I. "RAQIM" AND DECIUS
XVIII. 8-25
In the first part of the eighteenth sura Muhammad alludes, in a characteristically cryptic way, to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, Christians who took refuge in a cave, at a time of severe persecution, and after being walled in by their pursuers slept there for about two hundred years, at the end of which time they were awakened and came forth.
It is plain that Muhammad has heard the story recently and been interested by it; that he has tried to tell it for the edification of his followers, but has been embarrassed by the questions of certain unbelievers, who very possibly knew the story better than he did. He accordingly produces a "revelation," in which he tiptoes around the story, incidentally giving his divine authority for refusing to answer foolish queries.
In verse 8 he introduces the subject with the question, "What think you of those associated with the cave and with al-Raqim? Was not their experience a wonderful sign?" What the word raqim means here has been an unsolved mystery. Some commentators explain it as the name of the mountain in which the cave was, others regard it as the name of the valley below. Others, starting from etymology, suppose it to designate a tablet or scroll, something inscribed (verb raqama), which may have been put up over the mouth of the cave in which they lay. But the popular explanation, approved by the majority of native commentators (always with express caution, however), is this, that, al-raqim is the name of the dog that accompanied the sleepers, mentioned in verses 17 and 21. This explanation is intrinsically most unlikely. "Ragim" is all but impossible as a name; moreover, Muhammad could hardly have chosen the form of words which he uses, if this had been his meaning. The dog himself was sahib al-kahf, or one of "those of the cave," and he plays no important part in the story in any of its forms. It is true that Muhammad shows some interest in this dog, and it is therefore no wonder that his oriental followers, with their love of the whimsical and their own interest in domestic animals, should have given the preference to this explanation of the strange word. But very few scholars, either oriental or occidental, have expressed themselves as really persuaded.
The second of the passages in which the dog is mentioned is interesting as exhibiting Muhammad's somewhat anxious eagerness to show himself well acquainted with the legend. Verse 21: "They will say, Three, and the fourth was their dog; others will say, Five, and the sixth was their dog (guessing wildly [or, as the Arabic might be rendered, `throwing stones in the dark']); still others will say, Seven; the eighth was their dog. Do thou say, My Lord knows best how many there were, and very few others know." It is plain that the Prophet felt "shaky" as to some details of the story; yet it is quite evident on the other hand that he had heard it in a complete version, and knew it well. There was indeed variation in the versions current at that time as to the number of the sleepers; for example, a Syriac manuscript of the 6th century gives the number as eight (Wright's Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, 1090).
There is, however, one important and constant feature of the legend, apparently omitted in the Koranic version, which is perhaps really present here in a curious disguise. In all the extant ancient versions of the tale, the tyrant who was the author of the persecution, before whom the seven youths appeared and from whom they fled to their cavern, is the emperor Decius. He is made very prominent in the story, and his name occurs many times. See, for instance, the texts published in Guidi's important monograph, I Sette Dormienti di Efeso, where the name Decius is found (repeatedly in each case) in two Coptic (Sahidic) versions, pp. 5 ff., 13 f.; three Syriac versions, 18 ff., 24 ff., 36 ff.; two Ethiopic versions, 66 f., 87; and two Armenian versions, 91, 96 ff. In two Syriac manuscripts the name is miswritten as Dugs, or Dukus, and in still other ways, and in the Christian Arabic version printed by Guidi (51 ff.) the form is Decianus (dagyanus); but such occasional corruptions count for nothing.
The ordinary way of writing the name Decius in Aramaic would be D>p1, W&O' , and this is the orthography which occurs uniformly in the oldest and best Syriac texts, as in the version of this legend in Land's Anecdota Syriaca, III, 87, 6, 10; 90, 12 ; 91, 3; 93, 7, etc., and in the version published by Guidi, 36, 2 a f. It is therefore a tempting hypothesis, and to me at least it seems very probable, that when Muhammad's informant, who read or narrated to him this legend of the Seven Sleepers saw in the text before him the name D,pi he read it '07'17'1 instead of 7'121. Not only the Hebrew characters, but also the Aramaic characters of that time and region, could very easily be a ambiguous, as any extensive table of ancient Semitic alphabets will show, 1 and the coincidence appears too striking to be accidental, in view of the supporting circumstances.
2. THE EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF "THE BLIND, THE CRIPPLE, AND THE SICK"
XXIV60
A considerable part of Sura XXIV is taken up with prescriptions concerning decent behavior. Muhammad and his immediate circle of followers have been greatly disturbed by the Ayesha scandal, and in dealing now with this most important matter the Prophet takes occasion also to lay down rules in regard to general considerations of chastity, modesty, and allied subjects. According to his mental habit, illustrated in a multitude of Koranic passages, he passes abruptly from one subject to another, and occasionally returns again suddenly to a theme he had previously discussed and seemingly finished.
In verse 27 Muhammad introduces the subject of intruding on the privacy of men or women-but especially women-in their own houses or apartments. He then goes on to speak, in verse 31, of the duty of believing women to avoid uncovering themselves before those who are not mem bers of their families. These are matters lingered in his mind, for he returns to them in this sura and also treats them, in this same order, in Sura XXXIII. The translation (24, 27 ff.): "0 ye who believe! enter not into other houses than your own, until ye have asked leave and have saluted its people. That is better for you; perhaps ye will be mindful. 28 And if ye find no one therein, enter not until permission is given you; if it is said to you, `Go back,' then go back. That is more decent behavior on your part; and God knows what ye do. 29 It is no trespass for you to enter uninhabited houses, if ye have need to do so; God knows what ye reveal and what ye conceal. 30 Say to the believers that they should restrain their eyes and guard their chastity. That is more decent behavior for them; verily God knows what they do. 31 And say to the believing women that they should restrain their eyes and guard their chastity; they should not display their ornaments, except those which are outside; they should pull their veils over their bosoms and not show their ornaments, except to their husbands or fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or the male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not notice women's nakedness."
In Sura XXXIII.53 if. he brings forward the same two closely related subjects, in a looser and less concise mode of presentation: "0 ye who believe! enter not into the houses of the prophet, unless permission is given you, to partake of food, without awaiting his convenient time. When ye are bidden, then enter; and when ye have partaken, then disperse; without being familiar in conversation, for this would annoy the prophet and he would be ashamed for you; but God is not ashamed of the truth. And when ye ask them (the prophet's wives) for anything, ask it from behind a curtain; that is purer for your hearts and for theirs.... 54 Whether ye reveal a thing or conceal it, verily God knows all things. 55 It is no trespass for them (the wives of the prophet) to show themselves unveiled to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves; but let them fear God, verily God is witness over all.... 59 0 thou prophet! say to thy wives and thy daughters, and to the wives of the believers, that they should let down their veils over them. That is more likely to make them understood aright and to protect them from annoyance; God is forgiving and merciful."
The way in which the one of these two passages parallels the other is very noticeable; presumably the passage in Sura XXXIII is the older of the two. As has already been remarked, Muhammad returns again to these subjects farther on in Sura XXIV, namely at verse 57: "0 ye who believe! let your slaves and those of you who have not reached puberty ask permission of you (before coming into your presence) at three times in the day: before the prayer of dawn, and when ye put off your garments at midday, and after the evening prayer; three times of privacy for you. It is no trespass for you or for them, after these times, when you are going about from one to another. Thus God makes clear to you the signs, and he is knowing and wise. 58 But when your children arrive at puberty, then let them ask leave of you, as did those before them. Thus God makes clear to you his signs, and he is knowing and wise. 59 As for those women who are past childbearing and have no hope of marriage, it is no trespass for them if they put off their garments, but in such a way as not to display their ornaments; yet if they abstain from this, it is better for them; and God both hears and knows."
The next verse is commonly rendered, and the text seems to require that it be rendered, as follows: 60 "It is no sin for the blind, nor the cripple, nor the sick, nor for you yourselves, to eat in your own houses, or in those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your uncles on the father's side, or your aunts on the father's side, or your uncles on the mother's side, or your aunts on the mother's side, or in those houses of which ye possess the keys, or in the house of your friend; there is no trespass for you in eating either together or separately."
In spite of all attempted explanations of the first part of this verse, the fact remains that "the blind, the cripple, and the sick" have nothing whatever to do with this prescription in regard to eating. Goldziher, in his Vorlesungen ilber den Islam, 33 f., in expressing his conviction that some passages in the Koran have been misplaced with very disturbing result, points to this clause at the beginning of XXIV.60 as the outstanding example. He proceeds: "Jedoch bei ndherer Betrachtung gewahren wir, dass der in diesem Zusammenhange fremdartige Passus aus einer anderen Gruppe von Verordnungen hierher verschlagen wurde. Er bezieht sich urspriinglich nicht auf Teilnahme an Mahlzeiten ausser dem eigenen Hause, sondern auf die an den kriegerischen Unternehmungen des jungen Islams"(p. 34). He then points out that these same words, " There is no compulsion for the blind, nor for the cripple, nor for the sick," are found also in XLVIII. 17, where the Prophet, after threatening those who hold back from the warlike expeditions of the Muslims, makes this exception in favor of those who are effectually hindered by physical disability, and he draws the conclusion that the phrase has somehow been taken from XLVIII.17 and forced into this context in XXIV.60 where it is now so disturbing: "Dieser Spruch ist nun als fremdes Element in jenen anderen Zusammenhang versprengt worden and hat augenscheinlich die Redaktion des Verses beeinflusst, dessen urspriinglicher Anfang nicht in sicherer Weise rekonstruiert werden kann."
Goldziher is certainly right in holding that the clause, as it has traditionally been understood both by Arab commentators and by occidental scholars, is out of place and inexplicable, but it cannot be said that he has accounted for its presence in Sura XXIV. It is hardly conceivable that either Muhammad or any one of his followers should have introduced here purposely the exception as to participants in the holy war, for it is not merely isolated from every context dealing with that subject, but as it stands it quite plainly means something else. On the other hand, no theory of the accidental transfer of the clause to this place could be made to seem plausible. But we are not reduced to any such desperate straits as Goldz- iher's suggestion would imply. Is not the solution of the difficulty rather this, that the troublesome clause is to be connected with the preceding context, and that the dispensation in favor of "the blind, the lame, and the sick" refers to the regulations regarding modesty with which the Prophet has been so variously busied? We have seen how, in each place where he treats of these matters, he makes some provision for the natural exceptions, those members of the family to whom the freedom of the house must of necessity be given, or who cannot be held under the same restriction as others in regard to privacy and the exposure of their persons in clothing and unclothing themselves; not making the same exceptions in each case, but giving utterance to them as they happen to occur to him. In XXXIII.55 he excepts (of course) the nearest members of the family, and adds that the women of whom he is speaking have no need to be careful about unveiling or unclothing themselves before other women or before their own slaves. In XXIV.31 he makes similar exceptions (but in considerably different terms, showing that he had not formulated the matter carefully for himself), and adds to the list eunuchs and children. And finally, in the passage under discussion, XXIV.57 if., he mentions as exceptions the slaves and children, and then adds that the restrictions do not apply in their stringency to women who have passed the age of marriage. To this he further adds as an afterthought (if I am right), that a similar liberty is to be allowed to the members of a household who are under serious physical disability. The justice of this, even its necessity, is quite obvious.
The one objection that could be urged is the abruptness of the transition from the first clause of verse 60 to the passage that immediately follows, treating of a different subject but in its grammatical construction a continuation of the closest description. But this sudden and unexpected leap is, I would contend, thoroughly characteristic of Muhammad's mental habit. The verse granting dispensation to old women is brought to an end with the usual rhyming appendix; a new verse is then begun as follows:
"Upon the blind, the cripple, and the sick there is no strict prohibition. Nor is there (such prohibition) upon you yourselves, against your eating in your own houses, or the houses of your fathers," and so on. This is the mental habit-essentially dramatic-of him who composed the oft-quoted verse XII.29, in which the transition is equally unexpected and even more abrupt, taking place, as in the present instance, in the middle of a sentence. Other illustrations of the same general character will occur to all those who are familiar With the Koran. As for the verbal agreement of the clause with XLVIII.17, this is by no means the only instance in which Muhammad repeats an extended phrase in widely different contexts.
3. "HIS MOTHER IS HAWIYA"
CL 6-8
In an essay entitled "Eine Qoran-Interpolation" contributed to the Noldeke Festschrift, I, 33-55, August Fischer attempts to demonstrate that the last two verses, 7 and 8, of Sura CI are a later interpolation. He returns to the subject in the ZDMG (62 [1910]: 371-74), bringing some additional evidence in support of his contention, which he regards as sufficiently established. Goldziher, in his Vorlesungen uber den Islam (1910), p. 33, refers to this demonstration of Fischer's in a way that seems to show that he regards it as conclusive. Any modern critical edition of the text of the Koran, he says, "wird ... auf Interpolationen (vgl. August Fischer, in der Noldeke Festschrift, 33 ff.) ihr Augenmerk richten mussen."
The matter is one of considerable importance for the early history of the Koran, inasmuch as interpolations in the sacred book (excepting those made by Muhammad himself) have not hitherto been demonstrated in a convincing way. Fischer's examination of the evidence is in some particulars very thorough, and makes a first impression of being exhaustive. He has failed, however, to take into account one or two factors of capital importance, as I shall endeavor to show.
Sura Cl is one of the most vigorous and picturesque of Muhammad's early utterances, a veritable gem. It is a terse characterization of the coming Dies Irae, when the last hour strikes, in the universal crash of dissolving heavens and earth, and the just and unjust of mankind are sent to the abodes they have deserved. It also has the external appearance of being a very characteristic specimen of the Prophet's peculiar rhetoric. It begins and ends with brief, exclamatory phrases, while the middle portion is made up of slightly longer sentences. There are two rhymes, of which the principal is the "asonante" termination with the vowels a-i-ah, the woeful ah! in particular, with its voiced h, being just suited to the theme. This rhyme, after appearing in verses 1 and 2, is replaced by another in the purely descriptive verses 3 and 4, and is then resumed in 5-8. The text of these last four verses reads as follows:
This is ordinarily translated somewhat as follows: " 5 Then as for the one whose balances are heavy, he (enters) into a joyful life; 6 but as for him whose balances are light, his abode is the pit. 7 And how dost thou know what this is? 8 A raging fire!"
The starting point of Fischer's argument is the difficult phrase at the end of verse 6, fa 'ummuhu hawiyah. He urges, very justly, that the current renderings (similar to the one just given) are more than questionable. Hawiyah (without the article!) ought not to be rendered "the pit." There is indeed a well-known Arabic noun appearing in a variety of forms, of which this is one, meaning "pit, abyss, precipice," and the like; but there are good reasons why we cannot believe that Muhammad is using it here. He could not have omitted the article, in such a context, unless he intended Hawiya as a proper name, and it seems quite unlikely that he would have made this transformation of a noun of the native speech. More important still is the fact, emphasized by Fischer (Festschrift, 45), that the immediately following phrase, ma adraka .... is always used in a very significant way by Muhammad, in connection with new and strange vocables of his own introducing: "sonst stets nur an Worter angekniipft, die er entweder selbst der Form oder dem Inhalt nach neu gepragt hatte, oder die doch fur seine Zuhorer vollig neu sein mussten." Fischer argues further, that 'ummuhu (literally "his mother") with the meaning " his abode" or "his lot," is not a natural use of the word, but sounds artificial. Finally he shows, with a thoroughness of demonstration that leaves nothing to be desired, that the phrase hawat 'ummuhu, as used by the Arabs in and before Muhammad's time, meant "his mother is bereft (of him)." That is-and to this every Arabic scholar must give assent-the only natural translation of verse 6 taken by itself is: "And as for the one whose balances are light, his mother is (now to be) childless." But verses 7 and 8 are absolutely incompatible with this rendering, for they presuppose a reference in the phrase to the place of abode of the wicked. Hence Fischer sees himself forced to the conclusion that the sura originally ended with verse 6, and that verses 7 and 8 are a later, mistaken addition.
The argument seems a strong one at first sight, but the more one thinks it over the less convincing it appears. The very considerations that make the present reading difficult stand opposed to the hypothesis of an interpolation; just in proportion as it is strange that'ummuhu should mean "his abode," and evident that hawiyah in its present context is an anomaly, does it become improbable that any later hand should have created this manifest incongruity deliberately, making a stupid and quite useless addition to what was clear, and changing the meaning of the sacred words. Sura Cl, be it remembered, is one of the oldest of Muhammad's Meccan utterances, and from its contents, as well as from its striking form, we should suppose it to have been one of the most widely familiar. Very many of his Companions and followers must have known it by heart, from the first. Fischer attempts to break the force of this obvious objection to his theory by arguing (p. 51 f.) that Muhammad's Companions and their contemporaries in Mecca and Medina were unfamiliar with the phrase ummuhu hawiya, and did not know that it meant "his mother is bereaved." The Prophet, he thinks, got this idiom from the classical speech ('arabiya), which was too high-style for his Companions generally. I do not believe that many Arabic scholars will find help in this extraordinary suggestion of Professor Fischer. It is easy to show, as he does by the citations in Tabari, that some of the Companions were more or less perplexed by the phrase as it stands in this sura, but this gives no evidence whatever that they were ignorant of its "classical" use. Moreover, Mecca and Medina were not beyond the reach of the 'arabiya; if Abu Bekr and Omar did not know the classical idioms of their day, as Muhammad used them in the Koran, they had only to ask their meaning; there were plenty at hand who knew. It should be added, with emphasis, that if the sura had originally ended with verse 6, as Fischer contends, its concluding words would never have made any difficulty. Everyone who knew the typical meanings of the verb hawa (and did not the Companions of the Prophet know as much as this?) could have guessed without fail the signification of the idiom. Fischer explains (p. 52), that when they were perplexed by it, they "saw from the context" that the words must contain an allusion to the place of punishment. Thereupon some Koran expert, "von den besten Absichten geleitet," added verses 7 and 8-in order to make everything plain! But the context, up to the end of verse 6, gives no such indication nor is there anything in either form or content of any of Muhammad's other utterances in the Koran that could naturally lead the reader to infer from CI. 1-6a that verse 6b contained a designation of hell.
The supposed motive of the interpolation, then, is certainly not cogent; when closely examined it is not even plausible. We are left simply with the fact of a difficult reading and the question whether the supposition of two writers, one of whom misunderstood the other-always a desperate expedient-is the probable solution.
Examination of the two verses, 7 and 8, supposed by Fischer to have been added by a later hand, shows that, apart from the postulated incongruity with verse 6, they give no support whatever to his theory, but rather testify strongly against it. Fischer remarks (p. 51) on the strangeness of hiyah, at the end of verse 6: "sonst nicht im ganzen Qoran!"
But the very strangeness is testimony that Muhammad, and not another, wrote it. This is one of the rhymes in which he especially revels, in some of the earliest and most fiery passages of his book. A good example is LXIX.4-29, where for the sake of this very same "asonante" rhyme a-i-ah he builds out the suffix of the first person singular, changing kitabi sultani and so on into kitabiyah sultaniyah, and so on, in six different instances. The ma hiyah of CI.7 is merely another case of exactly the same sort. We can recognize in it at once the voice of Muhammad, knowing his rhetorical habits as we do; but it would not readily have suggested itself as an imitation of the Prophet, and no mere interpolator would ever have produced it. The imitator, had there been such, would infallibly have written : (or al-hawiyah) wa ma 'adraka ma hawiyah, since this is the way in which Muhammad proceeds in every other instance of the kind. It is from the originator of these forms, not from lesser scribblers, that we expect such sporadic yet characteristic variation.
Fischer's assertion (ibid.) in regard to verse 8 is so astonishing that one is tempted to see in it a virtual admission of the weakness of his argument as it touches the verses supposed to be interpolated.2 In the process of attempting to show that this "appendix" to the sUra is made of inferior stuff, he says that the phrase narum hamiyah is the weakest and least poetical of all the expressions for "hell" in the Koran ("der prosaischste and platteste Ausdruck") and designates it again as "armselig." If this is a deliberate judgment and not a mere hasty utterance, we can only be thankful that the impassioned Meccan suras were composed by Muhammad and not by his critic. It would be possible, of course, to employ six words, or a dozen, or more, instead of the two used here; or to search out strange locutions, or circumlocutions, instead of taking the most familiar noun in the Arabic language and the adjective made obvious by sense and meter; but the man who thinks "raging fire" not forcible enough as a description of the future abode of the wicked is the one who is laboring with an argument, not the one who (like many of Muhammad's contemporaries) thinks himself in danger of going there. The fact is, it is impossible to conceive a more powerful ending of the little chapter than that which it has. From the standpoint of rhetoric, the termination with verse 6 would have been very tame in comparison.
The whole sura was composed by Muhammad himself, whatever may be the solution of the difficulty at the end of verse 6. This is the con clusion very strongly indicated by all the evidence at hand. We can then hardly escape the further conclusion, that hawiyah was intended by him as a proper name, as it certainly was intended as a designation of hell. But if the word was familiar to him and his fellows as a common noun, why did he not treat it as such, using the article; and-an equally puzzling question-why did he choose the strange 'ummuhu instead of ma'wah or a similar word?
It seems to me that Professor Fischer has left out of account, in his argument, one of the most important characteristics of the Prophet's literary art, namely his singular fondness for mystifying words and phrases. This tendency is especially conspicuous, and often especially crude in its manifestation, in the oldest portions of the Koran. He coins words of his own, and far more often borrows them from foreign languages, with what seems to us an almost childlike delight in the awesome riddles that he thus furnished to his hearers. We certainly have an example of the kind, and apparently a twofold example, in the passage before us.
Muhammad chose the phrase 'ummuhu hawiyah not because the people of Mecca did not know the meaning of the idiom hawat 'ummuhu, but precisely because he knew it was so familiar to them all. Whoever heard Sura Cl for the first time would suppose verse 6 to contain the threat: "He whose balances are light shall perish (his mother shall be bereaved)." But as the Prophet went on, the hearer would see that the threat was far more terrible. Hawiyah, instead of being the participial adjective, was a mysterious name of a blazing fire, while 'ummuhu contained the grimly ironical assurance that his acquaintance with Hawiya would not be merely temporary; she would be his permanent keeper and guardian. This is wordplay of a kind in which the Arabs have always taken special delight; but it is more than this, it is Muhammad through and through, in its combination of mystery and threat. The quality of strangeness, in fact, is present in every part of this little Sura, not by accident.
Finally, in regard to the word hawiyah, I believe that the supposition of a borrowed word, always the most probable hypothesis when a strange theological term is encountered in the Koran, has not in this instance been given the attention it deserves. I should not deny the possibility that Muhammad may have created the proper name from a native Arabic noun, but the supposition is an unlikely one, as Fischer and others have argued with good reason. The only excuse for such a proceeding here would be the wish to make the wordplay just described, but even this could hardly have seemed a sufficient reason. Moreover, it is not likely that Muhammad would have used his ma 'adraka with reference to a noun whose meaning was already known; the case of adjectives such as al- gari`a al-hagga, and the like is obviously quite different. He employs the very significant phrase only after using words whose meaning must really have remained obscure without the interpretation which he-by the help of Gabriel-proceeded to give them.
Among the old Hebrew words for the final catastrophe that is to overtake the wicked, there is one that corresponds exactly, in both form and meaning, to Muhammad's Hawiya. The passage in which it occurs most significantly is Isa. 47:2, in a chapter that describes in very striking and picturesque language the doom of Babylon. Hebrew: tippol IalayW howah lo' tuk`lry kapporah, "There will fall upon thee Disaster which thou wilt not be able to propitiate." In form, this word howah [Hebrew] is the active participle feminine of the qal stem of hwh [Hebrew] "to fall." Just what sort of "disaster" the Prophet had in mind is made plain in the following verses, in which Babylon's helpers and advisers are promised a share in her doom; verse 14: "They shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the grasp of the flame. It will not be coals to warm at, nor a fire to sit before!" We have, then, in one of the most striking passages in the Hebrew Bible, the same word, with the same meaning, that we find in our Koran passage. It occurs in the Old Testament also in Ezek. 7:26, howah `al howah [Hebrew], "Disaster upon disaster," and is therefore not a word upon which any doubt can be thrown.
It would be interesting to discuss the corresponding or most nearly related words in Hebrew and the Aramaic dialects, the complicated questions of borrowing from one language by another, and so on; but all this would be a mere waste of time as concerns the present question. We have before us a perfect explanation of the troublesome passage in Sura Cl, and have no need to look further. In every detail of the composition we can see Muhammad's own well-known habits and mental processes: his high-sounding rhetoric, his fondness for strange vocables, the gleaning of new terms from Jewish sources-of whatever sort. There is not the slightest difficulty in explaining how Muhammad got hold of this particular word; every educated Jew had it at his tongue's end. The whole splendid passage in Isaiah may well have been recited to Muhammad many times, with appropriate paraphrase or comment in his own tongue, for his edification. The few " hellfire passages" in the Hebrew Scriptures must have been of special interest to him, and it would be strange if some teacher had not been found to gratify him in this respect.
Observe further-and the fact is most important-that the pet phrase ma 'adraka, is used here in the very same significant way as elsewhere, that is, after a truly cryptic utterance; see especially Fischer's own words, quoted above. Note in particular that in seven of the ten other occurrences of the phrase in the Koran, the strange term to which it calls attention is either a designation of the Last Judgment or else (twice; 83, 8, 19) of certain definite features of the judgment scene; three of the terms, saqar, sijjin, and `illiyyun, are proper names, apparently created by Muhammad himself; three of them, sijjin, illiyyun, and yawm ad-din, are borrowed from Jewish sources.
As for the word 'ummuhu, scholar Khafaji was quite right in regarding it as an example of Muhammad's "sarcasm" (Fischer, p. 41), and the wordplay I have described above, with its sudden and ironical transformation of the familiar into the strange and terrible, is as characteristic as anything in the Koran. The word Hawiya should, of course, be written hawiyatu, as a diptote. As originally used in this Koran passage, by Muhammad and his followers, it had the ending of neither diptote nor triptote, but merely the rhyming termination ah. That the native commentators, even the oldest, should have stumbled over the phrase was not only natural but also quite inevitable. The word was Muhammad's own, and they had no means of knowing where he got it.
The translation of verses 6 ff.:
As for him whose balances are light his mother is Hawiya! And how knowest thou what that is? A raging fire!
NOTES
1. For the Hebrew characters, see Euting's Tabula Scripturae Hebraicae (accompanying Chwolson's Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum), cols. 67-83, fifth and sixth centuries A.D.; and for the Aramaic, Euting's Tabula Scripturae Aramaicae (1890), cols. 41-53, and also 33-40. The ambiguity might have occurred in any one of several varieties of the West Semitic script of about Muhammad's time; but it is perhaps most probable that the document in question was written in Hebrew characters.
2. A similar tacit admission is to be seen in the suggestion on p. 52, that verses 7 and 8 may, after all, have been "an old Koran fragment"!