs four times. It appears seven times as an imperative, jāhid; as a nominal verb, jihād (q.v.), meaning struggle/fight for God, four times; and as an active participle, mujāhid, four times. 8) The root q-t-l occurs 165 times with reference to fighting in general. As the perfect verb, «he killed» (qatala), it appears 19 times; in the perfect passive, meaning «may he be slain or perish, may death seize him» (qutila), seventeen times. As a nominal verb referring to the act of killing/slaying, it appears ten times; as an imperative (qātil), ten times; as the passive verb (yuqtalu), three times; and as a verbal noun meaning «fighting, battle» (qitāl), thirteen times. The presence of such aggressive vocabulary seems appropriate: according to Islam, Muḥammad, the recipient of the Qurʾān, was one of the many prophets encouraged by God to fight for his beliefs (see prophets and prophethood; path or way), and actually took up arms in defense of them. By telling us of battles fought by the prophets, the Qurʾān presents Islam as the climax to a trajectory of struggles through which monotheism (see polytheism and atheism) has evolved. Such qurʾānic episodes provide evidence of meaning in life, for, despite the numerous and terrible trials (see trial) God puts one through, he is always on the side of those who do right. The term maghāzī (from the root gh-z-w), which best translates the phrase "expeditions and battles, " is not found in the Qurʾān, although a derivative occurs in q 3:156. This is a significant comment on the disconnection that exists between the Qurʾān and traditions (ḥadīth and akhbār,¶ see ḥadīth and the qurʾān). The Arab milieu into which the Qurʾān was introduced was characterized by constant raids (ghazwā, pl. maghāzī), whereby one tribe would seek to plunder the property of another, with minimum risk to life. Traditions of early Islam, ignoring this distinction, use the term freely to refer to the numerous expeditions and battles attributed to the Prophet. Indeed, the raid came to symbolize every achievement of the Prophet, so that the very genre of literature which tells of his expeditions, generally enumerated after his emigration to Medina (hijra, see emigration), is entitled maghāzī; the label sīra-maghāzī is applied to literature that tells of the entire life of the Prophet (see sīra and the qurʾān). Muslims believe that the Qurʾān was revealed in portions from the moment Muḥammad was appointed Prophet until his death. Yet, the achronological and piecemeal nature of the collection of the Qurʾān (q.v.; see also chronology and the qurʾān) makes it difficult to place its verses — particularly those dealing with fighting — in the context of the Prophet’s life. To a large extent, qurʾānic exegesis (tafsīr) constitutes the early Muslim community’s use of traditions to introduce the realia of Islam and the life of the Prophet into the Qurʾān, so as to render an interpretation related to his teachings (see exegesis of the qurʾān: classical and medieval). At the same time in maghāzī literature significant passages of the Qurʾān are linked to the campaigns of the Prophet, creating corresponding material on the circumstances of revelation (see occasions of revelation). Thus, sīra-maghāzī and tafsīr tend to overlap, although they do not always corroborate each other. In the compilations of Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767; in the recension of Ibn Hishām d. 218/834) and al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823), the only two examples of sīra-maghāzī literature extant in their ¶ entirety today, these events, which appear to act as a mnemonic device for the recollection of particular qurʾānic passages, are presented in a chronological sequence, inevitably indicating the progression of the verses concerned. In view of this connection between the Qurʾān and traditions, this article will discuss not only the obvious qurʾānic passages which inform of expeditions and battles, but also those passages of the Qurʾān which are associated in the tradition literature with various campaigns. Accordingly, this essay is presented under the following sub-headings: Expeditions and battles of previous prophets; Historical battles; Expeditions and battles foretold; Expeditions and battles of the Prophet; Conclusion.
The Qurʾān mentions numerous prophets whose struggles against idolatry (see idolatry and idolaters) and sin were introduced as messages of encouragement to Muḥammad in his predicament. Noah (q.v.), Abraham (q.v.), Joseph (q.v.), Lot (q.v.), etc., may not have assumed the warrior proportions of the Prophet of Islam, but they battled, nonetheless, for the cause of monotheism. There are a number of obvious references to battle: Samuel (q.v.) appoints Saul (q.v.; Ṭālūt) to lead the Israelites against the giant warrior and king of the Philistines, Goliath (q.v.; Jālūt); and David (q.v.), a youth, brings down the giant with a pebble from his sling (q 2:247-51). David, who becomes poet, prophet and king, is skilled in the making of defensive armor: "We bestowed grace on David… And we made the iron soft for him. Make coats of mail… (q 34:10-1; cf. 21:80). Neither was this the first time the Israelites were commanded to fight: q 5:22-9 is essentially the biblical story of the spies narrated in Numbers 13-4. It tells of how the Israelites refused to ¶ obey Moses' (q.v.) command to capture their «promised land.» As punishment, they were left to wander in the wilderness for forty years (see punishment stories).
Four passages in particular, q 17:4-8, 30:1-5, 85:4-9 and 105:1-5, are interpreted as referring to discernible historical events which occurred before or during the life of Muḥammad, though the references are minimal, and the precise occasions difficult to determine. They provide assurance to Muḥammad that God would stand by him. Each passage has its own set of problems that are resolved variously by different exegetes who may, and do, disagree as to the precise historical event to which reference is being made. It is the kerygma, brought to life by the story woven around the verse, which is relevant. The exegete’s assessment of his own religious and socio-political milieu is thus a crucial aspect of what he brings to his interpretation. Moreover, there is a significant religious intent which guides the exegete as he shapes his rendition: to establish Muḥammad as the last and the best of prophets, and to make evident the miraculous nature or iʿjāz of the Qurʾān, which includes the ability to prophesy (see inimitability). q 17:4-8 states: «And we decreed for the Children of Israel (q.v.)… ‘Twice you shall do mischief (see corruption)….’ When the first of these came to pass, we sent against you our servants given to terrible warfare… but if you revert [to your sins], we shall revert [to our punishments].» In fact, there were several conquests and destructions of Jerusalem and many instances when the Jewish temple was defiled. The exegete chooses that moment of history which would render the message most meaningful; sometimes he even provides an alternative interpretation. Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), who is ¶ believed to have studied exegesis with Jews and Christians and, therefore, to be well informed about their traditions, recognizes in q 17:4-8 a reference to three destructions of Jerusalem, which he attributes to Nebuchadnezar, Antiochus and Titus, respectively. According to him, the Jews had lost their sanctuary in Jerusalem because they murdered the prophets, while Titus' destruction of Jerusalem was brought on by the murder of John the Baptist (q.v.). Asserting that it was the Muslims who eventually reclaimed and rebuilt the site, he emphasizes the Muslim claim to Jerusalem (Tafsīr, ii, 519-23). Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) recognizes two destructions, the first by Sanacharib and the second by Nebuchadnezar. It is through Ismāʿīl al-Suddī (d. 127/745), the Kufan exegete, that al-Ṭabarī learns why Nebuchadnezar had destroyed Jerusalem: John the Baptist, who had warned the Jewish king that he must not marry the woman he desired, had been beheaded. The tale has aroused comment because Nebuchadnezar lived several centuries before John the Baptist. Balʿamī, the Persian translator of al-Ṭabarī, explains the confusion using a kind of typological analysis, pointing out that the Israelites generally named bad kings «Nebuchadnezar» (Busse, Destruction of the Temple, 15). Significant, however, is the inevitable knitting together of the Hebrew Bible with the New Testament within the interpretation of a qurʾānic verse in a fashion that asserts the place of the Qurʾān in the series of God’s revelations. Busse informs us that, according to al-Zamakhsharī (d. 528/1144), q 17:8 refers, however, to a third destruction of Jerusalem (by which he means its capture) which could relate to any of three possibilities, the last of which emphasizes Islam’s claim to Jerusalem. They are: the conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians; Muḥammad’s imposition of the poll tax (q.v.) on the Jews ¶ (of Medina and/or Khaybar); or the defeat of the Jews by a tribe of Arabs — probably a reference to the taking of Jerusalem by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, although ʿUmar neither took the city by force nor wrested it from the Jews (Zamakhsharī, Kashshāf, ii, 650, cited in Busse, Destruction of the Temple, 6). For the Shīʿite commentator ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī (d. 328/939), however, q 17:4-8 is an allegorical reference to the Umayyad persecution of the followers of ʿAlī, which climaxed in the massacre of al- Ḥusayn and his family at Karbalāʾ (Busse, Destruction of the Temple, 16; cf. Qummī, Tafsīr, i, 406). According to El-Cheikh (Sūrat al-Rūm, 364), the exegeses of q 30:1-5 (recognized as al- āyāt al-bayyināt because of their prophetic communication) indicate that the interpretations of these verses were affected by the relations of power between the caliphate and the Rūm (generally understood as Byzantium; see byzantines). Three readings are available, depending upon how the text is vocalized. The recognized version on which the seven reciters (qurrāʾ, see reciters of the qurʾān) were agreed — "the Rūm have been defeated… but they… will soon be victorious, " (ghulibat al-Rūm… sa-yaghlibūn) — is the version accepted by Mujāhid b. Jabr (d. 104/722), Muqātil b. Sulaymān, and al-Ṭabarī. The variant, «the Rūm were victorious [over the Persians]… they will be defeated [by the Muslims]» (ghalabat al-Rūm… sa-yughlabūn), was first asserted by Ibn ʿUmar, the son of ʿUmar al-Khaṭṭāb. A rarer variant was established by al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272), who reads: «the Rūm are victorious… they will conquer [again]» (ghalabat al-Rūm… sa-yaghlibūn). With Mujāhid, Muqātil and al-Ṭabarī, the interpretations are similar: The qurʾānic words predict that, although the Persians defeated the Rūm, they (the Rūm) would soon be victorious over them; the ¶ believers can therefore rejoice in God’s assistance to the People of the Book (q.v.). Muqātil provides a narrative framework for the passage with a tradition going back to ʿIkrima (d. 105/723), the client of Ibn ʿAbbās. Apparently, when the Prophet learned that God would soon grant the Rūm victory over the Persians, Abū Bakr went to the Meccans with the news, and Ubayy b. Khalaf, who was present, called Abū Bakr a liar. According to Muqātil, the news of the prediction that the Rūm would be victorious arrived on the day of Badr (q.v.), in which battle the Muslims defeated the Meccans; news of the actual victory of the Rūm arrived when the Muslims were at Ḥudaybiya (Tafsīr, iii, 403-5). Al-Ṭabarī lists several traditions explaining q 30:1-5. He portrays the Byzantine-Persian wars as a rehearsal for the wars between the Muslims and their Qurayshī opponents (Tafsīr, xxi, 10-4). Al-Qummī's interpretation, on the other hand, motivated by the Persians' rude rejection of the Prophet’s invitation to Islam, maintains that it is the Persians who were victorious over the Rūm, but that they (the Persians) will in turn be defeated by the believers (Tafsīr, ii, 152-3). With the advent of the Crusades, however, the ideological affiliation that linked the Muslims and the Byzantines began to disintegrate. This may account for al-Zamakhsharī's preference for the variant reading — the Rūm were victorious, but soon they will be defeated by the Muslims (Zamakhsharī, Kashshāf, iii, 466-7, cited in El Cheikh, Sūrat al-Rūm, 361). q 85:4-9, "Killed were the makers of the pit of fire (see people of the ditch), of the fuel-fed fire(qutila aṣḥābu l-ukhdūdi l-nāridhāti l-waqūdi)… they ill-treated them (naqamū minhum) for… they believed in God, " is variously explained, including a reference to the mistreatment of Muslims by the pagan Quraysh (q.v.). An alternate ¶ interpretation, however, is provided by Ibn Isḥāq (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 17), who holds that it refers to an expedition led by the Himyarite king of Yemen (q.v.), Dhū Nuwās, against the Christian settlement of Najrān (q.v.). When the latter refused to convert to Judaism, he had them burned. q 105:1-5 is believed to refer to the invasion of Mecca by the troops of Abraha (q.v.) the Abyssinian, an event which Ibn Isḥāq (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 26) asserts took place in the year of the Prophet’s birth (570 c.e.). This conflicts with Muqātil’s dating of Muḥammad’s birth at forty years after the year of the Elephant — a traditional designation for the year of the Abyssinian invasion — and al-Kalbī's view that the Prophet was born fifteen years earlier (Conrad, Abraha, 234-5). The message, however, is that God alone was the savior of the Kaʿba (q.v.), which, as a sanctuary, must be protected from bloodshed. In a sense, the passage anticipates Sūrat al-Fatḥ's (q 48) celebration of the truce of Ḥudaybiya which prevented fighting in Mecca.
The inimitable nature of the Qurʾān, as reflected in its ability to prophesy is indicated by al-Ṭabarī in his interpretation of q 5:57 as a prediction and justification of Abū Bakr’s victory over the people of apostasy (q.v.; ridda, Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, x, 411-4, cited in Kister, Illā bi-ḥaqqihi, 40), many of whom were defined by their refusal to pay the alms tax (zakāt, see almsgiving), rather than by a rejection of God and his messenger. Shīʿīte exegetes, however, recognized a reference to ʿAlī's battles against those who had broken their vows of allegiance (Ṭalḥa and Zubayr), those who had strayed from the true faith (the Khawārij; see kharajīs) and those who were unjust (Muʿāwiya; cf. Kister, Illā bi-ḥaqqihi, 40-1). While there are no clear qurʾānic refer-¶ ences to expeditions and battles in eschatological contexts, the thesis of a nineteenth-century scholar, P. Casanova, (Mohammed) is that the mission of Muḥammad was primarily to warn of the approaching end: that eschatology (q.v.), the subject of the earliest discourse reflected in both the Qurʾān and tradition, had given Islam an urgency and aggressiveness that enabled its several conquests. Indeed, numerous early Meccan passages warn of the approaching hour (zalzalat al-sāʿa) that would spearhead the end of time (q 22:1; cf. 22:7; 33:63; 40:59; 42:16-7; 54:1; see apocalypse; last judgment). q 47:18 claims that the signs of the hour are manifest, while q 21:1 warns that the reckoning is near. That Muḥammad saw himself as the harbinger of the hour is asserted by Abū l-Futūḥ Rāzī (d. 525/ 1131) who cites the tradition: «I am the resurrector (ḥāshir)… and I am the final one…» to explain the epithet «seal of the prophets» (khātam al-nabiyyīn) in q 33:40 (Tafsīr, ix, 162, cited in Arjomand, Islamic apocalypticism, 246). According to tradition, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb claimed that «the Prophet will not die until we conquer the cities [of Rome]…» (Arjomand, Islamic apocalypticism, 246-7). When the apocalypse did not arrive, verses such as q 7:187 and 20:15 were emphasized instead, explaining that exact knowledge of the hour belongs to God alone.
The most well-known expeditions and battles of the Prophet were fought against Arab non-Muslims at Badr, Uḥud, al-Khandaq («the Trench»), Muʾta, Mecca, Ḥunayn (q.v.), and Tabūk, and against the Jews of the Qaynuqāʿ (q.v.), Naḍīr (q.v.), Qurayẓa (q.v.), Khaybar, and Fadak. Qurʾānic references to these events are brief and unclear — and only Badr, Mecca, Ḥunayn and Yathrib (or Medina) are named in the text. Nevertheless, a ¶ broad consensus regarding their occasions of revelation, which often signify socio-economic change, is reflected in tafsīr and maghāzī literature. Thus, it is believed that: q 2:217, which justifies fighting during the sacred months, was revealed after the expedition to Nakhla (623 c.e.), a raid in which Muḥammad did not personally participate (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 288; Wāqidī, Maghāzī, 18). q 8:41, which establishes that one fifth of the booty (q.v.) be set aside for God and his messenger, near relatives, orphans (q.v.), the needy, and the wayfarer, was revealed after the miraculous victory of the Muslims over the more numerous Quraysh at Badr (624 c.e.; Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 321; Wāqidī, Maghāzī, 134); q 16:127, which is understood to forbid the mutilation of the dead of one’s foe, was revealed after the battle of Uḥud (625 c.e.), where Muḥammad was not only injured, but suffered the death of his uncle Ḥamza (see ḥamza b. ʿabd al-muṭṭalib), whose body was mutilated by the enemy who had returned to avenge their recent defeat (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 387; Wāqidī, Maghāzī, 290). q 59:6, which decrees that property taken without force (fayʾ) belongs entirely to the Prophet, was revealed during the raid on the Banū l- Naḍīr (625 c.e.) who surrendered without fighting when Muḥammad besieged them, on discovering their plot to kill him (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 438; Wāqidī, Maghāzī, 381). The more complex issues concerning verses from q 33 (Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, «The Clans») associated with the battle of al-Khandaq, culminating in the execution of the Banū Qurayẓa (627 c.e.); and from q 9 (Sūrat al-Tawba, «Repentance») associated with the raid on Tabūk (629 c.e.) and the repudiation of agreements with the polytheists, are discussed in greater detail below. The expeditions of Muḥammad parallel the trials of many biblical prophets. They communicate to the believer that Muḥam-¶ mad was indeed a prophet like any other, who struggled to maintain God’s laws on earth. The reports that his small forces could overcome large, well-trained battalions of the enemy are understood by believers to indicate that, when he is willing, God will help them accomplish seemingly impossible feats. Probably the most obvious assertion of victory found in the Qurʾān is at q 48 (Sūrat al-Fatḥ, «Victory»): «Truly we have granted you a manifest victory» (q 48:1), understood by both exegetes (Muqātil, Tafsīr, 4:65) and writers of maghāzī, i.e. Ibn Isḥāq (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 505) and al-Wāqidī (Wāqidī, Maghāzī, 614), as a reference to the culmination of hostilities which surfaced when the Prophet asserted his right to make a lesser pilgrimage (ʿumra, see pilgrimage) to the Kaʿba. That the allusion is not to a typical battle fought and won, but rather, to the making of a truce at Ḥudaybiya resulting from the ordained respect for sanctuaries and a considerable self-control, is reflected in q 48:24: «And it is he who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca….» Like many of the battles/victories alluded to in the Qurʾān, this passage may also be understood in a spiritual sense. The vague nature of several qurʾānic statements leaves room for manipulation. Although the opponents of Muḥammad (see opposition to muḥammad) fell into various groups — Jews (yahūd) and Christians (naṣārā, see christians and christianity), as well as polytheists (mushrikūn) — they are often broadly referred to as disbelievers (kāfirūn). Tradition, appreciating the sixth century Arabian context of the Prophet’s life, has generally understood the «disbelievers» to refer to the Meccan Quraysh or polytheistic Arab tribes of the Ḥijāz, and to the Jews of the region, many of whom were settled in Yathrib (or ¶ Medina, q.v.), Khaybar, Fadak, Wādī al-Qurāʾ, and Taymāʾ. Much of Muḥammad’s prophetic career was, thus, one of confrontation with Arab pagans and Jews. This preponderance of aggression against Jews and Arabs is reflected in q 5:82: «You will find the Jews and the polytheists the strongest among men in enmity to the believers…». Moreover, since the Qurʾān does not specify any of the Jewish tribes of which tradition informs us (see jews and judaism), the exegete has a choice of traditions from which to explain the many qurʾānic references to disbelievers and People of the Book. Thus, while Ibn Isḥāq cites q 3:10 and q 5:56 as informing us of Muḥammad’s raid on the Banū Qaynuqāʿ (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 363), and al-Wāqidī, q 8:58 (Maghāzī, 177), al-Kalbī gives the impression that the Banū Qaynuqāʿ did not even exist (Schöller, Sīra and tafsīr, 25): Interestingly, the maghāzī traditions of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr (643—709) also do not inform us of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ (al-Aʿẓamī, Maghāzī). Time, the nature of oral tradition and the biblio-qurʾānic representation of the Jews as a people who repeatedly revoked their covenant (q.v.) with God (Faizer, Comparison, 469), had probably contributed to an exaggeration of the number of conflicts with the Jews. A slightly different account for the conflict with the Jews is given by both Crone and Cook (Hagarism; a hypothesis based on non-Islamic sources) and Wansbrough (Sectarian milieu), who, despite their very different approaches to the tradition of Islam, explain Muḥammad’s religion as the expression of sectarian groups whose break with the community of Jews in Jerusalem resulted in a tradition of conflict with Jews. The raid on the Banū Qurayẓa to which q 33 apparently makes allusion is described vividly in the sīra-maghāzī of Ibn Isḥāq (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 461-9) and al-Wāqidī ¶ (Maghāzī, 496—529), who, significantly, do not substantiate the traditions concerning their execution per se with citations from the Qurʾān. This execution has resulted in a condemnation of the Prophet by modern historians such as W. Muir (Mahomet, 151) and F. Gabrieli (Muhammad, 73). Whereas Lings justifies this punishment as in keeping with Deuteronomy 20:12 (Muhammad, 232), W.N. Arafat rejects their execution as being «diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam» (New light, 106). Kister repudiates Arafat’s claims, protesting that these traditions are narrated in early tafsīr on q 8:55-8 by such as Mujāhid b. Jabr and al-Ṭabarī, and that Muslim jurists, by deriving laws from the incident, have effectively acknowledged it (Massacre, 94-5). Importantly, exegetes do not always agree on the significance of the verses they explain. Thus, al-Kalbī explains q 59:11, not as a reference to the Banū l- Naḍīr alone, as is the usual practice, but to the Banū Qurayẓa as well, against both of whom, he claims, Muḥammad led a single expedition. Furthermore, al-Bayḍāwī (d. ca. 716/1316-7) interprets q 17:8 as referring to the Banū l-Naḍīr and the Banū Qurayẓa who called the Prophet a liar and tried to kill him, at which Muḥammad subdued them and ordered them to pay the poll tax (Tafsīr, i, 534; cited in Busse, Destruction of the Temple, 7). Significantly, Crone, noticing the conflicting nature of the variant traditions, states: «We cannot even tell whether there was an original event: in the case of Muḥammad’s encounter with the Jews there was not» (Meccan trade, 222). Muslims have attempted to understand what the Qurʾān intends by treating its verses as a response to the experiences of the Prophet during his lifetime. Later decrees were believed to override earlier commands (see ). Accordingly, Islamic law establishes that the People of the Book must be tolerated once they pay ¶ the poll tax, despite the fact that the Banū l- Naḍīr were exiled, and the Banū Qurayẓa, executed, because of the later revelation of q 9:29, perhaps revealed during Muḥammad’s final expedition against the Jews, the expedition of Khaybar: "Fight those (Jews of Khaybar)… until they pay the poll tax ʿan yadin, " generally translated as «with willing submission.» While traditions concerning the capture of Khaybar and Fadak tell us that the Prophet permitted the Jews to cultivate the land in exchange for half of their produce (Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume, 515), early treaties drawn by Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21/642) show that yad probably meant property, the poll tax being imposed only on those who owned property (Rubin, Qurʾān and tafsīr, 138-42). This raises the issue of Islam’s aggression against the non-monotheist. Once again, the Qurʾān contains a variety of decrees which are seemingly contradictory (see religious pluralism): Thus, while q 109:6 promotes tolerance, and q 2:190 commands "Fight in the path of God… but do not transgress limits (wa-lā taʿtadū), " q 2:216 insists that «fighting is commanded upon you even though it is hateful to you.» q 9:5, the " Sword Verse, " commands: «when the sacred months are past, then slay (fa-qtulū) the polytheists (al- mushrikīn) wherever you find them and take them and besiege them….» Rubin (Barāʾa, 13-32) shows that the early Muslim exegetes preferred to interpret the sword verse in its context, that is, in relation to the situation of the Prophet when it was revealed and in association with the verses surrounding it. q 9:1-5 are believed to have been revealed on the eve of the raid on Tabūk, when many of the pagans and hypocrites who had treaty obligations with the Prophet resisted joining him on the battlefield. Though al-Suddī explains the verses as a repudiation of Muḥammad’s agreement with all pagans, al-¶ Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), and al-Bayḍāwī deny that the Qurʾān could decree such intolerance. They divide Muḥammad’s non-monotheist allies into offensive and inoffensive groups and insist that the repudiation (barāʾa) applied only to those non-monotheists who had violated their agreements. Al-Ṭabarī supports his interpretation with a tradition from Ibn ʿAbbās: «…If they remained loyal to their treaty with the Prophet,… [he] was ordered to respect their treaty and be loyal to it.» Significantly, Muḥammad’s treaty with the (pagan) Khuzāʿa, who remained loyal to him, was for an unlimited period of time (Rubin, Barāʾa, 24-30; see treaties and alliances; breaking trusts and contracts).
The considerable consensus that has developed around the «expeditions and battles» of Muḥammad has led modern historians such as Watt (Muhammad’s Mecca) and Welch (Muḥammad, 153) to claim that historical material concerning the Prophet may be obtained from the Qurʾān. At the same time, historians ranging from Caetani to Jones have commented on the chronological differences that characterize exegetical and biographical traditions (Jones, Chronology, 259). According to Crone, these traditions are tales inspired by the Qurʾān (Meccan trade, 204). Sachedina, examining the concept of jihād, expresses the dilemma somewhat differently: «…these exegetes and jurists were responding to questions… as individuals… their writings reflect their individual and independent reasoning in an attempt to formulate an appropriate response to the socio-political realities of the Islamic public order» (Development of jihad, 36). Such tenuous links between Qurʾān and tradition (biographical, exegetical and ¶ juridical) inevitably compel one who is seeking to understand its various decrees to attempt a more thorough investigation of the text. That there is a message seems clear: «My righteous servants shall inherit the earth» (q 21:105). The Qurʾān condemns the unjustifiable shedding of blood (q 17:4-8; see bloodshed). It establishes the right to strive, even fight, for a just and moral society: «And let not detestation for a people move you not to be equitable; be equitable. That is nearer to the consciousness of God (taqwā)» (q 5:8). Free will is concretized in the declaration: «There is no compulsion in religion» (q 2:256). In such a context, it seems probable that unbelief becomes problematic only when unbelievers take hostile action against believers: just war in such circumstances is what Islam condones. There are problems: the equivocal nature of the terminology must be considered: the root letters j-h-d are usually glossed as "striving, " but can mean «fighting»; f-t-ḥ is not merely «conquest» and "opening, " but also «decision» and «outcome»; and f-t-n denotes either «dissension» or «unbelief.» The various potential glosses of the Arabic root letters, combined with the existing lack of consensus regarding the chronology of the qurʾānic verses, permit varying interpretations of the issues concerned. |
- Primary
- M.M. al-Aʿẓamī, Maghāzī rasūl Allāh li-ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, Riyadh 1981
- Ibn Isḥāq, Sīra, trans. Ibn Isḥāq-Guillaume
- Muqātil, Tafsīr, ed. Shiḥāta, 5 vols., 1979-89
- Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991
- Ismāʿīl al-Suddī, Tafsīr al-Suddī al-kabīr, al-Manṣūra 1993
- Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, 30 vols. in 12, Beirut 1986-7 (repr. of Bulaq 1905-11)
- Wāqidī, Maghāzī
- Secondary
- B. Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, New Delhi 1979
- W.N. Arafat, New light on the story of the Banū Qurayẓa and the Jews of Medina, in jras (1976), 100-10
- S.A. Arjomand, Islamic apocalypticism in the classic period, in ¶ B. McGinn (ed.), The encyclopaedia of apocalypticism. ii. Apocalypticism in Western history and culture, New York 1999, 238-83
- M. Ayyoub, The Qurʾān and its interpreters, 2 vols., New York 1984-92
- S. Bashear, Muslim apocalypses and the hour. A case study in traditional reinterpretation, in ios 13 (1993), 76-99
- A.F.L. Beeston, Qahtan. Warfare in ancient South Arabia, London 1976
- R. Bell, Sūrat al-Ḥashr, in mw 38 (1948), 29-42
- H. Busse, The destruction of the Temple and its reconstruction in the light of Muslim exegesis of Sūra 17:2-8, in jsai 20 (1996), 1-17
- C. Cahen, Djizya, in ei2, ii, 559-62
- P. Casanova, Mohammed et la fin du monde, Paris 1911
- L.I. Conrad, Abraha and Muḥammad. Some observations apropos of chronology and literary topoi in the early Arabic historical tradition, in bsoas 50 (1987), 225-40
- id., Seven and the tasbīʿ, in jesho 31 (1988), 42-73
- D. Cook, Muslim apocalyptic and jihād, in jsai 20 (1996), 66-104
- P. Crone, The first century concept of hijra, in Arabica 41 (1994), 352-87
- id., Meccan trade and the rise of Islam, Oxford 1987
- id., Slaves on horses, Oxford 1980
- id. and M. Cook, Hagarism. The making of the Islamic world, Cambridge, UK 1977
- F.M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic origins. The beginnings of Islamic historical writing, Princeton 1998
- N.M. El-Cheikh, Sūrat al-Rūm. A study of the exegetical literature, in jaos 118 (1998), 356-63
- R.S. Faizer, Muhammad and the Medinan Jews. A comparison of the texts of Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb Sīrat rasūl Allāh with al-Wāqidī's Kitāb al-Maghāzī, in ijmes 28 (1996), 463-89
- R. Firestone, Jihad. The origins of holy war in Islam, Oxford 1999
- F. Gabrieli, Muhammad and the conquest of Islam, London 1968
- H. Gätje, The Qurʾān and its exegesis, trans. A.T. Welch, Oxford 1997
- M. Gil, The constitution of Medina. A reconsideration, in ios 4 (1974), 44-66
- G.R. Hawting, Al-Ḥudaybiyya and the conquest of Mecca. A reconsideration of the tradition about the Muslim takeover of the sanctuary, in jsai 8 (1986), 1-23
- Hawting and Shareef, Approaches
- M. Hinds, Maghāzī, in ei2, v, 1161-4
- id., Maghāzī and sīra in early Islamic scholarship, in Université de Strasbourg. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire des Religions, La vie du Prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg. Octobre 1980, Paris 1983
- H. Hirschfeld, Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Médine, in rej 7 (1883), 167-93
- J.M.B. Jones, The chronology of the maghāzī. A textual survey, in bsoas 19 (1957), 247-80
- id., The maghāzī literature, in Beeston, chal, 344-51
- M.J. Kister, A booth like the booth of Moses. A study of an early ḥadīth, in bsoas 25 (1962), 150-5
- id., The campaign of Ḥulubān, in Muséon 78 (1965), 425-36
- id., Illā bi-ḥaqqihi. A study of an early ḥadīth, in jsai 5 (1984), 33-52
- id., Land property and jihād, in jesho 34 (1989), 270—311
- id., The ¶ massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa. A reexamination of a tradition, in jsai 8 (1986), 61-96
- id., The sīrah literature, in Beeston, chal, 352-67
- E. Kohlberg, The development of the Imāmī Shīʿī doctrine of jihād, in zdmg 126 (1976), 64-86
- M. Lecker, The death of the prophet Muḥammad’s father. Did Wāqidī invent some of the evidence? in zdmg 145 (1995), 9-27
- id., Wāqidī's account on the status of the Jews of Medina. A study of a combined report, in jnes 54 (1995), 15-32
- M. Lings, Muhammad. His life based on the earliest sources, Rochester, VT 1983
- W. Muir, Mahomet and Islam, London 1895
- D.S. Powers, The exegetical genre of nāsikh al-Qurʾān wa mansūkhuhu, in Rippin, Approaches, 117-38
- A. Rippin, Introduction, in id., Approaches, 1-9
- id., Muḥammad in the Qurʾān. Reading scripture in the 21st Century, in H. Motzki (ed.), The biography of Muḥammad, Leiden 2000, 298—309
- id., The present status of tafsīr studies, in mw 72 (1982), 224-38
- id., Tafsīr, in M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion, New York 1987, xiv, 236-44
- U. Rubin, The assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf, in Oriens 32 (1990), 65-70
- id., Barāʾa. A study of some qurʾānic passages, in jsai 5 (1984), 13-32
- id., Muḥammad’s curse of Muḍar and the blockade of Mecca, in jesho 31 (1988), 249-64
- id., Qurʾān and tafsīr. The case of «an yadin», in Der Islam 70 (1993), 133-44
- A.A. Sachedina, The development of jihad in Islamic revelation and history, in J.T. Johnson and J. Kelsay (eds.), Cross, crescent, and sword, Westport, CT 1990, 35-51
- M. Schöller, Sīra and tafsīr. Muḥammad al-Kalbī on the Jews of Medina, in H. Motzki (ed.), The biography of Muḥammad, Leiden 2000, 298—311
- V.H. Schützinger, Die arabische Legende von Nebuchadnezar und Johannes dem Täufer, in Der Islam 40 (1965), 113-41
- E. Tyan, Djihād, in ei2, ii, 538-40
- J. Wansbrough, The sectarian milieu. Content and composition of Islamic salvation history, Oxford 1978
- W.M. Watt, The condemnation of the Banū Qurayẓa, in mw 42 (1952), 160-71
- id., Muhammad’s Mecca. History in the Quran, Edinburgh 1988
- id., The reliability of Ibn Isḥāq’s sources, in Université de Strasbourg. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire des Religions, La vie du Prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg. Octobre 1980, Paris 1983, 31-43
- A.T. Welch, Al-Ḳurʾān, in ei2, v, 400-29
- id., Muḥammad. Life of the Prophet, in J. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of the modern Islamic world, 4 vols., Oxford 1995, iii, 153-61
- id., Muḥammad’s understanding of himself. The qurʾānic data, in R.G. Hovannisian and S. Vryonis, Jr. (eds.), Islam’s understanding of itself, Malibu 1983, 15-52
- id./F. Buhl, Muḥammad, in ei2, vii, 360-76