Dr. Micah David Naziri

Persian pre-Islāmic sources differentiated between Middle Eastern Kristīyan and Naṣārā. In an inscription of the Zoroastrian high priest (mobadan mobad) Kirtīr, under the Sassanid Emperor Bahrām II (276-293 CE), we read something of an academically famous inscription, commenting on the Yahūd (Jews), Shamān(Buddhists[1]) Brāhman (Hindus), Naṣārā (Nazarenes), and Kristīyan (Christians) as a separate group, as well as a group of Makdag (Immersers) and Zandak (Manichaeans), who had been the target of religious persecution. They are listed in the order in which Kirtīr opposed them.

The Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Nazarenes, Christians, Baptizers and Manicheans were smashed in the empire, their idols destroyed, and the habitations of the idols annihilated and turned into abodes and seats of the gods.[2]

There is no question that the Qur’ānic addresses only a few of these religions. What should stand out is that those selected in the Qur’ān are deliberately restricted only to Biblical communities. The Yahūd, Naṣārā and Makdag, referenced by the likely self-designation of Ṣabī’ūn (and ḥunafā, as we will see elsewhere), are the exclusive concern of the Qur’ān. Apart from them are the admonitions of the Magi listed with the Mushrikīn, and Kāfirīn; which we will see is a cognate term used in a Jewish context for apostates or “concealers”.

Muḥammad apparently had many social aims, relative to general Arab society, but his movement was socio-religious in nature. He addresses groups associated with Jewish sectarianism, using the following terms in the Qur’ān: Yahūd (Jews) Yahūdan (Judeans), and uses the term “to turn” (hadu, hudna, etc). The latter reference is employed as a verb, not as a designation, except for when we see the form Hūdan, the exact term the Qur’ān uses for the prophet Hūd, and not for Jews directly. These derivations from the hud root, are employed both positively and negatively to describe those who turn towards God and those who turn away. We see reference to “those who turn” being used for both those who turn towards God, as in the case of the Children of Israel at Sinai, as well as, conversely, “those who turn” away from the straight path.

This etymology is not conjecture; sources attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt indicate that this etymology was noticed well into the early period of the Islamic Ummah. In a ḥadīth from the proto-Shī’īte imāmī sect we find an explanation attributed of Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, the sixth Shi`ite imām. When asked “Why are the people of Moses called ‘Yahūd’,” he relayed that this refers to the Qur’ānic attribution to the Children of Israel, “Verily, we turn (hudna) unto You” (إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ) from Sūrat al-A`arāf (7.156).[3] We see a primary example of the term for “those who turn” being used positively in 5.69 and also see it used neutrally in 22.17. Here, as in Sūrat al-Baqarah we see the same term used for the prophet Hūd employed. There is no ya’ preceding the word, and yet it is always rendered “Jew,” by all translators.[4] In Sūrat al-Baqarah, 2.111; 2.135; 2.140 it is translated as Jews, in Sūrah Hūd 11.50; 11.58 it is translated as Hūd, yet in certain passages we see it translated as Jews, when it seems to be using the term hūd to indicate those who have turned from correct practice. We see the following example from Sūrat al-Baqarah, which simply cannot be identified as a Jewish belief:

And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except Hūdan or Nazarenes. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.  2:111

 

وَقَالُوا لَنْ يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَنْ كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

The problem then, here with reading this Hūdan as “Jews”, is that Jews do not, and did not think that only Jews would “enter the Garden.” It would seem that the most obvious explanation is that the Qur’ān is in fact refusing to define such individuals as Jews, but instead literally refers to them, essentially as “those who have turned” from actual Judaism. Who these individuals might have been will come into focus as we explore the Himyarite Sadducees later. For now, we can only take the Qur’ān at its own literal, Arabic wording here, and work from the premise that this terminology is deliberate and that had the Qur’ān wished to call these individuals “Jews”, then it simply would have. Subsequently we must conclude that while similar Hūdan does not mean Al-Yahūd or Yahūdan; the Qur’ānic terms for Jews and Judeans and terms which we find precedence for in the inscription of Kirtīr.

We see similar us of this Hūdan phraseology in 2.135, 2.140 and many other instances, particularly within Sūrat al-Baqarah, the longest Sūrah of the Qur’ān, considered something of a self-contained, mirror of the Qur’ān in its entirety. The Sūrah is very Judeo-centric in its form and content. Abraham Katsh has chosen in his Judaism and the Koran, to explore only Sūratayn al-Baqarah and Al `Imran (Sūras 2 and 3); the two longest sūwar. The Sūrah’s name references ‘āyāt 67–73 which recalls the story of the golden calf worshipped during Moses’ absence.  

And they say: You [must] be those who turn (هُودًا) or Nazarenes, you will be turn correct (تَهْتَدُوا). Say: But the Milat of Abraham, the Ḥanīf, and he was not one of the polytheists.

 

وَقَالُوا كُونُوا هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ تَهْتَدُوا ۗ قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا ۖ وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

John Wansbrough interprets the ambiguous term milat (مِلَّةَ) as the Aramaic and Hebrew derivation of “Milah” (מילה) – as in “Brit Milah” – or “Covenant of Circumcision.”[5] Two parties are thus noted, one the Nazarenes, and the other “those who turn”; which though within a Jewish context, cannot be considered the sum of all Jewish sectarians, but instead a deviant sect which believed one must be a part of it; a clearly non-Jewish and heretical belief. We can thus interpret this hūdan usage as follows in other references:

Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Jacob and the tribes were those [sectaries] who turn (هُودًا) or Nazarenes? Say: Are you better knowing or God? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from God? And God is not at all unaware of what you do.

 

أَمْ تَقُولُونَ إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطَ كَانُوا هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَىٰ ۗ قُلْ أَأَنْتُمْ أَعْلَمُ أَمِ اللَّهُ ۗ وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ كَتَمَ شَهَادَةً عِنْدَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ

We find, in such examples, that in addition to the prolific verbal use of the hūd root, the Qur’ān also uses the term Hūdan (هُودًا), as employed above. To highlight how inappropriate a translation of “Jews” is for such a term, we must note that this is simply the Qur’ānic name of the prophet Hūd, the Biblical Eber (עבר), a common ancestor to Arabs (ערבים) and Hebrews (עברים) alike.[6] If we are to translate هُودًا as “Jews”, then these following passages from Sūrah Hūd must also be rendered as “their brother Jews” and “we delivered Jews” etc. For the sake of illustration, both such passages are reproduced in full:

And to `Ad [was sent] their brother Hūd (هُودًا). He said: O my people: Serve God, you have no god other than He; you are nothing but fabricators. 11.50

 

وَإِلَى عَادٍ أَخَاهُمْ هُودًا قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَهٍ غَيْرُهُ إِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلَّا مُفْتَرُونَ

 

And when Our decree came to pass, We delivered Hūd (هُودًا) and those who believed with him with mercy from Us, and We delivered them from a hard chastisement. 11.58

 

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ أَمْرُنَا نَجَّيْنَا هُودًا وَالَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا مَعَهُ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنَّا وَنَجَّيْنَاهُمْ مِنْ عَذَابٍ غَلِيظٍ

Obviously no one would assert that these passages should be rendered in such a manner as to indicate a meaning of “Jews” for Hūdan. This then calls into question the entire enterprise of interpreting Hūdan as “Jews” rather than as “turners” (used both positively and negatively), as the name Hūd itself refers to “one who turned”, another positive use of the term by the Qur’ān.

There thus seem to be two uses of the reference to Hūd. One is apparently as a proper noun as هُودًا and the other is a general verbal usage of هَادُوا, or هُدْنَا, for example. In these cases, we might render this a noun of “The Turned”, phrased identically to the references we find above for the prophet Hūd, but in other cases it has the verbal conjugation of “those doing” (with the waw-ya هَادُوا or nun-alif هُدْنَا verbal suffix) which may be used to refer either to those turning towards or away from something.

In Sūrat Al-Nisā’ 4.46 we see an association of ”those who turn” (الَّذِينَ هَادُوا) with ”their disbelief” (بِكُفْرِهِمْ). Here the Arabic cognate kāfir (كافر) is used to describe the actions of those who disbelieve, paralleling the term kōfer (כופר) in Judaism and is used to describe one who has gone astray. Those who turn (الَّذِينَ هَادُوا) are in Sūrat Al-Mā’idah 5.41 those who “alter the words from their places,” in such a way that they violate prohibitions through semantics. This is not an argument against Jewish prohibitions, but against heretical violations against them. In Al-Mā’idah 5.44 we find the clearest articulation that “those who turned” in this passage are judged in the Torah itself, by the prophets there in who submitted and perfected themselves (النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا). We read here to “fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what God revealed, those are they that are the kāfirūn”, or in Hebrew kōferīm. Thus, those who do not judge by the Torah are kāfirīn or kōferīm, in the view of the Qur’ān.

Here we see an example par excellence that the verbal hadu is used those who turn away from the Torah, but not applied to all Yahūd. Here we see use of the infamous term kāfir paired with hadu. The term kāfir (كافر) is of Jewish derivation (kōfer, כופר), indicating one of Jewish descent who has turned away from the path, even apostate from the Torah. This term cannot be separated from his Jewish meaning.[7]

Not all uses of “those who turn” are negative. As mentioned, and cited by Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, those who turned from idolatry and towards God at Sinai were described in this way. And in Al-Mā’idah 5.69 we are importantly told that “those who turn” are amongst those who have Faith in God (آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ) and “shall have no fear nor shall they grieve” (صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ).

Judeans in Medina

Many times, when the Qur’ān actually does say “Jew” or Yahūd, it is actually saying what appears to be “Judean” (Yahūdian, يَہُودِيًّ۬ا) to refer to its audience’s regions. For instance, in Al-`Imrān, 67 we find that Abraham is noted to not be Judean.[8] This matter of Biblical fact could be a reminder that the first patriarch of Judaism was in fact neither native to Judea, nor a raised a Jew. The Arabic term from the Sassanid Persian “Yahūd”, is the only term in the Qur’ān but seems most often to refer specifically to “Judeans in Arabia”.

If the views of Goetein, Rabin, Wansbrough, et al. are correct – that the Qur’ān is operating within the context of Jewish sectarianism – then the use of Al-Yahūd in the third person would be no different than American Jews referring to Israelis in America as “Israelis.” In a religious sense, any Jew is “Israeli”. So does this mean that the American Jew would not be religiously “Israeli”? Of course not, it just means within an intersectarian debate, the American Jew would refer to the Israeli Jew as “Israeli” even though they are both “Israel”.

Much of the discourse on Al-Yahūd involves a critique from a purported Divine vantage point, observing and critiquing the debate between Jews, or perhaps Judeans and Nazarenes. We see such examples in 2.113 where Al-Yahūd say that the Nazarenes do not follow anything good and the Nazarenes say the same about them. Yet, the Qur’ān seeks to point out the irony in mediation, that “both practice the Bible” or Tanakh (وَهُمْ يَتْلُونَ الْكِتَابَ). Similarly, in Sūrat Al-Baqarah 2.120 we read that neither of these two disputing factions will be happy with Muḥammad unless he takes a side exclusively with one or the other. Yet he defers to “God’s guidance” rather than the “desires” of either normative sectarian community.

The Qur’ān, to be sure, does critique Al-Yahūd too, when the doctrine is seen as a prevalent view amongst the Jewish community in general. We read in Sūrat al-Mā’idah5.18 that both Al-Yahūd and Al-Naṣārā believe that they are given a status as children of God, a view which the Qur’ān seems to want to check. Similarly, we see in al-Mā’idah5.64 a critique of the Medinan Jewish community in believing in a sort of fatalism, in which “God’s hands are tied” (وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ); a view contrary to normative Judaism.

We know that following the Diaspora from Judea, the Himyarite Kingdom of Yemen was converted en masse to a Sadducean form of Judaism, a subject which will be addressed more fully later. Islamic tradition will later claim that the Himyarites were proselytized to by the Jews in Medina. This is significant in framing the context of a dominant thread of Judean Jewry, practicing in Medina as at least in part Sadducean.

Though we have no evidence one way or the other about Phariseeism, one could only imagine that the bulk of Pharisee-oriented, now-Talmudic Jews, would have gravitated towards the Babylonian Jewish community, associated with the Talmud, with only a minority presence in the Sadducean-Himyarite dominated Ḥijāz. This, however, does not help explain this peculiar passage any more, as our Second Temple Era sources explain that neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees believed in any sort of fatalism. These Yahūd mentioned in this ‘ayah could only refer to the presence of some Judean Essene remnants in Muḥammad’s audience.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were divided on the question of predetermination. The Pharisees did not believe that all things are divinely predestined, but instead that some are dependent on individual will (essentially the position of the Ahl al-Bayt, or Ja`farī school of Muḥammad’s family, as evidenced through numerous āḥadīth). This view is expressed in the teaching of Rabbi Akīvā (Pirqei Avot 3.15): “All is foreseen, yet freedom is granted”; and in the similar saying of Rabbi Ḥanīnā, “All is in the power of God, except the fear of God” (Berakōt 33b; Niddah 16b). In the context of later philosophical kalām, these were essentially Mu`tazilite ideas. The Sadducees denied any Divine interference in human affairs, and total freewill (the view of the Khawārij). The Essenes, according to Josephus, ascribed everything to divine predestination.[9] This might be something of an exaggeration, as Josephus tends to ignore any doctrinal blurriness for the sake of fitting Jewish “philosophies” into three categories with clearly defined borders. We will see more regarding these delineations in the section on the Jewish sects of the Second Temple Era, into Late Antiquity.

This notwithstanding, the aforementioned ‘ayah in question would appear to be a criticism of the dominant view in those Essenic-descended sects with which Muḥammad was associated. This would not have pertained to Pharisees or even, surprisingly, the Himyarite Sadducees. Yet the Qur’ān does not present this as a matter of heresy, and thus those holding to this view are still regarded as Al-Yahūd and not Hadu. That this same debate arose between the Asharites, adhering to predestination, and their opponents, the Mu`tazilites, indicates that the Qur’ān emerged from the contexts of varying opinions amongst Jewry on the matter. Indeed, we still find Maimonides arguing this issue, centuries later.[10] Sarah Stroumsa, writes in Maimonides In His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker, that “Early Jewish thinkers did not adopt Mu`tazilite ideas blindly, as Maimonides claimed, but rather selectively, as evidenced by their occasional dissent from these ideas.”[11] What this indicates is that while there was a general Rabbinic tendency towards Mu`tazilite attitudes, the Qur’ānic argument against the trend towards what might be thought of as a proto-Asharitism amongst Medinan Jewry was not unlikely as a regionally limited phenomenon.

Next section: The Various Sectarian Expressions of Judaism in the Second Temple Era to Late Antiquity

Ten people PayPal $3.13 to Mikhah@gmail.com for this next section to be “unlocked” for all to read

Following section: Who Were the Nazarenes (Nasara)?

Ten people PayPal $3.13 to Mikhah@gmail.com for this section to be “unlocked” for all to read

.

Notes

[1] The word “shaman” is thought to derive from the Buddhist-Sanskrit term shramana, a recluse, ascetic, or wandering monk.

[2] Jesus in the Talmud 117

[3] Bihar al-Anwar (53, 5)

[4] This has its origins in late polemical tafsir exegesis, rather than in the literal meaning of the words.

[5] John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, (Prometheus Books, 2004), Note 65 on page 54. Under the meanings of the Syro-Aramaic (melltaa), which has a primary meaning of “word”, we find Mannaa, 400a, cites in Arabic under (3): Shariy`ah (law) Meetaaq (alliance) `Ahd (covenant). Thus, what must be meant is the covenant that, according to Gen. 17:2 ff., God entered into with Abraham, but, Wansbrough asserts, is “actually the word that He gave him.” He further notes that “as a Syro-Aramaic loanword (millah) was not correctly understood in Arabic and was interpreted as everything from ‘faith’ and ‘religious sect’ to ‘nation.’” We should understand this in the context of the Hebrew Brit Milah, the “covenant of circumcision.”

[6] Genesis 10-11; 1 Chronicles 1

[7] The derivation of kāfir (كافر) from kōfer  (כופר) follows a similar cognate pattern that we find with vav changing into the Arabic alif, such as in shalōm (שלום) to salām (سلام). This likely originated from Hebrew being pronounced in Arabic from a written text, as the letters look identical, even though quite different. This would likely have occurred at some point before the popularization of these terms in the Arabic lingua franca, when Arabic was still the seven variant dialects referenced in ḥadīth literature. Related to this, i have rendered (أَسْلَمُوا) as both submitted themselves and perfected themselves, following both the traditional Arabic rendering and a Hebrew etymology following the parallel fourth verbal form.

[8] We will find a variant of this where he is said to not be Hūd, or Hudian, demonstrating debate amongst the compliers of the Qur’ān about which term was used. Nevertheless, Abraham was descended from Hūd, but was not part of the A`ad and Thamūd cultures which could be described as Hudian, nor was he Judean, having “crossed over” from Babylon to the Land of Canaan. The Qur’ān could have phrased this passage to clearly say he was not min al-Yahūd but it sees no reason to do so. It is apparently seeking reconciliation between two parties, the Judeans who rejected the Nazarenes and the Nazarenes who had broken off from the Jewish community.

[9] “B. J.” ii. 8, § 14; “Ant.” xiii. 5, § 9

[10] Schwaz, “Who Were Maimonides’ Mutakallimun?” 170-75, 176-81, 189-93; Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992-1993) 163, 169-72

[11] Sarah Stroumsa, Maimonides In His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker 34