Hamdard Islamicus 73 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

THE CONCEPT OF THE
INJÔL IN ×ADÔTH LITERATURE1

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY

MUHAMMAD ISLAM
Lecturer, Islamic Research Institure,

International Islamic University,
Islamabad, Pakistan.

email: mislamiri@hotmail.com

The Prophetic Traditions constitute very authoritative, normative

source of Islam, second only to the Qur’Én. Therefore, it is significant to

explore the treasures of ×adÊth in order to explain Islamic view of the InjÊl,

the book entrusted to prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*), and its relation to the canonical

gospels of the Christians. For this purpose, the article begins with a

discussion about Waraqah b. Nawfal’s manuscript of the InjÊl, referred to

in one of the most authentic collections of aÍÉdÊth (i.e., BukhÉrÊ’s collection).

It then develops to survey the aÍÉdÊth, which describe when and how the

InjÊl was sent down, in order to highlight the nature of its revelation. The

paper, afterwards, turns to the question of the corruption of the previous

scriptures especially the InjÊl as addressed in the Prophetic Traditions.

Finally, it discusses how the Prophetic narrations view the prophecies

about the advent of Prophet MuÍammad (œ) as foretold in the previous

scriptures especially the InjÊl. The article ends with a critical appraisal and

concludes that the Prophetic Traditions’ concept of the InjÊl is largely an

extension of that of the Qur’Én. They also provide specific insights into

how the corruption crept into the Christian scriptures and whether the

alteration was of both the text and meaning or of the meaning alone.

Introduction

For Muslims, the Prophetic Traditions have normative authority

and constitute the Divine revelation, though the words are of Prophet

MuÍammad (œ) himself. Only the Qur’Én – the verbatim revelation of

Allah – has precedence over them as a source of the Islamic law. Muslims’

high regard for the Prophetic Traditions, therefore, makes them

immensely crucial for the study of any religious concept in Islam. Islam

does not proclaim to be an absolutely new religion.2 Rather, it presents



Hamdard Islamicus 74 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

itself as a continuation of the previous revelations entrusted to Ódam,

NËÍ, IbrÉhÊm, MËsÉ, DÉ’wËd, and ‘ÔsÉ ( ), among many other

prophets and messengers ( ).3 The InjÊl (Gospel) stands prominent

among the previous revelations not only because it was sent to Prophet

MuÍammad’s (œ) immediate predecessor prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*), but also

because it is associated with the largest religious community of the

contemporary world.4 However, whereas the Christians see the gospels

as a record of revelation not the revelation itself* (because for them it

is Jesus Christ (*) who is the revelation of God),5 the InjÊl perceived

by the Prophetic Traditions – in agreement with the view of the Qur’Én –

seems to signify a direct revelation entrusted to ‘ÔsÉ (*). Therefore, it

is important to study the concept of the InjÊl as perceived by the Prophetic

Traditions and investigate what is the relation between the Christian

gospels and the InjÊl mentioned in the ÍadÊth literature. The study might

lead to significant implications for the dialogue between two major religious

communities of the world.

Literature Review

Despite the importance of the topic, one hardly finds any significant

study, specifically addressing the above-mentioned question. British

missionary William Gairdner (d. 1928) wrote an article “MoÍammedan

Tradition and Gospel Record: The ×adÊth and the InjÊl” in 1915.6 He,

however, solely focuses on how the Christian gospels and Muslim ÍadÊth

literature were preserved and developed in the course of history. Drawing

completely upon the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century orientalist

Ignaz Goldziher’s (d. 1921) conclusions and opinions about the authenticity

and historicity of ÍadÊth literature,7 he proceeds to prove the superiority

of the gospel record over Prophetic Traditions in terms of authenticity,

reliability, and withstanding the onslaught of the Historical Critical Method.8

Although, the main thesis of this article does not directly relate to the

present study, it did foreshadow Wilfred C. Smith’s (d. 2000) later

proposition that Christian gospels’ more accurate equivalent in Islam is

ÍadÊth literature and not the Qur’Én.9

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
*The four versions of InjÊl are in fact not the original Divine message to ‘ÔsÉ (*)

but rather versions of four of his apostles, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.



Hamdard Islamicus 75 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Sidney Griffith (b. 1938), in his broader quest for the appearance

of the earliest translations of the Christian gospels into Arabic, discusses

three early Muslim sources, which refer to the InjÊl or its contents. The

first is Ibn IsÍÉq’s (d. ca. 767 C.E.) biography of Prophet MuÍammad (œ).

Ibn IsÍÉq quotes the Gospel of John (15:23-16:1) as a scriptural proof of

the future coming of Prophet MuÍammad (œ). Following earlier scholars

(i.e., Anton Baumstark [d. 1948] and Alfred Guillaume10 [d. 1965]), Griffith

holds that Ibn IsÍÉq’s quotation certainly draws upon some version of the

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary.11 He also refers to certain “corrections

and alterations,”12 which the biographer introduced to the text in order

to make it in harmony with Islamic doctrines, such as replacing the

phrase “my Father” with “the Lord.” Griffith concludes that Ibn IsÍÉq

alone, or with assistance of some Arabic-speaking Christian, translated

the Syriac text into Arabic in order to incorporate it into his biography.

The second reference includes Muslim sources especially the report of

BukhÉrÊ, which narrate that Waraqah b. Nawfal, an older contemporary

of Prophet MuÍammad (œ) and cousin of his wife KhadÊjah (g), used

to write/read InjÊl bi ’l-‘Arabiyyah/bi ’l-‘IbrÉniyyah. Griffith, however,

confines himself mainly to the question concerning the language in which

the Gospel reached to Waraqah and the language in which he used to

write/read it. He suggests that the Gospel in possession of Waraqah was

most probably in Syriac and that he in all likelihood copied it in his native

language, Arabic. The last Muslim source, which Griffith discusses in

relation to Muslim references to the Injil, is Wahb b. Munabbih (d)

(d. 732 C.E.). He notes that Wahb ibn Munabbih (d) presents his

accounts of the Torah and the InjÊl in a manner that agrees with

Qur’Énic teachings about their message.11 Moreover, the sources of his

reports, Griffith continues, “were in languages other than Arabic, most

probably Syriac, and possibly some Greek.”13 Griffith is obviously

conscious of the difference between the Muslim perception of the InjÊl and

Christian understanding of the gospels. That is why, he makes it clear

from the outset that he aims to search for the earliest Arabic translations

of the canonical gospels and not to study the image of the InjÊl as

perceived by the Qur’Én, prophetic narrations, or broader Muslim tradition.

American historian of Islam David Cook (b. 1966) – largely agreeing

with Griffith’s conclusion that Arabic translations of the Christian gospels

did not appear until the early ‘AbbÉsid period and that citations predating



Hamdard Islamicus 76 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

this period drew upon individual, perhaps oral translations, often

paraphrases, and not upon a larger translated text – studies verbatim or

paraphrased New Testament citations found in the ÍadÊth literature in

search for early Arabic translations of the gospels.14 Adding to the work

of Tarif KhÉlidi,15 he collects fifty-nine ÍadÊth selections, which in his

view, are from the New Testament. As most of these alleged citations

are from Matthew, Cook proposes, “there was a Muslim translation of

the Gospel of Matthew into Arabic, or at least of those parts which were

not objectionable to the early Muslims.”16 Although, Cook explores the

vast corpus of ÍadÊth,17 it is not his intention to elaborate the concept

of the InjÊl as imagined by the Prophetic Traditions. This brief review

of the literature shows that the limitations of the previous studies leave

sufficient research gape to be filled by further research.

The InjÊl Possessed by Waraqah b. Nawfal

It is significant to survey ÍadÊth literature in order to illuminate the

concept of the InjÊl preserved by Waraqah b. Nawfal. Waraqah b. Nawfal

(d. ca. 611 C.E.) b. Asad b. ‘Abd al-‘UzzÉ b. QuÎayy was the cousin

of KhadÊjah (g), the wife of Prophet MuÍammad (œ). His lineage

meets with that of the Prophet (œ) on QuÎayy, the third grandfather of

Waraqah and KhadÊjah and the fourth one of the Prophet (œ).18 In

Muslim literature, Waraqah is remembered for his knowledge of the

scriptures, both the TawrÉh (Torah) and the InjÊl.19 He was one of the

few Makkans who renounced paganism and became monotheists before

the advent of Islam.20 Muslim sources testify to his adoption of

Christianity.21 The famous historian MuÍammad b. ×abÊb (d. 245 A.H.)

explains, why Waraqah leaned to Christianity. According to him, Waraqah

composed an elegy, to mourn his Christian cousin ‘UthmÉn b. al-×uwayrith,

who was allegedly killed by ‘Amr b. AbÊ Shamir, the Christian sovereign

of Syria. When ‘Amr b. AbÊ Shamir came to know the elegy he swore

to kill Warqah. On hearing this news, Waraqah left Makkah to take

refuge in the territory of the Tayy’ tribe, where he remained for a long

time.22 Tayy’ was one of the Arab tribes into which Christianity had

penetrated before the advent of Islam.23 Then Waraqah went to Bahrain.24

Again, Bahrain was one of the Arabian cities where Christianity flourished

prior to Islam.25 A Bahraini Christian taught Waraqah how to seek pardon



Hamdard Islamicus 77 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

from the king. He advised him to go to the king and seek the protection

of Christ (*) from the King. As Waraqah did what the Christian told

him to do, the king not only forgave him but also gave protection to him

and his people. All this touched him so much that he felt an inclination

for Christianity.26

A Tradition narrates that Waraqah also visited Negus, the king of

Abyssinia, after the unsuccessful military expedition of Abrahah against

Makkah.27 Nevertheless, its detailed account seems to be mythological

more functional than historical. Famous ÍadÊth scholar Ibn ×ajar (d.

1449) maintains that Waraqah left Makkah for Syria and other lands in

search of true religion. He accepted Christianity and met those monks

who followed the pure and intact religion of the prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*).28

Probably, from such monks he learned about the expected advent of a

prophet and subsequently attested his prophethood as did SalmÉn, the

Persian (d).

The Traditions, which describe the incident of the first revelation to

the Prophet MuÍammad (œ), relate that Waraqah used to write or read

the InjÊl. However, they do not agree on the language in which he used

to write or read. BukhÉrÊ relates twice that Waraqah “used to write

al-KitÉb al-‘ArabÊ and write down from the InjÊl bi ’l-‘Arabiyyah

whatever Allah wanted him to write.”29 The version of this ÍadÊth,

related in the ØaÍÊÍ Muslim is in accordance with this reading.30 In

another place, however, BukhÉrÊ relates, “He used to write al-KitÉb

al-‘IbrÉnÊ and he would write down from the InjÊl bi ’l-‘IbrÉniyyah.”31

Elsewhere he narrates, “He used to read the InjÊl bi ’l-‘Arabiyyah.”32

A survey of ÍadÊth literature shows that most of the Traditions,

including those of BukhÉrÊ, maintain that Waraqah used to write or read

the InjÊl bi ’l-‘Arabiyyah.33 Only one version of one Tradition quoted

in BukhÉrÊ reads that he used to write al-KitÉb al-‘IbrÉnÊ, and write

down from the InjÊl bi ’l-‘IbrÉniyyah.”34

Muslim commentators of the ÍadÊth do not see this variation of

reading much problematic. They regard both readings as authentic, arguing

that since Waraqah knew both languages he wrote the InjÊl in Arabic as

well as in Hebrew.35 Even some commentators hold that Waraqah was

a polyglot and supposedly knew three languages, Arabic, Hebrew and

Syriac, arguing that the InjÊl had originally been written in Syriac and that

Waraqah used to copy it in Arabic and Hebrew simultaneously.36 Ibn



Hamdard Islamicus 78 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

HishÉm, on the other hand, records, “Waraqah professed Christianity,

read the scriptures, and heard from the people of the Tawrah and the

InjÊl.”37 However, he leaves mention of the language in which Waraqah

read or wrote the scriptures, perhaps to avoid creating confusion. It is

important, however, to note that Muslim scholars unfortunately did not

inquire how this mutli-lingual InjÊl disappeared. Perhaps, one reason for

not preservation of Waraqah’s InjÊl was that he did not live long after

Prophet MuÍammad (œ) experienced the first revelation of the Qur’Én.

Waraqah died circa 611 C.E. even before the Prophet (œ) was directed

to announce his prophetic mission publicly.

MuÍammad ×amÊdullah (d. 2002) opines that the word ‘IbrÉniyyah,

mentioned in BukhÉrÊ, denotes Syriac and not Hebrew. He attempts to

reconcile the variant readings of BukhÉrÊ’s report saying, “Both may be

true; having learnt Syriac he could read in that language, and also translate

in his mother tongue, Arabic.”38 The inconsistency, however, has not

been completely resolved, for BukhÉrÊ’s report manifestly reads that he

used to write in ‘IbrÉniyyah as well.39

The famous orientalist Aloys Sprenger (d. 1893) proposes that the

“Hebrew” in question is actually the Aramaic script employed by Jews,

and that in this narration it means that Waraqah wrote Arabic InjÊl in the

Aramaic script. Therefore, in his view there is no real conflict between

the two versions of the narration.40

This view has further been elaborated with some modifications by

the Lebanese historian KamÉl Salibi (d. 2011) who holds that Hebrew in

this context “could have meant either Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic. For

the term often indicated the common script in which the two related

languages could be written, rather than the language itself.”41 He argues

that in post-exilic times, Aramaic rapidly replaced Hebrew as the common

Israelite language, and the Hebrew script was maintained for it.42 He

concludes that “The Gospel which still existed in Arabia in the seventh

century A.D. – the one used by Waraqah Ibn Nawfal – was most

probably written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.”43 This implies that that InjÊl

was written in Aramaic, but using the Hebrew script. However, Griffith,

criticizing Sprenger’s view, says,

Historically there is not only the example of Arabic speaking Jews

writing Arabic in “Hebrew” characters. Syriac speakers also



Hamdard Islamicus 79 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

employed their own alphabets to write Arabic, a writing called

Garšuni in Syriac. But Waraqah, a Meccan and a native

Arabic speaker, and not a Jew but an alleged Christian, would

hardly have had any need to borrow the “Hebrew” script. By this

time the north Arabic script, albeit with an obvious debt to the

Syriac script in its origins, would certainly have been available to

Waraqah.44

Griffith inclines to hold that in all likelihood the Christians of ×ijÉz

had their InjÊl in Syriac during the Prophet MuÍammad’s (œ) time, and

that Waraqah b. Nawfal copied from the InjÊl in his native, Arabic

language. He argues that the Arabic speaking Christians had strong ties

with and were influenced by the Syriac speaking Christians and that the

language of the vernacular scriptures in much of Syria and Palestine

before the rise of Islam was the Aramaic dialect known as Palestinian

Syriac.45 He does not clearly mention the language of the InjÊl from

which Waraqah copied in Arabic. However, one may safely assume,

after analyzing his arguments, that it was Syriac.

He explains the variant of the narrative which reads, “He [Waraqah]

used to write al-KitÉb al-‘IbrÉnÊ, and he would write down from the

InjÊl bi ’l-‘IbrÉniyyah” as a later correction of the narrative, interpolated

by someone who thought that the language of the original InjÊl was

Hebrew.46 However, this explanation may not be correct, for it is based

on a disputed hypothesis, that is, ÍadÊth literature was produced to meet

the requirements of Islamic apologetics.

A book entitled the Qass wa NabÊ suggests that Waraqah was

associated with the Ebonite heresy and the InjÊl he possessed the

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is also known as Gospel according

to the Hebrews.47 This view, however, is not correct either. Because

there is no evidence that this sect – which flourished in Transjordan in

the early centuries of the Christian era – survived until the seventh and,

what is more, in Makkah.48

Quite interestingly, Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.) proclaims – in the

context of refuting the Christian claim that the disciples translated the

Tawrah and the InjÊl into every language – that Arabs never possessed

any Arabic version of the Tawrah or InjÊl since the time of the Messiah.

Even there had not been any manuscript of Tawrah or InjÊl at all in



Hamdard Islamicus 80 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Makkah, neither in Arabic nor in non-Arabic. His argument rests on the

unavailability of the ancient Arabic manuscripts of the scriptures as well

as on the Qur’Énic verse (XXVIII:46), which implies that no messenger

came to Makkans before Prophet MuÍammad (œ).49 However, his

argument seems to be fallacious partially because authentic sources

indicate that the InjÊl in some form was found in Makkah during the

seventh century C.E.50 and partially because the above-quoted verse

does not necessarily imply that there had not been any kind of scripture

in Makkah before the advent of Islam.

After analyzing the available data, it seems that the InjÊl possessed

by Waraqah – regardless of whether it was a complete manuscript of the

InjÊl or only a fragment – was most probably written in Syriac, not

because BukhÉrÊ’s report may be interpreted as implying this. Instead,

because the historical evidences indicate that the language of the

vernacular scriptures in much of Syria and Palestine – whence Christianity

came to Arabia – before the rise of Islam was Syriac. This Syriac

known as Palestinian Syriac was, in fact, a dialect of Aramaic.51 Since

Hebrew and Aramaic (Palestinian Syriac) used to be written in a common

script – as Salibi proposes – it is possible that Muslim literature sometimes

has confusingly named Syriac as Hebrew. Therefore, it seems that when

Muslim literature reads, “He [Waraqah] used to write al-KitÉb al-‘IbrÉnÊ,

and he would write down from the InjÊl bi ’l-‘IbrÉniyyah” it may mean

that he used to write in Syriac. On the other hand, those who hold that

it was written in Aramaic perhaps they mean by it Palestinian Syriac that

was a specific dialect of Aramaic.

How and When Was the InjÊl Revealed?

Muslims believe that many Divine books descended on the respective

prophets ( ) prior to the Qur’’Én. Some Prophetic Traditions clearly

describe when and how these Divine books or sheets (ÎuÍËf) were

revealed. Therefore, an analysis of such narrations may help to understand

the concept of the InjÊl as perceived by the ÍadÊth literature.

Muslim muÍaddÊth SulaymÉn b. AÍmad al-ÙabarÉnÊ (d. 360 H./

917 C.E.) narrates on the authority of the Companion WÉthilah b.

Asqa‘ (d) who narrates from Prophet MuÍammad (œ) the

following: “The sheets of IbrÉhÊm descended on the first night of



Hamdard Islamicus 81 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

RamaÌÉn; the Tawrah descended on the sixth night of RamaÌÉn; the

InjÊl descended on the thirteenth night of RamaÌÉn; the ZabËr descended

on the eighteenth night of RamaÌÉn; and the Qur’Én descended on the

twenty-fourth night of RamaÌÉn.”52 This Tradition refers to the sheets

of IbrÉhÊm (*) along with the four famous Divine books. The Qur’Én

also makes brief references to them (LIII:36-37; LXXXVII:18-19). It is

interesting to note that this Prophetic Tradition describes all of these books

revealed on the nights of RamaÌÉn with an interval of about six days

(i.e., 1st, 6th, 13th, 18th, and 24th of RamaÌÉn). The ZabËr has been

mentioned after the InjÊl, which is against the chronological order of their

revelation, for the latter was revealed after the former. Moreover, all of

these scriptures have been described to descend in an identical pattern,

which implies that the nature of the previous revelations, including that

of the InjÊl, was the same as of the Qur’Én itself.

However, there are some other versions of this ÍadÊth, which

differ from the above in some details. For instance, AÍmad b.

×anbal (R.A.) mentions the same Tradition on the authority of

same WÉthilah b. Asqa‘ (d) from the Messenger of God (œ).

However, he omits the mention of the ZabËr.53 On the other hand,

IsmÉ‘Êl b. KathÊr mentions that Ibn Mardawayh narrates the same

ÍadÊth on the authority of JÉbir b. ‘Abd Allah (d). However, he reverses

the order of ZabËr and InjÊl as he makes the revelation of the ZabËr

on the twelfth of RamaÌÉn and of the InjÊl on the eighteenth of

RamaÌÉn.54

In spite of all these variations, these Traditions indicate that each of

these Divine books, including the InjÊl, descended on its respective prophet

on a specific night of RamaÌÉn. Perhaps for this reason, majority of

Muslim scholars hold that the previous Divine books (i.e., ØaÍÊfah, Sheets,

TawrÉh, ZabËr, and InjÊl) were sent down all at once and the Qur’Én

was sent down to Bayt al-‘Izzah in the first heaven in the same way

and then whence it descended on the Prophet (œ) step by step.55 These

narrations also signify the importance of RamaÌÉn in relation to all

revelations, especially the Qur’Én, which claims about itself that it has

been sent down in RamaÌÉn (II:185), specifically on laylat al-qadr

(XCVII:1). Later Muslim scholars provide specific details in this regard,

perhaps using such Traditions along with some Biblical material. For

instance, Ibn KathÊr narrates on the authority of AbË ZËr‘ah al-DimashqÊ



Hamdard Islamicus 82 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

(d. 281 A.H.) that the TawrÉh descended on MËsÉ (*) on the sixth

night of RamaÌÉn; the ZabËr descended on the twelfth night of RamaÌÉn

after 482 years from the Tawrah; the InjÊl descended on ‘ÔsÉ b.

Maryam (*) on the eighteenth night of RamaÌÉn after 1050 years from

ZabËr; and the Qur’Én descended on the twenty-fourth night of

RamaÌÉn.56 It should also be noted that such Prophetic Traditions are

in agreement with the Qur’Én, which maintains that the InjÊl was a

Divine book revealed to prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*) by Allah. They do not support

the Christian view of the Gospels, which denies that God revealed to

Jesus (*) any specific book known as the Gospel and maintains that the

evangelists composed gospels after Jesus (*) as a historical record of

his life and works.

Certain Prophetic Traditions depict the previous scriptures as

containing sËrahs (chapters) in the same way as does the Qur’Én. They

also compare some specific sËrahs of the Qur’Én with previous revealed

books, along with the InjÊl. AÍmad b. ×anbal (R.A.), for instance, mentions

on the authority of WÉthilah b. Asqa‘ (d) from the Prophet (œ),

“I have been given al-Sab‘ instead of the TawrÉh, al-Mi’Ên instead of

the ZabËr, and al-MathÉnÊ instead of the InjÊl, as well as I have been

given superiority by al-MufaÎÎal.”57

It is generally held that the term al-Sab‘ or al-Sab‘ al-ÙiwÉl signifies

first seven sËrahs of the Qur’Én, excluding al-FÉtiÍah, al-AnfÉl and

al-Tawbah, (i.e., al-Baqarah, Ól-‘ImrÉn, al-NisÉ’, al-MÉ’idah,

al-An‘Ém, al-A‘rÉf, and YËnus).58 Some scholars replace YËnus with

al-AnfÉl and al-Tawbah, considering them one sËrah.59 Al-Mi’Ên are

those sËrahs, which contain hundred and above verses. The term

al-MathÉnÊ, on the other hand, is interpreted either as sËrah al-FÉtiÍah

or as those sËrahs, which are longer than al-MufaÎÎal but shorter than

al-Mi’Ên.60 Perhaps in the present context, it is better to adopt the second

interpretation, for in another Prophetic Tradition, sËrah al-FÉtiÍah has

been declared a unique sËrah, which has no equivalent sËrah in any

previous revealed book.61

In some other versions of the above-mentioned Prophetic Tradition,

al-MathÉnÊ were made substitute for the ZabËr instead of the InjÊl.62

Elsewhere, al-MÉ’idah was made substitute for the InjÊl and al-×ÉmÊm

for the ZabËr as well as the TawrÉh was described to be replaced by

al-MathÉnÊ.63 It has also been reported that ÙÉha, ÙÉsÊn, and ×ÉmÊm



Hamdard Islamicus 83 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

were revealed to Prophet MuÍammad (œ) from the tablets (alwÉÍ) of

MËsÉ (*) and SËrat al-Baqarah from al-dhikr al-awwal.64 Moreover,

some less-authentic Traditions state that the Prophet was given al-Sab‘

in place of the TawrÉt, al-RÉ’Ét in place of the InjÊl, and sËrahs between

al-ÙÉsÊn and al-×ÉmÊm in place of the ZabËr as well as he was exclusively

honored by al-×ÉmÊm and al-MufaÎÎal, as none of the prophets ( )

ever recited them before him.65

It is obvious that these Traditions differ markedly and it seems

difficult to reconcile them. However, all of them do agree on that

some parts of the Qur’Én – whatever they are – correspond to some

previous revealed books. This view is further strengthened by the following

saying of ‘Abd Allah b. [Mas‘Ëd] (d) which reads, “Al-Sab‘ al-ÙuwÉl

are like TawrÉh, al-Mi’Ên like InjÊl, al-MathÉnÊ like ZabËr and the rest

of the Qur’Én is surplus (which has no match in the previous

revelations).”66 On the other hand, it has also been reported that the

Prophet (œ) described some of the Qur’Énic sËrahs viz. al-FÉtiÍah,

al-IkhlÉÎ, al-Falaq, and an-NÉs, as the best sËrahs, which had no

similitude in the TawrÉh, the ZabËr, the InjÊl or even in the Qur’Én

itself.67

It seems that the main thrust of such Traditions is to establish the

merits (faÌÉ’il) of the Qur’Énic sËrahs as well as to demonstrate the

supremacy of the Qur’Én over the previous scriptures. However, they do

imply that the authentic previous revelations – including the InjÊl – have

been considered, in the ÍadÊth literature, verbatim word of God as are

certain sËrahs of the Qur’Én and not as historical or biographical records

compiled by the followers of the prophets ( ).

Some other Traditions inform about the number of previous revealed

books. However, such narrations too, have the problem of variations as

they differ in their accounts.

Ibn ×abbÉn narrates – on the authority of AbË Dharr (d) –

from Prophet MuÍammad (œ) that Allah revealed one hundred and four

books. Fifty sheets descended on ShÊth (*), thirty sheets on IdrÊs (*),

ten sheets on IbrÉhÊm (*), and ten sheets on MËsÉ (*) before the

TawrÉh. Moreover, the TawrÉh, the InjÊl, the ZabËr, and the Qur’Én

descended (on their respective prophets [ ]).68 This Tradition mentions

some details about the contents of the sheets of IbrÉhÊm and MËsÉ ( )

as well. One also observes that it informs about the number of



Hamdard Islamicus 84 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Divine scriptures and about the prophets ( ) to whom they were

revealed. However, historical and SÊrah literature provides some different

information in this regard. MuÍammad b. YËsuf al-ØÉliÍÊ (d. 942 A.H.)

mentions that sheets of Ódam (*) were fifty one, of ShÊth (*) were

twenty, and of IdrÊs (*) were thirty.69 On the other hand, Ibn IyÉs

al-×anafÊ (d. ca. 930/1524) relates on the authority of al-Tha‘labÊ that

the books descended on the Envoys are four: the TawrÉh, the InjÊl, the

ZabËr, and the FurqÉn. As far as the revealed sheets are concerned,

they are 110:sixty sheets descended on ShÊth b. Ódam (*), thirty sheets

on IdrÊs (*), and twenty sheets on IbrÉhÊm (*).70

It is obvious that above-mentioned Traditions, too, place the InjÊl

and the Qur’Én in the line of all previous revealed books and do not

indicate to any substantial difference between the natures of these

revelations. This notion is corroborated by the Qur’Énic verse, “We have

sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after

him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, IsmÉ‘Êl, IsÉc, Jacob and the

descendants, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Óaron, and Solomon, and to David We

gave the Psalms” (IV:163).71  However, this understanding leads one to

the following question: If the Prophetic Traditions perceived the InjÊl as

having the same revelatory nature as that of the Qur’Én, then what was

their approach to the scriptures possessed by the Christians of the

Prophetic era?

The Question of Corruption

The ÍadÊth literature not only provides information about the history

of the alteration of the previous revealed books,but it also informs about

the nature of Jewish-Christian scriptural corruption, during the early Islamic

period. There are certain Traditions, which explain how distortion crept

into the previous scriptures of the people of the book, especially the InjÊl.

They also shed light on motives behind the falsification of scriptures.

The ÍadÊth literature blames the rulers for corrupting the Christian

scriptures. A Tradition – reported from Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) – charges

those rulers who came after the era of prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*) of altering the

TawrÉh and the InjÊl.72 Such alteration, however, did not gain the

acceptance of all Christians as a minority of them continued to read the

TawrÉh and the InjÊl in their intact forms. Nevertheless, those who altered



Hamdard Islamicus 85 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

their scriptures complained to the rulers that some of their coreligionists

had annoyed them by reading intact scriptures and charging them with

blasphemy for not judging by what Allah had revealed. Moreover, they

asked the rulers to force the believers to read and believe as they

themselves read and believed. Consequently, the rulers called the true

believers and gave them a choice between the death and reading the

intact TawrÉh and the InjÊl. The believers, however, sought to strike a

deal and accepted to live in exile.73

Various forms of this self-exile correspond to three kinds of monastic

life. One group said, “Build for us a column (usÏuwÉnah), then raise us

up to it and give us something so that we could lift up our food and drink.

Thus we would not be able to mix with you.”74 Another group chose a

different path, saying, “Let us roam about the land and wander, drinking

what the beasts drink. If you find us in your territories, kill us.”75 Yet a

third group demanded, “Build for us a dwelling in the desert and we will

dig wells and cultivate herbs, so we would neither come to you nor pass

by you.”76 Since all tribes had friends among the believers, they let them

choose self-exile.77 This Tradition illuminates the beginning of monasticism

in Christianity on the one hand and explains the starting point of the

scriptural alteration in Christianity, on the other.

It seems that the believers who made a deal with those who

corrupted the scriptures correspond to the third category of those three

Christian groups, whose mention one finds in another Prophetic Tradition

reported on the authority of ‘Abd Allah b. Mas‘Ëd (d). It begins with

a quotation from Prophet MuÍammad (œ) that those who preceded

him subdivided into seventy-two groups of which only three were

saved while the rest perished. The first of these actively opposed the

unjust rulers. However, they were slain, defending the religion of

God and that of ‘ÔsÉ b. Maryam (*). The second group lacking the

courage of opposing the rulers, stayed among their people, preaching

them about the religion of God and that of ‘ÔsÉ b. Maryam (*). However,

the rulers also killed them, sawing them up into pieces. The third

group lacking the courage of opposing the rulers and living among their

people in order to preach them about Allah and the religion of ‘ÔsÉ b.

Maryam (*), wandered around the mountains, living as monks and

hermits.78

On the base of the above mentioned, one may argue that the



Hamdard Islamicus 86 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

attempts were made to corrupt the TawrÉh and the InjÊl by the rulers as

early as after the ascension of prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*). However, some faithful

believers resisted such attempts. Nevertheless, the powerful rulers

overwhelmed and slew them. Others changed the strategy and did not

involve in direct opposition to the rulers. Instead, they lived peacefully

and preached to the masses. However, the rulers did not tolerate them

either and killed them mercilessly. Realizing their helplessness, the

remaining true believers preferred to flee into the deserts and mountains

to save their faith. As a result, the official Christianity became corrupted

having changed its scriptures while the true followers of prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*)

scattered into remote areas beyond the jurisdiction of the Christian

authorities in order to escape the persecution, probably preserving with

them fragments of the original InjÊl of prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*). The official

Christianity excommunicated them, declaring them heretic and their

scriptures apocryphal and extra-canonical.

One should not surmise, however, that the doctrines of the third

group completely remained intact. It was hardly possible in such

circumstances. In fact, the Qur’Én and the ÍadÊth literature indicate that

the doctrines of the third group also could not remain pure and that

polytheism (shirk) crept into the beliefs of their subsequent adherents.79

However, they were the people, as the Traditions say, among whom a

few survived until the advent of Islam. So “a man descended from his

cell (Îawma‘ah), a wanderer came forth from his wanderings, the one

who had a constructed dwelling (ÎÉÍib al-dayr) came from his abode

and they all believed in and confirmed the Prophethood of

MuÍammad (œ).”80

Besides providing information about the history of the corruption of

the previous scriptures, the ÍadÊth literature sheds light on the perspective

of the Prophet (œ) and his Companions to the scriptures available in

the seventh century C.E. Some Traditions apparently indicate that the

texts of the TawrÉh and the InjÊl were not distorted. Instead, they were

misinterpreted. BukhÉrÊ narrates on the authority of Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d)

that the word YuÍarrifËn means that they displace (yuzÊlËn).81 Then he

further elaborates it by saying, “No one displaces the text of any book

of God – the Exalted and Glorious – rather they commit taÍrÊf, which

means that they wrongly interpret it.”82

Muslim scholars have differed, however, whether this further



Hamdard Islamicus 87 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

elaboration is of Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) or BukhÉrÊ’s explanation of Ibn ‘AbbÉs’s

statement. ShÉh WalÊ Allah of Delhi associates the literal distortion

committed by Jews with the translation of the TawrÉh and not with its

original text and ascribes this view to Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d).83 However, other

scholars ascribe this explanation to BukhÉrÊ himself. A ÍadÊth scholar

Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 1401 C.E.) is one of them.84 Ibn ×ajar opines that

both interpretations are possible. However, he prefers the second one as

he writes, “BukhÉrÊ implies by yata’awwalËnahË that they tamper with

the intended meaning with some kind of interpretation (tÉ’wÊl), as if a

Hebrew word contained two meanings; one was clear and intended one

and the other was farfetched, they would interpret it with the farfetched

one.”85 It seems more plausible to ascribe this explanation to BukhÉrÊ

rather than to Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d), for elsewhere Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) has been

said to have a different view. He says,

Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything

while your Book (the Qur’Én) which has been revealed to

Allah’s Apostle (œ) is newer? You read it pure, undistorted and

unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture

(Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and

wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, “It is from

Allah,” to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has

come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by

Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding

what has been revealed to you!86

Al-ÙabarÊ also narrates from Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) while interpreting

III:78, “They are the Jews. They used to add to the Book of Allah what

Allah never revealed.”87 Such Traditions shed light on the attitude of

Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) towards the scriptural corruption of the People of the

Book as well as demonstrate that his above-mentioned perception rested

on the Qur’Énic judgment. Because he argues, “Allah has told you

that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their

scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands

and said, ‘It is from Allah’, to sell it for a little gain.”88 Moreover, it

should be kept in mind that above-mentioned BukhÉrÊ’s statement

specifically concerns the TawrÉh and should not be generalized to include

the Christian scripture.



Hamdard Islamicus 88 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Perception of Ibn ‘AbbÉs’ (d) may have been influenced by

that of the Prophet (œ) himself who did not like for his Companions

looking into the scriptures possessed by his contemporary People of the

Book.89 Even he forbade the Muslims from confirming or rejecting

what the People of the Book informed them about the contents of their

scriptures and demanded them to say only, “We believed in whatever had

been sent to us and whatever had been sent to you.90 It implies that the

Prophet (œ) was suspicious of the authenticity of the scriptures possessed

by his contemporary Jews and Christians, though he showed immense

reverence for the original scriptures sent down to the respective

prophets ( ).

Some Prophetic Traditions imply that the Jews of Madinah

possessed the Hebrew TawrÉh and recited it in Hebrew, but explained

its contents to Muslims in Arabic.91 It also contained some intact portions

of the original TawrÉh, viz., the injunction about the punishment of the

fornication, which they attempted to conceal.92 The Qur’Én also refers

to this matter in V:43.

The Jews and Christians of the period of the Prophet (œ), some

Traditions inform, possessed the TawrÉh and the InjÊl and they read

them, but they neither practiced their teachings nor made use of them.93

Such Traditions, however, imply that the people of the book distorted the

meanings of their scripture and sought false interpretations to avoid

practising them. Consequently, they were deprived of guidance, despite

possessing the scripture.

Interestingly, in ÍadÊth literature one finds that the Jews of

MadÊnah were not only accustomed to the InjÊl, but also studied it.

Moreover, it appears as though the Prophet (œ) thought that the

Jews of MadÊnah revered the InjÊl. It has been reported on the authority

of al-FaltÉn b. ‘ÓÎim (d) that a Jew told the Prophet (œ) that he

had read the TawrÉh and the InjÊl. It has also been said that the

Prophet (œ) asked him about his prophecies in the TawrÉh and the

InjÊl saying, “I ask you by Him Who sent down the TawrÉh and the

InjÊl ... if you do not find me in both of them.”94 Nevertheless, contrary

to this, there are other Traditions, which show that the Jews of

MadÊnah disbelieved in prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*) and the InjÊl whereas the

Christians of Najran denied the prophethood of MËsÉ (*) and the

TawrÉh.95 The later report is further strengthened by the Qur’Énic



Hamdard Islamicus 89 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

verse II:113, though Christians, in general, believe in MËsÉ (*) and the

TawrÉh.

In sum, it seems that although the ÍadÊth literature indicates to both

kinds of corruption of the previous scriptures, especially of the InjÊl, it is

the textual alteration, which is more obvious.

Prophecies About the Advent of the Prophet MuÍammad (œ)

In ÍadÊth literature, one finds a number of Prophetic Traditions,

which indicate that the scriptures of the people of the book – the

contemporaries of the Prophet (œ) – contained descriptions of and

prophecies about the Prophet (œ). Some of them have been narrated by

the Prophet (œ) himself. Others have been ascribed to the Companions

of the Prophet (œ) or their successors (al-tÉbi‘Ën).

The Qur’Én plainly states that the people of the book find the

descriptions of Prophet MuÍammad (œ) in their scriptures, “Those who

follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet (œ), whom they find

mentioned in their own (scriptures) – in the law and the Gospel” (VII:157)

and refers to some specific similes, which had also been mentioned in the

previous scriptures (XLVIII:29). Therefore, Prophet MuÍammad’s (œ)

and his Companions’ eagerness to find them out in the then existent

stock of the previous scriptures was only natural and logical.

It is reported that Negus, the Abyssinian king, confessed in front

of the Companions who migrated to Abyssinia, “I witness that he

(MuÍammad [œ]) is the Messenger of God; that we find him in the

InjÊl; and that he is the Messenger about whom ‘ÔsÉ b. Maryam (*)

prophesizd.”96 The ÍadÊth and SÊrah literature preserves several

Traditions, which reveal that the Prophet (œ) himself enquired from the

people of the book about his prophecies mentioned in their scriptures.

It has been reported on the authority of Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) that the

Messenger of God (œ) wrote to the Jews of Khayber. After mentioning

his companionship and brotherhood of, and corroboration for

prophet MËsÉ (*), he quoted the verse LXVIII:29 and then asked

them,

I adjure you by God, by that which has come down to you, and

by Him who fed manna and quails to your forbears and tribes,



Hamdard Islamicus 90 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

who dried up the sea for your forefathers to save you from

Pharaoh and his deeds that you must tell us whether you find in

God’s revelations to you (the fact) that you should believe in

MuÍammad (œ). And if you do not discover that in your scriptures,

then you would not be enforced at all. (By now) what is right has

become clear from what is error. And I call you to God and His

Prophet (œ).”97

The verse (LXVIII:29), referred to in this letter, was revealed on

return from ×udaybiyyah shortly after which the Prophet (œ) launched

a military expedition against the Jews of Khayber.98 Therefore, most

probably this letter was written not long after the Pact of ×udaybiyyah

(concluded in the end of 6 A.H.). There are several things to note in

this passage. Since Prophet MuÍammad (œ) wrote this letter to the

Jews, he mentioned himself as a companion, brother, and corroborator

of prophet MËsÉ (*) in the opening part of the letter. He was so

convinced of having been mentioned in the previous revelations that he

referred to the above-mentioned verse and argued against the Jews on

its basis. He mentioned the blessings, which Allah bestowed upon their

forefathers, and asked them about his prophecy, adjuring them by Allah

Who gave them such blessings. He assured them that if they really could

not find his description in their scripture, he would not enforce them to

accept it.

Some Traditions reveal that the Jews of MadÊnah definitely

knew that he was a prophet and found his description in their scripture,

but denied him in envy. It is reported on the authority of AbË

Hurayrah (d) that when the Prophet (œ) asked ‘Abd Allah b.

ØËriyÉ,99 the most learned Jew of MadÊnah of his time, about his

prophethood, he answered, “I know (that you are the Messenger of

Allah [œ]) and the Jews know what I know as well. Your description

has clearly been mentioned in the TawrÉh, but they envied you.”100

In some other Traditions, the Prophet (œ) informs the Jews that they

find his description in their scriptures. It is reported that the Prophet (œ)

passed by some Jewish schools and said to the Jews, “O Jews, accept

Islam. For, by Him in Whose hand is my soul, you certainly find my

description in your scriptures.”101 ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘ÓÎ (d)

who found at the battle of YarmËk two bags of scriptures of the



Hamdard Islamicus 91 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

people of the book and used to relate from them a great deal,102

said,

Certainly, he is, by God, referred to in the TawrÉh as he is in the

Qur’Én. “O Prophet, We have sent you to give witness, to bring

good tidings, and to warn, and to protect the illiterates. You are My

slave and My messenger. I have named you al-Mutawakkil”;

a man not rough or uncouth nor one who shouts loudly in the

markets; a man who does not pay back evil with evil, but one who

forgives and pardons; and He will not take him until he sets the

deviant community aright by having them bear witness that there is

no god but Allah. By Him, he will open blind eyes, dead ears, and

closed hearts.103

The same description, with slight variation, has also been

reported from ‘Abd Allah b. SalÉm and Ka‘b al-AÍbÉr (﷠ ), two

well-known converted Jewish scholars.104 Some parts of this description

have been reported from ‘Ó’ishah (g), but she has been said to

refer it to the InjÊl rather than the TawrÉh. It is reported that she

said, “The Messenger of Allah (œ) has been described in the

InjÊl as (one who is) not rough, nor uncouth, not one who shouts

loudly in the markets, and (as one who) does not repay evil with the

like, but pardons and forgives.”105 Sometimes mistakenly this

Tradition is directly (marfË‘an) narrated from the Prophet (œ) on the

authority of ‘Ó’ishah (g).106 Moreover, some of these descriptions have

been reported from her without a reference to the InjÊl.107

Description of the Prophet (œ) is not confined to the TawrÉh and

the InjÊl.Some narrations entail that Prophet MuÍammad (œ) has been

prophesied in the ZabËr as well. It is reported on the authority of Wahb

b. Munabbih (d. 114/732) that Allah revealed to prophet DÉ’wËd (*)

in the ZabËr,

O DÉ’wËd, there will come after you a prophet named AÍmad and

MuÍammad, a truthful man, a lord; I will never be angry with him,

and he will never make me angry with him. I have forgiven him

before he disobeyed me, both his previous and his later sins. His

nation is forgiven. I have made gifts to them similar to those I gave



Hamdard Islamicus 92 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

to the prophets, and I imposed duties upon them that I imposed

upon the prophets and the messengers, so that they will come to me

on Judgment Day with their light like that of the prophets.108

Many Prophetic Traditions record that a number of people in the

prophetic period found or asserted to find the prophecies about and

descriptions of Prophet MuÍammad (œ) in the InjÊl available to

them. SuyËÏÊ records from BayhaqÊ (d. 458 A.H.) on the authority of

Ibn ‘AbbÉs (d) (d. 68 A.H.) that al-JÉrËd b. ‘Abd Allah (d) came to

the Prophet (œ), accepted Islam and said, “By whom Who sent you

in truth, I have found your description in the InjÊl. And for sure, the son

of the blessed virgin has prophesied you.”107 Moreover, al-SuyËÏÊ and

Al-ÓlËsÊ (d. 1270 A.H.) report from Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230 A.H.) on the

authority of Sahl, the freedman of ‘Utaybah the following:

He [Sahl] was a Christian of Mirris and an orphan under the

guardianship of his mother and his uncle. He used to recite from

al-InjÊl. He said: I seized a copy of my uncle’s which I read.

I happened to come to a leaf, writing on which was uncommon

when I passed by it and touched it with my hand. He said (continuing)

I discovered that some leaves seemed to be pasted with an adhesive.

He said: I tore them and discovered the qualities of MuÍammad (œ).

That he will not be of short stature nor of tall one. He will be of

white complexion with two locks (of hair). Between his two shoulders

there is a seal. He will often sit with his legs folded. He will not

accept Îadaqah (for himself). He will ride the ass and the camel.

He will milk she goat and will put on patched shirt and he who does

that is free from pride and he will do that. He will be descendant

of IsmÉ‘Êl; his name will be AÍmad. Sahl said: when I reached this

account of MuÍammad (œ), my uncle stepped in and when noticed

the leaf he beat me and said: What have you to do with the opening

of this leaf and reading it. I said: In it are the qualities of the

Prophet AÍmad (œ). Thereupon he said: He has not yet come.111

These Traditions indicate that some copies of the InjÊl, which

contained the prophecies about the Prophet (œ), must have survived in

the Arabian Peninsula at least until the seventh century C.E. We do not



Hamdard Islamicus 93 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

have enough information about them. However, one thing is confirmed

that their contents must have been different from the canonical gospels,

which do not contain such prophecies.

Some later authorities ascribe to prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*) some prophecies

about Prophet MuÍammad (œ) without a reference to the InjÊl. Ibn

KathÊr reported from MuqÉtil b. ×ayyÉn (d. 150 A.H.) that the Almighty

and Glorious Allah revealed to ‘ÔsÉ b. Maryam (*) as follows,

Serve Me well and listen and obey, O son of the pure, chaste,

virgin. I have created you without a physical father and have made

you a sign for the worlds, so worship Me only, and explain to the

people of SËrÉn in Syriac; tell those around you that I am the

Existent Truth that will never pass away, believe in the Arab ummÊ

(unlettered) Prophet; he who has the camel, and wears a midra‘ah

(outer garment), and a turban that is his crown, and sandals, and

has a cane that is his staff. His hair is curly, his brow is broad, his

eyebrows are joined, his eyes are large, his lashes are fine, his eyes

are black, his nose is curved, his cheeks are distinct, and his beard

is full. The sweat of his face is like pearls; from him the scent of

musk emanates. His neck is like a silver vessel, and along his

collarbone gold seems to flow. He has hair that grow long and soft

from his throat to his navel, his stomach bearing no other hair. He

is broad of fingers and toes. He overshadows all when he is with

others. When he walks he seems to emerge from the rock and flow

from the stream. He has few progeny, – as if he meant males as

is offspring.111

It is surprising to note, however, that most of the above-mentioned

prophetic descriptions have also been narrated in the books of SÊrah and

especially of ShamÉ’il in the same way, but without any reference to the

previous scriptures. For instance, compare the above-mentioned passage

with the following one: “It is reported from ‘AlÊ (d) that the Prophet (œ)

was neither very tall nor short. He is broad of fingers and toes. He had

a large head. The joints of the bones were also large. There was a thin

line of hair from the chest to the navel. When he walked, it appeared as

if he was descending from a high place.”112

The rest of descriptions also get mention in other ÍadÊth.113 However,

such descriptions do not have any parallels in the existing gospels. Some



Hamdard Islamicus 94 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

of them might have been derived from the same source whence the

corpus of Jesus’ sayings and stories emerged and scattered in the Islamic

literature especially in the ascetic books and in a genre of religious

literature called “Tales of the Prophets” (QaÎaÎ al-AnbiyÉ’).114 RaÍmat

Allah KirÉnawi (d. 1891), a famous Muslim polemicist of the nineteenth-

century India, suggests that prophecies about Prophet MuÍammad (œ) –

recorded in early Muslim literature on the authority of converted people

of the book but not found in the present canonical Jewish and Christian

scriptures – might have well existed in the scriptures of the Jews and

Christians, which are lost in the course of history.

A Critical Appraisal

One notes that although the ÍadÊth literature contains a number of

useful references to the InjÊl, which was revealed to prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*),

some aspects are still in darkness. One finds references to the InjÊl,

which was in possession of Waraqah b. Nawfal. However, information

in this regard is insufficient. Even the knowledge about the personality

of Waraqah is obscure. Although, Islamic sources testify to his adoption

of Christianity, they do not identify his denominational position among the

Christian sects of his day. Moreover, neither the sources of his InjÊl are

known nor did it leave any traces behind. However, since the Islamic

Traditions attest to his traveling to Syria, Bahrain, and the territories of

the tribe of Ùayy’, one may surmise with some justification that he would

have some association with either Nestorianism or Monophysitism, for

these two denominations generally prevailed in these areas.

The above discussion of the ÍadÊth literature indicates that

Waraqah’s InjÊl was either in Arabic or in ‘IbrÉnÊ or in both. However,

the modern scholarship, both Muslim and Western, is inclined to hold that

it was most probably in Syriac from which he used to translate it into

Arabic. Some classical ×adÊth commentators also seem to have

suggested such a view. Moreover, if the ‘IbrÉniyyah mentioned in the

ÍadÊth literature is equated with the Syriac then almost all inconsistency

is removed.

Those ÍadÊth Traditions, which explain how and when the InjÊl

was revealed and inform about the number of previous revealed scriptures

help to conceptualize the nature of the InjÊl’s revelation. However, it



Hamdard Islamicus 95 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

should be noted that comparatively less authenticity and consistency

characterize such Traditions. It clearly seems that the ÍadÊth literature’s

attitude towards the InjÊl is an extension of that of the Qur’Én. In the

ÍadÊth Traditions, the InjÊl has been depicted as a Divine revelation to

prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*). One finds many parallels between the Qur’Én and the

InjÊl. Both descended on a specific night of RamaÌÉn. Both were

subdivided into sËrahs and some specific sËrahs of the Qur’Én were

declared substitute for or simile of the InjÊl as well as others were

supposed to be unique having no similitude to the contents of any revealed

scripture. It may imply that the original InjÊl has been considered, in the

ÍadÊth literature, as verbatim word of God as are certain sËrahs of the

Qur’Én and not as a posthumous historical or biographical record of

Jesus’ logia and deeds.

×adÊth literature points out the start of the corruption of the InjÊl

and other Christian scriptures and connects it with the conspiracies of

the rulers. It draws attention towards the persecution of the faithful

Christians after the ascension of prophet ‘ÔsÉ (*), almost in accordance

with the accounts of the history of Christianity as narrated by the Christians

themselves. However, it seems more likely to set the scene of the ÍadÊth

literature’s account of the persecution in the fourth century C.E. when

the Trinitarian Church started a vigorous campaign against its opponents

after the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine I (r. 306-337 C.E.).

Although, the Prophetic Traditions mostly level the charge of corruption

against the people of the book in Jewish context, which is quite natural,

in some cases, however, it does include the Christian scriptures as well.

Whether this charge involves the corruption of both text and meaning or

only of the meaning is a moot question, for the evidences support both

views, though the charge of textual corruption is more explicit.

Notes and References

1. The term Prophetic Traditions or ÍadÊth literature or Prophetic Traditions has

been used in this study in a loose sense, which also includes the sayings of the

Companions of the Prophet (œ).

2. The Qur’Én, XLVI:9.

3. Ibid., III:33; IV:163-64.

4. For the number of the adherents of different religions at the beginning of the



Hamdard Islamicus 96 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

twenty-first century, see Robert S. Ellwood and Gregory D. Alles, eds., The

Encyclopedia of World Religions, Rev. Ed., New York, NY, Facts On File, 2007,

vol. XIII, p. 87.

05. Wilfred C. Smith, Islam in Modern History, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University

Press, 1957, pp. 17-18n13; Smith, “Some Similarities and Differences between

Christianity and Islam: An Essay in Comparative Religion,” in The World of

Islam: Studies in Honour of Philip K. Hitti, Ed. James Kritzeck and R. Bayly

Winder, London, Macmillan, 1959, p. 52; also see Sidney H. Griffith, “The

Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into Its Appearance in the First ‘AbbÉsid Century,”

Oriens Christianus, 1985, vol. LXIX, pp. 128-30.

06. William H.T. Gairdner, “MoÍammedan Tradition and Gospel Record: The ×adÊth

and the InjÊl,” The Moslem World, 1915, vol. V, No. 4, pp. 349-79.

07. For his views on the development of Prophetic Traditions, Muslim theology, and

Islamic Law, see Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies (MuÍammedanische Studien),

Ed. Samuel M. Stern, trans. C.R. Barber and Samuel M. Stern, 1967-1971,

2 vols., London, George Allen and Unwin; Goldziher, The ÚÉhirÊs, Their Doctrine

and Their History; A Contribution to the History of Islamic Theology, Trans. and

Ed. Wolfgang Behn, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1971; Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic

Theology and Law, Trans. Andras and Ruth Hamori, Princeton, NJ, Princeton

University Press, 1981. For a Muslim criticism of Goldziher’s and Joseph

Schacht’s views on Prophetic Traditions and Islamic law, see Mohammad Mustafa

Azmi, Studies in Early ×adÊth Literature with a Critical Edition of Some Early

Texts, Indianapolis, In: American Trust Publications, 1978; Al-Azami, On Schacht’s

Origins of MuÍammadan Jurisprudence, Lahore, Suhail Academy, 2004. For a

brief historical and critical survey of the Western criticism of ÍadÊth literature,

see Jonathan A.C. Brown, ×adÊth: MuÍammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and

Modern World, Oxford, Oneworld, 2009, pp. 197-239.

08. It is not within the preview of the present study to evaluate author’s arguments

and conclusions about the reliability of the Gospel record and otherwise of the

Prophetic Traditions. For a Muslim position on the issue, see MuÍammad Abu

Laylah, The Qur’Én and the Gospels: A Comparative Study, Cairo, El-Falah for

Translation Publishing, 1998; Ghulam Haider Aasi, Muslim Understanding of

Other Religions: A Study of Ibn ×azm’s KitÉb al-FaÎl fi al-Milal wa AhwÉ’ wa

al-Nahl, Islamabad, Islamic Research Institute, 1999; For methods and history

of ÍadÊth criticism, see Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II:

Qur’Énic Commentary and Tradition, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1967;

MuÍammad MuÎÏafÉ al-A‘ÐamÊ , The History of the Qur’Énic Text from Revelation

to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, Leicester,

UK Islamic Academy, n.d.

09. Gairdner, “Mohammedan Tradition and Gospel Record,” 349; Smith, Islam in

Modern History, pp. 17-18n13.

10. Alfred Guillaume, “The Version of the Gospels Used in Medina circa 700 A.D.,”

Al-Andalus, 1950, vol. XV, No. 1, pp. 289-296.

11. Lectionary is a book containing certain parts of the Bible selected for recitation

on particular days of the year. Following the Jewish practice, the early Christians

started reading extracts from the Old Testament on the Sabbath. Later they added



Hamdard Islamicus 97 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

extracts from the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists as well. During

the third and fourth centuries, they devised several lectionaries (Britannica

Encyclopedia of World Religions, s.v. “lectionary”). One of them was the Palestinian

Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels. For details on the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary,

see Agnes Smith Lewis, introduction to The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the

Gospels, ed. Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibbs, London, Kegan

Paul, Trench, Trübner, and Co. 1899, pp. ix-xviii; Edgar J. Goodspeed, review

of The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, ed. Agnes Smith Lewis and

Margaret Dunlop Gibbs, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and

Literatures, 1901, vol. XVII, No. 3, pp. 191-192.

12. Griffith, The Gospel in Arabic, pp. 149-50.

13. Ibid., p. 150.

14. David Cook, “New Testament Citations in the ×adÊth Literature and the Question

of Early Gospel Translations into Arabic,” in The Encounter of Eastern Christianity

with Early Islam, Ed. Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark N. Swanson, and David

Thomas, Leiden, Brill, 2006, pp. 185-186.

15. TarÊf KhÉlidi, The Muslim Jesus, Karachi, Oxford University Press, 2002.

16. Cook, New Testament Citations in the ×adÊth Literature, p. 204.

17. It is pertinent to note that most of citations, which Cook refers to, are from

books of zuhud (asceticism) or TÉrÊkh MadÊnat Dimashq by Ibn ‘AsÉkir.

However, ascribing these citations to ÍadÊth literature, in view of the present

writer, is problematic. Moreover, a cursory comparison of some citations with

the given places of the New Testament led the present writer to the conclusion

that many of them do not bear the least resemblance with the suggested biblical

texts (for example, compare the citations 27 and 29 with Matthew 8.5-8, 11-15

and Matthew 10 respectively).

18. GhassÉn ‘AzÊz ×usayn, Waraqah b. Nawfal Mubashshir al-RasËl: ‘Asruhu,

HayÉtuhu, Shi‘ruh, Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1423/2002, pp. 49-50.

19. Griffith, The Gospel in Arabic, p. 144.

20. ‘Abd al-Malik b. HishÉm, SÊrat al-NabÊ, n.p.: Dar al-Fikr, n.d., vol. I, p. 242;

also see C.F. Robinson, “Waraka B. Nawfal,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,

Ed. P.J. Bearban et al., 2nd Edn., Leiden, Brill, 2002, vol. XI, pp. 142-143.

21. MuÍammad b. IsmÉ‘Êl al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, Riyadh, Dar al-Salam, 1419/

1999, ×adÊth No. 3, p. 1.

22. MuÍammad b. ×abÊb al-BaghdÉdÊ, al-Munammaq fi AkhbÉr Quraysh, Ed. Khurshid

Ahmad Faruq, Beirut, ‘Alam al-Kutub, n.d., pp. 156-158.

23. AÍmad b. AbÊ Ya‘qËb al-Ya‘qËbÊ, Ta’rÊkh al-Ya‘qËbÊ, Beirut, Dar Sadr & Dar

Bayrut, 1960, vol. I, p. 257.

24. Al-BaghdÉdÊ, al-Munammaq, p. 158.

25. JawÉd ‘AlÊ, al-MufaÎÎal, Baghdad, DÉr al-‘Ilm li ’l-MalÉyÊn, 1976, vol. VI,

p. 621.

26. Al-BaghdÉdÊ, al-Munammaq, pp. 158-159.

27. IsmÉ‘Êl b. KathÊr, al-SÊrah al-Nabawiyyah, Ed. Mustafa ‘Abd al-Wahid, Beirut,

Dar al-Fikr, 1398/1978, vol. I, pp. 367-368.

28. AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ b. ×ajar al-‘AsqalÉnÊ, FatÍ al-BÉrÊ SharÍ ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ,

Riyadh, DÉr al-Salam, 1418/1998), vol. I, p. 34.



Hamdard Islamicus 98 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

29. Al-BukhÉrÊ, SaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, ×adÊth No. 4953, p. 886; ×adÊth No. 6982,

p. 1204.

30. Muslim b. ×ajjÉj, SaÍÊÍ Muslim, Riyadh, DÉr al-Salam, 1419/1998, ×adÊth

No. 252, p. 80.

31. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, ×adÊth No. 3, p. 1.

32. Ibid., ×adÊth No. 3392, p. 567.

33. For example, see ‘Abd al-RazzÉq b. HumÉm al-San‘Éni, al-MuÎannaf, Ed. HabÊb

al-RaÍmÉn al-A‘zÉmi, Beirut, al-Maktab al-IslÉmi, 1403 A.H., vol. V, p. 321;

MuÍammad b. ×abbÉn al-Busti, al-IÍsÉn fi taqrÊb ØaÍÊÍ Ibn ×abbÉn, Beirut,

Mu’assasat al-RisÉlah, 1408/1988, vol. I, p. 218; AÍmad b. ×usayn al-BayhaqÊ,

al-SunÉn al-KubrÉ, Hyderabad Deccan, Majlis DÉ’irat al-Ma‘Érif al-NizÉmiyyah,

1344 A.H., vol. IX, p. 5; IsÍÉq b. IbrÉhÊm Rahwayh al-HanzalÊ, Musnad IsÍÉq

b. Rahwayh, Ed. ‘Abd al-GhafËr b. ‘Abd al-×aqq, Madinah, Maktabat al-ImÉn,

1412/1991, vol. II, p. 316; Ya‘qËb b. IsÍÉq al-IsfarÉ’ÊnÊ, Musnad AbÊ ‘AwÉnah,

Beirut, DÉr Ma‘rifah, n.d., vol. I, p. 103.

34. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, p. 1. Only AbË DÉwËd SulaymÉn b. DÉwËd

al-ÙayÉlisÊ relates that Waraqah used to read the InjÊl bi ’l-‘ibrÉniyyah,

al-ÙayÉlisÊ, al-Musnad, Beirut, DÉr al-Ma‘rafah, n.d., p. 206.

35. AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ b. ×ajar al-‘AsqalÉnÊ, FatÍ al-BÉrÊ, vol. I, p. 34; YaÍyÉ b. Sharaf

al-NawawÊ, SaÍÊÍ Muslim bi SharÍ al-ImÉm AbÊ ZakariyyÉ YaÍyÉ b. Sharaf

al-NawawÊ, Beirut, DÉr al-Fikr, 1424/2004, vol. I, p. 165.

36. MaÍmËd b. AÍmad al-‘AynÊ, ‘Umdat al-Qari SharÍ ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, Beirut,

DÉr al-Fikr, 1399/1979, vol. I, p. 52.

37. Ibn HishÉm, SirÉt al-NabÊ, vol. I, p. 256.

38. ×amidullah, Two Christians of Pre-Islamic Mecca, Journal of the Pakistan

Histortical Society, 1958, vol. VI, No. 2, p. 102.

39. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, ×adÊth No. 3, p. 1.

40. Griffith, Gospel in Arabic, p. 145.

41. KamÉl S. Salibi, Who was Jesus: Conspiracy in Jerusalem, London, Tauris Parke

Paperbacks, 2007, p. 60.

42. Ibid., p. 61.

43. Ibid. However, it should be noted that in the view of Salibi the Injil of Waraqah

is not one of the canonical Gospels; rather it must have been a much older one,

perhaps it dated as far as the fourth or fifth century B.C.E., associated with the

Qur’Énic ‘IsÉ (ibid., 63). For his radical views on the origin of Judaism and

Christianity, see Salibi, The Bible Came from Arabia, London, Jonathan Cape,

1985, and Salibi, Who was Jesus.

44. Griffith, Gospel in Arabic, p. 145.

45. Ibid., 147.

46. Ibid., p. 145.

47. Al-HarÊrÊ, AbË MËsa, QaÎÎ wa nabÊ, Beirut, n.p., 1979, pp. 56-59. It is entirely

a polemical book, written in the wake of the civil war in Lebanon during which

Muslim-Christian relations reached their lowest ebb. For a critical review of it,

see AÍmad ‘UmrÉn, al-×aqÊqat al-Sa‘bat fÊ ’l-MÊzÉn, Beirut, al-Mu’assasat

al-A‘lamÊ li ’l-MatbË‘Ét, 1415/1995.

48. IrfÉn ShahÊd, “Islam and Oriens Christianus: Makka 610-622 A.D.,” in



Hamdard Islamicus 99 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam, Ed. Emmanouela Grypeou,

Mark N. Swanson and David Thomas et al., Leiden, Brill, 2006, p. 18.

49. AÍmad b. Taymiyyah, al-JawÉb al-ØaÍÊÍ liman Baddal dÊn al-MaÎÊh, Ed. ‘AlÊ

b. ×asan b. NÉÎir, ‘Abd al-‘AzÊz b. IbrÉhÊm al-‘Askar, and ×amdÉn b. MuÍammad

al-×amdÉn, Riyadh, Dar al-‘AÎimah, 1414 A.H., vol. II, pp. 80-82; vol. III,

p. 417.

50. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, vol. I, ×adÊth No. 3392, p. 567, ×adÊth No. 4953,

p. 886, ×adÊth No. 6982, p. 1204; Muslim b. HajjÉj, SaÍÊÍ Muslim, ×adÊth

No. 252, p. 80.

51. De Lacy O’Leary, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, London,

Kegan Paul, 1923, pp. 14-15.

52. SulaymÉn b. AÍmad al-ÙabarÉnÊ, al-Mu‘jam al-awsÉÏ, Ed. TÉriq b. ‘AwÌ AllÉh

and ‘Abd al-MuÍsin b. IbrÉhÊm al-×usaynÊ, Cairo, DÉr al-Haramayn, 1415 A.H.,

vol. IV, p. 111. Al-TabarÉnÊ comments on this narration that only ‘ImrÉn

al-QaÏÏÉn narrated this ÍadÊth from QatÉdah (d. 118 A.H.), and that it has been

narrated from the Messenger of God (œ) only by this chain. However, this

claim is questionable, for Ibn KathÊr mentions that Ibn Mardawayh narrates this

ÍadÊth, though with some variations, on the authority of JÉbir b. ‘Abd Allah as

well (see IsmÉ‘Êl b. ‘Umar b. KathÊr, TafsÊr al-Qur’Én al-‘AÐÊm, Ed. SÉmÊ b.

MuÍammad SalÉmah [n.p., DÉr Taybah, 1420/1999], vol. I, p. 501; also see AbË

Ya‘lÉ AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ al-TamÊmÊ, al-MusnÉd, Ed. ×asan SalÊm Asad, Damascus,

DÉr al-MÉ’mËn li ’l-Turath, 1404/1984, vol. IV, p. 135.

53. AÍmad b. MuÍammad b. ×anbal, al-Musnad, commented by ×amzah AÍmad

al-Zayn, Cairo, Dar al-HadÊth, 1416/1995, vol. XIII, p. 223. Its chain is Íasan,

because of ‘ImrÉn al-QaÏÏÉn. However, the rest of transmitters are thiqÉt (reliable)

(see ibid., vol. XIII, pp. 223n16921).

54. Ibn KathÊr, TafsÊr al-Qur’Én al-‘AÐÊm, vol. I, p. 501.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibn KathÊr, QiÎaÎ al-AnbiyÉ’, Ed. ‘Abd al-QÉdir AÍmad ‘AÏÉ, Beirut, al-Maktabat

al-IslÉmiyyah, 1401/1981?, vol. II, p. 402.

57. Ibn ×anbal, al-Musnad, vol. XIII, p. 222. Its chain is Íasan, because of ‘ImrÉn

al-QaÏÏÉn  (see ibid., vol. XIII, pp. 222n, 16919).

58 AÍmad b. ×usayn al-BayhaqÊ, al-Sunan al-ØughrÉ, Ed. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ÏÊ

AmÊn Qal‘ajÊ, Karachi, JÉmi‘at al-DirÉsÉt al-IslÉmiyyah, 1410/1989, vol. I,

p. 341.

59. ‘Abd AllÉh b. Muslim b. Qutaybah, GharÊb al-×adÊth, Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub

al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1408/1988, p. 54.

60. Al-BayhaqÊ, al-Sunan al-SughrÉ, vol. I, p. 341. Ibn Qutaybah mentions that

sometimes the number of verses in some al-Mi’Ên sËrahs is less than one hundred

(Ibn Qutaybah, GharÊb al-×adÊth, p. 54).

61. See MuÍammad b. ‘IsÉ al-TirmidhÊ, JÉmi‘ al-TirmidhÊ, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm,

p. 646. Al-TirmidhÊ declares it ×asan ØaÍÊÍ (ibid., p. 647); Ibn ×anbal,

al-Musnad, vol. XV, pp. 405-406.

62. SulaymÉn b. AÍmad al-ÙabarÉnÊ, al-Mu‘jam al-KabÊr, Ed. ×amdÊ ‘Abd al-×amÊd

al-Salafi, Cairo, Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, 1983?, vol. XXII, p. 75.



Hamdard Islamicus 100 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

63. AbË Nu‘aym AÍmad b. ‘Abd AllÉh al-AÎbahÉnÊ, DalÉ’il al-Nubuwwah,

Hyderabad Deccan, Majlis DÉ’irat al-Ma‘Érif al-‘UthmÉniyyah, 1369/1950, vol.

I, p. 28.

64. MuÍammad b. ‘Abd AllÉh al-×Ékim, al-Mustadrak ‘ala ’l-SaÍÊÍayn, Ed. MaÍmËd

MaÏrajÊ, Beirut, DÉr al-Fikr, 1422/2002, vol. II, p. 125. ×Ékim declared it SaÍÊÍ

(authentic), but DhahabÊ narrated, in al-TalkhÊÎ, from AÍmad b. ×anbal that

scholars of ×adÊth gave up narrations of one of its transmitters, that is, ‘Ubayd

AllÉh (see, ibid., vol. II, pp. 125n, 2129).

65. MuÍammad b. NaÎr al-MarwazÊ, MukhtaÎar QiyÉm al-Layl, Faisalabad,

×adÊth AkÉdmÊ, 1408/1988, p. 170. However, AlbÉnÊ declares it dÉ‘Êf jiddan (very

weak), because of one of its transmitters, KhÉrijah b. Mus‘ab (see MuÍammad

NÉÎir al-DÊn al-AlbÉnÊ, Silsilat al-AÍadÊth al-Da‘Êfah wa ’l-MawdË‘ah wa AtharuhÉ

’l- Sayyi’ ‘alÉ ’l-Ummah, Riyadh, DÉr al-Ma‘Érif, 1412/1992, vol. VII,

p. 51).

66. ‘Abd AllÉh b. ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn al-DÉrimÊ, Musnad al-DÉrimÊ, Ed. ×usayn SalÊm

Asad al-DÉrÉnÊ, Riyadh, DÉr al-MughnÊ, 1421/2000, vol. IV, p. 2140. Its chain

is da‘Êf (weak), for al-Musayyib b. Rafi‘ who narrated it from ‘Abd AllÉh b.

Mas‘Ëd did not meet the latter (see ibid., vol. IV, pp. 2140n, 5).

67. Ibn ×anbal, al-Musnad, vol. XIII, pp. 344, 376; vol. XV, pp. 405-06. These

aÍadÊth are authentic (see ibid., vol. XIII, pp. 344n17267, 376n17383; vol. XC,

pp. 405-406nn, 20993-20994.

68. Al-BustÊ, ØaÍÊÍ Ibn ×abbÉn, vol. II, p. 77. The chain of this ÍadÊth is da‘if jiddan

(extremely weak), for one of its transmitters is IbrÉhÊm b. HishÉm b. YaÍyÉ b.

YaÍyÉ ’l-GhassÉnÊ whom AbË ×Étim and AbË Zur‘Éh declared Ìa‘Êf (unreliable),

though Ibn ×abbÉn himself authenticated him (waththaqahu) (see ibid., vol. II,

p. 79n).

69. MuÍammad b. YËsuf al-ØÉliÍÊ, Subul al-×udÉ wa ’l-RashÉd fi SÊrat Kayr

al-‘IbÉd, Ed. ‘ÓdÊl AÍmad ‘Abd al-Mawjud and ‘AlÊ MuÍammad Mu‘awwid,

Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1428/2007, vol. I, p. 319.

70. MuÍammad b. AÍmad b. IyÉs, BadÉ’i‘ al-ZuhËr fi WaqÉ’i‘ al-DuhËr, Cairo,

Matba‘at MustafÉ ’l-BÉbÊ ’l-HalabÊ wa AwlÉdih, 1919, p. 178.

71. The translation is of ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’Én,

Beltsville, MD, Amana Publications, 1424/2004, pp. 237-238.

72. AÍmad b. Shu‘ayb al-NasÉ’Ê, Sunan al-NasÉ’i al-SughrÉ, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm,

1420/1999, ×adÊth No. 5402, p. 732.

73. Ibid. Itis important to note that Jane D. McAuliffe misunderstands this Tradition

while referring to ÙabarÊ’s commentry on the Qur’Énic verse LVII:27, as she

thinks that the faithful group complained to the ruler against those who falsified

the scripture and that the falsifiers chose the self-exile. She says, “Goaded by

the taunts of the falsifiers, the faithful group sought redress from a sympathetic

authority, demanding that he order their coreligionists to cease the altered recitation.

When the king complied with this request, the falsifiers took umbrage and chose

to exile themselves rather than return to the original scriptures”, (Jane Dammen

McAuliffe, Qur’Énic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 264).

74. Al-NasÉ’Ê, Sunan al-NasÉ’Ê al-ØughrÉ, p. 732.



Hamdard Islamicus 101 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

075. Ibid.

076. Ibid.

077. Ibid., ×adÊth No. 5402, pp. 732-733.

078. Al-×Ékim, al-Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 85. ×Ékim declared it ØaÍÊÍ (authentic).

However, DhahÉbÊ, in al-TalkhÊÎ, declared it weak because one of its transmitters

was ‘Óqil b. YaÍyÉ whom BukhÉri declared munkar al-ÍadÊth (see, ibid., vol. III,

pp. 85n, 3840).

079. Al-NasÉ’i, Sunan al-Nasa’i al-Sughra, ×adÊth No. 5402, p. 733.

080. Ibid.

081. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, p. 1303.

082. Ibid.

083. AÍmad b. ‘Abd al-RaÍÊm al-DihlawÊ, al-Fawz al-KabÊr Fi UÎËl al-TafsÊr, Aleppo,

DÉr al-GhawthÉnÊ, 1429/2008, p. 29. It is pertinent to note that al-DihlawÊ first

admits the existence of literal distortion in the Tawrah but then explains it in a

way that cannot be but distortion of meaning.

084. AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ b. Hajar al-‘AsqalÉnÊ, FatÍ al-BÉrÊ, vol. XIII, p. 642.

085. Ibid., vol. XIII, p. 645.

086. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, p. 1266. The translation is of MuÍammad bin

Ismaiel al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ,: Arabic-English, Trans. MuÍammad Matraji,

New Delhi, Islamic Book Service, 1997, vol. IX, pp. 357, 359.

087. MuÍammad b. JarÊr al-ÙabarÊ, JamÊ‘ al-BayÉn, vol. VI, p. 536.

088. Al-BukhÉrÊ, SaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, p. 1266. The Translation is of al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ

al-BukhÉrÊ, Arabic-English, vol. IX, pp. 357, 359.

089. Al-DarimÊ, Musnad al-DarimÊ, vol. I, p. 403. Its chain is ÌÉ‘if (weak), because

of one of its transmitters MujÉhid. However, the authenticity of this ÍadÊth is

no less than Íasan (see ibid., vol. I, p. 403n2).

090. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, ×adÊth No. 7362, p. 1266.

091. Ibid., ×adÊth No. 7362, p. 1302, ×adÊth No. 7542, p. 1302.

092. Ibid., p. 776.

093. MuÍammad b. YazÊd b. MÉjah, Sunan Ibn MÉjah, Riyadh, DÉr al-SÉlam, 1420/

1999, p. 585; Al-×Ékim, al-Mustadrak, vol. I, pp. 199-200. ×Ékim declared it

ÎaÍÊÍ (authentic) and DhahabÊ, in al-TalkhÊs, agreed with him (see ibid., vol. I,

pp. 199-200nn, 341-42.

094. Al-ÙabarÉnÊ, al-Mu‘jÉm al-KabÊr, vol. XVIII, pp. 332-334. The author of

al-MÉjma‘ declared its transmitters as thÊqÉt (reliable) (see ibid., vol. XVIII,

pp. 332-334n, 854.

095. Ibn HishÉm, SÊrat al-NabÊ, vol. II, p. 175.

096. Ibn ×anbal, al-Musnad, vol. IV, pp. 244-246. The chain of this ÍadÊth is hasan

(see ibid., vol. IV, pp. 244-245n, 4400).

097. Ibn KathÊr, al-SÊrah al-NabawÊyyah, vol. I, pp. 324-325. The translation is, with

slight changes, of Ibn KathÊr, The Life of the Prophet MuÍammad, Trans. Trevor

Le Gassick, Berkshire, Garnet Publishing, 1998, vol. I, pp. 234-235.

098. Ibn HishÉm, that Ibn Suriya later allegedly emnbraced Islam. See, SÊrat al-Nabi,

vol. III, pp. 369, 378.

099. Ibn KathÊr, mentions that Ibn Suriya later allegedly embraced Islam, see al-SÊrah

al-Nabawiyyah, vol. I, p. 324.

100. Ibid., vol. I, p. 324.

101. Ibid., vol. I, pp. 326-327.



Hamdard Islamicus 102 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

102. Ibid., vol. I, p. 328. Ibn KathÊr notes that many previous Muslim scholars used

the term Tawrah to denote the scriptures of the People of the Book in general

and that their perception of the TawrÉh is broader than what was actually

revealed to Prophet MËsÉ (*) (ibid.).

103. Al-BukhÉrÊ, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, p. 341.

104. Ibid., MuÍammad b. JarÊr al-ÙabarÊ, JÉmi‘ al-BayÉn, vol. XIII, p. 164.

105. MuÍammad b. Sa‘d, Al-ÙabaqÉt al-KubrÉ, Ed., Ihsan Abbas, Beirut, Dar Sadir,

1968, vol. I, p. 363; Al-×Ékim, al-Mustadrak, vol. III, pp. 214-215. ×Ékim

declared it ØaÍÊÍ (authentic) and DhahÉbÊ, in al-TalkhÊÎ, agreed with him (see

ibid., vol. III, pp. 214-215n, 4277).

106. MuÍammad b. IsmÉ‘Êl b. KathÊr, al-BidÉyat wa ’l-NihÉyah, Ed. ‘AlÊ ShayrÊ,

Beirut, DÉr IÍyÉ’ al-TurÉth al-‘ArabÊ, 1408/1988, vol. II, p. 400.

107. AÍmad b. al-×usayn al-BayhaqÊ, DalÉ’il al-Nubuwwah, Ed. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ÏÊ Qal‘ajÊ,

Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1429/2008, vol. I, p. 315.

108. Ibn KathÊr, al-SÊrah al-NabawÊyyah, vol. I, p. 329. The translation is of Ibn

KathÊr, Life of the Prophet MuÍammad (œ), vol. I, pp. 237-238.

109. Al-BayhaqÊ, DalÉ’il al-Nabuwwah, vol. II, p. 105; Abd al-RaÍmÉn b. AbÊ Bakr

al-SuyËÏÊ, al-Durr al-ManthËr fi ’l-ÙafsÊr al-Ma’thËr, Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub

al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1421/2000, vol. III, p. 245.

110. Ibn Sa‘d, Al-ÙabaqÉt al-KubrÉ, vol. I, p. 363. The translation is of S. Moinul

Haq, Trans., Ibn Sa‘d’s KitÉb al-ÙabaqÉt al-KabÊr, Karachi, Pakistan Historical

Society, 1972, vol. I, p. 426; al-SuyuÏi, Al-Durr al-ManthËr, vol. III, p. 245;

MaÍmËd al-AlËsÊ, RËh al-ma‘ÉnÊ fi tafsÊr al-Qur’Én al-‘AÐÊm wa ’l-Sab‘ al-

MathÉnÊ, Ed. MuÍammad AÍmad al-Amad and ‘Umar ‘Abd al-SalÉm al-SalÉmÊ,

Beirut, DÉr IÍyÉ’ al-TurÉth al-‘ArabÊ and Mu’assasah al-Ta’rÊkh al-‘ArabÊ, 1420/

1999, vol. IX, pp. 107-108.

111. Ibn KathÊr, al-SÊrah al-NabawÊyyah, vol. I, pp. 330-331. The translation is, with

some variations, of Ibn KathÊr, Life of the Prophet MuÍammad (œ), vol. I,

p. 239.

112. MuÍammad b. SËrat al-TirmidhÊ, al-ShamÉ‘il al-MuÍammadiyyah, Ed. MuÍammad

‘AfÊf al-Za‘bÊ, Jeddah, DÉr al-MaÏbË‘Ét al-×adÊthah, 1409/1988), p. 19.

113. See al-BayhaqÊ, DalÉ’il al-Nubuwwah, vol. I, pp. 268-275.

114. On Jesus’ sayings and stories as preserved in Muslim literature, see Khalidi’s The

Muslim Jesus, which also contains a detailed introduction, in which the author

attempts to place this genre in its historical context. He names this kind of

literature “Muslim gospel.”

115. RaÍmat Allah b. Khalil al-RaÍmÉn al-KirÉnawi, IzhÉr al-×aqq, Ed. MuÍammad

AÍmad Malkawi, Riyadh, Al-Ri’asah al-‘Ammah li Idarat al-BuÍuth al-‘Ilmiyyah

wa ’l-Ifta’ wa ’l-Da‘wah wa ’l-IrshÉd, 1410/1989, vol. II, p. 587.

Bibliography

AaÎi, Ghulam Haider. Muslim Understanding of Other Religions: A Study of Ibn Hazm’s

KitÉb al-FaÎl fi al-Milal wa AhwÉ wa al-NaÍl, Islamabad, Islamic Research

Institute, 1999.



Hamdard Islamicus 103 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Abbott, Nabia, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II: Qur’Énic Commentary and Tradition,

Chicago, University of Chicago, 1967.

Al-AlbÉnÊ, MuÍammad NÉÎir al-DÊn, Silsilat al-AÍÉdÊth al-Öa‘Êfah wa ’l-MawÌË‘ah wa

AtharuhÉ ’l-Sayyi’ ‘alÉ ’l-Ummah, Riyadh, DÉr al-Ma‘ÉrÊf, 1412/1992.

‘Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, Trans., The Meaning of the Holy Qur’Én, Beltsville, MD, Amana

Publications, 1424/2004.

‘AlÊ, JawÉd. Al-MufaÎÎal, Baghdad, DÉr al-‘Ilm li ’l-Malayin, 1976.

Al-AlËsÊ, MaÍmËd, RËÍ al-Ma‘ÉnÊ fi TafsÊr al-Qur’Én al-‘AÐÊm wa ’l-Sab‘ al-MathÉnÊ,

Edited by MuÍammad AÍmad al-Amad and ‘Umar ‘Abd al-SalÉm al-SalÉmÊ,

Beirut, DÉr IÍyÉ’ al-TurÉth al-‘ArabÊ and Mu’assasah al-Ta’rÊkh al-‘Arabi, 1420/

1999.

Al-AÎbahÉnÊ, AbË Nu‘aym AÍmad b. ‘Abd AllÉh, DalÉ’il al-Nubuwwah, Hyderabad

Deccan, Majlis DÉ’irat al-Ma‘Érif al-‘UthmÉniyyah, 1369/1950.

Al-‘AÎqalÉnÊ, AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ b. ×ajar, FatÍ al-BÉrÊ SharÍ ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, Riyadh, DÉr

al-SalÉm, 1418/1998.

Al-‘AynÊ, MaÍmËd b. AÍmad, ‘Umdat al-QÉrÊ SharÍ ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, Beirut, DÉr

al-Fikr, 1399/1979.

Al-A‘ÐamÊ, MuÍammad MuÎÏafÉ, The History of the Qur’Énic Text from Revelation to

Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, Leicester,

UK Islamic Academy, n.d.

–––, On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Lahore, Suhail Academy,

2004.

–––, Studies in Early ×adÊth Literature with a Critical Edition of Some Early Texts,

Indianapolis, IN, American Trust Publications, 1978.

Al-BayhaqÊ, AÍmad b. ×usayn, DalÉ’il al-Nubuwwah, Edited by ‘Abd al-Mu‘ÏÊ Qal‘ajÊ,

Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1429/2008.

–––, Al-Sunan al-KubrÉ, Hyderabad Deccan, Majlis DÉ’irat al-Ma‘Érif al-NiÐÉmiyyah,

1344 A.H.

–––, Al-Sunan al-SughrÉ, Edited by ‘Abd al-Mu‘ÏÊ AmÊn Qal‘ajÊ, Karachi, Jami‘at

al-Dirasat al-IslÉmiyyah, 1410/1989.

Brown, Jonathan A.C., ×adÊth: MuÍammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern

World, Oxford, Oneworld, 2009.

Al-BukhÉrÊ, MuÍammad b. IsmÉ‘Êl. ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm, 1419/

1999.

–––, ØaÍÊÍ al-BukhÉrÊ: Arabic-English, Translated by Muhammad Matraji, New Delhi,

Islamic Book Service, 1997.

Al-BustÊ, MuÍammad b. HabbÉn. Al-IÍsÉn fi Ttaqrib ØaÍÊÍ Ibn ×abbÉn, Beirut,

Mu’assasat al-RisÉlah, 1408/1988.

Cook, David, “New Testament Citations in the ×adÊth Literature and the Question of

Early Gospel Translations into Arabic,” In: The Encounter of Eastern Christianity

with Early Islam, Edited by Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark N. Swanson, and David

Thomas, 185-223, Leiden, Brill, 2006.

Al-DÉrimÊ, ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn, Musnad al-DÉrimÊ, Edited by ×usayn SalÊm

Asad al-DÉrÉnÊ, Riyadh, DÉr al-MughnÊ, 1421/2000.

Al-DihlawÊ, AÍmad b. ‘Abd al-RaÍÊm, Al-Fawz al-KabÊr fi UÎËl al-ÙafsÊr, Aleppo, DÉr

al-GhawthÉnÊ, 1429/2008.



Hamdard Islamicus 104 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Ellwood, Robert S. and Gregory D. Alles, Eds. The Encyclopedia of World Religions,

Rev. Ed., New York, NY, Facts On File, 2007.

Gairdner, William H.T., “MoÍammedan Tradition and Gospel Record: The ×adÊth and

the InjÊl”, The Moslem World, 1915, vol. V, No. 4, pp. 349-379.

Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Translated by Andras and

Ruth Hamori, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1981.

–––, Muslim Studies (MuÍammedanische Studien), Edited by Samuel M. Stern and

Translated by C.R. Barber and Samuel M. Stern, 2 vols., London, George Allen

and Unwin, pp. 1967-1971.

–––, The ÚahirÊs: Their Doctrine and Their History; A Contribution to the History of

Islamic Theology, Translated and Edited by Wolfgang Behn, Leiden, E.J. Brill,

1971.

Goodspeed, Edgar J. Review of The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, ed.

Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibbs, The American Journal of

Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1901, vol. XVII, No. 3, pp. 191-92.

Griffith, Sidney H., “The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into Its Appearance in the First

‘AbbÉsid Century,” Oriens Christianus, 1985, vol. LXIX, pp. 126-167.

Guillaume, Alfred, “The Version of the Gospels Used in Medina circa 700 A.D.”,

Al-Andalus, 1950, vol, XV, No. 1, pp. 289-296.

Al-×Ékim, MuÍammad b. ‘Abd AllÉh. Al-Mustadrak ‘ala ’l-ØaÍÊÍayn, Edited by MaÍmËd

MatrajÊ, Beirut, DÉr al-Fikr, 1422/2002.

×amidullah, MuÍammad. “Two Christians of Pre-Islamic Mecca: ‘Uthman ibn

al-Huwairith and Waraqah ibn Naufal”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society

1958, vol. VI, No. 2, pp. 97-103.

Ibn ×anbÉl, AÍmad b. MuÍammad, Al-Musnad, Commented by Hamzah AÍmad

al-Zayn, Cairo, DÉr al-×adÊth, 1416/1995.

Al-HanzalÊ, IsÍÉq b. IbrÉhÊm Rahwayh, Musnad Ishaq b. Rahwayh, Edited by ‘Abd

al-GhafËr b. ‘Abd al-Haqq, Madinah, Maktabat al-ImÉn, 1412/1991.

Al-HarÊrÊ, AbË MËsÉ, Qass wa NabÊ: BaÍth fi Nash’at al-IslÉm, Beirut, n.p., 1979.

Ibn HishÉm, ‘Abd al-Malik, SÊrat al-NabÊ, n.p., DÉr al-Fikr, n.d.

Ibn ×ajjÉj, Muslim, ØaÍÊÍ Muslim, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm, 1419/1998.

×usayn, GhassÉn ‘AzÊz, Waraqah b. Nawfal Mubashshir al-RasËl: ‘Asruhu, HayÉtuhu,

Shi‘ruh, Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1423/2002.

Al-IsfarÉ’ÊnÊ, Ya‘qËb b. IsÍÉq, Musnad Abi ‘AwÉnah, Beirut, DÉr Ma‘rifah, n.d.

Ibn IyÉs, MuÍammad b. AÍmad, BadÉ’i‘ al-ÚuhËr fi Waqa’i‘ al-DuhËr, Cairo, MaÏba‘at

MuÎÏafÉ ’l-BÉbÊ ’l-HalabÊ wa AwlÉdih, 1919.

Ibn KathÊr, IsmÉ‘Êl, Al-BidÉyah wa ’l-NihÉyah,  Edited by ‘AlÊ ShayrÊ, Beirut, DÉr IÍyÉ’

al-TurÉth al-‘ArabÊ, 1408/1988.

–––, The Life of the Prophet MuÍammad (œ), Translated by Trevor Le Gassick,

Berkshire, Garnet Publishing, 1998.

–––, QaÎaÎ al-anbiyÉ’, Edited by ‘Abd al-QÉdir AÍmad ‘AÏÉ, Beirut, al-Maktabat

al-IslÉmiyyah, 1401/1981?.

–––, Al-SÊrat al-Nabawiyyah, Edited by MuÎÏafÉ ‘Abd al-WÉÍid, Beirut, DÉr al-Fikr,

1398/1978.

–––, TafsÊr al-Qur’Én al-‘AÐÊm, Edited by Sami b. MuÍammad SalÉmah, n.p., DÉr

Taybah, 1420/1999.

KhÉlidi, Tarif, The Muslim Jesus, Karachi, Oxford University Press, 2002.



Hamdard Islamicus 105 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Al-KirÉnawi, RaÍmat Allah b. KhalÊl al-RaÍmÉn, IzhÉr al-×aqq, Edited by MuÍammad

AÍmad Malkawi, 4 vols., Riyadh, Al-Ri’asah al-‘Ammah li Idarat al-Buhuth

al-‘Ilmiyyah wa ’l-Ifta’ wa ’l-Da‘wah wa ’l-Irshad, 1410/1989.

AbË Laylah, MuÍammad, The Qur’Én and the Gospels: A Comparative Study, Cairo,

El-Falah for Translation Publishing, 1998.

Lewis, Agnes Smith and Margaret Dunlop Gibbs, Eds., The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary

of the Gospels, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, and Co., 1899.

Ibn MÉjah, MuÍammad b. YazÊd, Sunan Ibn MÉjah, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm, 1420/

1999.

Al-MarwazÊ, MuÍammad b. NaÎr, MukhtaÎar QiyÉm al-Layl, Faisalabad, HadÊth AkÉdmÊ,

1408/1988.

McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, Qur’Énic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern

Exegesis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Moinul Haq, S., Trans., Ibn Sa‘d’s KitÉb al-ÙabaqÉt al-KabÊr, Karachi, Pakistan Historical

Society, 1972.

Al-NasÉ’Ê, AÍmad b. Shu‘ayb, Sunan al-NasÉ’Ê al-ØughrÉ, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm, 1420/

1999.

Al-NawÉwÊ, Yahya b. Sharaf, ØaÍÊÍ Muslim bi SharÍ al-ImÉm Abi ZakariyyÉ Yahya b.

Sharaf al-Nawawi, Beirut, DÉr al-Fikr, 1424/2004.

O’Leary, De Lacy, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, London, Kegan

Paul, 1923.

Ibn Qutaybah, ‘Abd Allah b. Muslim, GharÊb al-×adÊth, Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub

al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1408/1988.

Robinson, C.F., “Waraka B. Nawfal.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Edited by

P.J. Bearban, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs,

vol. XI, pp. 142-143, 2nd Edn., Leiden, Brill, 2002.

Ibn Sa‘d, MuÍammad, Al-Ùabaqat al-KubrÉ, Edited by Ihsan ‘Abbas, Beirut, Dar Sadir,

1968.

Salibi, Kamal S., The Bible Came from Arabia, London, Jonathan Cape, 1985.

–––, Who was Jesus: Conspiracy in Jerusalem, London, Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2007.

Al-SÉliÍÊ, MuÍammad b. YËsuf, Subul al-×udÉ wa ’l-RashÉd fi SÊrat Kayr al-‘IbÉd,

Edited by ‘Adil AÍmad ‘Abd al-MawjÉd and ‘AlÊ MuÍammad Mu‘awwid,

Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1428/2007.

Al-San‘ÉnÊ, ‘Abd al-RazzÉq b. HumÉm, Al-MuÎannaf, Edited by ×abÊb al-RaÍmÉn

al-A‘ÐamÊ, Beirut, al-Maktab al-IslÉmÊ, 1403 A.H.

Shahid, Irfan. “Islam and Oriens Christianus: Makka 610-622 A,D.”, In: The Encounter

of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam, Edited by Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark

N. Swanson, and David Thomas, Leiden, Brill, 2006, pp. 9-31.

Smith, Wilfred C., Islam in Modern History, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press,

1957.

–––, “Some Similarities and Differences between Christianity and Islam: An Essay in

Comparative Religion”, In: The World of Islam: Studies in Honour of Philip K.

Hitti, Edited by James Kritzeck and R. Bayly Winder, London, Macmillan, 1959,

pp. 47-59.

Al-SuyËÏÊ, Abd al-RaÍmÉn b. AbÊ Bakr. Al-Durr al-ManthËr fi ’l-TafsÊr al-Ma’thËr,

Beirut, DÉr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1421/2000.



Hamdard Islamicus 106 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2

Al-ÙabarÉnÊ, SulaymÉn b. AÍmad, Al-Mu‘jam al-AwsaÏ, Edited by ÙÉriq b. ‘Awd AllÉh

and ‘Abd al-MuÍsin b. IbrÉhÊm al-×usaynÊ, Cairo, DÉr al-Haramayn, 1415 A.H.

–––, Al-Mu‘jam al-KabÊr, Edited by ×amdÊ ‘Abd al-×amÊd al-SalafÊ, Cairo, Maktabat

Ibn Taymiyyah, 1983?

Al-ÙabarÊ, MuÍammad b. JarÊr, JÉmi‘ al-BayÉn ‘an Ta’wÊl ayy al-Qur’Én, Edited by

MaÍmËd MuÍammad ShÉkir, Beirut, DÉr IÍyÉ’ al-TurÉth al-‘ArabÊ, 1421/2001.

Al-TamÊmÊ, AbË Ya‘lÉ AÍmad b. ‘AlÊ. Al-Musnad, Edited by Hasan SalÊm Asad, Damascus,

DÉr al-Ma’mËn li ’l-TurÉth, 1404/1984.

Al-ÙayÉlisÊ, AbË DÉwËd SulaymÉn b. DÉwËd, Al-Musnad, Beirut, DÉr al-Ma‘rafah, n.d.

Ibn Taymiyyah, AÍmad, Al-JawÉb al-ØaÍÊÍ li man baddal dÊn al-MaÎÊh. Edited by ‘AlÊ

b. ×asan b. NÉÎir, ‘Abd al-‘AzÊz b. IbrÉhÊm al-‘Askar, and ×amdÉn b. MuÍammad

al-×amdÉn. Riyadh: DÉr al-‘AÎimah, 1414 AH.

Al-TirmidhÊ, MuÍammad b. ‘IsÉ, JÉmi‘ al-TirmidhÊ, Riyadh, DÉr al-SalÉm,1420/1999.

–––, Al-ShamÉ‘il al-Muhammadiyyah, Edited by MuÍammad ‘AfÊf al-Za‘bÊÐ, Jeddah,

DÉr al-MatbË‘Ét al-×adÊthah, 1409/1988.

‘UmrÉn, AÍmad, Al-×aqÊqat al-Sa‘bat fi ’l-MÊzÉn, Beirut, al-Mu’assasat al-A‘lamÊ li ’l-

MatbË‘Ét, 1415/1995.

Al-Ya‘qËbÊ, AÍmad b. AbÊ Ya‘qËb, TÉrÊkh al-Ya‘qËbÊ, Beirut, DÉr Sadr & DÉr BayrËt,

1960.