Anti-Christian Polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah

CEU eTD Collection

ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH: OFIBNTAYMIYYAH: ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS CORRUPTON OFTHESCRIPTURES MA ThesisinMedievalStudies Central European University Sona Grigoryan May 2011 Budapest

CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, inpartial fulfillment of therequirements ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH: OFIBNTAYMIYYAH: ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS Thesis submittedtothe Depa Accepted inconformance with ______CORRUPTON OFTHESCRIPTURES of theMasterArtsdegreeinMedievalStudies Chair, ExaminationCommittee Thesis Supervisor Sona Grigoryan (Armenia) May 2011 Examiner Examiner Budapest by rtment ofMedievalStudies, thestandardsofCEU

CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, inpartial fulfillment of therequirements ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH: OFIBNTAYMIYYAH: ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS Thesis submittedtothe Depa Accepted inconformance with ______CORRUPTON OFTHESCRIPTURES of theMasterArtsdegreeinMedievalStudies External Examiner Sona Grigoryan (Armenia) Budapest May 2011 by

rtment ofMedievalStudies, thestandardsofCEU

CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, inpartial fulfillment of therequirements ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH: OFIBNTAYMIYYAH: ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS Accepted inconformance with Thesis submittedtothe Depa ______CORRUPTON OFTHESCRIPTURES of theMasterArtsdegreeinMedievalStudies ______External Supervisor Sona Grigoryan Supervisor (Armenia) Budapest May 2011 by

rtment ofMedievalStudies, thestandardsofCEU

CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 23May2011 academic degree. thesis has beensubmitted inthisform toanyotherinstitution of highereducation for an thesis infringesonanyperson’sor that nounidentified and illegitimate usewasmadeof theworkof others,andnopartof the and onlysuchexternalinformation asproperly declare herewiththatthe present thesis isexclusively my ownwork,basedonmy research I, theundersigned,

Sona Grigoryan institution’scopyright.Ialso , candidatefortheMAdegr credited innotesandbibliography.Ideclare ______Signature declare that no part of the declarethatnopartofthe ee inMedieval Studies CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... APPENDIX-Glossary of ArabicTerms ...... 65 4. CONCLUSION ...... OFTHE 3. OUTCOMES 2.3.1.Thestatus of theGospelsaccording toIbnTaymiyyah ...... 38 2 1.4.1.Anti-ChristianPolemics ...... 1. INTRODUCTION ...... LIST OFABBREVIATIONS ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... i

. TA 3.3. IbnTaymiyya’s discussion onthenatureofChrist ...... 57 3.2. IbnTaymiyya’s discussion on theTrinity ...... 54 3.1. IntroductiontotheRefutationsofTrin 2.3. IbnTaymiyya’s DiscussiononTa 2.2. TheconceptofTa 2.1. TheRelationshipbetweentheBibleandQur’an ...... 14 1.4. Thepolemical discourseofIbnTaymiyya ...... 5 1.3. MethodologicalConsiderations ...... 4 1.2. PreviousScholarshipontheTheme andJustificationoftheTopic ...... 3 1.1. Aim andplanofthisstudy ...... 3.1.2. TheDivinityofChrist ...... 50 3.1.1. TheTrinity ...... Ḥ R Ī F : CORRUPTION OFTHESCRIPTURES...... : CORRUPTION 14 ḥ TA r ī f beforethetime ofIbnTaymiyyah ...... 16 Ḥ R Ī F :

THE TRINITY AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST THE TRINITYANDDIVINITYOFCHRIST ...... 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS TABLE OF ḥ r ī f ...... 28 ity andDivinityofChristinIslam ...... 43 ... 63 .. 68 .. 44 . 11 .. 1 1 CEU eTD Collection encouragement. Words areneverenoughtoe thankfulness goestomy friendsHayk,Dora, constant assistance in acquiring theneededliterature for theresearch. Mywarmest whom Ibenefitedduringmy study.Iam very tha useful comments, JudithRassonforcorrecting important advicesandgooddiscus topic. Iam Tija trulygratefultoProfessor especially forraisingproblems whichhavebe crucial advicesthrough and foremost, Iwouldliketothankdeeplymy I shouldexpress my gratitudetopeople whosehelpwasessentialtocompletethis thesis. First out theentirecourseofmy st ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS sions. ManythanksgotoProf xpress my gratitudetomy family. na Krsticforhergreatcooperationanytime, Sandro, andAndrasfortheirbestsupport supervisor ProfessorAzizAl-Azmeh forhis en essentialforbetter nkful tomyfriendMusheghAsatryanforhis my Englishandtoalltheprofessorsfrom udy, comments andcorrections essor VolkerMenzeforhis understandingofmy CEU eTD Collection MW TheMuslim World JSS Journalof Semitic Studies JIP JournalofIslamic Philosophy IQ TheIslamic Quarterly Relations ICMR IslamandChristian-Muslim EI² Encyclopedia of Islam, Edition, Leiden:Brill,1960-2005 Second BSOAS BulletinoftheSchool LIST OFABBREVIATIONS of OrientalandAfricanStudies CEU eTD Collection which use a derivative form ofthe word

1 however, theQur’anaccuses both revelations, originally derived from the It isnotan exaggeration tocallthe anti-Christian polemics of Taq 1.1. Aimandplanofthisstudy A topos Christians ofandthisbecomes thecorn the Scripturesthroughcorrupti manifestations ofdivineRevelationbecomes a primary dutyfor based hisoverallarguments. In error. Thisistheideological contradicting theperennialandself-consistent the archetypalprophetAbraham;beliefor any ( central toIbnTaymiyyah’s polemical out emphases inhisdiscussionofolderpolemical them ability todraw newconclusions and toarticula refutations beforehistime, intoacomprehensive argumentative framework, butalsoinhis his effort toputall the existing arguments as earlytheeighth century.Thesignifican comprehensive crystallisationofMuslim The Arabic word orig The Arabicword People oftheBook ḥ mad Ibn‘Abdal-Sal originating intheQur’an. Corruption oftheScriptures,th inates from theroot ) areunitedbythevirtueofar ā m Ibn‘AbdAllahTaymiyyahal- andtheological-historical

ng theirtextsandmeaning is 1 The Qur’an accepts that the To the that accepts TheQur’an ta the light of thisclaim, obedience to Scriptures as ḥ 1. INTRODUCTION ḥ JewsandChristiansof r rf ī f , literally meaning “distortion.” In the Qur’an there are four verses the arefour In verses Qur’an there meaning “distortion.” , literally , but not the term itself (Q 2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41). erstone ofhispolem e Arabic term whichis for

anti-Christian polemics, atraditionwhichoriginated look isonefundamental assertion: lauh al-ma ce ofIbnTaymiyyah’s 1 against Christianity, de

Revelationmustbetheoutcome ofhuman te anapproach withdistinctive features and custom, itChristian,Muslim be orJewish, es. Thisthesisrests on theassertion that backbone uponwhichIbnTaymiyyah chetypal Revelationreceivedthrough ḥ f ūẓ ical argumentation. (Eternally Preserved Tablets); intentional andnon-deliberate what IbnTaymiyyah accuses ahl al-kit rah andGospels,asdivine ta ḥ Ḥ polemic liesnot onlyin r ī al-D arr ī veloped innumerous f , isanoldpolemical ā ā b. n ī ī (1263-1328)a Deviationfrom n Ab ahl al-kit ū al-‘Ab ā ā b s

CEU eTD Collection concernant le tahrif des Ecritures,” Transactions Society Montgomery Watt, “The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible,” “The Qur’anic Context of Muslim Biblical Scholarship,” Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures,”

3 2 ta discourse in general and isfollowed inthes from themainstream ofpr giving them secondaryepistemological value. W and booksof he reducedtheirstatustooneanalogouscollectionsof Taymiyyah didnotrejectthevalueofGosp own distinctive treatment tothe Gospels,on crucial importance ofthepropheticmessage in the concept of using thelargeamount ofthematerial existingat complex andthe outcome oflaterelaborations nisy as substituting,concealing,twisting ta alterations inthetextandmeaning Taymiyyah againstthebackgroundofprevious Further, this chapter seeks tosket was viewedbyMuslim authors,providi See R. Caspar, SeeR.Caspar, See ḥ ḥ r r ā ī ī EI² f al-ma‘n f n . Thissecondchapterdiscu ) partsoftheScriptures. , s.v. The firstintroductorychaptersetsoutth Ibn Taymiyyah treatedthetheme of Ta Textes de la tradition musulmane Textes latradition de ā ḥ S ). r ta ī ī 2 rah f 16 (1955-1956): 50-62; R. Caspar, and J.M. and R.Caspar, 50-62; 16 (1955-1956): TheQur’anicaccusation ofthecorrupt . For a general survey onthe concept of ḥ r ī f (biography oftheProphetMu as seenbyIbn Taymiyah. Thiswilldemonstrate thecentrality and evious Muslim authors.

3 Islamochristiana Asmyfurther discussion willshow,theconceptitself is sses howtherelationshipbetw ch thefeaturesof of theTorahandGospels (respectively, the languageof,andforgetting( ng abackgroundforfullerunderstandingof Muslim World , 62-63. , 62-63. econd chapterbyadiscussionoftheconcept andexegesisbyvariousMuslim scholars. 2 ta 6 (1980): 61-104 discussionsbyMuslim authors.

Islam and Christian Relations Christian Islam and els assourcesofcertainknowledge,butthat ḥ e backgroundofIbnTaymiyyah’s polemical histhought,whiledrawingattentionto ith thisapproachIbn histime. Thegoalofth the other.This thesis willargue thatIbn r ī theconceptof f ina most detailed ḥ 92 (2002): 92 419-436; McAuliffe,JaneDamen, ammad) inMuslim tradition, thereby ta Gaudeul, “Textes de la tradition musulmane musulmane tradition la de “Textes Gaudeul, ḥ r ion carriesother connotations such ī f H and its various interpretations see W. see W. interpretations itsvarious and ad ; AbdullahSaeed,“The Charge of ī een theBible andtheQur’an th (TraditionoftheProphet) ta ḥ Glasgow University Oriental r Taymiyyah standsapart ī f andcarefulmanner, asunderstoodbyIbn 7(1996): 141-158. 141-158. 7(1996): tabd is studytodiscuss ta ī ḥ l, kitm r ī f al-nass ā n, labs, ta and ḥ r ī f .

CEU eTD Collection

Taymiyyahs’s Al-Jaw is thestudyofThomasMichel( Taymiyyah’s theologicalthought in avoidingmisinterpretations aboutIbn Victor Makari’s work( held tobeapureIslamic communitytrueto 1977), whichprovidesgoodmaterial aboutIbnTaym study ofMuhammadUmar ( Memon point forthoseinterestedinthesubject.Theot 1939) isamonumental workwhichhasformed the FrenchscholarHenriLaoust( that wouldprovideathoroughin (and misinterpretations). However,thereis of themost disputedauthors,whoseworks major subjectofreligiousdiscourseinIslamic comprehensive contextualintr Islamic religiousthought.Hewasaninfluential Ibn Taymiyyah is,withoutdoubts, 1.2. Previous Scholarship ontheThemeandJustificationofTopic thesis afterhaving considered the sources. to discussionsofIbnTaymiyyah. Theconclusion overview ofthepreviousdiscussiononthesetw the TrinityandDivinityofChri The thirdchapterexamines otherpolemical themes takenupbyourauthor,suchas ā b al- Ibn Taymiyyah’sEthics:TheSocialFactor Ṣ a oduction toIbnTaymiyyah’s pole ḥ i ḥ troduction tohisintellectual Essai surlesdoctrines sociales etpolitiques d'IbnTaimîya on hisdefinitionofethics.An l st, treatingthem asoutcomes of A MuslimTheologian’sResponsetoChristianity: Ibn ī oneofthemost controversialandoriginalfiguresin manbaddalad Ibn Taymiyya’sStruggleagainstPopularReligion still nocomprehensive studyonIbnTaymiyyah open uppossibilitiesfordi Tayimiyyah. Itshows theinfluenceofIbn 3 intellectual history.IbnTaymiyyah isalsoone itsdivineorigins

her usefulworkinaWestern languageisthe o subjectswillbeprovidedbeforeproceeding Ḥ the basisforseveralstudiesandastarting will return to the overall argument of the anbal iyyah’s struggletore-establishwhathe ī n al-Mas ī authorwhowroteonalmostevery input andlegacy.Thestudyof outstandingguideinEnglish īḥ mical thoughtingeneral and , 1984) which provides a , 1984)whichprovides a , 1983)hasit and propheticbeginnings. ta ḥ verse interpretations r ī f . Again,abrief s contribution , , CEU eTD Collection 21, 2011)carried out by YahyaMichot.

polemical arguments of IbnTaymiyyah. Toachieve against Christianity. The aim istoshow whatsemantic burden theterm Taymiyyah. This studytakes 1.3. MethodologicalConsiderations of IbnTaymiyyah,againstthebackground of thenotion Gospels and the major featuresofIbnTaymiyyah’s discussionon polemics ofIbnTaymiyyah isagainthestudy by These worksarefoundelsewherein discussion ofgenealogyparticularconceptsor referencetothethememake andex general polemical writers.Instead,many evolution ofthisdoctrineorthesocialhistory 4 material aboutIbnTaymiyyah,reconsidering Rapoport andShahabAhmed, ed., recent study onIbnTaymiyyah istheOxfordpublicationof acollection ofessays(Yossef Taymiyyah’s main anti-Christianwork,whichisth Answers tothosewhoaltered the Religion also atranslationofonethird For annotated translations of Ibn Taymyyah’s works see annotated works Taymyyah’s For translationsofIbn This thesisdoesnotseektoprovideat As forthespecifictheme of

It isseen astheaxis around whic ta Sunnah ta ḥ r ḥ ī r f ; whatitaims atistodiscuss primar ī f . Thislastnotion,however,isnot to bea

central polemical Al-Jaw modern authors interested in Ibn TaymiyyaandhisTimes my references.Thebesttreatment ofthedoctrinein ta ā b al- ḥ r of previoususesthenotion. ī of Christ,hereafte f , thereisnomonograph whichexamines the many conceptsandinterpretationsofhim. horough examination ofthehistoricalevolution Ṣ 4 a

isting textswithoutnecessarilyengagingin of polemical textsandthe socialcontexts of http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/it ḥ T. Michelcitedabove.pointsoutthe contextsinwhichthosetextswerewritten. i h IbnTaymiyyah builthis argumentation ḥ topos e main sourceusedinthisthesis. Themost l ta thisaim,notionwill be considered ī manbaddalaD ḥ r inthe anti-Christian polemic of Ibn ī f sufficiently devel , includingtheparitybetween y aspectsofthisnotioninthework r referredtoas Muslim-Christian polemics , 2010)whichprovidesrich ī n al-Mas ta oped inhisstudy. ḥ r ī f al-Jaw carriesinthe (accessed:May īḥ [TheRight ā b 4 ], Ibn

CEU eTD Collection du dialogue islamo-chretien: lesauteurs etles islamo-chretien: lesauteurs dialogue du gui abiographical For writings. polemical Muslim-Christian

5 Christian conflictsinwhichIbnTaymiyyah pers the thirteenthcentury,resultingfrom militant extremists, whotakeIbnTaymiyyah’s condemnation ofMongolsandChristians in Taymiyyah isthemost often quotedandselectiv especially inhisdenunciationofSufirituals, century inSaudiArabiaandwhich wasinfluenced bythewritings of IbnTaymiyyah, His name is closely associated with theWahh associated withIslamic fundamentalism whoseideo In theeyesofpopularandsome scholarly 1.4. ThepolemicaldiscourseofIbn Taymiyya of thetechnicalterminology ofthetext. argumentation system istheessential taskof th to follow thelogical structure of thete highlight IbnTaymiyyah’s posi will bediscussedagainst thebackground ofth writing, thesetwopolemi the TrinityandDivinityofChrist features of will be examined willbechosenfor their repr against thebackgroundof Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History ABibliographical Relations. Christian-Muslim Bibliographical History also centuries; fourteenth and thirteenth the for 247-267 4 (1978): vol. centuries; andtwelfth eleventh the for (1976):184-249 (1975):125-181/2 Medieval anti-Christianpolemical wo Ibn Taymiyyah’s textishighl ta ḥ r ī f . Thesame approachwillbetakentowards otherpolemical themes suchas . Volume 1 (600-900) (Leiden: Brill, 2009); D. Thomas and Alex Mallett, ed., Mallett,ed., Alex D.Thomasand (Leiden: Brill,2009); . Volume (600-900) 1 cal themes areseenasoutcomes of previoususesof

tion withinthis tradition. rks are numerous and these issues appeared constantly in medieval D. Thomas andBarbara Roggema, ed. . Toemphasize thecentralityof y digressiveandrepetitivean oeuvres du viieme auxemesieclecompris,” specific contextofMamluk-Mongol andMamluk- ta , Volume 2 (900-1050) (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Brill, 2010). (Leiden: , (900-1050) 2 Volume xt. Thereconstructionof IbnTaymiyyah’s 5 ā ḥ veneration ofsaintsandtombs. alsowithIbn is thesis.Itwillbeaccompanied bydefinitions esentative value inthe evolution of themajor

publicIbnTaymiyyyah isnowadaysmostly b r onally participated, asuniversally applicable ely readmedieval authorbymodern Muslim ī ī f movement whicheruptedinthe eighteenth e previous polemical tradition inorderto . Forthisreasonauthors andaccounts that de to these writings see R. Caspar, “Bibliographie “Bibliographie seeR.Caspar, these writings to de logical forefather heisconsideredtobe. 5

scripturalcorruption.They, too, d aclose readingisneeded Christian-Muslim Relations. Relations. A Christian-Muslim ta ḥ r ī f inIbnTaymiyyah’s Islamochristiana 1 CEU eTD Collection consult. consult. ofIslamic Institute St (Montreal: MAthesis Sources,” Qasim Murad, “Mi Damascus,” 110 1939), orientale, françaisd’archéologie l’institute Welch and P. Cachia (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 1979), 15-33, 19-20. 19-20. 15-33, 1979), University, Edinburgh (Edinburgh: P. Cachia and Welch Taymiyyah;” H.Laoust, Middle East Historical and Historiographical Significance of the Detention of Ibn Taymiyyah,” See D. Little,“The institutions. various religious and stateactors between the nexus to hima threat seeing as 338:366. Times his and Taymiyya

rank bythe nature ofrelationshipbetweenG community ofpiousancestorshaddone. follow thepropheticmessage andtruenatureof person with“ascrewloose.” learning and deeppiety, asagreatreformer, as own time, whenhewasvariouslyregarded 10 9 8 7 6 any deviationfrom thesesourcesasathreatto provides guidancefortheStraightPath.Asserti structure ofsourcesconceptua ‘ Mamluks, matters whichcausedconflictsbe in wordanddeed,toallmanner ofpopularreli for misinterpretation ofhisthought. to alltimes andplaces. Suf to connections strong and had SyriaandEgypt powerin took Mamluks the when Itwasatime tombs. visiting anthropomorphic interpretation of divine attributes, of undermining legal oaths, and repudiating the ritual of Muslim Radicalism,” and Misinterpretations of a Medieval Scholar: Appr Scholar: ofa Medieval Misinterpretations and Ibn Taymiyyah was put on trial three times from1305 to a ScrewLoose?” Have Taymiyya Little, “Did Ibn See Donald See Aziz al-Azmeh, “Introduction,”to See Ulama See H. Laoust, “L'Influence d’ Ibn Taymiyya,” in in Taymiyya,” Ibn d’ See H.Laoust, “L'Influence ī orders, againstwhich IbnTaymiyya Johannes, Ibn Taymiyyah’s zealousandconsistentst , oftenresultinginhisimprisonment. Journal of Semitic Studies Semitic Studies of Journal 4, (1973): 311-327; for asummary of Sunnah J.G. ḥ Jansen, an of Ibn Taymiyyah: A Narrative Account Account Narrative A Taymiyyah: Ibn of an Quaderni di Studi Arabi oftheProphetand , ed. Yossef. Rapoport, Shahab Ahmed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2010), Press, University Oxford (Oxford: Ahmed Shahab Rapoport, Yossef. ed. , Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques d'Ibn d'Ibn Taimîya etpolitiques sociales les sur doctrines Essai 6 Thisahistorical approach toIbn “ Ibn Taymiyyah 8

Thereasonforthisperception lized intheologyand od andHiscreaturesasserting Ibn Taymiyyah 39 (1994): 41-85. For historical sources on Ibn Taymiyyah see Hasan seeHasan Taymiyyah Ibn on sources historical For 41-85. (1994): 39 h preached. The frequent detentions 7 IbnTaymiyyah’s figurehad 5-6 (1987-88):391-396; Mona Hassan,“Modern Interpretations and theThirteenth Century:

The Qur’anisthemostperfectbookreflecting Ijm ehending the Political Thought of Ibn Taymiyyah,” in Taymiyyah,” Ibn of Thought the Political ehending 9

Islam: Past Influence and Present Challenge and Islam: Past Influence (Beirut: Riad El-Rayyes Books, 2000). 2000). Books, El-Rayyes Riad (Beirut: 6 udies, McGill, 1968), which I did not have a chance to a have I chance not McGill,1968), did which udies, tween him bothMamluk and leadersthe ā by hiscontemporaries the communityof believers andtoIslam itself.

‘, aconsensus ofthe events andthe historicalcontextsee gious beliefs andpracticesduringthetime of ng thisideaasabsolute,IbnTaymiyyah saw -150; S. A. Jackson, “Ibn Taymiyya on Trial in Trialin “Ibn Taymiyya on S. A. Jackson, -150; taw amiscreant, scandalous orasanarrogant, the time ofhis death: he was accused of aliteralist, ḥī ruggle wasagainst those whofailed to Studia Islamica the principlesofMuslim jurisprudence d (theonenessofGod)asthe Taymiyyah's opusisthe main cause based on aComparative Analysis ofthe is IbnTaymiyyah’sopposition,

of Ibn Taymiyyah werea resultof 41 (1975): 93-111. 93-111. (1975): 41 A Formative Period been controversialinhis Salaf taw International Journal of the the of Journal International as aman ofprofound ḥī . (Cairo: lmprimerie (Cairo: de 10 d . Itisfollowedin Thishierarchical EI², of Modern , ed. A. T. salaf s.v.“Ibn , the Ibn CEU eTD Collection

Why, then,representIbnTaymiyyah asan community devoid of any innovation( community devoidofany 16 15 14 13 12 11 Taymiyyah belongedtotheQadiriyyahorde connections betweenthe evaluating thisassumption, andre for IbnTaymiyyah’s interest Taymiyyah wasastaunchenemy ofSufimystic against Sufis,philosophers, prophetic message.Thisistheperspectivefrom or custom contradictingwhathesa extent undermining evendivisionsofschoolswithinIslam affiliated himself withabroade 129,118. His Times and Taymiyyah Ibn FoundationsQur’ of W. A. Saleh, “Ibn Taymiyyah and the Rise ofRadical Hermeneutics: AnAnalysis ofan Introduction to the knowledge and undermines the traditional dimension of interpreting the Qur’an on the basis of philology. See of the interpretations the Qur’anic extreme on reliance Taymiyyah’s treatise methodology and epistemology. An impressive demonstration of Ibn Taymiyyah’s relied on isthat he ismore what likely However, Hallaq, See W. W. Hallaq states that IbnTaymiyyah “modestly thought” ofhis own thoughts ascoming down from the Taymiyya’s Struggle against PopularReligion the object of veneration, acustom hehad considered to beablasphemous innovation. SeeU.Memon, establish asociety af in Circle,” Taymiyyaah’s Ḥ argues that Ibn Taymiyyah infact did not havemany followers, perhaps only adozen, nor were all ofthem G. Makdisi, “Ibn Taimiya: ASufi of the Qadiriyya Order,” See G. Makdisi, “The Hanbali Schooland Sufism,” Laoust, This Radical conclusion reached by Ibn Taymiyyah resulted in isolation from his own See Racha el-Omari, “Ibn Taymiyyah’s ‘Theology of the Sunnah’ and his Polemics with the Ash‘arites,” in It is hardto say whether Ibn Taymiyyah sincerely believed that his thought andthat of the anbal ī ; see Catarina Bori, “Ibn Taymiyyah Introduction to the Foundations of Qur’anic Exegesis of Qur’anic the Foundations to Introduction The ultimate goalofIbnTaymiyya’s It hasbeenassumed alongtime for inboth Essai ,

89ff. Ibn ā ter the image of the the of image ter the

nic Exegesis,”in T aymiyya Ibn Taymiyyah and His Times , 101-116. , 101-116. Ḥ against theGreekLogicians anbal speculative theologians,and

in andsympathy forSufism, r categoryof“theologythe IbnTaymiyyah and HisTimes ī schoolandSufism in general. sulted intheconclusionof G. salaf w tobe the true nature of the shornofinnovations, failed, sinc (Paris: Mouton, 1977), 6. 1977), Mouton, (Paris: bid‘a wa Jam Salafism irreconcilableopponentofSufism? ). Humaniora Islamica 7 r andwas“nolessaSufithanal-Ghaz 11 , 23-52. As Memon argues, Ibn Taymiyyah’s struggle to

ā efforts wasthere-establishment ofa whichIbnTaymiyyah’s polemical discourse Inordertoattainthisgoal,IbnTaymiyyah ‘atu-hu as an instrument to guarantee the validity of his his own of the validity to guarantee instrument as an ism. Thestudy ofH.Laoust,making acase American Journal of Arabic Studies Western andMuslim scholarshipthatIbn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), lii. Press, 1993), Oxford University (Oxford: studied by Walid Saleh. It shows that Ibn : Authority, Conflict and Consensus in Ibn in Ibn Consensus : Conflict and Authority, Shi‘as must beregarded. , 123-162. , 123-162. salaf salaf 13 andgoingagainstanyteaching 14 2 (1974): 61-72. 61-72. (1974): 2 raises them to the level of prophetic prophetic level of the raises them to Sunnah triggered aninterest inre- salaf Makdisi asserting ideological Makdisi assertingideological 15 e soonafterhis death he became MakdisiarguedthatIbn as idealfollowers ofthe Salafism Salafism and Ḥ salaf anbal salaf is expressed in in his is expressed ,” 1 (1973): 118- was identical. wasidentical. ī school. Bori 12 tosome ā salaf l salaf ī .” Ibn Ibn 16 ī :

CEU eTD Collection

tombs ofholymen, whichhesawas indication of best typeof in thewayitisperformed bySufis,createsspacefor Sufism istheritual of of multiplicityandfor achieving anintuitivere with God),whichservesadherentsofthisdoctr namely, thetotaldissimilarity ofGodfrom anythingelse. way Ibn‘Arab the truewayofSufism 19 18 17 human affairsisdenied.Thus,philosophersrepr ta‘ instance of anything fromparticipat problem withthisteachingisthatitdenies was, according toIbnTaymiyyah, adistortio getting closertoGod;“itisrighteou shirk ‘Arab two specificaspectsofSufism, the Ṣ a Ibid., 30-39. Ibid., 12. T. Michel,“Introduction,” in ḥ ṭī i ḥ l l , abeliefinthetranscendenceofGodsore (associationism). AsMichel also points out, ī ī man baddala d baddala man (d.1240)andcertainSuf A problematic conceptis The problemliessomewhere else;toputitingeneralterms, IbnTaymiyyah opposed If byemphasizing God’simmane tashb dhikr shirk ī taughtSufism, specifically ī h . AnothertargetofIbnTaymiyyah's wa is (anthropomorphism), philosophers areguilty oftheopposite, namely of ī n al-Mas shah dhikr does notcontradictthe ing indivineworship. A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity: Ibn Taymiyyah’s Al-Jaw Taymiyyah’s Ibn Christianity: to Response Theologian’s Muslim A ā īḥ dah (themantric repetition ofthena

[hereafter: Michel,

, andtherest,evenifitcalls ī Wa rituals, especially saint veneration which heregarded as Itti a threattotheuniquenessof ḥ sness, obedience,gooddeedsandcharity.” dat al-Wuj ḥ adiyyah nt presenceadherentsof Wa multiplicity inthe unive Response 8 ḥ 18

Sunnah ine asameans ofannihilatingtheexperience n ofGod’stranscendent nature.The major alization of thewhole.Theotherproblem in dat al-Wuj (monistic pantheism) Sufism taughtbyIbn Itviolatesan essentialprinciple of ū esented anotherthreat Ibn Taymiyyah praised d mote thatHisroleinthemanagement of is ] New York: Caravan Books, 1984, 1984, 25. Books, Caravan York: ] New shirk fana’ andisinaccord withthe Qur’an. The s thepractice of pilgrimages tothe . AccordingtoIbnTaymiyyah, the ū (annihilation of theself inunion d me of God in Sufiritual)which, me ofGodin (pantheisticunityof existence) the name oftheProphet,isan Wa rse anddoesnotexclude Ḥ ḥ ajj dat al-Wuj . to Islam sincethey 19 Sufism asawayof

17 ū d However, However, create an an create taw ā b al- ḥī d , CEU eTD Collection Falsafa and whoever engages in ita pseudo-scholar. is See,respectively, Thomas Michel, “Ibn Taymiyya’s Critique of between semantic differentiation is no labeled labeled

Taymiyyah directedhismost severe religious life.Thisis,again,accordi 24 23 22 21 20 divine matters throughrational Taymiyyah ofgivingreasonaprimaryconsiderati mention atthisstage thatboth‘Asharite Taymiyyah’s theologicalframewor reason ( their attitudeoftakingreasonasaguideto as more reasonableandsufficient forthinking. describes logicasprolix,complicat philosophy andmetaphysics commitviolenceag should bebarredfrom anyinroadsintotheology universal ideasandnotthe other charge againstphilosophers istheirteachingaccording towhichGodknowsonly about theeternityofworldandthei philosophers. construe prophecyasanaturalphenomenon a Taymiyya asan Avicennan Theologian: A Mu perfection and self-sufficiency allows calling Ibn Taymiyyah anAvicennan theologian. See John Hoover, “Ibn voluntary. Further, Hoover argues that seeing God’s dynamic andvoluntary creation asnecessary forhis ( nothing of out al-T namely, al-F Neoplatonic traditions, and Aristotelian No. 1 (2006):No. 1 34-46 W. Hallaq, W. Editedandtranslated in Hallaq’s T.Michel, J.Hoover argues that Ibn Taymiyyah denied both eternal emanation of God (Ibn S Michel argues thatIbnTaymiyyah usedtheterms ū s ī (d.1274), while al-Suhraward .” mutafalsifa As forspeculativetheologians,IbnTaymi Hamdard Islamicus ‘aql Response Ibn ) andrevelation( 20 mutakallim

Taymiyya Amajor problem IbnTaymiyyah saw , would-be philosophers. Hallaq does notacceptMi , 18. , xl. , xl. ū n 6, No. 1 (1983):3-14, 4 and W. Hallaq, ). Rather, he, like Ibn Rushd, saw Go Rushd, Ibn he, like ). Rather, particularia Ibn Taymiyyah Against the Greek Logicians

naql “categories andterminology isfu ī (d.1191) and followers of the Ishr the two terms sincefor Ibn Taymiyya ) isofprimary importance fo k, whichIwilldiscussbelow.It ed, andsuperfluousrefersto criticism atthelogicof Aristotle, ng toIbnTaymiyyah, amanifestation of r rejectionofthecr slim Approach to to Go slim Approach oftheuniverse, revelation. Theissueof ā and Mu‘tazili theologians areaccused byIbn r 9 ā 24 b

ī fal (d.950), Ibn Sin Ibn (d.950), . Thosewhorelyonlogicastheorganonof ainst propheticknowledge.IbnTaymiyyah yyah’s main mistrust ofthem derived from on. Heclaims thattheefforttounderstand nd regardedprophetstobeinferior ā sifa among philosopherswastheirteaching (philosophers) for those belonging to the the to thosebelonging for (philosophers) d’s Self-Sufficiency, eation oftheworld Ibn 22 chel’s categorizationandargues thatthere d’s creationasperpetually dynamic and andthusGodisnotpresentin

Taymiyya ā (d.1037), Ibn Rushd (d.1138), and and (d.1138), Rushd Ibn (d.1037), ā q philosophy in itself is erroneous itselfiserroneous in philosophy tile becauseofinadequacy r theunderstandingofIbn . ī school (Illuminationists) were is,however, important to fi the relationshipbetween , 4, n.3 , 4, ṭ ra ī (innateintelligence) 23 n ā Theological Review whichhethought ) and creation in time time in creation ) and ex nihilo ta‘ . ṭī 21 l The . Ibn 27 CEU eTD Collection as Christians byadmitting atypeof divineunion. effectively considered tobethemosterroneousof reason andtradition,acompatibility inwh Both groupsstrayedfrom campaign theminKisrawan1300. against wrote butalsoactedagainst Shi‘as, havingparticipated personally inthe Mamluk military criticism of Shi‘abeliefs and al-Mu 28 27 26 25 groups forIslam andequallyerroneousintheirbeliefs. accidentally, IbnTaymiyyah referstoMongols, Shi‘a,andChristiansasequallydangerous Shi‘a polemics thepolitical actively supportedbyDruze and‘Alaw refutation of Shi‘ism, to beluredbyMu‘taziliviews,es interpretation. ‘Asharit anthropomorphic expressionsintheQur’ana of theinstrument employed.” Religious Authority in Medieval Islam” in Medieval in Authority Religious

See Tariq al-Jamil, “Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Mu Michel, Rachael-Omari, Michel,Response 50. ṭ ahhar al-‘All Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatestat

Response , equatedthestatusof Ibn Taymiyyah’s ‘Theology of the Sunnah the of ‘Theology Taymiyyah’s Ibn , 58. , 58. ā ma al- ma Minh e theologians,ontheotherhand,wereblamed themselves forallowing ā salaf j al-Sunnah Ḥ

ill practices. Itmust bementione context oftheperiodmust ī ī im theology,whichisbasedontheessentialcompatibility of 25 ’s (d.1325) pecially intheir deni Heblames Mu‘tazil IbnTaymiyyah and his Times ā ms tack, however, is directed against Shi‘is whom he tack, however,isdirectedagainstShi‘iswhom he ī Shi‘is.Thus,whileexamining IbnTaymiyyah’s anti- , wascomposedasaresponseto withthatofprophets,andcommitted thesame ich reasonhasnoprimacy overrevelation. Muslims, having,inhisview,abrogated 10 Minh nd their reliance on rational and allegorical nd theirrelianceonrationalandallegorical ṭ

ahhar al- ahhar 28 Thiswasthetime whenMongolswere ,’114. ,’114. 27 ā j al-Kar j IbnTaymiyyah’s mostcomprehensive al ofattributesassubsistentinGod. Ḥ ill ī ī : Shi‘i Polemics and the Struggle for Struggle : Shi‘iPolemics the and scholarsfortheirdenialof , 229-246; 233-234. 233-234. , 229-246; d thatIbnTaymiyyah notonly betakenintoaccount.Not ā mah andisawide-ranging Ḥ asan ibnY ū shar‘ia suf ibn shirk 26

CEU eTD Collection comprehensive refutations of Christianity before the time of Ibn Taymiyyah. time Ibn before the of Christianity of refutations comprehensive Ajwiba al-F Response Years First Thousand ‘LetterAntioch’s to A Muslim andthe ‘Letter Friend’ fromin Cyprus’,” more For this Cyprus]. about Island the People of the Christian Polemics during the Crusades: The Letter from the People of Cyprus and Ibn Ab al- Dimashq 31 30 29 Christians, butitalsouses the opportunity Qur’an and religious matters ifMuslims donotfollowthepropheticknowledge transmitted through the raise consciousnessamongMuslimsaboutthepossibi equally pursuesapologeticaims conventional inthiscontext understanding ofGod’snatu have thesame essence: disobediencetoth wide polemicaldiscoursesinceprofounderrors quotations from theBibleandQur’an. tone thanPaulofAntioch.Heremovedor expanded versionbyanunknownauthorfrom C version of Paul’s letter but to another text( Taymiyyah 1317. in around 1150hadalreadybeenincirculation of Sidon(d.ca.1180). Al-Jaw 1.4.1. Anti-ChristianPolemics (Beirut, 1964), 58-83 (Arabic) and 169-187 (French). (French). 169-187 and (Arabic) 58-83 1964), (Beirut,

The letterwasanswered bytheM tr letter and The was edited The letter was also sent to Ibn Taymiyyah in 1316 and to Shams to al-D and 1316 in Taymiyyah Ibn to sent letterwasalso The ā Ibn Taymiyyah’s polemics againstChristiani (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Brill, 2005). (Leiden: b waswrittenasaresponseto ā ī in 1321, who responded to it with a work entitled entitled awork itwith to responded who 1321, in khirah‘an al-As’ilah al-F Sunnah , ed. D. Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 20 Brill,2001), , ed. D. Thomas (Leiden: . Notonlydoes 30 AsD.Thomas alsoshows, 29 Theoriginal letterof Paul, anslated by P.Khouryin re. Ithastobestatedthat ā

lik since throughtherefutationof ī . Hisprimary goalindemonstr jurist Shih ā jirah Al-Jaw aletterwrittenbyPaulof [Efficacious Answers to Arrogant Questions], oneof the most 31 ā

ā b al-D Letter fromthePeople ofCyprus b to teachabout Muslim beliefsthroughconstant changed somepartsofitandaddednumerouschanged 11 seektoengagewiththequestionsposedby e propheticBooksandthereforeadistorted correspondence ingeneral see D.Thomas, “Paul of Paul d’Antioche, Éveque melkite de Sidon (XIIe s.)

ī n A yprus whohadadoptedamore conciliatory al-Jaw for twocenturiesbeforeitreachedIbn both inChristianity ty canbynomeansbeseparatedfrom his ḥ mad Ibn Idr 3-221; D. Thomas, Ebied Rifaat, ed., D.Thomas,3-221; Ebied lity ofsimilar failuresanddistortionin Jaw A Letter toaMuslimFriend ā ā b b Ris wasaresponsenottotheoriginal the useofterm “polemic” is ī n Mu ā SyrianChristians under Islam:The ī

s al-Qar lat l lat Christianity IbnTaymiyyah Antioch,theMelkitebishop

ating Christian errors isto ḥ ammad IbnAb ī AhlJaz ā f and Islam eventually ī (d.1285) through his his through (d.1285) ī ī rat Qubrus T ), whichwasan ā lib al-Dimashq ī T ā lib al-An lib , written [Letter to [Letterto Muslim- ṣā Al- ī ’s r ī

CEU eTD Collection been deemed apartof isthe Christians work Another against directed against all innovations both by non-Muslims andMuslimsthreatening the purity ofIslamic society. about theBible'scorrupted nature. his centralpoints istoshow thattheQu Paul infactusesmany Qur’anic not aprophet,butratherdeniesth 35 34 33 32 (around onethousandfourhundredprinted works onChristianitybutanyotherswrittenby Ibn Taymiyyah. earliest centuries up tothetime ofIbnTaymiyya must belookedatasameans toin parallels betweenerrorsofMuslims andChristia works seeT.Michel, many in Christianity view on his expressed Taymiyyah Ibn addition, not only to Christians, but to Muslims is to toChristians, but one only aswell). second not The relation toincident clarify in the nature, is polemical in which than more legal this work, released he composed Taymiyyah was arrested for the first time for fomenting fights between two religious groups and after he was wanted tostoneacertainChristian whowasaccused of incident in Dama an asa Messenger], written result of Christianity did not change significantly during his lifetime. during his significantly Another work isthe change did not Christianity Cyprus. This is closest to Cypr of king to the 1303 around written Cyprus] of People

il Muslim Encounters Muslim Burh theological controve Christian for background aconvenient to provide author thesecond quotes Taymiyyah use;Ibn substantial The first author accuses Christians of works Christian Polemic,” Polemic,” Christian M. Lewis, Eric P. Hamp, “Notes and Communications: The Oxford Manuscript of Ibn Taymiyyah’s anti- distinguishing clothes,etc. by the Mamluk sultanate against Christians andJews, such asclosing some churches, making them wear the of beginning atthe written on Churches] [Questions ā Ibid., 64. 64. Ibid., P. Khoury, The other worksare: Besides Paul, Ibn Taymiyyah quotes two authors: aconvert to Islam, al- Ab ā ī n: AMuslimControversialist Responds to aNinth-Century Arabic Christian Apology,” in Kit IbnAy The Christianletterdoes notclaim thatIslam isafalsereligionorthatMu A ā b al-Burh l-Jaw Paul d’Antioche Paul ū b [Letter to Ab [Letterto ā b 32 , ed. Y. Y. Haddad, W. Z. Haddad (Gainesville, Y. (Gainesville, , ed. Y. Haddad, W. Z.Haddad BSOAS contains theentire setof rsies. See Michel, ā However,inlengthandthematic amplitude itsurpassesnotonlyhisown Response n [Book of Demonstration] and al-Jaw Al- al-Jaw Ṣā 22, No.1/3, (1959):124-141. Iqti rim al-Masl , 60. ā ī Ibn Ay , 69-86, 370-382; S.M. Stern, R. B. Serjeant, Ewald Wagner, W. B. Henning, I. b ḍā ; however, Michel argues thatitwa ā ’ al- b in content andargumentation, which shows that IbnTaymiyyah’s ideas on

taql Ṣī ū Takhj Response b] and a Melkite Christian, Sa‘ Christian, aMelkite and b] arguments toprovetheauthenti rat al-Mustaq struct Muslims intheirownreligion. ū ī e universalityofIslam ofMu and l ‘al d 35 , blind imitation of previous errors, of which Ibn Taymiyyah makes Thisisthestatemen ī l Ahl al-Inj l Ahl ā sh r’an itselfacceptedtheBibleand denytheargument , 96-98; also M. Swanson, “Ibn Taymiyyah and the the Kit and Taymiyyah “Ibn M.Swanson, also , 96-98; arguments againstChristianitydevelopedfrom the ā pages andthreema tim al-Ras Na 12 ī scus in 1293. (Ibn Taymiyyah was in[?] a crowd acrowd which wasin[?] Taymiyyah (Ibn in 1293. scus m 1300s, in which Ibn Taymiyyah justifies measures taken measures taken Taymiyyah justifies Ibn which in 1300s, ẓ ī

insulting the Prophet and f l m al-Jawhar [Following the True Path] was written in 1321 and and in 1321 waswritten the[Following True Path] Muslim authorsuptothefourteenthcentury [Reproaching the People us asking for good treatment of Muslim prisoners in Muslim prisoners of treatment for good asking us ns. Thecriticism of Ch h. Itisnottheonlyan ū l [A drawn sword against those who insult the the insult who against those sword drawn [A University Press of Florida, 1995), 95-101. 95-101. 1995), Florida, Press of University s a separate workattacheds aseparate to Al-Ris ī [Row of Jewels, known as the Annales]. d Ibn Batrd Ibn fatwas t upon which IbnTaymiyyaht uponwhich Ḥ nuscript versions). asan IbnAy ā lah al-Qubru city of Christianity. Oneof . For more discussion on these ī q (Eutychius, d.941), andhis ḥ of theGospels], which has ammad’s prophecy. ammad’s ound guiltyincourt. Ibn ti-Christian workof ū ristianity, therefore, b and his workb andhis Mas’alat al-Kana’is ṣ iyyah 33 [Letter tothe

ḥ al-Jaw ammad is Christian- Ris ā ā b. b al- ā lah In 34

CEU eTD Collection accepted onlytheoriginalBooksasreveal composed most the thoroughanswertotheissueof

ed byGodwithoutfurtherdistortion. 13

ta ḥ r ī f with theclaim thatMu ḥ ammad ammad CEU eTD Collection 41 40 39 38 37 36 Prophets). vast bodyofmaterial exegetes tookuptheexamination ofbiblicalre and theconstructionofsalvationhistory.To stories and figures came toconfirm thisnotion the same andoneforthe came toconfirm both. one astheyhavethesame source:theTora revelations sincetheycame from same the God. ahl al-kit TheQur’anconfirms thatth Books ofRevelations. divine Revelation,butit recognition ofembodying Not onlydoestheQur’anmanifest ahighde 2.1. TheRelationshipbetween theBibleandQur’an 61 andReuven Firestone, 23-43. 2003), Literature, Biblical of Society (Atlanta: of the Qur’an and the Bible,” in Press, 2002). Continuum, 2002)andR.Totolli, Muslim Literature,” Leder (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1998), 345-69; Roberto Tottoli, “Origin and Use of the Term in Conundrum,”An Axegetical an inMesopotamian already both existed Book Heavenly Manchester University Press, 1968), 210-236. Widengren insists on the idea that the notion of only one Islam,” in in Tradition and Book etc). 46:30 you” (3:3, with Himit isto (in webow Yusuf Abdullah Islam).” by translation Ali. I am the English using Revelation which hascome to us down and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is One; and

Brannon M. Wheeler, BrannonWheeler, M. Exegesis the ideas exposed in the Qur‘an as opposed to assumptions that there were several Heavenly Books. Books. Heavenly wereseveral there that to assumptions asopposed inthe Qur‘an exposed ideas the See John C.“Some Reeves, SeeJohn ExplorationsIntertwiningof the in ofBible and Qur’an,” See an Vernon.K. Robbins in See more thisrelationship on For more on the understanding of the Book and the idea of one Heavenly Book see Geo Widengren, “Holy what Believein theBook! of “yePeople SeeQ4:50, See for example Q 29:46, “And dispute ye not With the People of the Book…And say, “ We believe in the EI², EI², (Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1990), 18-24. For more onthe prophetic stories see s.v. “Isra’liyy ā 41 b These storiesaboutpatriarchsandprophe (the Arabica 2 People oftheBook Prophets in the Quran: An Introduction to the QuranandMuslim Exegesis . TA ā t.” For abroader discussion seeJa Journeys in the Holy Land: The Evolution s generallytermed 37 TheBookrevealedtoMu Ḥ 46 (1999): 193-210. 193-210. (1999): 46 ahl al-kit R Story-Telling intheFramework of Ī Holy Book and Holy Tradition Holy Bookand Holy F Bible and Qur’an: Essays in Scriptural Intertexuality Scriptural Essaysin Qur’an: and Bible Biblical prophets in the Qur'

: CORRUPTION OF THE SCRIPTURES OFTHESCRIPTURES : CORRUPTION ā b . 38 ThecloserelationshipbetweenbiblicalandQur’anic ). Muslims thereforeshouldbelieveinprevious Isra’iliyy h was confirmed bytheGospelsandQur’an 14 We have(now) revealed,confirming what was(already) understand thehistoryofRevelation,Muslim d Gordon D. Newby, “A Prolegomenon to the Relation 39

ferences inthe Qur’an, whichresulted inthe d Israelite-Jewish religions, Israelite-Jewish d andgaveabasisfo 36 ne DammenMcAuliffe, “Assessingthe gree ofscriptural awareness and strong ḥ e GodofMuslims isidenticalwiththatof ā EachRevelation confirms theprevious ammad was theHeavenlyBookwhichis ammad was t also demonstrateskinshipwithprevious 40 , ed. F.Bruceand E. G.Rupp (Manchester: ā and ts werenotonlytakenfrom theNew n andMuslimliterature Non-Fictional Arabic Literature of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Qi ṣ a ṣ al-Anbiya’ r Muslim prophetology exactly corresponding to corresponding exactly Bible and Qur’an , ed. John C. Reeves , ed.John C.Reeves (Richmond, Curzon (Stories ofthe Isra’iliyyat , ed.Stefan Isra’liyy (London: , 43- in in ā t : CEU eTD Collection between Qur’anic verses. See canonical text by another with which it is in contradiction. them; theotheraspect oftheQur’anwithrega 45 44 43 42 ones ( as completing andclosingtherevelatoryseries Qur’anic statement must beassertedandtakenas claim thatinthecaseofany its independence andexcellence. Qur’an doesnotsupposeimitation of theprevious al-anbiyya’ idea of completionrefers totheprophetic history aswell,claiming Mu not onlythecontinuationofpr (confirming Book,46:12).Itisthe confirming them, italso completes them. TheQur’anrefers toitself as the Qur’anictextbutalsogave (or atleastnotexplicitlyexposed)intheQu together with and OldTestaments butalsofrom apocryphal McAuliffe, “The Abrogation of Judaism and Christianity in Islam: A Christian Perspective,” Perspective,” AChristian Islam: in Christianity Judaism and of Abrogation “The McAuliffe, Qur’an, by using the term Scripture Islamic in Authority Biblical context Mu Prophet lifeofthe the of light the in the Qur’an assessed as in light the literature of the appreciated biblical through it relationship with the Bible has been done by G.S. Reynolds who argues that the Qur’an should be ground for the historical assessment ofthe Qur’an in cr Mu

material sincethe Qur’an “prefers to operate as the vo Christian and Jewish Book The concept of For a discussion ontheconcept of the the that Qur’an by declaration mentioning It isworth Abraham: Bibl EarlyLifeof the “On M.Hauglid, Brian ḥ ammad,” in naskh Kinship withpreviousmonotheisticBooks, (“thesealoftheproph ) whichfailedtopreservetheoriginaldivinemessage. (London: Routledge, 2010). Routledge, 2010). (London: Tafs Bible and Bible and Qur’an naskh ī r (exegesis) has multiple implications in Islamic theology and law. It is the abrogation of one ofone law.Itisthe and abrogation inIslamic theology multiple implications has kit s. Moreover, theterm ā (Princeton: Princeton Univer b , EL²

merely adopted the technical term forscripture without identifying itself with , 90. , 90.

, s.v. “naskh.” Fortheconceptof these storiesIslamic meaning. contradiction between itselfan and kit 44 ophetic seriesofrevelations ā Ta’r umm al-kit ThispositionendowstheQur’anwithfreedom to b ets,” 33:40).Hence,by see Daniel see A.Madigan, ī kh (history) theycompleted kit ice of divine address to r’an. Thesesourcesserved 15 opposed to the previous tradition in scholarship which which scholarship in tradition to the previous opposed ā ā texts, homiletic andmidrashic writings.Often itical scholarship. Themost , butalsoastheBookabrogatingprevious b b

mean written of theexistence does physically not about familiarity with the previous Books isafertile Books the previous with familiarity about (literally:the ical and Qur’anic Intertextuality and Anticipation of Anticipation and Intertextuality Qur’anic ical and truth.Inthisregard,theQur’anisnotseen rd tothe previousBo sity Press, 2001), 53-77. Madigan argues that the Naskh Naskh kutub 43 ḥ ammad. See G. S.Reynolds, S.Reynolds, ammad. SeeG. however,doesnotassume equalitywith , ratheritdemonstrates awarenessof was originally used to solve contradictions contradictions used solve to was originally The Qur’an’s Self-image. Writing and and Writing Self-image. Qur’an’s The 42 abrogating other religions seeJ.D. referring to itself as d thepreviousBooksonly but alsotheirculmination. The

Mother oftheBook)whichis the present situation,” 76. 45

information notexposed ḥ recent study of the Qur’an theQur’an of study recent notonlytocomplete ammad asthe oks isthat,besides The Qur’an and its and The Qur’an kit ā b mu Concilium kit khatam ā ṣ b addiq , the 3 CEU eTD Collection Christianity with Early Islam with Early Christianity Century,” passages. See S. H. Griffith, “The translated Gospels, rather they werebased on Christian informants orsome fragmented translations of needed EarlierMuslim century. the theninth of references to were not complete versions taken Gospels from the Ḥ became availableinArabic fo Gospels, either. So far the thesis of S. Griffith seems farthe S.Griffith thesisof So either. Gospels, in Hava Lazarus-Yafeh,issue this Seemore on much attention. it give not Muslims did that some argue however, Gaon, Saadia by century but they were only partial. The best known biblical text the of time oraltranslations on the relied long Muslims 48 47 46 Princeton University Press, 1992), 35-41. also, Lazarus-Yafeh, H. 154-163; (1994): Mu scrutinized thebiblicaltext progressive Revelationandatypological demonstration ofthetestimonial valueofthe themselves. the early centuriesMuslims wereawareofthe Muslims neverthelessusedtheBibleforboth It willbeclearfrom thedisc 2.2. TheconceptofTa examine some majorcharacteristics the need for examining its evolution over the courseof time. altered nature. Anyattempttoanswerth hand, theQur’an declareskinshipwiththem 110-117. The former authors tr authors The former 110-117. Ahmad,” in states “Hisname shallbe A Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies Mission of Holistic Journal AnInternational Transformation: Polemics,”

ad The idea is found in the idea is as well;7:157, in The 2:129, Qur’an found About earlyusage of the Bibleamong Muslims seeD. Muslim authors’accessto thebiblicalte ī ḥ th ammad andIslam bothintheTorahandGospels. Literature and the Question ofEarlyGo the Question Literature and What isthenthevalueandutilityofth Oriens Christianus Oriens ICMR MW 46 Theinitialtrendwhichdevelopedamong Muslim exegeteswasthe , Vol.41, No.4 (1951): 251–256 and W. M. Watt, “His “His Name isA M. and W. Watt, 251–256 (1951): No.4 , Vol.41, 7, No. 1(1996): 29-38; M. I. Beaumont, “Early Muslim Interpretation of the Gospels,” ḥ , ed. E. Grypeou, M.Swanson,D. E.Grypeou, , ed. 69 (1985): 126-67. Seealso David Cook, “The New Testament Citations in the r r apologeticand liturgicalpur ḥ Intertwined Worlds eated the phraseasalater interpolation ī mad” seeA. Guthrie, E. F. f beforethetimeofIbnTaymiyyah 47 ussions belowthatwhilehaving inorder toshowthat there Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First the in into itsAppearance Abbasid Inquiry Arabic: GospelAn in

xts isaproblematic issue. It issu Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism and Islam Medieval Worlds: Intertwined and expositionsoftheconcept. is question willencountertheconceptof spel Translations into Arabic,” in in into Arabic,” Translations spel , 111-130. There is no common opinion on translations of the understanding oftheBooks.Muslimauthors , and, on the other hand, it acknowledges their , and,ontheotherhand,itacknowledgestheir 16 to have prevailed: Griffith Griffith prevailed: to have texts. There might have been have might texts. There and 61:6. About controversies on the verse 61:6, which which 61:6, verse the on controversies About 61:6. and apologetic andpolemical reasons.Alreadyin e previousBooksforMuslims if,ontheone biblical value asaweapon against Christians

in Arabic is the translation of the Tanakh in the tenth in tenth the Tanakh of inthe isthetranslation Arabic Books, which infactfittedinto the ideaof Books, which Thomas, “The Bible in Early Muslim Anti-Christian Thomas, EarlyMuslim Bible in “The Anti-Christian poses underthe patronage of Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 185-237. Brill, 185-237. 2006), Thomas (Leiden: Bishop,“TheParaclete, Al-Mun 22, No.1 (2005): 20-27. 20-27. (2005): 22, No.1 from theSyriac transl was evidence ofthecoming of doubtsaboutbib 48 ggested inthe scholarship that a for

Inthese terms, thecentral

The discussionbelowwill argues thatthe Gospelsfirst ḥ The Encounter of Eastern of Eastern The Encounter mad,” mad,” some written translations, translations, somewritten Melkites inPalestine in The MW ation of “Paraclete” ation of lical authority ḥ amanna and ta (Princeton: 43(1953): ḥ r ī f and

CEU eTD Collection Burman (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 29-58. Burman (Leiden: 29-58. Brill,2005), in Ages,” the in Middle Encounter Christian-Muslim the in in Greek.” in Syriac (the wordfor“Comforter”) isequivalent toMu Lord’s presence he(shall bear) witness you from theLord’spresence, and thespirit who, afterquoting John 15:26(“But whenthe 52 51 50 49 that suggests and rejectsthis while Watt refers totheverseinGospelswhereJesus 741). correspondence between Caliph‘UmarII(717-7 then this Comforter isno oneelsethan Mu coming ofMu explain thelink,whichleadsme toassume th connection between Muslim authors. in the certain biblical versesthat accusations againstthe Pe University Press, 1955), 104. 104. Press, 1955), University Armenian text of ‘Umar see The text is preserved inthe Correspondence between ‘Umar IIand Leo III,” such of existence the real in believe not to grounds no

come after me whose name is more worthy of praise.” praise.” of worthy more is name whose me after come The authenticity of this corr this of authenticity The See S.Griffith, For further discussionthetheof verse on Ibn use by Is Guillaume, Alfred 52 Besides raising questions concerning the nature of Christand theTrinity, Caliph S The notion appears inone of theearliest Muslim-Christian controversies, namely, the An earlyexample ofusingth ī rat ras 49 TheIslamicized interpretationofthese The Gospel in Arabic Gospel The ḥ ū ammad (61:6)andsinceJesuspredic 50 l Allah The LifeofMu So far, nosatisfactoryexplanation,li Sofar, Muna http://www.digilib.am/Second_Page/page0.html espondence hasbeenquestionedscholarshiin ( History Life of Mu ople oftheBookaretheirwrong in predictedthecoming ofMu ḥḥ em ḥ ammad: ATranslation of Ibn Is , 141-143. , 141-143.

ā of Ghevond, allegedly aseventh century Armenian historian. For the n ā a

ḥ e BibleasatestimonyforMu ḥ and Mu mad ammad of me and ye also”),concludesthat“ is an adjective, and the phrase meansmessenger phrase will “a the who and adjective, isan The Harvard Theological Review ḥ ammad. ḥ ) byIbnIs 17 a correspondence. See A. Jeffery, “Ghevond's Text of the ammad. IbnIs of truthwhichwillhave goneforthfrom the spoke abouttheParaclet ḥā Comforter hascome whom Godwillsendto

20) andtheByzantineEmperor LeoIII(717- at hehadassumed thatJesuspredictedthe q see S. Griffith, “Arguing q seeS.Griffith,“Arguing Scripture and Pluralism 51 verses became a long-lived tradition for verses became along-livedtraditionfor

ḥ ted thecoming ofComforter(15:56), ammad. ammad. ḥā ḥ nguistic orhistorical,existsforthe ammad, and which is the Paraclete ammad, andwhichistheParaclete ḥ q (d.761)(editedbyIbnHish aq’s S aq’s terpretations andconcealment of ḥ p, butA.Jeffery arguesthatthereare aq himself isnottroubledto (accessed: April,5,2011).

ī rat Ras ḥ ammad’s coming appears 37, No. 4 (1944): 269-332. 269-332. (1944): 4 No. 37, , ed. T. Hefferman andT. ū e and“pointedtothe from Scripture: the Bible l All ā h Muna (Oxford: Oxford Oxford (Oxford: ḥḥ em ā ā m) m) n ā

CEU eTD Collection 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 the adventofMu is Mu Paraclete. “uncircumscribed” and “invisible likeGod,” thereforeMu (14:16, 14:26)“allrefertoMu Timothy (d.823), dialogue betweentheA Muslims. of theirreligion,i.e.,Mu Leo arguedinhisresponse “earthly people wereforgetfuland fellinto error.” being handeddownfrom “nationstonations,a mission ofourMu Apology of al-Kind of Apology al-Kind Herecy Brill,Ishmaelites”“the of 1972), 136-137. (Leiden: written in in it Syriac, a written circulation had wide although Arabic. was manuscript original that the Itisbelieved Islam Christianity. between and polemical themes vast upon Dialogue 63-131. 1993), Institute, Research Commentary with Translations A.D.), (632–900 The Early Christian–Muslim Dialogue: ACollection of Documents from the First ThreeIslamic Centuries

Ibid., 195. This theme also appears in the pseudonymous dialogue between Jacobite ‘Abd al-Masi Ibid.,192. Ibid., 191. PatriarchTimothy See “The Nestorian Letter ofLeo in Jeffery, A. tr. and For the response of Leo, see “Ghevond’s Text of the Letter of Leo III to ‘Umar II,” ed. Ibid. A.Jeffery, “ ḥ ī and‘Abdallahal-Hashim ammad, towhichTimothy replies: In oneofthemost famous A more developedstudyof had destroyedthekingdomofBabyl the kingdomofMedes,andpasseditto camel isCyrus thePersian,whowasfrom The rideron anassisDariusthe Me , ed. A. Mingana, 174-246. The letter is composed in amanner of questions and answers and touches 56 59

Ghevond’s text Al-Mahd , 64-65. This is acommon argument among Christians; Cf. D. Sahas, John ofDamascus onIslam ī ” in ḥ 57 ammad andIslamwas carriedoutbya ammad ḥ al-Mahd The Early Christian–Muslim Dialogue ammad.” ī also claims that:‘therideron anassand therider on acamel’ (Is. 22:7) ,” 277. bbasid Caliphal-Mahd ḥ 55 ammad. Therefore,its ī ī thatthe Biblewasmentioned intheQur’anitselfbyleader , written in Arabic at the time of Caliph al-Ma’m Caliph of time atthe Arabic in written , claims thatthementions ofthe 53

Healsoclaims thatthe Scripturesarecorrupted because of interactions betweenMuslims andChristians, namely, the I and the ‘Abbasid Caliph Mahdi” in the Bibleendeavoringtos ḥ ammad.” , edN. A. Newman (Hatfield, de, sonofAssuerus,andtheriderona 18 58 onians andpassedittotheMedes.

Timothy repliesthattheParaclete is nd from tribestotribes,”andthey,being Elam. TheKingofElam destroyed authenticityshould ī (775-785)andthe 54 thePersians,asDariusMede , ed. and tr. Anton Tien, 381-516. Tien, 381-516. tr. Anton , ed.and Againsttheaccusation of falsification, ninth-century Christianconvertto Paraclete intheGospelofJohn how thepassagesannouncing ḥ ammad couldnotbethe ammad PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Biblical PA: Interdisciplinary The Early Christian–Muslim EarlyChristian–Muslim The not bequestionedby ū Nestorian Patriarch n (813-833). See“The 60

ḥ Ibn Is Ibn ḥ aq CEU eTD Collection tr. A. Mingana, 570. Mu wa-sallam splendor,” andsoon,into Testaments wastogivedirect 66 65 64 63 62 61 which is“thesealofprophecy given, whosegovernment isonhisshoulder”(Is. mentioned theProphet.” clearness andexplicitness it claims, isequivalentto mountain ofhisholiness”(Ps.48:1)tr quotes theverse“Greatisth (from thesame root their prophet.” of Mu against Christiansis it clearlyandincreasehisconvictiona and itsprophet.Hequotesnum of ReligionandEmpire Islam, AliibnSahlRabbanal-Tabar Adang, Muslims), and who, according to some scholars, ordered Ibn Rabban to refute the Christians. See Camilla

refutation of Christianity. Christianity. of refutation 1996), 29. What is important hereis that the knowledge of his previous religion and the Bible served well in his the against aliterarycampaign who organized (847-861), al-Mutawakkil by Caliph oppressed authorthe of Ibid., 623. Ibid. Ibn Rabbanal-Tabari,“The Book themsee M. counts at130, Watt, M. Watt is titleofthe book The full The issue ofal-Tabar ḥ ammad, Godbless Him andGrant Him Salvation]. ḥ Muslim Writers on Judaism and theMuslimWriters onJudaism Hebrew and He paraphrasestheendofpassage“Unto ammad: “Theyhavehiddenhisname and [The Book of Religion and Empire onthe Confirmation of the Prophethood of the Prophet Annales 65 The simplest wayofdiscovering Thesimplest ) conversion is debated; some argue that he was a conformist; others claim that he was he was claimthat others he was a conformist; some that isdebated; argue conversion ) ī ’s (afterwardsRabban, Ibntonot beconfused with morefamous historian al-Tabar their deliberateconcealment ofth

ḥ ), md Kitab al-din wa’l dawla fi ithbat nubuwwat al-nab nubuwwat fiithbat wa’ldawla al-din Kitab 66 62 Mu

), thereforeforetellingMu Ibn Rabbanaims toabolishdoubts Arabic, whichwouldyield“ e Lord,andgreatlytobe of Religion and Empire,” and in ofReligion

ḥ self whichcannotsufferanyambiguity. Davidhadindeed ammad erous versesfromtheBible ” andtherefore“aclearallusi translations to thewords “glory/glorious” or “praised, The Early Development of the ī (d.870). nd hisjoyinthereligionofIslam.” . “ThisprophecyofDavid--peacebeuponhim--is anslating theword“praised”as“Ma Bible: from Ibn Rabban to Ibn 19 61

With his 9:6)as“theprophecyisonhisshoulder,” changed hisportraitfoundintheBooks of us achildisborn,andunto The EarlyChristia references bothintheOldandNew e biblical passages ontheprophethood ḥ praised ammad’s coming. Forexample,he Kitab al-dinwa’ldawla 63 Ḥ inorderthat“thereadermay see amd,” “A Muslim Attitude tothe Bible inthecityof about thesuperiorityofIslam on totheportraitureof ī Mu n-Muslim Dialogue n-Muslim ḥ ḥ ammad, salla llahu llahu ‘alayhi salla ammad, mad,” “Mu 64 Ḥ Hiskeyargument ḥ azm m ourGod,inthe ū d,” which, he d,” which,he dhimmis (Leiden: Brill, (Leiden: Brill, ( ḥ The Book ammad” ammad” , 59. , 59. , ed. and (non- ī , the CEU eTD Collection [Signs of Prophethood] by Ibn Qutayba (d. 889). See Adang, See Adang, 889). (d. Qutayba Ibn by Prophethood] of [Signs is literature this example of One Bible. the from prophecy his on testimonies include be authors, the where ofprophethood”), signs or 70 69 68 67 confirm eachother,thus excludinganypossibil of information ( concomitant transmission ( previous Books.Thecentralargument oflaterpo Islam. examination ofboththeTorahandGospelsin scholar al-Qar the Books,didnotceasetobeimportantin Christian polemical discourse. biblical texttoconf Islam, hisworkwasaprimary example for the Paraclete, i.e.,the HolySpirit,is Mu you allthings andwillremind youofeverything I 14:26 (“ButtheAdvocate,HolySpirit, whom testimonies intheGospels,wher Prophet, and areference tohisfaceandmoles.”

163-182 ,Al-Qar 163-182 See al-Qar called literary inanother argument line wasincluded genre of This Ibid., 646. Ibid., 628. 70 Even ifIbnRabbanwasnotthefirsttouseBibleastestimonyforMu Later Muslims developedmore systematic This theme, althoughsubsidingsomewhatbe that theChristhas taught; theParaclete, therefore,isth single onewhotaughtmanki Among thedisciplesofChristther

ā f ī , Al-Ajwiba al-F Al-Ajwiba ā f

ā ī khabar counts fifty testimonies from the Bible on the coming of Islam. f ī (d.1285)devotesalargepartofhis irm theprophethoodofMu ) throughdifferentreliabletransmission chains( called ‘eve ā al-naql al-mutaw khirah ‘anal-As’ilah al-F

69

e, again,themajort rything.’ nd anythingbesideswhat ḥ sides telling about the miracles performed Mu by miraclesperformed the about telling sides ammad, as: e Prophet and the Qur’an is the knowledge e ProphetandtheQur’anisknowledge ā tir 68 20 later Muslimpolemicists, whoexploited the

). Concomitancy (

e hasnotbeen,downtoourtime, a later centuries. A famous thirteenth-century later centuries.Afamous ity ofmendacity. This lemicists againsttheBookswas theirlackof ā theFatherwillsend in my name, willteach jirah ḥ thelightof theirforetelling thecoming of have saidtoyou”),Ibn Rabbanclaims that The Muslim Writers The Muslim ammad, amajor theme inMuslim anti- and complex refutations against the fore more elaboratedarguments against opic istheParaclete. (Lubn 67 dala’il

ā He proceeds afterwardstothe n: D Al-Ajwiba al-F the Christhadalready ā (or r al-kutub, 1986), al-b 1986), al-kutub, r taw , Appendix 3. , Appendix a‘lam ā tur isn providesthehighest ) ) is the transmission ā al-nubuwwah ReferringtoJohn d Dala’il al-nubuwwah ) whichmutually ā khirah to ḥ ḥ ammad and ammad, also also ammad, ā b al-r (“proofs (“proofs the ā b ī ‘, ‘,

CEU eTD Collection introducedmethodology“a new forthe rebuttal the of Christians,” 243. SeeHannahE. Kassis,“Critique of why Muslims did not show much interest in the Gospels. Hanah E. Kassis argues that with this passage al-J this passage that with E.Kassisargues Hanah the Gospels. in much interest show not did Muslimswhy errors and not a part oftheological discussions, and that the description given by al-J Bible, because of distrust, was of secondary significance fo “the single best-known statement about the nature and Terminology) (Bayr al-Na apostles, whowereordinary The nextcentral issue, whichrefers specifically totheGospels, istheauthority of the criticisms oftheGospels: but al-J ‘al 74 73 72 71 stylist Ab for theTorah,itspublicrevela was directedespeciallyagainst claimed thattheprevious Booksdidnothave form ofveracityanditisonethe Christianity the New Testament andthe

I am using the translation by D.Thomas in D.Thomas, “TheBible and the Kal speci refutations the on Fromon here I will concentrate Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, See ā al-Na ṣā EL² rah This theme judging byappearance,inpurity,noble who accordingtoyouwere disciples, were because hewasnotadisciple and had Gospels].It cannotbedeniedthatthe about them iscorrectandthatyouha with thedifferencesintheirlegal teachingareevidence that whatwehavesaid meaning intheir writings, andtheirdiffe can say:thedifferences intheaccounts making errorsinthereligion of Godor intentionally, hadmemories each….And ifthey[Christians]say agreement toshareleadership andmutua safeguarded againsterror, forgetfulness, responded later( their claim from thedisciplesJohnandMatthew,twoofthosewho They received theirreligionfrom four āḥ , s.v. “taw in ū , ed. D. Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 179. For the original Arabic text see Al-J see text Arabic original Forthe 179. Brill,2007), D.Thomas, ed. (Leiden: ṣā i ‘Uthm ẓ Thal inabriefpassageintroducedargume r ā (RefutationofChristianity ā ū ā th Rasa’ll tur.” Also, tur.” Also, t: D ā 73 n al-J Intertwined Worlds appears in theworkofaninth-century Mu‘tazil ā r al-‘Ilm li’l-Malayiin, 1979), 146-151. 146-151. 1979), al-‘Ilmr li’l-Malayiin, Torah only when needed. needed. when only Torah āḥ min al-mustaj ī Ab Ṣ i ẓ ub people liabletoerrors. (d.869).Thesectiondeali

ū ḥī ‘Uthm tion toMosesatMountSinai the GospelswhichcannotbereliablytracedbacktoJesus.As

Ṣā li ḥ toogoodtoforgetanyt , 43. , ‘Ul essential characteristics of theQur’an. ā n al J n al ī bah ū m al- ) providingdiscussiononChri āḥ ), Mark and Luke. These four were not ), MarkandLuke.Thesefourwerenot i Ḥ ẓ 21 a reliable chain oftransmission. Thisaccusation losinganything committed tothem; we , ed. J. Finkel (Cairo,1926), 24. David Thomas calls it ad one suchasLukesaidwhatiswrong authenticity of Christian Scripture.” He argues that the that Heargues Christian Scripture.” of authenticity character andblameless behavior. been aJew afewdaysbefore.Those, individuals: twoofthem accordingto

intention tolie,collusionon matters, lly allowingwhathasbeenallottedto fically against the Gospels, to referring theGospels, other parts of fically against of theGospels,contradictionsin ī th wa Mu wa th rences overChristhimself, together r Muslims, their Christians instrument show as an to ve beencarelessaboutthem[the [the apostles]weretoofinetolie betterthan LukeinChrist’seyes, nts whichbecame centralinfurther ng withtheGospelsinhis ṣṭ ala hing, werefarabovefrom ḥ guaranteed moreauthenticity. atuhu (The Science of ā ā hi ī m,” in in m,” scholarandfamous stians israther short, ẓ is astrong indicator of 71 āḥ Muslim authors The Bible in Arab The Bible inArab i ẓ ,

74 Ḥ F ad ī

F al-Radd‘al ī ī al-Radd th and its and ā hi 72 ā ẓ

CEU eTD Collection in Arab Christianity Arab in (“treacherous disciples”) indifferentperiods. criticizes the authenticityoftheGospelsbe with Roman customs, whichis anewelemen major argument againstChristianity isthede ‘Abd al-Jab 76 75 Scriptures. Polemics ofal-Jahiz and Ibn composition oftheGospelswith claim that In hiswork,entitled denies the validity of Christianity on thebasis between theGospelsascorearguments. whom Iwillmention below,bringin theissue of inauthentic transmission anddisagreements themes inlaterrefutations againsttheGospels.Almost allMuslim authors,including those which inturnquestionsthe opus Customs,” in ‘Abd al-Jab

Philosophical Argumentation Philosophical S. M. Stern, “Abd al-JabM. Stern,“Abd S. Series, Islamic Translation University: (Brigham Young of the treatise see G.S.Reynolds, S.K.Samir, Stern, S.Reynolds, seeG. work this of treatment extensive an For

al-Mughn ‘Abd al-Jabb achieve theirdesignwhichwastogainpower. Gospel buttheyrefrainedfrom menti amongst them severalpersonswhoknew omitted however a great dealof whatwasinthe original Gospel.There were other personsanotherGospel;thusthey compose anotherGospel…Thussome personswroteaGospel,thenafterwards substitute for the Gospelswhich they Those whohadmade anagreement with The highlights of thiscriticism, namely, Clearly, ‘Abd al-Jabb One ofthem is‘Abdal-Jabb ā r and the Critique of Christian Origins Christian of Critique the r and Theological Studies ā ī r devotedalongsectiontoanti-Christi

in thesamemanner asdoes al-J

, 185. , 185. ā r’s Account Tathb ā r’s account of how Christ’s Religion was falsified by the Adoption of Roman Roman the wasfalsified by of Adoption Christ’sReligion how of r’s account , ed. Yossef Schwartz, Volkhard Krech (T ī t dala’ilal-nub 19, No. 1 (1968): 128-185 (1968): 1 No. 19, , 135, para.8ff. ‘Abd al-Jabb ‘Abd para.8ff. , 135, authenticity oftheBookstheycomposed, became essential ā

r employs anentirelynegativeapproachtowardsthe Ḥ azm against Christianity and Judaism,” in Judaism,” in and Christianity azm against ā r Ibn A ā Critique of Christian Origins: Christian of Critique hi u ẓ wwah (Leiden: Brill, 2004). For the recent edition and translation translation and edition the recent For Brill,2004). (Leiden: : seeD.Thomas, “TheBibleandtheKal cause theywerecomposed bydifferentpersons, 22 ḥ oning thesethingssothattheycould liberate replacement oftheChristian religion of evaluatingChristianSc 2010). A translation with commentaries is provided in mad (d.1025),anotherMu‘tazil

t in the refutation of Christianity. Al-Jab couldnotobtain,anddecidedto they didnotreflecttheRevelationgivento wroteanumber ofGospels.They [Confirmation oftheProofsProphecy], theRomans tookcounselwhatto .

questioning theauthorityofapostles, questioning many thingscontainedinthe real ā 76 A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: Milieu: Sectarian in the A Muslim Theologian an polemics andscripturalerrors. The r writes aboutthe Gospels also inhis

übingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2002),237-250.

A Parallel English-Arabic Text English-Arabic AParallel riptures andhistory. Religious Apologetics-- Religious ā m,” in in m,” ī authorwho The Bible magnum magnum ā 75 r

CEU eTD Collection Ancient Christianity,” Christianity,” Ancient ofSayf Composition b. “The isS.W. Anthony, consulted history, theology, jurisprudence, litera theology, history, Neglected Biblical Materialinthe Work of Ibn entire section to exploring testimonies about Mu Christian and 224) The Cairo edition (1899) consists ofthree volumes, two ofwhich include ananalysis ofthe Jewish (Vol. 1,116- were Altered and Changed and Altered, and Thus Different from What God, Mighty and Exalted, Revealed]. They that Show which Allof Gospels Four the in and Books, their Restof in the and Torah JewsCallthe the alladh Barnabas,"Gospel of Fa Jewish and Christian Scriptures 81 80 79 78 77 dealt withsuchawidescopeofChristianbi engaging inathoroughexegesisan authors, Ibn place inthehistoryofMuslim anti-Christian [Exposition oftheAlterationTorahandGospelsbyJewsChristians] among medieval Muslim anti- Ibn implies idolatryinitself. What heabolishedwasidolatry,butinstead accepted Christandhis divinity,didnotremo greatest distorterofChristianteachings. out ofmischief andassisting Jesus. Themostantagonisticlanguageisempl s.v. “Ibn explicit sense of the Qur’an and sha‘ir kutubihim, wa f wa kutubihim, sha‘ir incorporated inIbn purpose this For see 176-185.

entitled: entitled: wa’l Ahw l-Milal Ibn This critique does not exist as aseparate work but there is some consensus among modern scholars that it was Ibn Ibid., 143, para. 24. For more on Constantine see 159ff. Ibid., 137, para.14ff. Stern provides a good discussion on the figure of St. Paul asseen by Muslims in general: ṣ l , making its content available for English speakers. See also, Adang, Ḥ Ḥ Ḥ ī anzala allah ‘azza wa jalla jalla wa ‘azza allah anzala azm azm, however, does not ignore this this pr ignore not azm,does however, azm was aprominent intellectualin theMuslim acad The antagonisticlanguageof‘Abdal-Jabb Fa Ḥ azm.” ṣ 79 l f (d.1064),who producedthemost extensiv ī munaqa Ḥ ā azm thetestimonial diminished roleoftheTorahand Gospels, ’ wal-Ni ( vol.2, 1-99) texts. SeeTheodorePulcini, Ḥ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic Islam and inArabic Studies Jerusalem azm ’s Der Islam ī -l-an ḍā t ḥ al), ẓā ā 78 magum opus jil al-arba‘a yutayaqqanu bi dhalika ta bi dhalika yutayaqqanu jil al-arba‘a see also P.S. van Koningsveld, "The Isla hira wa tak

[hereafter (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 10. Pulcini provides a thorough study of the the study of athorough provides Pulcini 10. Press, 1998), Scholars (Atlanta: 85 (2010) 164-202. 164-202. (2010) 85 Sunnah mischief-doers, troublemaker andpower-seeker...”whowasthe [Treatise on the Obvious Contradictions and Evident Lies in the Book which

biblical writings.His ture, and psychology. He adhered to the to the Headhered psychology. and ture, , and which also influenced Ibn , ā Fa Book of Opinions on Religions, Sects and Heresies d elaborationofthedoctrine dhib w actice: inanotherwork, namely ṣ l ]. The section dealing with the Je the with section dealing ]. The Ḥ ḥ azm,” ammad from theBible. See Ya 77 āḍ AnothertargetisCons i ḥ 23 oyed againstPaul,“acunningandroguishJew, Al-Mas a f blical texts, which included the Old and New New blical texts,whichincludedtheOldand polemics forseveralreasons; unlike previous ‘Umar’s of of Account King Paul and His Corruption

ī adoptedtheveneration ve Roman customs andreligious practices. -l-kit ā 20 (1996), 200-28. The most recent publication I publication most recent The 200-28. 20 (1996), r wassurpassedby anAndalusianscholar, emic tradition. His activityranged widely among ā Exegesis as Polemical Discourse: Ibn Ibn Discourse: Polemical as Exegesis ā q b alladh 5(1992):17-28. I e anddetailedrefu ẓ h ā mic Image ofPaul andthe Origin of the ḥ r tabd r Muslim Writers Muslim ī ī Ḥ fuh tusamm azm’s critiqueoftheBible. See Al-U ā wa tabd wa ī Ẓ l al-Yah feh Lazarus, “Some Hitherto wish and Christian Scriptures is Scriptures Christian and wish ā tantine who,althoughhe ṣū hir ta ī l wa al-Fur hi al-yah ī

ḥ school, which accepts the ofthecross,which ī r luha wa annah wa luha , 65-6. , 65-6. ī f tation oftheBible ū . Nootherauthor d waal-Na ū d al-Tawr 80 ū ( Kit ‘ hasaunique , hedevotesan ā b al-Fa 81 Ḥ instead ā ā azm on ghayr t wa f t wa ṣā ṣ EI² l f r ā ī ’ ī ,

CEU eTD Collection 84 83 82 Ibn disappeared, whichwasfollowedbythecompos resurrection ofJesus. prophets) who werepersecuted Jesus. Christianswereasmall group ( individuals. Ibn Ibn have propheticorigins. by God,butwrittenfourindivi and theotherpartsofNewTestament, Ibn provides information aboutthefourGosp themselves. would notbesolvedsinceChri necessitates therejection of therest. However, conclusion ofIbn from theChristiantexts,pointingoutcontradi Christian texts.Hismethodology isbasedonsc Muslim writings. antagonistic languagewithnone Testaments andextra-biblical materials. the Latin the

which had been influenced by the Vulgate and Diatessaron. See Pulcini, Diatessaron.See and Pulcini, Vulgate by the influenced been had which Ibid., 4-5. 4-5. Ibid., Ibn Ibn that maintains Pulcini Ḥ Ḥ Ḥ azm, azm mentions twomajor reasons for that: th azm refers to only withharsh epithets. While speakingaboutthelackofconcomita Ibn Ibn Vorlage Fa Ḥ Ḥ ṣ l azm beginshiscritiqueoftheNew azm’s criticsm reliesonexegeticalmethod andadetailedexamination of , II, 2-4. . In his. Incitations the of Gospels Ibn Ḥ azm states thatChristianitywasnot azm states Ḥ azm isthattheremust beonlyonetr 84 DuringthisperiodoftroublestheauthenticGospels revealedbyGod Ḥ azm usedan Arabic Bible that had originated in Christian circles and was based on

stian texts,heclaims, include duals atdifferenttimes. TheChristiantextsthereforedonot and livedunderground of theapologetictonemostly 82 unlike Jews,whowerenumerous andhadmany els aswelltheActsandEpistles. Ibn 24 ctory ormissing partsamong them. Thegeneral Ḥ Ḥ even withthe rejection of therest the problem

ition ofChristianbooks azm emphasizes, werenot revealed toChrist azm used thetranslationazmused Arabic ofIsaacVelasquez Ḥ rutinizing andcomparing numerous verses Afterwards,heclaims, everythingwas azm’s otherpolemical devices thehighly e historical circumstances anddeceptive nt transmission oftheChristianBooks, Testament withanintroduction which a strong religion during the time of astrongreligionduringthetime of forthreehundred ue versionofasacredtext,which Exegesis contradictions even within existentintheprevious , 185. , 185. by individualswhom years after the yearsafterthe 83 TheGospels CEU eTD Collection within theGospels. circumcision. of Christand introduced intoChristianity fo “cursed Paul”( patriarchs. 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 passages topointingoutnumerous corrections, butalteredit years aftertheirreturnfrom Babylonia. of theforgery,according toIbn the originalonewaslostbecauseofexile is alsoabasis forChristiantexts.Thecentral conclusion, thatChristianityinawa shaykhan Ezra) anditsChristianversi introduced bypeopleliketheEmperor Constantine,whowasanArian himself, yet afew verses later Jesus changes alaw concerning divorce (Mt 5:31), (Mt. 1:6), Joseph’slineageDavidto Nathan,3:33), sonof (Luke Matthew the names ofthree fathersareremoved ( Joatham wasson of Azariah, son of Amaziah, son of Joash, son of Uzziah. This shows that in the Gospel by years….” emphasizing two different versions of the same information, 120 Adam lived “when itreads Torah, the Septuagint andcalled inthe himwhile in Seth” shape and likeness accept itas historical fact.

therefore, one of themsh therefore, oneof genealogical lineage of Jesus. Ibn Fa Fa He points out the verse in Matthew where Jesus says that He points out the discrepancies between the genealogi He compares Matthew 1:9, which states that Uziah begat Joatham, with 1Chron. 3:11-12, which states that He compares, for example, Gen. 5:3, which reads “when Adam lived 130 years and begot ason in his own Ibid.,21. Ibid.,3. sources In Christian 5.Altough Ibid., ṣ ṣ l l , I, 178 , I, 197., I, The criticism oftheTorahalsoenhancesIbn Ibn Fa ); 86 ṣ 88 Ḥ l Ibn , II, 15. 15. , II, (b)betweentheOldand NewTestaments; azm putsinmuch efforttoexpose incons 87

B ū lus al-mal‘ Ḥ 91 ould betaken ascorrupt, azm useshighlyantagonisticlanguagetowardsPaul andPeter.The Hebringsin numerous examples eventuallyleadingtothe same tosuchanextentthatitbecame a forgery. ū Ḥ

n azm concludes that there cannot betwo truthful versions of asacred book; ) and “nasty Peter”( on, i.e.,theSeptuagint( Constantine’s affinity to Arianism hasbeen debated, Muslim sources Ḥ azm, isthescribeEzra,whodictatednewTorahforty y isbasedondistortedtexts. errors and absurdities c Fa 92 ṣ rbidden customs suchas usqi l EzradidnotdictatetheTorahwithmere , II, 11. 25 of theJewstoBabylonia. accusation against theTorah isitsforgery after while Matthewtracesitto

ṭ a thal he came to change the law the but confirmhe came it(Mt.5:17), change to cal linesgiven byMatthew and Luke:Luke traces B Ḥ ā ā istencies between (a) azm’s refutation of Christianitysince it tirah al-maskh that that 89 (c)between theGospels; ā Fa al-Tawrat tarjamah Fa ba’ mim ba’ ṣ l , II, 7. ontained intheTorah.These ṣ l , II, 21. ā 93 f eatingporkanddenying ūṭ Ibn ī kut Nathan’s brother, Solomon Thechiefprotagonist ) alteredtheteachings ū Ḥ b al-Yah the Torah (thatof azm devoteslong 85 ā bishops,and al-sab‘una ū d 90 ) from the the ) from and (d) CEU eTD Collection there, found in Gen. 2:10-15; in the Abyssinian land there is only oneriver, Nile, nosuch river asGihon is mentioned Apocryphaor Pseudepigrapha, and wasdeveloped in however, hold that Cain was killed by Lamech, Lamech, by waskilled Cain that hold however, historical Ibn on Christian Thinking inResearch,” in Thinking Christian on Ibn significant place of the to again yetittestifies explored, be to stillneeds modern period the in criticism biblical the European impact on Intertwined Worlds and explicitlypraise Muslim with was familiar and Arabic knew who (d.1164) transferred to the throughWest Andalus. She mentions Jewish commentator and author AbrahamIbn Ezra the time ofthe flood while Gen. 11:10 states be saidaboutnon-polemical usageoftheBible.Th argumentation against the previousScriptures, specifically the Gospels. was toserveasatestimonyforIslam. Late Books bythetime ofIbnTaymiyyah. From theve remained uniqueinhiscomplete rejectionofth 96 95 94 unique scholarlyachievement ofmedi polemical writings.Hisrefutationthroughan possible toverifytheauthenticityofboth. and theSamaritanTorah.Again,it theChristianversi Torah: theTorahofEzra, malicious liarormocker,” referringtoEzra. could nothavebeentheworkofanyprophe mistakes arearithmetical, ge the West. Lazarus-Yafehthe West. suggeststhatMuslim Ḥ Bible. the of criticism with aftersharp d. 1056) Hanagid, that Noah was six hundred yearsold at

In the end of his life Ibn Fa For example, accordingto Gen.5:32, Noah begot Shem wh azm was not only the true founder of Muslim biblical polemics but also influenced modern criticism biblical in alsoinfluenced but Muslim founder polemics of azm true the biblical wasnot only ṣ l , I, 123., I, Fa Before proceeding to IbnTaymiyyah’s re These were themain characteristics of theMuslim attitudes towards theprevious The polemical themes introduced by Ibn ṣ l , I, 119. Descriptions go throughout the whole first volume, first whole the throughout go Descriptions I, 119. , Ḥ azm mentions the Gen. 4:15 which promised that Cain will be ransomed sevenfold, the Jews, the sevenfold, ransomed Cain will be that promised which 4:15 Gen. the mentions azm , 130-141. The statement that Ibn Ibn that statement The , 130-141. d for his critical remarks about the com Ḥ Ḥ azm’s in biblical criticism. SeealsoMu criticism. in biblical azm’s azm wroteanothertractateagainst ographical, andhistorical.

the time of the the timeflood. the of IQ 31, No. 2 (1987): 103-115. 103-115. (1987): 2 No. 31, isnotpossiblethat he wasatthatagetwoyears afterthe flood, biblical criticism (especially that of Ibn Ibn of that (especially criticism biblical Fa eval Muslim biblical criticism. ṣ l 95 , I, 121, (as Pulcini points out, this tradition comes from comesfrom thistradition out, , I, (asPulcini121, points aggadah r, however,Muslims developedmore elaborate on ofwhichwastranslatedbyseventypersons, 26 Ḥ Besides,therearetwodi e Bibleasabookofmere azm (andMuslim biblical criticism in general) hadan

It has been suggested in modern scholarship that Ibn that scholarship modern in suggested been Ithas extensive scrutinyoftheBibleremained a biblical criticism. He is mentioned by Spinoza (1677) (1677) Spinoza by mentioned Heis criticism. biblical t buttheproductofan“ignorantatheist, Ḥ is is not to say that the authors who did not is nottosaythattheauthorswhodid futation oftheGospels, afewwordsmust ry beginningtheessen Shem therefore would be onehundred years old at en he was five hundred years old. Gen. 7:6 states old. Gen.7:6states yearsen hewasfive hundred , Pulcini, 70) ExamplegeographicalPulcini, 70) of , errorsare azm became anindivisible partoflater 94 his Jewish rivalSamuel al-Naghr position of theBible. See Lazarus-Yafeh, Ibn two ofthem aretrue ḥ ammad Abu Leila, “Ibn Fa Ḥ ṣ l azm concludes that these errors azm concludesthattheseerrors , I, 116-224. 116-224. , I, fferent versionsofthe falsefabrications. tial useoftheBible Ḥ 96 azm) could have been Ibn , justas itisnot Fa Ḥ azm’s Influence ṣ l , I, 121. As a Ḥ ī lah (Samuel azm also CEU eTD Collection 133-161. 133-161. Griffith, “The Gospel, the Qur’an, andth ChapterXV- XVII, 282-314. writing as noted above). above). as writing noted M. al-Kaisy Friemuth, “Al-Radd al-Jam 100 99 98 97 take thepassages of theGospelswhichareinaccord withwhatisrational inaliteral sense in authority. The problem liesinthe about thisworkisthatittakestheGospels [Excellent Refutation of theDivinity attributed toal-Ghaz especially characteristicfo judging theirvalidityba but ratherputseffortintode Nations Kh character ofJesus. accepted byChristians, incontrasttomost as primary historicalsources.Thefigureof history inArabic.What isim Ta’r references tothescriptures. scriptural texts.However, treat theBiblepolemically ignored writingabout inaccuracies anddiscrepancies inthe

294, where the author convincingly argues that the work might have been been might al-Ghaz written have by that the work argues convincingly author the where 294, Al See Al-al-B See al-Ya‘q The authorship ofthis work has beenhighly disputed; for agood review of discussion on the authorship see ā - Milal wa l-Ni wa Milal liya ī kh As forthefieldofexegesis,twoexceptionsmustbementioned. Oneisawork One oftheexamples ofthenon-polemical us ( , doesnotgivemuchimporta [TheVestigesofPastCentur History) ī ū r b ū ī n , ī , ḥ Ta’r al Vestiges of the Past of the Vestiges ofal-Ya‘q literature is a good example of this type of descriptive approach (except for Ibn for Ibn (except approach descriptive type of this of example isagood literature 97 ī kh Similarly, al-B (Bayr ā l ī sed ontheScriptures. (d.1111), r writings whoseaim wascompar ū t: D ta scribing Christianrites,feasts

portant hereisthatal-Ya‘q ū ḥ b ā r ī r ī (d.897).Thisworkisconsid , ed. and trans. S. Eduard Sachau (London: Allen&Co., 1879), 20-27, ī f Ṣ l: al-Ghaz doesnotseemtohavebeen interpretation ofthe e Presentation of Jesus in al-Ya‘qubi’s al-Ya‘qubi’s in Jesus of e Presentation ā dir, D ī r nce tothe authenticityof ū Al-Radd al-Jam ofJesus basedon theGospels]. n ies], usually referred toas ī (d.1048)inhis ā r Bayr ā l ī ’s or Psedo-Ghaz 27 as theyarewithoutque Christ in his account is presented as it was Christ inhisaccountispresentedasitwas ū 98

Muslims, whopresentedthe“islamicized” t, 1960), Vol.1, 68-81. For further discussion seeS. Thiswas,however,amarginal trend,and e of the Gospels is demonstrated in the e oftheGospelsisdemonstrated inthe ī Gospels; theauthor’s l al- ū b ī ā -ill ī , customs, andcalendarswithout Ā ative studies of religions. l usedtheTorahandGospels ī ’s?” in th ā ā hiyy the GospelsandChristianity, r al-B theprimary issue intheir ered theearliestuniversal Bible in Arab Christinity Arab in Bible ā Tarikh, t ‘Is t Chronology ofAncient ā q stioning theirtextual 100 ī ya ‘anal-Qur ā ” in bi- What isunusual suggestionisto ā l Bible and Qur’an ī . Ṣ ar īḥ al-Inj 99

Ḥ ū , 276- azm’s azm’s n al- ī l ,

CEU eTD Collection Introduction to al- Biq time assomeonewhoglorifiedtheBible. 104 103 102 101 arguments on by histime. What issignificantaboutIbnTaymiyyah however, thatheisthoroughlyfamiliar withth arguments concerning thecorruption oftheprev rational religionbyaMuslim thinker.IbnTaymiyyah, fact,does not introducenew in arguments againstChristianity andthereasons The conceptof 2.3. IbnTaymiyya’sDi as legitimate astouseitfor polemical purposes. his ownapproach,wherethemain argument is thattousethe Bibleforexegeticalpurposes is Bible and Gosples. of theBible.Hisobjectivewasabetterunde extra-ordinary. Al-Biq of my research, Ifinditworth controversial Muslim author,al-Biq implied. case theycontradict what isrational,

Bible to Interpret the the Qur’an,” Interpret to Bible 1939. The Arabic version is accessed at ed. andtrans., literally.Ibid., rather 277-278. metaphorically Since itis unacceptable for the intelligent mind thatthe the Word cannot beinterpreted asdenoting God but rather refers to his command or essence of the human. See the edited version of the treatise in W. Saleh, W.Saleh, of thetreatisein version edited See the Ibid., 634. Al “A Muslim A.Saleh, this Walid Hebraist: See on The major aimof al-Ghaz The most strikingnon-polemic approachto 101

Réfutation excellente de la divinité de Jésus-Christ d’après le texte même de l’évangile de letextemême d’après Jésus-Christ de divinité la de excellente Réfutation ta ḥ ta r ḥ ī ā f 102 r

‘ into onecomprehensive framework, t ī ī ’s Bible Treatise f Goingagainst the mainstream, hewa in thepolemical discourse ofI ā ā ‘ scussion onTa ī l ī wasnotconcernedwith is to refute the divinity of Christ: for example he refers to John 1.14 insisting that that insisting example1.14 ofChrist: he refers toJohn for the divinity is refute to Speculum

mentioning him brieflysincehi http://www.ghazali.org/books/jamil.pdf 83 (2008): 629-654. 629-654. (2008): 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). (Leiden: ā ‘ ī

(d.1480).Althoughhedoesnot The text has been translated into translated been has text The ḥ r ta’w 103 ī f Hehadtoproduceasepara 28 ī l e arguments developedbyvariouspolemicists rstanding oftheQur’anthroughHebrew , i.e.,anallegorical -Biqai’sTreatise and HisDefenceBible of Usingthe 104

In Defence of the Bible: A Critical Edition and an and Edition ACritical In the Bible: Defence of Word as God becomes flesh,itshould be interpreted whyChristianitycoul

ta ious Books.Itiscl

ḥ the Biblebelongs to r ī bn Taymiyyah encapsulatesthemajor f , nordidhetrytodefendauthenticity hus establishingthemost thorough is s attacked by the that heputsallthe existing s approachwasandremained (accessed: 10April,2011). French: see Robert Chidiac, SJ, interpretation must be interpretation mustbe fit intothetime scope ear from hiswriting, d notbetakenasa te treatisetodefend a fifteenth-century scholars ofhis , Paris, CEU eTD Collection Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centur Fourteenth the to the Ninth of Discourse Muslim are comp fewin quite citations Ibn Taymiyyah’s centuries, authors. the Christianapostles,PaulandPeter,asha 106 105 concomitantly transmitted throughtradition,iswh given thembyIbnTaymiyya Revelation andReasonorintellectassource authenticity ofanykindknowledge.Ish tradition and unliketheQur’anasan absolutesource. Gospels, presentingthem asa seco Gospels. It willbeargued that IbnTaymiyyah by IbnTaymiyyah, whichwilllead as sacredpropheticBooks(asacceptedbyal-Ghaz could beusedashistoricalso knowledge) norisitsimilar toth Ibn casewith aswasthe radical conclusion. previous authorsintoan argumentative framew scrutiny ofthebiblicaltext, system of argumentation ontheissue.Thisal

from Arabic of text the Testament he used remains open. The same issue refers to the Torah as well. Taymiyyah is silent about his sources, and the question of what would bethe possible version of the New Relations Christian-Muslim and In this chapter, while analyzing the parts dealing the with the parts dealing analyzing while chapter, this In In thetables of M.Accad, which prov Below Ishallanalyzethe argumen For IbnTaymiyyah, propheticRevelation Ibn Taymiyyah’s conclusionabouttheprev al-Jaw ā b 14 (2003): 67-81, 205-20, 337-52, 459-79. It mustalso mentioned be that Ibn . urces withoutacriticalapproach 105

butratherisconcerned to ide GospelcitationsbyMuslim author Ḥ h. Givingabsoluteprimacy e positions ofthosewhoclai azm (whoeventuallyrejected toastatementofhisconclu ndary sourceofknowledgelikethe t structureoftheconcept 29 s ofknowledgeandtheepistemological value ies:An Exegetical Inventorial Table.” (four parts) rshly assome ofthe

ork thatwouldallowhim toreachhisown so explains why he is not engaged in the isnotengagedinthe so explainswhyhe all therefore brieflyaddresstheissueof did notreject butreduced thestatus of the arison with others, see Acca ta at constitutes theaxisofIbnTaymiyyah’s ā ḥ l ī r ious monotheistic Books is neither as ious monotheistic Booksisneitheras ) ī

f . IbnTaymiyyah alsodoesnotreferto is atthecenterofmeasuring the , I will mostly rely on my own translations my, Iwillmostlyown translations relyon set theconclusionsdrawn by towardstheircontentortaken med thattheprevious Books topropheticRevelation, sion aboutthestatusof s from theninthto fourteenth the Gospels asasource of previously mentioned ta d M., “The Gospel in the ḥ r Sunnah ī f 106 asarticulated in Islamic Islam CEU eTD Collection Ethics Gibb in Revelation,” “Reason see and A. S.Tritton, tradition Ibn Taymiyya and his Times Mutakallim of Criticism his and Tamiyya Ibn of Theology Rational M.S.Özervari, “The Qu’anic 2007); N JIP Theologian’s Response to Christianity: Ibn Taymiyyahs’s Christianity: to Response Theologian’s Answer], 331. Answer], Reason, suchastheTrinity,forinstance,wh not possesssoundReason.Theyjustifytheexis Reason either. BecausetheChristiansdonot proven bytheBooksthemselves. Whatcannot introduced many innovationswhichdonotderive is beyondReason. AccordingtoIbnTaymiyyah, Therefore, ifonespeaksonbehalf 109 108 107 therefore cannotcontradictRe things inadmissible forthehuman mind. contradicted byReason.Noneof knowledge. Heinsistsontheideathatwhat Revelation. Thisdoesnotmean, however,that Taymiyyah’s major argument isthattheyare against if nottheonly,provideroftrueknowledge. theological thought.Thepropheticmessage expre

o. 3-4 (1992), 256-272; Khalil, Mohammad Hassan, “Ibn Taymiyyahh on Reason and Revelation in Ethics Revelation and Reason on Taymiyyahh Hassan,“Ibn Khalil, Mohammad 256-272; (1992), 3-4 o. Ibn Taymiyyah, Taymiyyah, Ibn Taym B. “Ibn in Abrahamov, topic this See more on Taymiyyah, Ibn No. 2, (2006): 103-132; Jon Hoover, Hoover, Jon 103-132; (2006): 2, No. , ed. G. Makdisi (Leiden: Brill,1965), 619-631, also; George Hourani, George Hourani, also; 619-631, Brill,1965), (Leiden: , ed.G. Makdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Press, Cambridge1985). University (Cambridge: What IbnTaymiyyah arguesisthatRevela messengers havebroughtinformation ofthesecond. includes theabsurditiesofmind andthesecondwhatsurpassesit.The impossible andwhatitisunabletoim A distinctionshouldbemade between kal ā

m , Greeklogic,philosophy,andthespecu

Right Answer Right Answer to those who altered the Religion of Religion the altered who those to Answer Right , 78-101. For a general discussion about the Reason and Revelation in Islamic , 333. , 333.

ason. Theyareinagreement the Prophetsisaccusedofreportinganirrationalmessage or of Revelation itisnot permissible for him toclaim thatit Ibn

Taymiyyah’s Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism ich isagainstGodandtheBooksofGod. 30 iyyah on the Agreement of Reason with Tradition,” Tradition,” with Reason the of Agreement on iyyah not basedonprinciplesderivedfrom prophetic agine and have knowledge of. The first agine andhaveknowledgeof.Thefirst rely onthetruepropheticknowledge,theydo ever isknownthroughRevelationcannotbe Arabic and Islamic studies in Honour of Hamilton A.R. what themind knowstobefalseand As notedabove,inhispolemical discourse be provenbytheBookscannot

tence oftheseinnovationsasbeingbeyond Al-Jaw ssed inpropheticBooksmust bethemajor, from theScripturesandtherefore cannotbe Ibn Taymiyyah totally this isthecasewithChristians,who tion includesrationalproofsinitselfand ā b al- lative mysticism ofIbn‘Arabi, 107 Ṣ with andconfirm eachother. a

ḥ i ḥ Christ, inT.Michel,

Reason and Tradition in Islamic in Tradition and Reason [hereafter:Ibn Taymiyyah, Right rejects intellectual (Leiden: Brill, A Muslim A Muslim 109

ū n,” in n,” in MW MW 108 . ”

CEU eTD Collection forRush Ibn reason independentan had status, seeAbrahamov, change ofmen’ssituation. knowledge. Reason,unlikeRevelatio includes contradictoryandconf people make Reasonthebasisoftradition, Christianity orIslam, themain bear accusati 114 113 112 111 110 standard Religion:Butmost ma among which Hehasmade mankind: Nochangelet states, “Sosetyourface exegetical object forunderstanding theattit religion” ( reason outofthecontentRevela since theyarebasedonge which donotderivefromthe ( politics. Thisismerely asmall partofwhatthemessengers brought.” and naturalscienceslikegeometry andastronomy messengers brought.Yet,“allthesepeopleknewwa it, isthattheyrelyonphilo Taymiyyah attacks. source ofknowledge.Givingindepe

Mankind: the Concept of Fitra in the works of Ibn Hazm,” ’aqliyy Abrahamov, Taymiyyah, Ibn Cf. Abrahamov, Thisiswhat, according toB. Abraha Ses EI² Reason doesnothaveanindepe There isanother conceptthat needs tobe ā , s.v. “fi t ), theologicalproofs( d ī n al-fi Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn ṭ rah.” For the treatment of the issue see also Camilla Adang, “Islam as the Inborn Religion of Religion “Islam Inborn CamillaAdang, asthe seealso theissue the treatment of For rah.” Right Answer Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn ṭ rah 110 Philosophers andthosewhofo ), 114 , 271. steadily andtrulytothe 111 neral andambiguous opinions; , 349. , 349. whichoriginated in theQur’an andwhich is an important , 261. Thegrave mistake oftheChrist sophers asiftheyknowabout

Sunnah kal using opinionsleadingpeople mov, distinguishesIbn Ta tion eventuallycreatesconfusion. ā miyy ndent statustoReasonistheotherapproachwhichIbn n, isdependentonhuman matters andchangeswith the andtheQur’an,arenotimmune from containingerrors ndent status;therefore,itcan ā t ), philosophicalproofs( ude ofMuslims tootherreligions.TheQ30:30 nkind understandnot”(alsoQ7:172).The nkind on ofgivingabsoluteprimacy toReason.These 31 while Reason,according toIbnTaymiyyah,

al-Qantara there beintheworkwroughtbyGod: mentioned, namely, theideaof“primeval andabitofethicscivildomestic fi ṭ s whattheyhadlearnedofmathematical Ibn Taymiyyah rah ymiyyah fromymiyyah IbnRushin ofGodaccordingtothepatternon 21 (2000):391-410. (2000):391-410. 21 113 llow this way,affiliated with ians, asIbnTaymiyyah explains therefore, whoever attempts to the divinetruthandwhat the to deviationfrom prophetic , 272. , 272. falsafiyy not serveseparatelyasa 112 ā Rationalproofs regard of reason as t ), andthelike, CEU eTD Collection cannot bein contradiction witheachother. foundation oftruebelief.Themessage andthe include theconcomitantly transmittedrevealed content( that isemployed inordertotackleth Books, ontheother.This willbeaccompanied Christians possessedthem,ontheonehand,andth discussion belowwillexplore Ibn Taymiyyah’s value oftheBook,Christiansdeviatedfrom kit categorization of humanity into two t Revelation andauthenticityof overall polemics againstChristianity.Hedi therefore onetruereligion. common conclusionofMuslim interpretersisthat 118 117 116 115 distorting themessage, ofwhichbothJewsandCh be one,althoughtherecanmany ritualcodesandlaws. with this Mu interpretations of thisversegaverise tothe conclusion isthesame with the

Theological Treatises by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah,” in Michel, Ibid., 168. The quotation is takenfrom thesame place. SeeLivnant Holtzman, “Human Choice, Divine Guidance and Fi ā ḥ b ammad, Ab ammad, ) andthosewhodonot,Christia As mentioned above,fortheScripture tobe The discussionaboveisagoodpointofde Response fi fi ṭ ṭ rah rah : itishisparentswhomake him a and onlylaterstrayed from itbecause ū , 98. , 98. Hurayrah (d.678), who quoted theProphetsaying,“EveryChildisborn Hurayrah(d.678),whoquoted 117 anditperfectlyfitshistheologi

the Booksthatareclaimed to e argument structureofthetext. ns fall intheformer. However,failing toappreciate the ypes, namely, peoplewhopossessthebook(

It means thatthereligionofprophetsshould fi 32 ṭ rah their ownprophetictradition.Therestofthe byadiscussion ofth scusses theChristianattitudetowards the

religion ofalltheprophetsaresame and parture for understanding Ibn Taymiyyah’s parture forunderstandingIbnTaymiyyah’s tradition e waytheydistortedtheteachingsoftheir Jew oraChristianMagians…” fi critical estimation of theScriptures as ristians areaccused. Theveracityofthe ṭ consideredauthenticitmustinfallibly rah ofwrong education.IbnTaymiyya’s cal outlookofonetrueRevelation, is Islam humans andall wereborn 118 115 ṭ Contradiction is the outcome of Contradictionistheoutcome of rah Tradition: The Use of attributedtotheCompanion of shar‘ contain theRevelation.In Ibn Taymiyya and his Times ) which constitutesthe e technicalterminology Ḥ 116 ahl al- , 166. ad ī The th in in th CEU eTD Collection Taymiyyahh and the Satanic verses,” correct it.Therefore, “satanic verses”). The prophet in God error fallsin prophet ifthe meansrather that do prophets the of infallibility ofthe concept the Taymiyyah in Shi‘a Islam), infallible seeH.Laoust, ‘Ilm im and saints over excel makes them way,which aninfallible in Revelation the transmit to is their ability Taymiyyah, Ibn by prophets, as understood the of the infallibility The essence of mistakes. logical chainofargumentati God, therefore,thosewhobroughthiswordar being messengers isbasedontheassumption, Ibn Taymiya movestothediscussionofwhy 121 120 119 infallible withoutbeingprophets, Christians’ claim thatthea other companions oftheprophetMu are notprophets,evensaintsorMu The claim ofIbnTaymiya isthatonly thepr infallibility” withtheChristianclaim thatthe for IbnTaymiyyah’s furtherargumentation. which theprophetsareinfallible. from error( prophetic messageisaffirmed, firstofall,by

word for apostle is unacceptable forIbnTaymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah, Taymiyyah, Ibn Mu for messenger, used and both prophet for words the In Islamic tradition See ī yah, 2003[hereafter:Ibn Taymiyyah, EL² inadmissible circularargument. except byprovingthatJesushimself isG messengers ofGod.YoucannotalsoprovethattheyareMessengersGod amend these Books exceptbyproving th You cannotprovethedivinityofJesu From thispoint,inordertobuildupa authentic except byproving thatthey are[transmitted by] Messengers of God, Jesus exceptbytheseauthenticBooks,andBookscannotbeproven , s.v. “ , s.v. ma‘ ‘ I ṣ Al-Jaw ṣ mah”. The idea is that the prophets, because they are guides of humankind, cannotmake ḥ ū aw i m ṣ mah mah ). IbnTaymiyyah appliestheMuslim conceptof ā r ā ī b al- . In Christian Arabic usagetheword is the combination of divine intervention and veracity, see Ahmed Shahab, “Ibn with his characteristic of of characteristic his with Ṣ a on againstthese assertions: postles, whobroughttheGospels, ḥ i

ḥ Studia Islamica Studia l ī man baddalad man 119 is thereforeacontradiction. al-Jaw The natureofmessengers andprophets,infact,iscrucial ḥ ammad’s companions (likeAb ḥ Essai ammad), arenotimmunetoerrorsandmistakes. The

For itisnotpossibleto ā b ], , 186-195. Ahmed Shahab, however, argues that for Ibn Ibn for that argues however, Shahab, Ahmed , 186-195. 311. 87 (1998), 67-124. 67-124. (1998), 87 ophets/messengers areinfallible whilethose who ī n al-Mas s exceptbytheseBooksandyoucannot 33 apostles wereinfallible without beingprophets. tervenes andcorrects him(w apostles arecalledmessengers.apostles Theapostles’ e messengers. IbnTaymiya usesthefollowing theassertionthatprophetsareprotected ṣ

idq 120 od. The consequence,therefore,isan od. The nother argument againsttheGospels,Ibn es not mean that the prophet cannot fall in it fallin error; cannot prophet mean the es not that Hecontraststheideaof“prophetic Taymiyyah explains,thatJesushimself is at those Apostleswereinfallible (veracity) isabletoacknowledge his mistakeand īḥ , ed. ras

Mu ū l ḥ refers to Disciples of Christ which is ofChrist which refersto Disciples ammad 121

aremessengers ofGodand provethedivinityof ḥ ammad, are Ḥ ū asan Isma‘ Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Al hich isthecasewith ‘i ṣ mah ā ms (whoareclaimed nab ī l, al-Maktabah al- , accordingto ī and and ras ū ī and l , the CEU eTD Collection 123 According toIbnTaymiyyah,Christiansdo as concomitancy supposes many transmitters whotrace back totheProphet withnocollusion. outcome ofaconcomitant transmission ofth Gospels andmethods ofcheckingtheveracity not expressthewholepropheticmessage. recorded onlysome ofwhatJesusnarratedandso John, dictatedthem onlyafterJe Gospels, namely, MarkandLuke,neverwitn Jesus. IbnTaymiyyah constantlybringsin nomentionresurrection ofJesuswith thatthey Taymiyyah, isthelateness of theGospels’record. Allfour Gospelswerewritten after the Gospels. through wronginterpretationsandinnovations,di the because theGospelsdonotcontai because itisnotbasedon thetrueprophe framework butalsopointsouttheessenceofhi

122 Ibid. Ibid.

اال

Ibid. Sunnah

المسيح This passage withits repetitive style not God. and thatinitsturncannotbeproven The othercriteriathatChrist Several factorsmake theGospels inauthentic. Oneofthem emphasized by Ibn ontheonehand,Chri The problemistwofold:

الھية inIslamic tradition,whichwillbediscu ﷲ 122

رسل

تعلم

ال الحواريين

فانه . ممتنعا .

ﷲ ان

انه

باثبات دورا

بثبوت

اال ذلك sus’ resurrection.Moreover,the n thedivine message completelyand inthatthey resemble

اال الكتب

ians donotmeet aretheconcomitant transmission ofthe فصار

ذلك

ھذه يثبت

tic Books andthereforecannotbeproven. 123 ﷲ،

تصحيح

ھو ال the argument thattwoofthosewhowrotethe e propheticmessage, whichtheProphettaught, 34

except byprovingthatJesushimself is و

not possessmethods to essed Jesus,andtheothertwo,Matthew المسيح

ﷲ، of thetransmission.Th

containthewordofGodrevealedthrough s criticism: Christianbelief iscontradictory only showsIbnTaymiyyah’s argumentative يمكنكم me ofhisdeeds.TheGospels,therefore,do

رسل ssed below. Ontheotherhand,Christians,

ان storted evenwhatis

وال stian principlesofbeliefarenotdivine

باثبات انھم

الكتب،

بثبوت

اال

ﷲ بھذه

اال

رسل

الكتب اال apostles confessthatthey

ﷲ انھم

ھذه ھو

e Gospelsarenotthe اثبات control transmission.

المسيح ثبوت containedinthe

يمكنكم

ال

كون

و

الكتب ال

اثبات

و .

معصومون ھذه

يمكنكم

بثبوت

ال

CEU eTD Collection 127 126 125 124 corruption oftheGospels.However,textual ( parity betweentheGospelsand distinguishing betweenfalseandtrueinformati several languages. Books, andthis,IbnTaymiyyah claims, can and thewidecirculation oftheGospelswere Then theyweretranslatedintoseventy-two Ibn Taymiyyah explains,thattheGospelswere uttered inHebrewandthentr people andthisisnotreliable.” there willbenoconcomitant transmission of problematic because“ifcopiesofthebookswereto changes inthem sincetheyarenot controlledbythe Therefore itiseasyforthefewpeoplewho community. CommonChristiansneitherpossessth Transmission byafewisalwaysliabletoerror,

among Muslims,

Ibid., 343-344. proph “allother like Jesus, issurethat Taymiyyah Ibn Ibid., 340. Ibid., 348. These were, sotospeak, technical (andofte The otherproblem istranslation.Accordi Relying oncopiesoftheGospelsbutnot so. Then, ifanothergroupcontemplates not contemplates tochangeacopyorcopies memorize theQur’an.Therefore,if donotmemorize theGo common people The copies are available for intelligent people of 124

قصد

Al-Jaw

فاذا

. القران 127 ā What ismore problematic forChristiansisthelackoftechniques . b ذلك

, 343. , 343. الفاظ

امكن

المسلمين

ذلك

anslated into otherlanguages.

125 يذكروا Sirah

عوام

ال

يحفظ and

ان

على

كما ḥ

اخرة

ad الفاظھا languages. Thetranslati 35 ī be provenbyanyonewhoisknowledgeablein

memorize orpossesstheGospelstointroduce th طائفة accompanied byerrorsalreadyexisting inthe a groupofthem [intelligentpeople] ets of Israel,” spoke Hebrew. This wasacommon view on. Thisargument ishighlyimportant forthe writteninHebrew,Latin,Greek,andSyriac.

texts asthey arememorizedtexts onlyby afew

. يحفظ especially if itisnotaffirmed bythefaithful itpossesses,ispossibletodoso. to memorize it,itispossible todo

ng toIbnTaymiyyah, Jesus’wordswere تواطات e Gospelsnordotheyknowthem byheart. spels inawaycommon Muslims on their complete memorization ishighly vanish,thiswillleadtoasituationwhere

Ummah عامتھم n non-deliberate)def

اذا

ليس ta

ثم ḥ . 126

. و ذلك r

ī الكتاب f al ahl al-kit However,Christiansclaim, as

امكن -

laf اھل

عندھم on intovariouslanguages

ẓ علماء ) becomes secondaryto

نسخ ā

b عند

ects that ledtothe , او

موجودة and their and their نسخة

تغيير

ھي

منھم انما

النسخ طائفة

و

CEU eTD Collection

the biggest mistake ofChristians; seealso T. Michel,Response, 115. themselves thecreedwhichisnowbelief of Christians.” the firstcouncil,attendedbythreehundred Most oftheinnovations,according toIbnTaymi innovations broughtneitherbyprophetsnoreventheapostleswhoaccompanied Jesus. them, asIbnTaymiyyah constantlyrepeats,ar 131 130 129 128 to error. Therefore, thereligi new rulesandprincipleswerenot and replacing( the Books,Christiansin interpretations ofthetextsareamajor accusa Gospels whichtheydidnotcontainand value bybeingsubjectedto the corrupted meaning ofthesacredtexts,

تزيد

نحو Ibid,.314. Ibid,.314. Ibid., 109. Taymiyyah, Ibn Onthis point Ibn Taymiyyah is close to al-Ghaz

و طويلة

والميتة

These doctrinesarethe outcome ofdeviati as porkorcarrionandthingslike proves their ruleslike prayer to the East such astheTrinity,UnionandIncar meaning theCreedthatisrootof There isnothingintheirbooksthat بمدة than threehundredyears,andtheex established theircreed.Thiscouncilwa with Ariuswhomade Jesusinferior of Constantineattendedbythreehundr … thosewhoestablishedtheselaws,are

الخنزير

المسيح

اريوس

tabd

بعد Al-Jaw

بن من

كان

ﷲ ī المحرمات l

) itwithlegislationsofChur

المجمع عبد ā b

, troduced innovations( خالفوا

315. 315.

ھذا

استحالل altered interpretations.

on ofChristians,asitis,has و و

. في

عشر االمانة

وما

و

prophetsorfollowersofprophe ان

الشرق

ھذه ثم دينھم

و

وضعوا

ثالثمائة

الى اصل that explainedsomewhere else.

كصالة

ā ta و

ھي l حضره

ī المسلمون، planation forthatisanothermatter. ḥ ’s approach that the wrong interpretation of the Gospels is

36 r proves throughthetextoritsobvious theirreligion[i.e.the NicaeanCreed] التي

to GodlikeMuslim tion againsttheChristians. Insteadof obeying bida‘ شرائعھم ī e foundinthesacredte f al-ma‘na introducing newdoctrinesthroughwrong

, permission offorbiddenthingssuch eighteen participants,who“establishedfor

nation, andalsothereisnothingthat ch councilsandleaders.

الذي االمانة s held long time after Jesus, more s heldlongtime Jesus,more after the participantsoffirstcouncil yyah, startedin thetime ofConstantineat ed eighteenpeoplewhodisagree 128 on from saidbyJesus.Noneof whatwas

يقول ), thusabandoningth قسطنطين

Ascribing teachings and doctrines tothe اكثر

على

كما

على

a human andnotdivineorigin:

ظاھرا , because anauthentictext losesits

عند

يدل عبدا

كانوا

ال

ما 130 المسيح

و فيھا

Thepeoplewholegislated الذين نصا ts butordinarypeopleliable

s do,andsothey

وال جعل

ال االول

، يدل

اخر

والحلول الذي xts. Rather,theseare 129

المجمع e propheticmessage

ما موضوع

له بايديھم

بسط االتحاد

اھل

131 في و التي

وضعوھا

سنة

و .

بسط

الكتب التثليث

اخر ثالثمائة

قد

الذين موضع كما في

من

على فليس

ك و ذلك ذل

CEU eTD Collection different Christiangroups Ibn Taymiyyah claims: 136 135 134 not devoidofalteration,andtheproofthat their reliability,callstheTora among andChristians.OftenIbnTaymiyya Jews Sunnah follow theGospelscontainingnarrativesaboutJe believe eveninwhattheyhave,theGospelsas reject unionbutagreeonin Jesus’s subordinationtoGodandrejectinca explains theexistenceofmany contradictor what hesaidandthereforeGodsaid,since

133 132 Ibid., 314. Ibid., 341. Ibid., 319. Ibid., 339. Ibid., 341-342.

Christians themselves, IbnTaymiyyah cl Constantine. and Resurrection.Allthiswasinvent spring forit.NordidJesusmake thefeas Jesus didnot legislate for…theGreatfa Many innovationswereintroducedbyth Ibn Taymiyyah givesmorecredencetotheTora containingnarrativesaboutMu To putitgenerally,theproblem infallible tolieabout whathehasbeen taught. Jesus taughtabouttheunseen …the orderfrom Jesusisorderfrom Ascribing all theseinnovations toJesus,

فيما

يكذب من

ذلك

ان 132

وغير معصوم

ااصليب

فانه carnation liketheNestorians.” are the outcome ofmisint

به، عيد h thesecondBookafterQur’an.

اخبره

و

والغطاس

فا

ḥ الغيب whichIbnTaymiyyah raises iswhatGodtaughthi ammad.

الميالاد

عن God. Who obeysJesus,God.What rnation andunion,likeArianism. Some ofthem y sectsamong theChristians.“Some agree on

37

العيد المسيح they are.Accordingto

isthedisagreement betweentheSamaritan ed byHelenofHarran,mother of e mother ofConsta t ofChristmas andfeastofEpiphany sus inthesame waythatMuslims followthe Christians failedtoobeyhim tofollow and st offiftydaysanddidnotspecify

h, whileclassifyingtheBooksaccordingto و

اخبر الربيع aims, admit thatdisagreements among 133

ما . قسطنطين

erpreting theScriptures. h. ItisaBooktobe زمن

و . 135 ﷲ

في

اطاع

جعله ام

انية

فقد

m. Therefore, he is ال الخر

و المسيح 136 ntine, Helenof

الخمسين،

ھيالنة is that Christians donot However, theTorahis However, him, Christiansshould

اطاع

ابتدعته

الصيام more trustedboth

من

و

مما

ﷲ، لھم 134

ذلك

يشرع امر Thisalso Ḥ

فاكثر

arran, as المسيح

. لم

. فالمسيح به اعيادھم

فامر يخبر

CEU eTD Collection

140 139 138 137 resemble thebooksof and notScripturesliketheQur’an.Therefore, assessment oftheGospels. Damascus. according tothebiographers,moved intheci Gospels and the Gospels andthe 2.3.1. ThestatusoftheGospels such asthePsalms ( statement anddoesnotusehostilelanguageto and thusinfallible isamatter th its accuracyisnotabsolute becau Torah andtheofJewsChristians.

نسخة Bible in Arab Arab Christianity in Bible مقابلتھا

possible that al- See Lejla Demiri, “Hanbalite Commentary on the Bible: Analysis of Najm al-D of Analysis Bible: the on Demiri,See Lejla Commentary “Hanbalite Ibid., 345. Ibid.,344-45. Ibid., 330.

احضرت

و

نسخھا Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements arealsocareful The Gospelsarelikethe traditions aboutMu Ibn Taymiyyah providesprobablythemost books thatarecopied,checkeda concomitance ofallthewordsanddoesnot that thecopywasbroughtfrom Maghr the bookswerecheckedagainstanold claim prophet.Some saidthathewasnotaprophetandclaimed him a that he whodictatedthewordswasonepers destroyed thefirsttime, andIsraelites As fortheTorah,itstransmission wasinterruptedwhenJerusalem was

انه

140 يلي

قيل Ṭū

Itishighlypossiblethatal-

siyar التي ذلك

و f ī

’ was’influenced by Ibn Taymiyyahassessmentin his the of Gospels. عتيقة، الكتب بعد (biographies) isNajm al-D

عليھم al-Zab

في وجدوھا Sunnah , ed. David Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 296-313, also also 296-313, Thomas(Leiden: Brill, 2007), , ed. David

ذلك S امالھا ī rah

مثل

ū بنسخة

r الذي

. Tomyknowledge,anotheraut ) andBooks ofProphets( يجري and books ofTradition. Ifmostoftheinformation is trueand

قوبلت

at shouldbeprovenorrejected. ان

se of historicalcircumstances: according toIbn Taymiyyah

كما ذكروا

انھا بعضھا

و ثم

. نبيا،

اسرائل nd preservedonlybyafewpeople. في

يكن الغلط Ṭū 38

لم بنو

f wards Ezra.For IbnTyamiyyah,otherBooks,

ع ī ī were deported.Further itissaidthat انه rcles ofIbnTaymiyyah whilesojourning in

on whom calledEzra, andthey they n al- eb. Allthisdoesnotnecessitatethe ’ wasinfluencedbyIbnTaymiyyah inhis وقو the Gospels,asIbnTaymiyyah explains it, منه copy whichtheyfound.Itwassaid 137

يقول

يمنع thorough discussionof AlthoughtheTorahtextuallyissounder, اجلي excludeerrorsashappenstoall towardsEzra:whetherheisaprophet Ṭū

ḥ

من al-Nubuww ال

ammad, abouthissayingsanddeeds, و

f و

الناس ī اوال

(d.1316),a الفاظھا

المقدس

من hor making paritybetweenthe

جميع 139 و

نبي

بيت Hedoesnotgobeyondthis ā

تواتر

t) انه

arelessreliable. خرب ī

n al- زعموا

يوجب EI², Ḥ

anbal لما . Ṭū والثالثة s.v

و

ال the paritybetween انقطع

f عازر 138

ī كله ’s al-Ta‘l al- ī

scholar,who,

االاثنان ھذا

نقلھا

Ṭū له

و يقال f

ī . فان . It is highly

القليل بالمغرب

ī

q,” in واحد التوراة

حفظھا

شخص

كانت The اما

و

CEU eTD Collection 2003), 58-117. 58-117. 2003), 142 141 Revelation ( communication betweenGoda Qur’an consistsoftotallymanifest Revelation( completely, butonlypartsofit.Thesetwoso within thecommunityduetocompanions of Mu assertion thatitiswhathe received from God.The concomitant testimony ( Revelation transmitted byMu which IbnTaymiyyah constructedparallelsbetween the Qur’an andthe deduced from the actsandsayingsofMu used inthesame sense;however,they aredifferentinasmuch as biography ( Sunnah al-Nab approach towardstheGospelsoneshouldexamine the establishing auniqueapproachtotheScriptures status oftheGospelsandnottheircomplete Taymiyyah makes betweentheGospels, commands. ThisresembleswhattheMessenger saidin what JesussaidisreceivedbyGod,thenone

Mohammad HashimMohammad Kemali, Taymiyyah, Ibn The Qur’an,theprimary andultimate sourceof Ṣī wa rah Ḥ ī includes everything narrated by Sunnah ḥ Al-Jaw ad ). y b ī th Sunnah āṭ andcanhavelegalconsequences. ā in b aredistinguishedfrom other each ,339 ,339 taw ) asaresult of inspiration ( The Principles ofIslamicJurisprudence and ā ḥ tur ammad and

). Itwasrecordedduringthe nd theProphet,while Had ḥ ammad. Itauthenticityis ī th (usually referred inliterat Sunnah Sunnah 39

urces arenot ofthesame rankbecause the rejectionasasourceofknowledge,thus shouldbelieveitsnarrativesandobey theprophet,hisacts,sayings( ofChristians.Toclarifythiscomparative , and is aregister ofexemplary acts whichare Sunnah wa S Sunnah il ī Ḥ ḥ rah 142 ḥ ḥā ad in ordertounderstandthelogicby ammad, whodidnottransmit it y , ontheotherhand,waspreserved Sunnah Itisimportant tonotehowthe m (Cambridge: TheIslamic Text Society, ī and Sunnah th lifetime ofthe ẓā ), throughwhichMu Shar guaranteedbycontinuous andtheGospels. hir supposes a reduction of the supposes areductionofthe Had Ḥ ure asTradition)areoften ) as adirect resultof consistsonlyofinternal ad ī . ‘a 141 ī ī , containsthedivine th th Theparity that Ibn in Muslim tradition. is a narration about is anarrationabout Prophet with his Prophet withhis Ḥ

ad ḥ ī th ammad ), and CEU eTD Collection Sughrah, Sunan Ab Prophetic Word in Early Islam inEarly Word Prophetic Ḥ 144 143 al-jar their veracity, unlike Christians. Muslims canverify thenarratives through the discipline of with thistypeofna ( errors became widespread.Especially narratives which traceback to onlyone transmitter out thattheremight havebeener refe and contradictions.IbnTaymiyyah Qur’an, isfallible. Both the importance asthe Gospels astransmission ofthewords Chri accidentally, IbnTaymiyyah refers to secondary source,playsasignificantroleas with anythingelse.Thisdistinctionshowsthatthe the Qur’anisconsideredmiraculous andinimitable ( explanatory valuecannothaveprimacy overthemain the Qur’an overthe while the authenticity of the the conveyed hisown(notGod’s)words. Taymiyyah, the controls transmission throughconcordance( Another wayofdetermini

a ad IbnTaymiyyah, Some ḥā ī Sunnah th d

) or a relatively small number of transmitters might containmany errors. However, even ḥ nabaw and Ibn Taymiyyah asserts, however,thata Ḥ ad ī th ī is thatthe authenticity of the former isneverquestioned. Itis , which give the words spoken by the ta‘d s have special statusastheygivethewords of God.These are ī ī D Ummah l al-Jaw ; infact, Sunnah ā wud, J rration, IbnTaymiyyah argues, Muslims possessmethods ofchecking ā Sunnah b , 339. H isinfallible (healsorefers to ā . (Hague: Mouton, 1977). 1977). Mouton, (Hague: mi‘ al-Tirmidh ng theveracityofnarrati ḥ Sunnah ad Sunnah

isthatthelatterexplains theformer; something thathas ī th е refers to the six collections: collections: six the refersto rors intheir original copies criticism decideswhether transmitters arereliable ornot. and theGospels, falling into isprobable( ī 143 , and Sunan Ibn M rs tothecanonizedcollectionsof Sunnah Anotherreasonforthepr Prophet. Formore, A.Graham, see W. 40 ittransmits knowledgefrom theprophet.Not st, hisdeedsandmiracles, isgivenasmuch ijm as revealed. Inthis regard, the role of the

ny transmitted knowledge,exceptfrom the ā ẓ ’ ann ves istheopinionof ) andnever agrees onerror.ForIbn Sunnah source.Itisalso i‘j ā jah. ī ). The nextreason forthepriority of ā Ummah z

Ṣ ), thereforeitcannotbecompared a ḥ inIslamic tradition,althougha i ḥ and withtheirwidecirculation Bukh this category, as peopleofconcomitancy Ḥ iority of theQur’an over ā ad r ī , ī important tonotethat th qudsi th Ṣ a ḥ Ḥ i ḥ qa ad Muslim, Sunan al- ṭ ummah ī , ascontrasted to Divine Word and ‘ th ī contain errors , i.e.,certain, , 144 pointing , which CEU eTD Collection with theirsecondarybut change them. IbnTaymiyyah’s sums uphisarguments: Christians lackcontrol of thefaithful comm 148 147 146 145 measure ofcognitiveandnormative value.In that theGospels,evenife Gospels Scripturein anabsolutesense asis polemicists, doesnotrejecttheGospelsasa argumentation. ThisanalysisledtotheconclusionthatIbnTaymiyyah, unlikemany Muslim authenticity oftheGospelsthroughdemons a validsourceforMuslims. tradition, claims thatthe Gospelspredict the coming of Mu reason nottorejecttheGospels:IbnTaymi must heedbothofthemasMuslims obeythe khabariyy followed thewaytheyare,basedontwofounda On thecontrary,problem, asIbnTaymiyya (

ahl al-taw

Ibn Taymiyyah, Taymiyyah, Ibn Ibid., 327. Ibid. Taymiyyah, Ibn

حجة، This discussiondoesnotleadtotheconclusionthatGospelsaredevoidofvalue. In thischapterIhavebroughttogether transmitted byMu So ifbooks transmitted byprophets wereofthesame type as thebook do. knowledge ofdistinguishingbetween proof, theconclusionisthatChrist and further,sincebelievingsomeone w ā

t المعصوم ā ) andcommands ( 146 tur

),

Al-Jaw Al-Jaw

145 غير andthereforewhatisaffirmed by

تصديق ā ā b b , 244. , 244. , 340. still important role.Theproblem lies

يكن rroneously, containpropheticknowle ḥ

ammad, andif theywerenot concomitantly transmitted, م ل al-amriyy

و

عنھم

متواترة ā

t تكن ), astwoessentialbasesforlegislation.

لم thecasewith Qur’a yyah, followingtheoldanti-Christianpolemical

ians donotpossessallthetraditional 41 و unity, thosewho memorize thenarrativescan source ofknowledge,nor

thisregardtheGospelsresemble the محمد

tions: narrativereports Sunnah trating thestructureandmethod ofhis truth and falsehood like Muslims truth andfalsehoodlikeMuslims . IbnTaymiyyah’s arguments againstthe ho isnotinfallible isitself nota المسلمين

h sees it, is that the Gospels should be h seesit,isthattheGospelsshouldbe عن

المنقولة

. Inaddition,thereisanothersound عند Ummah

ḥ الكتب ما ammad

الكذب in thatChristianshavefailedto

جنس dge andthereforehavesome

و cannotbealie.Because

الصدق من 148 n. IbnTaymiyyah claims

االنبياء andthereforerepresent abouttheprophet(

بين does heconsiderthe

بالتميز عن

المنقولة

العلم 147

من الكتب Christians

عندھم Sunnah

كانت

يكن

al- فاذا

لم

CEU eTD Collection of theseinnovatedtermsandconcept. foreign totheessenceofpropheticcontent.Thenextchapterisdevoteddiscussions embrace the Gospelseventhatway,instead

42

introducing terms andconceptsabsolutely CEU eTD Collection Beauchesne, 1985), 87. Muslim authors. of as Gregory of Nazianius) and John of Damascus, and was known by the Arab Christians who were the sources theme This Trinity. wascommon Ch the among mystery of refutations IbnTaymiyyah drawsparallelsbetweenthe demonstrate for Muslims themselves the falsity within thescopeofIslamicnoti departure, IbnTaymiyyah constructshisargum these conceptsleadtoconfusi they donotoriginatefrom propheticteachings Indwelling ( of Christfollowsthesame logicofhisrefu since everythingthatisinthe 149 contradict the concept of point ofdepartureforconstructinghi contradiction ofReason.Thus,in that these doctrines areunwarranted bytheScri contradictions. However,IbnTaymiyyah in mode ofdialecticaltheology,withthestudy scriptural arguments. Hisargum not avoidthepreviousMuslim traditionofre In hisdiscussionsontheChristiandoctrinesof 3.1. IntroductiontotheRefutationsof

Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the Christian claim that it is impossible to comprehend God and specifically the specifically the Godand comprehend to itisimpossible claimthat Christian refersto the Taymiyyah Ibn 3. OUTCOMESOFTHE Ibn Taymiyyah, againinadistinguished ma The doctrines of the Trinity andIncarna The doctrinesoftheTrinity Ḥ ul ū l See Haddad Rashid, See Haddad ) andUnion( Taw on anddistortionofthe ḥī divine Booksisfortrueguidan TA ons ofRevelationandexegesis. d Ī ents against theTrinityand In tti . Neitherwouldtheybeaso Ḥ generalterms, forIbnTaymiyyah theScriptureisagain a ḥā R La Trinité Divine chezles Théologiens Arabes: 750-1050 s argumentation againstChristians. Ī d F ) arelogically inconsistent andcontradictory because :

THE TRINITY AND DIVINITY OFCHRIST THE TRINITYANDDIVINITY Trinity andDivinityofChristinIslam anunprecedented manner emphasizes theidea 43 tation of theTrinity.Th theTrinityandIncarnationIbnTaymiyyah did futing thesedoctrinesonthebasisofextra-

andarenotfoundintheBooks.Therefore entation against theTrinity andIncarnation tion, ifbasedontheRevelation,wouldnot of conceptsandtheindicationlogical urch Fathers,urchCappadocean especially fathers (such ofcertainbeliefs. pture, and thatis whatresultsintheir nner, usedthese Christian doctrines to nature ofGod.Having Ḥ ul ū l urce ofconfusion ormystery, and ce. Hisdiscussiononthenature carnation arestructured inthe Wa ḥ dat al-Wuj e doctrinesofdivine In his Christological In hisChristological this asapointof ū d . Hesees (Paris: 149

CEU eTD Collection these issues,and useful references elaboration of the debate on the issue. For a detailed discussion of these topics, for asurvey offamous works on the input into significant who had authors selected on here. I focus will rather thoroughly discussions 151 150 divinities, oneofthem beingthefollowingverse: competent ones,always reliedontheQur’anicre It must bepointedoutfromtheve 3.1.1. TheTrinity of Christ’snatureand brief overviewofmajor features philosophy. Inordertoshowthespecificity development ofarationalist this particular polemical theme. However,earlier Muslim authorsmostlyfollowed the wrong interpretation oftheSacredBooks;this ignores thedissimilarity betw gives spaceforpartitioningandtempor both ofthemasthreatstotheonenessGodandcausefor

Thomas, Cambridge University Press, 1992), 31-50, and 31-50, Press, 1992), University Cambridge 'Against the These doctrines havebeen refuted by numerous Muslim authors and itimpossible is to present these Ibid., 318. This isnottosaythatpreviouswritings desist: itwillbebetterfor proceeding From sobelieveinG Him: apostle ofGod,andHisWord, which aught butthetruth.ChristJesus O PeopleoftheBook!Commit noexcesse the twoexistences,norfor theindwe assert itsaythatHeisthe existenceof two hadnotbeenunited.Theseothersdeclareanabsoluteunity.Thosewho Eternal Onehastakenresidenceinoruni Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam, Early in Polemic Anti-Christian

Incarnation They [Christians]hold that (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 37-59. 37-59. Press, 2002), University Cambridge (Cambridge: Incarnation byhistime. toMuslim authorssee Al-Sharf een GodandHiscreature.

anti-Trinitarianpolemical of therefutations of theTrinitarian doctrineandperceptions you: forGodisOne(4:171). ry beginningthatMuslim authors, ality inGod,theMuslimteachingof Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam:Ab in Early Polemic Anti-Christian

Ḥ

Ab ul lling ofonethem other. inthe 44 everything,notholdingfortheunionof ū ū of IbnTaymiyyah’s refutationIwillprovidea od andHisapostles. Saynot“Trinity”: accusationhad existed Son ofMarywas(nomore than)an ‘Isa al-Warraq’s ‘Against the Trinity’ l and

he bestowedonMary,andaSpirit onthe Trinitylacktheaccusation ofthe ted withtemporal creature after the s inyourreligion: ferences totheTrinity as apluralityof Ī tti ī ḥā , Al-fikr al-Isl d occur in time, and that the occur intime, andthatthe discoursethroughlogicand shirk ā . If theChristian doctrine m norsayofGod ī , 197-258, 259-377, also D. D. also 259-377, , 197-258, since the beginning of 151 Wa 150 eventhemost ū

ḥ ʻĪ dat al-Wuj sá al-Warr , (Cambridge: ā ū q's d

CEU eTD Collection against three. jawhar Christianity Christians]. ibn Ibr polemical motifevenifMuslims hadcl and infact,neverdepartedfrom thispre-dis 154 153 152 was notentirelythecase;oneof terms describingthedoctrine,werenotaware Muslim authorstargeted themost. ofpluralityin entity whichcreatesaform Trinity acommunity ofthreediffering entities. describing thehypostasescarriesmeaning of divine essence.Itisimportant as three separate persons, thus ignoring to hypostases ( represented thedoctrineas Godhead consistsofthreeseparatedivine suggest thatChristianconceive (

qnoma th Asearly as theninth century Muslim authorswere acqu See D. Thomas, “The Doctrine of the Literally, ā lithu thalatahtu , meant “hypostasis,” “person.” (sometimes also ā One oftheearliest Muslim discussi Another verseofreferencewas:“Theydo One might assume accordingto thisdefinition h ī , ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (New York, St. Martins’ Press, 2001), 83f. Press, 2001), St. Martins’ York, (New Ridgeon , ed. Lloyd m al-Rass taw 153 aq ḥī Al-Q ā d n means “tomakeone”and ī m ā ) ina Trinity:for there isnoGod ) and unitedin essence ( ī sim describesGodasthreeindividuals( (d.860)includedinhis dh ā t ) becameusual termfor Greek the Tathl

ī to mention thatthe Arabic word of Godasonethethreedi th , i.e.,Tritheism,ascontrastedto first greatestArabphilosophers,Ab Trinity in the early Abbasid Era,” in theearlyAbbasid in Trinity tathl ear understandingof ī th ons ontheTrinity isthatofZayd dh position. ThenotionofTritheism wasusedasa meansmake “to three,”which isaclearindicationof one entities. Relying onthesereferences, Muslims theunderstandingofGodwasissuethat 45 some extentthe identity al-Radd ‘al ā of theirphilosophicalnotions.However,this

t ). The ideathat thereismorethanone divine aquantifiableindividual,whichmakesthe ainted with the Arabic terms to explain the doctrine: the doctrine: explain terms the Arabic with to ainted 154 blaspheme whosay:Godisoneofthree Heputstheemphasis onthehypostases except OneGod”(5:76).Theseverses that Muslims, eveniffamiliar withthe ousia ā al-Na , “substance”,and Christian theology. vinities, andthatthedivine ṣā ashk r ā shakh Taw [Refutationagainst the between them inthe Islamic Interpretations of of Interpretations Islamic āṣ ū ḥī ) differentiatedin Y ṣ d thatheusesfor uqn , ī ū 152 Im suf Ya‘q ū Monotheism, m ā m al-Q , fromSyriac ū b ā ī sim al- CEU eTD Collection 2002), 36. 36. 2002), Christian Polemic in Early Islam: Abu Isa al-Warr ninth century,namely, thatof Ab the three main denominations inChristianity: Melkites,Jacobites, andNestorians). them inthewaytheyexistedChristian even ifacquaintedwiththeTrinitarianterm as the main characteristic of theTrinity. What is strict divine unityisvitiatedassoontheseconstituents withintheGodheadareemphasized 158 157 156 155 Trinity among thethree sectsandthen structure andcontentof his all three Christian sects,Jacobites, Melkites of Trinitarianrefutation. It of thedoctrine.AsThomas alsopointsout,,Ab causality ( the hypostasescreateacomposite ( essence anddifferentiatedbytheirownprope Kind

Muslim against Christians entir fromthe Christians Muslim against “Against the Trinity andthe Incarna Al-Warraq, Al-Warr See al-Sharf Al-Kind ī (d.864), Even themost famous anddetailed presentation and refutation of theTrinity from the is numerically afourthtothem. substance isotherthan possesses threehypostases,andthatth the kingofRomans, claim thatthe substance isthethreehypostases.The hypostases, andthatthethreehypostasesareonesubstance The JacobitesandNestoriansclaim that ī ā himself based his arguments onthe q was asceptical, controversial fr ‘illah Al-Radd ī , Al-fikr al-Isl 155 ), andwhatever iscaused ( explainedtheGodheadasacommunity , 67. ā m ī , 209. is clearfrom hisaccount that Radd

tion” stands out as the single most detailed and comprehensive work by a the hypostases,thoughthey e early period of Islam. SeeThomas, ū . Firstofall,Ab ‘Is murakkab ee thinker for his time andwas regarded assuspect. Hisrefutation ā comes upwithanswersforeachofthem. 158 al-Warr Isagoge

ma‘l ā q's Against the Trinity the Against q's inology, didnotputmuch intoaccepting effort 46 rties. Thecritical argument of al-Kind Melkites, thosewhofollowthefaithof , andNestorians,whichisevidentfrom the context (orrather,as e hypostases are one substance but the e hypostasesareonesubstancebutthe ) entity.Whatever iscompositearesultof ū of Porphyry as well as Aristotle, seeD. Thomas, aswellAristotle, ofPorphyry Eternal Oneisonesubstancewhich the Eternal isOnesubstance and three

l ā ū possibletoconcludeis ) isnolongereternal( q ‘Is 157 ū (d.860),providesasimilar presentation ā ‘Is still follows theearlier Muslim pattern ā of hypostasesidentical he commands agoodknowledge of presentstheunde do notacknowledgethatit (Cambridge: Oriental Publications, Anti-Christian Polemics Anti-Christian they wereunderstoodby azal thatMuslim authors, ī ). rstanding of the rstanding ofthe 156 Theidea ofa tothedivine ī wasthat , 2-30. , 2-30. Anti- CEU eTD Collection Apologetics During the Abbasid Period the Abbasid During Apologetics and his Refutation of al-Warraq’s Treatise on th contradiction.” what theJacobitesandNestorians substance isthehypostasesthen singular. Further,Ab The persons oftheTrinitywerethus amultipli 163 162 161 160 159 B polemical writings.Italsoinfluencedlaterrefuta work. Itremains oneofthemost careful methodology ofTrinitarianrefutati constituents (inthe caseoftheMelkites). the caseof theJacobitesandNestorians)an emphasizes twopointswhereverit that therearefourconstituents ofth from thehypostases(asopposedtowhatJa bears innercontradiction. they aredifferentiatedanywayandtheonesubs to considerthedoctrineinvali presenting thehypostasesasthreedifferentiate

ā Thomas showsthat al-Baq A helpful guide for discussion can be Ya 81f. Ibid., Ibid. Ibid.,77. qill ā n It isclear from thisdescription that Ab That Ab ī (d.1013). 160 ū ThereplytotheMelkites isalso ‘Is 163 Theseauthorsbasedtheirworkonpr ū ā ‘Is wasinfluencedbythepolemical thrustoftraditionalIslamic ī ll 161 ā ā n Ifthehypostaseswereonesubsta argues againstthecontradictory ī andMu‘tazil

d. “Theargument againstyoustandsaslongclaim that , ed. , ed. S. Kh. Samir, J.S. Nielsen claimed, andthisiswhatAb on shouldnotcauseonetounderestimate thevalueofthis is possible:thattheonecannot e Godheadandnotthreeasisclaimed. Ab ḥ ya Ibn ‘Ad ī scholar ‘Abd al-Jabb e Trinity in Relation to his Other hisOther Works,” in to Relation e Trinity in 162

studies ontheTrinityamong medieval Muslim 47 d andquantifiableitems, whichwassufficient ī d thattheGodheadhasfourandnotthree

’s reply to al-Warraq, seeE. Platti, “Ya al-Warraq, to ’s reply cobites andNestorianssay),itwouldfollow tions suchasthoseofanAsh‘ariteauthor,al- city inavariety of guises,whereas Godis tance isnot [differentiated],” heclaims. ū cannot bedifferentiate ‘Is based ontheargument thatthedoctrine ā waspreoccupied with the idea of ā (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 172-191. 172-191. Brill, 1994), (Leiden: r followed al-Warraq in their refutations. refutations. intheir al-Warraq r followed evious writingsontheTrinity and nce butthesubstanceisdistinct nature of thedoctrine: if the ū ‘Is bethreeandviceversa(in ā announcesasa“patent d. However,thisis Christian-Arabic Christian-Arabic ū ḥ ‘Is ya Ibn ‘Ad ya Ibn ā hence 159 ī ’

CEU eTD Collection B Speculativ Tenth-Century “A Haddad, Further stressingtheviewthatsubsta namely, puresubstance,composite bodies, and a hypostases. HereliesontheAris Al-B not acceptaccidents but thelatterdoes. types ofsubstances,noble( God’s substantialityassumes that 167 166 165 164 one substance,andtheFatherissubstance possessed bytheothertwo.Theque substance; on theotherhand,eachofthem isdi hypostases asfollows:ontheonehand,ar represented thegreatest sourceofcontradictio to accepting accidents. problems, forthelattersubs Muslim contexts. If for theformer thesubstanc concluded isthattheconceptofsubstantial Therefore, God,inthesame way, claims, canbemade betweenbodies,soth B intensively elaboratedthediscussiononth

ā ā Ibid. Ibid. 76. Ibid., Al-B For ageneral discussion of al-B qill qill ā ā n qill ā ā ī n As forthehypostases,discussionsonth ’” in qill ī ’s argument, for,onthisbasis,hesuggest ā ā n n ī Christian-Muslim Encounters Christian-Muslim ī baseshisrefutationontheassertionthatGodcanbeneithersubstancenor , Kit ā b al-Tamh ī d , 17. shar ā

qill tance wasnotregarded as self-s ī totelian classificationofexisting e Theologian’s Refutation of the Basic Doctrines of Christianity: al- ofChristianity: theBasicDoctrines of Refutation e Theologian’s f ā He must receiveaccidents ( ) andignoble( n ī ’s refutation seeal-Sharfi, stion thatMuslims ask inge , 82-95. , 82-95. can becalledabody,noblebody. nces arethelociofaccidents, al-B 166 This,however,doesnotch e relationshipofthesubstanceandhypostases. ity functioned differently intheChristian and 48 at therecouldbe of Himself aswelloftheSonandHoly e existed by itself andbe

fferentiated by itsownAttribute whichisnot ns forMuslims. Theydiscussed thedivine ccidents existinginsu khas s anotheranalogy;the ī s e issueweremoreintensiveasthey ), accordingtowhichtheformer does e identicalbythevirtueofdivine al-Fikr al-Isl a‘r ubsistent andwasthussubject neral is:ifth āḍ things intothreecategories, noble andignoblebodies. ). He is also aware of two ā m bstances andbodies. ange thenatureofal- ī , 204-214. Also,, WadiZ. ing sodidnotcreate same distinction,he ā qill 167 e hypostasesare ā What canbe n ī claims that 165 164

CEU eTD Collection one hand their differentiation on the other hand, see Kit not distinct from God’s essence. See Justiice], vol. 5, ed.M. M.al-Khudhayr there isnoreasonwhyoneofth that ifthehypostasesareones gradually developedsophisticateddiscussionson qualities describingGod.Itha kawn al-ashy by arguingthatitisimpossible forthingstobedifferentandidenticalatthesame time ( opposes theclaim thathypostases 172 171 170 169 168 Trinity throughthevocabularyand God distinguishedfrom Attribut themselves withthesecondapproach,represen Arab Christianswereawareofthisdifferentiation. his essence( Attributes ofGod:inherentwhic realities subsistent inand notdistinct from God’sessence. merely servedtoapplyappellationsGod. were onlyanexpressionofahuman appr promoted bytheMu‘tazilahandotherAsh‘arites.For former, theAttributes understanding ofGod.Toputit of whichwastoprovideane Spirit, whyarenotallthehypostasesone

R.Haddad, Ash‘arites embraced the approach of Ibn Kullab (d.855) for whomthe divine Attributes did exist yetwere al-Jabb ‘Abd Ibid., 86-87. Al-B ā qill Over time, theterm ā n ī La Trinité Divine Trinité La constructs his discussion on the hypostases upon upon the on hypostases discussion his constructs ṣ ā ā if ’ muttafiqa mukhtalifa musta r, ā t dh al-Mughn ā t ) andAttributes whichGodmerits manifests inhis acts( ī f , ī

Abw 194. uqn

ubstance theycannotbedifferentia ā EI ū xplanation thatwould exclude em isFather to theothers. b al-Taw s beenacentralconceptam m ī generally, twoapproachesexis ², s.v. “Ibn Kullab” es ofaction.The ra (Cairo: 1965), 91. wasreplacedbytheterm are differentbytheirAttribut its associatedconceptsborro ḥī d wa al-‘Adl substance,i.e.,theFather?Al-B ḥī h Godpossessedfromalleternityonaccountof l oximation foranunknowable God.Attributes 49 ). ā b al-Tamh 170

ting thehypostasesasessentialAttributesof For thelatter,God’sA

and “Kullabiya.”

theissueof Attribut [The Summa on the Topics of Divine Unity and 172 tionale behind this wasto explain the two aspects: the unity of ArabChristiansmost often affiliated ī d chapterd 8,85-86. 169 171 Inthesame way‘Abdal-Jabb ṣ ifah Therewasadistinctioninthe ong Muslim theologianswho ted concerningtheissue,one wed from Islamic theological wed from theological Islamic any pluralisticnotioninthe es yetidentical ted, andthatiftheyarethen ,

referring toAttributes and es, thecentralconcern ttributes represented the hypostases on the thehypostaseson ā qill ā insubstance ṣ if n ī ā argues t

fi‘l ), and 168 wa ā r

CEU eTD Collection Christian Doctrines inIslamic Theology itself.” SeeD.Thomas, upon aquality confer not itdoes But knowing. makes someone knowledge thus subject: of theAttributes inIslamiccontext, “For in Mus however in making parallels between the hypostases and A Arab-speaking authors tried to make useof the disagreements among Muslims concerning divine Attributes, Wolfson, (Existing, Living; Knowing). Heargues that this appr God of Attributes specific with Trinity the in hypostases individual the identified who Victorinus) Marius was The Muslim World The Muslim Delusion,” M. Reality of Islamic II:TheDeath in Jesus, “Towardsof Ayoub, an crucifixion Christology Christ’s mean that another person took Christ’s likeness and died instead of Christ. Seemore onthe discussion of 175 174 173 andwastakentoheaven,notputdeath(4:157-158). to theQur’an,wasnotcrucified the sonofGodandcallshimanapostle measure oftheHolySpirit(2:87,253,5:113).Ho mentioned intheGospels(suchasgivinglifetoabirdmade from clay(3:49)) Gospels (Q3:45-48),thatheperformed mir rejecting others. TheQur’an affirms thatChrist Christ whichaffirms some aspects The image ofChristinIslamic traditionissh 3.1.2. TheDivinityofChrist problems, moreover,theygavemore sp Therefore, Christianendeavors because ofasimple problem: Why wasthenumber ṣ tradition and make thedoctrines less vulnerable toattack.

Infancysee Al-J Gospel, al-J example, For 33-34. Matthew, and the Infancy Gospel;see O. Leirvik, but was also shaped by apocryphal materials suchthe if Ithasto be mentioned that theQu Wolfson argues that it was particularly Arab Christians (among Western Latin theologians the only exception To deny the crucifixion of Christ Muslim exegetes interpreted the the words interpreted exegetes of Muslim the Christ crucifixion deny To ā h byArabChristians,however,nevereasedth

The Philosophy of the Kal the The Philosophy of 70, No. 2 (1980): 91-121. 91-121. (1980): 2 No. 70, āḥ ā hi i ẓ ẓ , mentions that baby Jesus spoke in the cradle, which might betraced to the Arabic F ī al-Radd,

ā r’anic picture of Christ traces back not m to easethetensionthroughco (Harvard: Harvard University Press, Press, University Harvard (Harvard: (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 4. 4. Brill, 2008), (Leiden: 12.Cf. Al-Sharf of theportrait of Christ as itis in Christian tradition while ace formiscommunication andmisunderstanding. Images of Jesus Christin Islam lim understanding an Attributeconfersa quality upon its God (2:116,4:171,6:101etc.).Christ,according aped accordingtotheQur’anic representation of 50 oach resulted from the encounter with with Islam. SeeH.A. encounter from the resulted oach

acles (5:113), some ofwhicharenoteven was born of the Virgin Mary and given the wasbornoftheVirginMaryandgiven ī , Protoevangelium ttributes Arab Christians failed to grasp the function the function grasp to failed Arab Christians ttributes wever, theQur’andoesnotacceptChristas Al-Fikr al-Isl e tension between thetwosides.Notleast of theAttributes limited toonly three? 173 Replacingtheterm ā m mmon terms failed tosolvethe mmon terms onlytothe Gospel of James, the Gospel of Pseudo- of James, Gospel of the 1974), 122f. Thomas also noted that that noted Thomas 122f. also 1974), ī , 269. , 269. shubbiha lahum shubbiha (London: Continuum, 2010), 2010), Continuum, (London: s and Diatessaron, inthe verse to 174 uqn and had a andhada ū m 175 with In

CEU eTD Collection from thefromNinth and Twentieth Centuries Muslims: Analys with A Critical inDialogue Christology miracle actstoshowthatChrist cannotbeuniqueintheseterms. with Christiansfrom Ethiopi 181 180 179 178 177 176 given quiteaspecificplace. differently: He causesan actionin character beinherent ( have tobepresentinaplaceperformmir invalidate theclaim of who providedmore systematic refutations stillre Rabb comparison ofthemiracles ofChristandot created from dustbythewillof God. unique inthehistoryofhumankind. Itresembles that Christ’sconceptionwithoutafatheris performances characteristic ofalltheapostl distinctiveness of God.Muslim Christ’s humanity andbyallmeans todenyhisdi centuries. What hasbeen acentral issue inCh mentioned above:61:6). addition, theQur’antellsthatChri

modern scholars, who have put effort into demonstrating the common features of Christ in the Muslim and It must be mentioned that the that Christ figure mentioned of has It must be ‘Abdal-Jabb D. Thomas, A.Guillaume, See D. Thomas, “The Miracles ofJesus in Early IslamicPolemic,” For a wider examination of the perception of Christ ā n al-Tabar This image of Christaffected the Muslim Although thestatusofChristis The Miracles ofJesus The ā r, The Life of Mu of Life The al-Mughn ī ’s al-Radd ‘al his divinity.‘Abdal-Jabb ḥ ī 176

alla V, 135. V, 135.

ḥ ammad a andNajranthatChristwa ) inthehuman inordertope 181

, 222-223. , 222-223. Sufficeittoseethe sayings ascribed toChrist inmedieval ā authorsusedmuch inktoe (Oxford: Regnum Studies in Mission, 2005), 1-10. al-Na , 657. , 657. the waythatHecreatesbodies. 177 st prophesized notmorethanaprophet,in IbnIs ṣā r ā es and notproofofdivinity.TheQur’anaccepts her prophetsappearsin

51 unique among theapostles;however,itisnot where theauthorprovi ristological discussions ḥā served as a point for “dialogue or reconciliation” for for orreconciliation” for “dialogue asapoint served acles anditisnotnecessary that the divine

according to the Qur’an ā q reportsthatevenMu the birthoffirst is of Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims Muslims for Christ of Presentations Christian is of r mentions inthe ferred totheissueof Christ’s miracles to vine natureasathreat tothe oneness and perception of Christ’s nature over the ofChrist’snatureoverthe perception the coming of Mu the coming of s nomore uniquethanAdam. JSS rform miracles, sinceGodacts 39, 1994, 221-43: 222. 222. 221-43: 1994, 39, xplain Christ’smiracles as 180 Islamic tradition Christ is Islamic traditionChristis Mughn 179

human, Adam, who was human, whowas Adam, the refutationof‘Al des alistofprophetic by Muslims istoprove Later Muslim authors see Ivor Mark Beaumont, ḥ ammad hadtoargue ī thatGoddoesnot ḥ ammad (already 178 The ī b. CEU eTD Collection Polemic in Early Islam knowledge of Christian teachings and their implications, see the “Introduction” by D. Thomas in refutation is significantly different from his Muslim contemporaries since it presupposes considerable see al-Sharf (Cambridge: Harvard University Pr University Harvard (Cambridge: a characteristicfeatureforla One seesinthisrefutation ashift from scriptural arguments towardslogicaloneswhichwere of theIncarnationisprovidedbyAb createdness ofChristanddenial Incarnation, whoserefutationbyMuslims wasgreatlyinfluencedbytheteachings about the 184 183 182 Jesus,” scholar,” 2 Religion See,forexample, traditions. N. Christian Holy Spiritdonot,whichcontradictstheChristian similarly. More specifically, this means thattheSon must havesomething thatthe Fatherand there must beaninherentdistinctionamong th As Abu‘Is the Word, became incarnate? is thefollowing: ifthehypostase One ofthemajor arguments ag objective is topointouttheinconsistencies an portrait ofChristbutalsoas Arabic sourcesfrom theeighthtothirte

D.Thomas For agood treatment ofscriptural and rational evidence against the Christian understanding of Christology Formore onthesesayingssee TarifKhalidi, Theology The centralChristological issue wasconcer The Muslim World The Muslim 0 (1990):161-175; (1990):161-175; 0 say: Thenwhywasitthe If theyclaim that the uniting wasan act although ithad nopartin theactionof Spirit? AndwhywasittheWord that ī , ā al-Fikr al-Isl sawit,either thethreeof them mustbe , Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam Early in Polemic Anti-Christian , 95 (1992): 95 334-342. , 68. ā m 70 (1980):122-133; E. Hulmes, “The People of the Book and the Question theof Question and the Book of People E. “The Hulmes, (1980):122-133; 70 Räisänen Heikki, “The Portrait ofJesus in the Qur’an: A Reflection of a Biblical ī , 304-346. , 304-346. ess, 2001) and also, Leirvick, Leirvick, also, and ess, 2001) ter authorssuchasal-Baqill ainst theIncarnation—whichal

ofthedivinesonship.Theearliest,most thoroughrefutation s areunitedbysubsta Robinson, “Jesus and Mary in the Qur’an: Some Neglected Affinities,” Robinson,Some “Jesus MaryintheQur’an: Affinities,” Neglected and anascetic,mystic,andpioussage. uniting oftheWord andnotoftheFatheror ū ‘Is ā The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature Islamic in Stories and Jesus: Sayings Muslim The al-Warr enth centuriesthatpr 52 em whichwoulddisallowthemem allfrom acting unitingthattheydid not have? , 96, para. 152. D. Thomas suggests that al-Warr

ion of thethree hypostases, then we d contradictionswithinChristiandoctrines. united andnoteitheroftheothers, ā claim thattheSonisnotdifferentfrom the q withadetaileddescriptionoftheissue. able tounite themselves withahuman or ned with the Christian doctrine of the ned withtheChristiandoctrineof The Images ofJesus nce, whywasitthat ā n ī so worksagainsttheTrinity— andal-Jabb

ovide notonlyaprophetic 182 , 54-107.

onlyoneofthem, ā r. 184 183

Anti-Christian Anti-Christian Themajor ā q’s

CEU eTD Collection creation. Therefore,Ab been unitedwithotherprophets,humans, animals means thatGoddiditthroughcontrollingthe mingling ( divine, namely,theappearanceofWo 188 187 186 185 inauthenticity of theseteachings inrelation tothe Scriptures. Taymiyyah pursuedthesame objective,alt allow drawing acategoricalconclusionabou divinity ofChristwastoshow abandoning theirowndoctrine. Christians reply that the unitydid notexist at thetime of crucifixion, itmeans theyare which isimpossibletobeheld crucifixion (supposingthatithappened).If invalidity of theunityal-B creature iswhat hasbeen specific forbodiesandtemporal creatures.TheIn and indwelling,theact other hypostases.

Ii. 9 aa 5. Al-B 358 ff. Al-Sharfi, Ibid., 173, para. 227. Ibid., 99, para;156. ā qill The most commoncriticism againstthecorruption of thedoctrine wasthatmingling Clearly themajor concernofMuslim author ā la ‘al n ī , Kit ā ā b al-Tamh al- 185 Theotherargument concernstherelationshipbetweenhuman and ḥ ul ū ū ‘Is of unitingthroughappearance,movement, andsilence, areactions anobjectofseverecrit l ī d ā wa la‘al , 97-98. qill ā concludes, theentire doctrineisafallacy.

their logicalinconsistency and ā 188 n as truebyChristiansthemselv ī

asks whether the union continued to exist at the time of the askswhethertheunioncontinuedtoexistattime ofthe ā al-mukh hough hismajor purposewastopointoutthe 53 rd throughthehuman withoutindwellingor ā la did, itmeans thatGodwaskilledanddead,

body of Messiah, thentheWordbody ofMessiah, musthave icism among Muslim authors. ṭ carnation oftheEternalOneintemporal t theinvalidity of these doctrines. Ibn ah and soon,sinceGodha s intherefutationofbothTrinityand ) withthehuman bodyofChrist.Ifthis to raise questions which would to raisequestionswhichwould es. Ontheothe 186

s controloverallof 187 r hand,ifthe Toshowthe CEU eTD Collection 13th-14th Centuries: Critical Reflections on Ibn Taymiyyah’s Response to Christianity,” and Ibn Taymiyyyah’ Response,” Response,” Taymiyyyah’ Ibn and (1996): 342-366; Muhammad H.Siddiqi, “Muslim andByzantine Christian Relations: Letter ofPaul Antioch 191 190 189 (Gabriel). Anyotherapplicati confirmed theQuran,2:87,2:253,5:110),which in nature, likealltheprophets.Godsupports prophets, andangels.“The Sonisth books, andmessengers.” which hebrought.Thatwouldbeacommand fo God andHisProphetwhich God sentandthe Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) as: “The meani disciples of allnations, baptizing them inthe Revelation from theoneandsame God.Hethus of theQur’anbyastaunchclaim thattheprophe Revelati understanding ofGodand doctrine cannotbeproventrue. This, inaccordancewiththelogic of IbnTaym objection againstthedoctrines objection withpreviouswriters Ibn Taymiyyah, inthecourseofstructuri 3.2. IbnTaymiyya’sdiscussi

“ 89-106. Taw Ibid. Ibid. Taymiyyah, Ibn For general discussion on the issue see Nancy Roberts, “Reopening the Muslim-Christian Dialogue of the ḥī d and Trinity: A Study ofIbn Taymiyyah’s This interpretationisaclearreflecti In addition,IbnTaymiyyah’s w The RightAnswer, 190

on theTrinity Greek OrthodoxTheological Review 262. 262. on totheverse isamatter of is itsinnovativenatureand ; however,givenhisscriptur on. Heidentifiestheconceptof e onereared,thesubjectofmercy” hole refutationoftheTrinity al-Jaw ng hisargument, didfindcommonpointsof 54 angel bywhichGodsentdowntheRevelation ng isthat theycommand name oftheFatherand the prophetsthrough iyyah’s overallpolemics, wouldmeaniyyah’s that the on oftheQur’anicunderstandingGod,

ā interprets theverse“T b al- r them tobelieveinGodandHisangels, ts receivedaperennial,self-consistent Ṣ might alsobeanangelsuchasJibril a ḥīḥ ,” Intellectual Discourse departure from theRevelation. 31, No.1 (1986); Ismail Abdullah, Abdullah, Ismail (1986); No.1 31, alist orientation,hisprimary ta’w 189 the biblicalGodwiththat isbasedontheIslamic ī 191 of theSonand l herefore go and make herefore goandmake , i.e.,anallegorical people tobelievein andwithoutdivine Holy Spirit(asis MW 14, No.1 (year): 84, No. 3-4 84, No. 3-4 CEU eTD Collection 192 Logos came intoexistence over time andturned the Logos( after Hehadnotbeen,orknowing been unknowing.” to theend.FrometernityHeis Attributes ofPerfectionnecessarilyfollowupon Ibn Taymiyyah describesas“thegreatestfo the Attributescame intobeingovertime, which implies thatGodbecame completed bytheothe in turnmeans thattheFatherbecame livinga essence andtheoriginof LifeandSpeech,itm the Christian claim thattheFather is theorigin assertion thatanyAttributeas rest. Hetotally rejects the ideaof Attributes of essence( Attributes, thereforenames, are numerous, their bases hisdiscussionontheidentificationof argument, sincetheAttributesofGodcannot persons oftheTrinityandattr (corresponding withtheFather,S hypostases Christiansmean toaffirm God’s claims, introducedterminologies andconcepts suchas incompatible withtheteachingsofprophets. interpretation, whichdivertsthemessagefrom

Ibid., 267. Ibn Taymiyyah turnstoanotherproblem con Instead ofobeyingtheevid al-Nu ṭ q ) isbornfrom Fatherlikespeech the cribed toGodcannotbeless

on, andHolySpirit,respectively ibutes as represented by Paul ent understandingofGod, living, knowing, acting. Hedidnotbecomeliving living,knowing,acting. nd knowing intime. Thisidea,ontheonehand, rm ofunbelief,andthemost impossible.” 55 thehypostaseswithAttributes.IfGod’s of theother twoAttributes. If theFather is the eans that the Father existed before them. This

be limited tothree.Further,IbnTaymiyyah itsevident meaning and leadstomysteries limitation tothreeexpressesignoranceofthe r two,and,ontheother hand,itimplies that the essenceofLordfrom thebeginning God’s potentiality forspeech into an actof means theycannotbeeternal.Thisiswhat attributes ofEssence,Word andLife cerning thehypostases. from themind wouldmean thatthe ṣ if essential thantherest. ā uqn t al-dh ū m of Antioch),thisisafaulty whichislamicised thethree Christians, IbnTaymiyyah 192 ā to describeHim.Ifby t Similarly, claiming that ) onthebasisofastrict This is related to This isrelatedto

The CEU eTD Collection 195 194 193 that Christians have ascribed meanings tothe Son andHoly Spiritthat were never stated by again, subsistinginhimandnottheHolySp Attribute. That Godisliving( same istruefor theHoly Spirit,whoisrepresen else. Consequently,theKnowledgeofGodas and thentomake itanAttribute. AnAttributeof isabsolutelyunreasonabletorefe Taymiyyah it is neverusedinthedivineBookswith of Christians,namely, making theSonandHo substances andthreegods,”heconcludes. are threesubstancesandtheref According tothislogicalstructure, theHoly be equaltoasubstance,IbnTaymiyyah conc made AttributesequaltotheFatherinsubstan the Trinity. “AnAttribute is not Attributes andtheiridentifica fail todifferentiatebetweenGodandHisA know God.NotonlydoChristianslimit thenumberof none ofthemisGod.Attributesaremeani Attributes. Godasasubstance move from potential speech, apatentlyabsurdproposition, asGodis

Ibid, 276. 276. Ibid, Ibid. 270. Ibid, In thelightofthisdiscussionAttribut Ibn Taymiyyah’s claim isthat ity intoactuality. tion withhypostasesbecame crucialforthefurtherrefutationof

ḥ has many Attributes,likepower, ore threegods:“thisisaclear ayy aself-subsistingsubstance,” ) isclearbyHisnature,andLi there must be a clear dis beaclear must there themeaning ofanyAttributeGod.” 194 ngs expressedthroughthenamesbywhichpeople

Spirit isthe third substance, whichmeans there 56 ce. With theassertionthatonlyasubstancecan r to the Knowledge and Word of God as “son” andWordofGodas r totheKnowledge ttributes. IbnTaymiyya everrealizedandaccomplished,doesnot es, IbnTaymiyyah pointsoutanothermistake ted byChristiansasthe

irit. IbnTaymiyyah conc an AttributecannotsubsistintheSon. The GodsubsistsinHisessence,notanything ludes thatSonmust al ly SpiritAttributesofGod.“Theterm ‘son’ God’sAttributestothree,buttheyalso tinction betweenGodandhis 193 hearing,sight,andsoon,but statement establishingthree heclaims. YetChristians fe ofGodisanAttribute, Life ofGodandasan h’s understandingof ludes, consequently, so beasubstance. 195 ForIbn CEU eTD Collection 354. subsisting inGod,or(2)created of God,”enumerating threet explanation ofthemeaning ofGod’sword.He are atvariancewithpropheticmessa for IbnTaymiyyah remainsthesame:Christ aspect of the doctrine, itsinauthenticity inre previous tradition of pointing outthecontradictions in the doctrine, emphasized another It willbeevident from thediscussion belowthatIbnTaymiyyah, although hefollowed the 3.3. IbnTaymiyya’sdiscussion on evidence, which means thattheycan Ibn Taymiyyah’s finalconclusion 198 197 196 anAttr God orpartition.TheLifeofas emanation from something.” as anactofemanation: “Processinghere procession intheCreed(“HolySpiritgiver its procession from God,asintheNiceneCree Christians claim thedivinityof through alltheprophets.Eachof Attributes, “everyoneoftheprophetswouldbe Christ oranapostle.Moreover,

interpreted as “one from whom not He refers to the Qur’anic verse Ibid. 272. Ibid, Ibn Taymiyyah arguesagainsttheIncarnationof Ibn Taymiyyah devotesanumber ofpassages 197

hing proceeds.” See Roberthing proceeds.” ypes ofunderstanding allahu allahu Thiswouldmean, IbnTaymiyyah implies separationfrom iftheHolySpiritwereone and differentfrom or(3)it Him, is thatChristiandoctrinesca theprophetswouldhavedivi Christ onlyandnotofotherprophets.” thenatureofChrist ge, andthereforecontradictory. not beprovenbyReasoneither. ṣ amad (112:3), usually translated as God is Eternal Absolute but but Absolute is Eternal as God translated usually (112:3), means anoverflowing,apouringforth,and 57 ibute subsistent in Him cannotbeemanated. ibute subsistentinHim lation totheScriptures. d. Heplacesparticular emphasis onthe ideaof of lifewhoproceedsfromGod”),explainingit summarizes “variousopin aGodtobeworshiped,asHolySpiritspeaks ian teachings aboutChristand theIncarnation

s, “Reopening theMuslim to thediscussion of theHolySpiritand thedivineWordinChristthroughan them: itiseither of thethreedivinehypostasesor nnot besupportedbyscriptural isneitherof ne andhuman natures,yet The pointofdeparture ions abouttheWord 196 -Christian Dialogue,” (1)anAttribute

thesetwo,but 198

CEU eTD Collection explains it,thatinte not mean thattheessence ofGodresidedin not byChristalone.Itwas mani 203 202 201 200 199 Christians misinterpretthe or that itisequaltothe Lordinessence.” of Godisagodorlord.Simila disagreements around the SpeechofGod,Muslims, power subsistinHim. Speechthereforeis understanding, namely, thattheSpe naw‘ claims. Accordingtothisunderstanding,the not co-eternal withGod. Thefirst view isthat of the Mu‘tazil a speaker yet claims that His Speechis creat He isable to changecelestial things. Thesecond philosophers andSabaeans, what isfoundinmen’s souls.

Ibid., 299. Ibid. Taymiyyah, Ibn cityof pagan Mesopotamian are the These of people Response, 287 ), i.e.,Godisalwaysaspeakerbywill Ibn Taymiyyah statesthat thephenomenon of ī statement. him outonlyinthewaywhichMu indwelling withinHim as anything which demands postulatinghisunitywiththeGodheador Psalms, andtherestofbooks The earlypropheciesandthedivineB thesis of Right Answer

khalq al-Qur’an 203 llectual representation(

, 280. , 280. idea oftheindwellingdivi 200

199 whodenythatGodhasspeech fested inAbraham, MosesandMu Thelastoneisthemost he rly noMuslim everdeclaredthat , according to whichtheQur’anwascreated intime andis the Christiansclaim. Th ech ofGodsubsistsinHim,thesame wayasHisLifeand 202 uncreatedandnotseparatefrom God. al-mith Theproblem, asIbnTaymiyyah seesit,isthat Speech ofGodisge Harran largely connected to Hellenic tradition. to Hellenic tradition. connected largely Harran the prophetsneversingleoutChristby 58 someone, itrathermeans, asIbnTaymiyyah ed andseparate.IbnTa ooks like the Torah, the Gospels, the ooks liketheTorah,Gospels,

view,heldbyMu‘tazila,affirms thatGodis ḥ . Herefers toits Muslim, rather ammad singledhim outinGod’s ā nonetheless,never saidthat the“Speech l al-‘ilm salaf indwellingisshared ne Wordintheprophets. and thetrueone,asIbnTaymiyyah ese books,rather,single ī ) oflove,power,worship,light, retical among allandisheldby or knowsparticularthings God’slifeisaGodorlord, nerically eternal( ḥ ammad. Indwellingdoes ymiyyah refers tothe byalltheprophets, 201 qad Despite salaf ī m al- ī , CEU eTD Collection mantheand birthtogether, of thei.e., Word with humanity…,” 285. 207 206 205 204 puts aquestiontoChristians,aski complete manandcomplete God. not concludethediscussionandenga the strongestbasisfordeclari contrary tosoundreason,andnotspokenbya of boththem together,whichisexpresse Christian claim thattheIncarnation ofthecreat Union, asitisseenbyChristians,torulethemout,sincetheycontradictsoundreason.The of Will andActbetween God,prophe way explainedabove.According toIbnTaymiy as residence( Christians failedtofollow.Vari forbidden since: God. Itisanexpositionofadherenceto not their selves.Beliefinth essences: itisaunityin thesenseof intermi and remembrance ofGodresideintruebelievers.

He refers to the Melkite statement of Paul: “We hold “Wehold Paul: of statement the Melkite Herefersto Ibid., 293. Ibid., 291-292. Ibid., 288. The nextargument isconstructedagainst Ibn Taymiyyah’s basicyetmost categorical For theterms obey God.Whoeverobeyshim, hasindeedobeysGod. opposed Hisenemies. Whoeverpledgestoh loved whatHeloved,hatedha The Messengercommanded whatGod had

sukn

ā ) orinterpenetration( Ḥ ul ū l and e Messengerdoesnotmean belief

ng theconceptsinvalid.However, ous terms canbeemployed toi Ī 207 tti ng whatexactlyis ḥ Hearticulatedseveral answersto this statement. First he ges inmore elaboraterefutation. ad ts, anduprightbelievers. , therefore,therecouldbe takhallul what God has commanded andwhatHehas whatGodhascommanded ngling of the feelings ofloverandbeloved ngling ofthefeelings 59 d bytheunionofdivinityandhumanity, is the Incarnationofcreative Messenger ofGod.ForIbnTaymiyyah thisis ive wordofGodincreatedman andthebirth

yah’s understandingofunion,itistheunity ), ted, befriended the friends of God, and ted, befriendedthefriendsofGod,and 206 solution totheproblem ear andobeyhim haspledgedtohearand commanded, forbadewhatHeforbade, the Christian statement thatGod is a 204 united withthehumanity of Christ:the andtheyallmust beunderstoodinthe Itcanbeaunitybutnotof 205 ndicate divineindwellingsuch insomeone elseotherthan

withthisstatement hedoes acorrectmeaningwhich Word of Word God inacreated ofIndwellingand CEU eTD Collection First hedescribesitassuch 211 210 209 208 that. Mu Christians perceive it,itwouldtakeplace rhetorical-mythological one:hecl also deemed tobefalse. change intheeternallyunchangedBeingisinad transformed anditsAttributesre transformation ofbothdivineandhuman e If some Christiansclaim thatafter th there remain twoessences astheywere before, whichmeans inturn there isnounion infact. united withthehumanity of Chri except inwhatitdescribes. since theWordisanAttributeand thusinse with Christ istheWord alone,without theesse what theChristianswouldreject.Onother would betheFather,Son,andHo both cases.Ifwhatbecame unitedwithChristwa Word withtheessenceor withoutth

substratum of one creative Word of God, Christ was one with the Trinity by nature of his divinity and one with Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Said ibn Bitr ibn Said quotes Taymiyyah Ibn Ibid., 297. Ibid., 287. Ibid. ḥ 210 ammad sincetheyweretwospecialfriends (

Ibn Taymiyyah furtherdeve Next to the theolgical andconceptual The nextpointtobasehisrefutationonis 208 an unreasonable concept that even

st andyetthehumanity ofCh aims thatiftheindwelling ī ly Spirit,i.e.,allthree divi q: “Through union with that one substratum,the substratum, the lops hismajor argument againstdivine-human union. al naturereplaced bysomething else.” e union one substance exists, it supposes a e uniononesubstanceexists,itsupposesa not inthebodyofChrist 60 parable from its essenceanddoesnotsubsist parable from its e essence.IbnTaymiyyah givestheresultsfor arguments, IbnTaymiyyah comes upwith hand, ifChristiansanswer missible, thispossiblean

ssences, which means “the divinitywas nce, itmust alsobeasubject forrefutation khal s theWord withtheessence,thenChrist thenatureof ī layn ) andthereisnorankhigherthan were totakeplaceintheway Christians themselves arenot ne persons.This,however,is rist stillremained, itmeans Union. Iftheessence butofAbraham or swer byChristiansis thatwhatisunited 209 Sinceassuming 211

CEU eTD Collection 216 215 214 213 212 divine nature], and he was one with all people by combining two different substances…,” 312. two, by his nature humanity.of Hewasnot people the ( states thatChristwasnotkill regarding the crucifixion ofChrist. Herefers messengership andnotofhisdivinity. Taymiyyah claims, wereevengreaterbutth these miracles cannotserveasproof forthedivin Muslim traditionaccording towhichthesemiracl accepted inasmuch asitsymbolizes lovebetween GodandHiscreatures. (which hadbeentoucheduponin which isincompatible with the nature of God. If Christiscompletely divineand completely union.” “whether they[Christians]holdforthehypostati the greatestblasphemy. IbnTaymiyyah states as asubstratum for it.” the twoof them willbeinneedof theother, necessarily followsthat Creator dependence ofGoduponacreatedbe circularity intheconcept: theformulation of able tospeakaboutitadequately.Thenhe

shubbiha lahum Ibid., 298. Ibid., 283. Ibid., 282-283. Ibid. Ibid., 314. 213 Moreover, theunionaspresentedbyChristia As forthemiracles ofChrist, IbnTaymi

). 212 However,portrayingGod asdependentonsomething orsomeone is ed nor crucified butthat itonly appeared sotothespectators

and thecreaturehavesubsistence through theother; eachof the refutationof ing. “IftheCreatorhas 216 IbnTaymiyyah also holdsthe traditional view the unionasperceivedbyChristians assumes the to thefamous verseof ey onlygaveevidence since something hasaneed for whateverserves 61 214 explainsthemost but one with Father and Holy Spirit, for wasit[the Spirit, Fatherhe one Holy with and but man, itmeans hesharesdivinitywithGod,

Ibn Taymiyyah alsorefers totheHolySpirit this ashisfinalconclusiononthesubject, c unionorforthedivineindwellingwithout yyah adheres to thetraditional argument in ity ofChrist.Themiracles ofMoses,asIbn es werenotuniquetoChristaloneandthat ns assumes divisionandpartitioninGod. Trinity), explainingthatitshouldbe

creature assubstratum, it the Qur’an (4:157) which obvious andimpossible of hisprophethoodand 215

CEU eTD Collection show thattheyareforeig tradition of refuting these doctrines onthebasis Trinity anddivinityofChrist.Itshowedth

This chapterhasbroughttogetherMuslim n topropheticmessage anddonotderivefrom theBooks. at IbnTaymiyyah, althoughreliedontheprevious 62

of logicalargumentation, primarily aimed to arguments againstthedoctrinesof CEU eTD Collection “underlies IbnTaymiyyah’s entir 217 provided anoverview of thepr Christ thatIbnTaymiyyah consideredconcepts secondary yetimportant value. doing so,heimplied theideathatGospels concluded thatIbnTaymiyyah di inspired nature by comparing them tothe showed hisuniqueapproachtotheGospels: taking itasaSacredBookandhistoricals approaches towardstheBiblebyMuslim authors, developed byvariousauthorsbeforethetime Christians andMuslims. Thesecond chapte a manifestation ofanycontradi outlook ofIbnTaymiyyah throughexamining theconceptof and deviationfrom theStraightPath. contradiction orinconsistency.Th prophetic message isoneandthesame for obedience toGodinthewayit has absolute epistemological value.Following theScripture means asserting andreflectionoftheperfect of Godhimself

T.Michel, In definingtherelations The thirdchapterdiscussed polemical themes This thesishassoughttoexplaintherole Response , 1.

isdescribedinthemessage e controversialistwriting” hip betweenGodandtheUn d notrejecttheGospelsbutonl evious refutationsofthese ction withthe Scriptures as e failure tounderstand this principle iswhatcreates errors 4. CONCLUSION 4. CONCLUSION ource. ThediscussionofIbnTaymiyyah’s text Sunnah 63 r pointedoutfeaturesofthenotion relationship betweentheCreator andcreature, he recognisedtheircognitivevalueand

should befollowedinaccordancewiththeir of IbnTaymiyyah. Itshowedthepolarized atvariancewiththepropheticmessage. It ofpropheticknowledgeinthetheological from consideringitas amere fabrication to ahl al-kit inthe Muslim tradition. This chapter suchastheTrinityanddivinityof 217 ā ta b --theScripture, asarevelation broughtbytheprophets.The : itdoes notrecognize any themes notleastbecause Ibn ḥ aresultoferrorsbyboth r iverse --aproblem which ī y reducedtheirstatus.With f . Theconceptwas taken as taw ḥī d ta and ḥ r ī f

CEU eTD Collection confessional relations. is thereforecentralto also shedslightonthebroaderissueofunde The subjectof closer discussionofitsdevelopment andtheso message. Furtherstudyoftheconceptneedsto everything thatisincontrast,notwarranted, and theIncarnation tocriticize showing Muslims themselvestheir ownmistakes and contradictionstoReason.ByrefutingChri emphasis ontheirnon-scripturalistnature,which adduced extra-scriptural arguments against relied onthepreviouspolemical traditionofre Taymiyyah made efficientuseofthem. Itb

This thesishasbroadenedthenotionof ta ḥ r ī f notonlyforegroundsthereceptionof the comparative studyofmonotheistic specific Muslim, namely Suf ecame evidentthatIbnTaymiyyah, althoughhe 64 and notimplied bythecontentofprophetic futing Christian doctrines in terms oflogicand them, unlikeothers,heplacedthegreatest cial context within which thenotion evolved. stians, IbnTaymiyyah hadthemajor goalof

rstanding of “the Book” among Muslims. It rstanding of“theBook”among Muslims. It examine itshistoricalevolutionthrougha ; heusedtheChristian doctrines of Union ta resulted inalltheil ḥ r ī f , seeingitasaconceptexpressing ī the BiblebyIslamic scholarsbut , concepts. religions andthehistoryofinter- logical consequences CEU eTD Collection ḥ authentic, become basisofbelief fi fiqh: Islamic jurisprudence faylas fatw f fan falsafah: philosophy,especially d dhikr: themantricrepetitionofth dh bid‘a: illicitinnovations b azal ā asma‘: (sg.ism) epithetsandattributesofGod ‘aql: reason, intellect ‘ al-milal wal-nihal: heresiographical literature amr: command, order ahl al-kit ā ḥ

a ā yah: signsmanifested byGod,versesoftheQur’an ḥā ajj: oneofthepillarsIslam, pilgrimage toMecca ī āṭ ad ṭ n: universalreligion q lim (pl.‘ulama’): apersonexpert rah: form ofprimeval knowledge,innatenatureofcreatures ā in: innermeaning Scri ofthe ā ī d: narrativeswhichtraceback t: essence,substance, ī h: ascholarofjurisprudence ī th: narrativesaboutsayings, deedsa ‘: mystical conceptof ā : eternal : legalopinionofaf ū f (pl. fal f (pl. ā b: PeopleoftheBook-Muslims, ChristiansandJews ā sifah): philosopher brought bytheprophets equivalent ofGreek a annihilation ofone’sego q ī h ofHellenisttradition pture, esotericformof Glossary of ArabicTerms e name of God in Sufiritual e name ofGodin toonetransmitter only in religioussciencesofIslam APPENDIX APPENDIX nd decisionsoftheProphet which,if 65 ousia

interpretation orknowledge r proven are CEU eTD Collection jarh wata‘d isn i ‘illah: causality il ijm qad nub originally used tosolve contra naskh: abrogationofonecanonicalte naql: transmitted tradition nab mutawatir: concomitant, refers to mutash transmitters musnad: literature that dealswiththe madhhab: fourlawschoo which theQur’anwascreateda khalq: literallycreation:refers khal khabar: information frommind orsensepe kal jawh i‘j ḥ ḥ

ṣ ul aw ḥā mah: infallibilityoftheprophetsinSunni ā ā ā ū ā z: theinimitability of theQur’an ī ī ū m: inspirationaccessibletoallasopposed d: chainof transmitters of ā m: speculativetheology : prophetofGod,whodoesnotbringanewrevelation m: eternal ī ‘: the consensus of ummah which isoneofthebasislawinSunniIslam‘: theconsensusofummahwhich l: theindwelling of ā l: friendofGod:referstoAbraham andMu wwah: prophethood,prophecy r r: essence,substance ī : disciple of Jesus ā bih: anthropomorphist ī l: ḥ ad ī th criticism whichevaluates the reliabilityof transmitters Godinhuman ls inSunniIslam dictions betweenQur’anic verses ḥ to thethesis of khalk al-Qur’an held byMu‘tazila according to nd notco-etern ad ḥ ī th ad narrative ī th s concomitantly transmitted from theProphet xt byanotherwithwhichitisin rception whichmight Islam andalsoofImams inShi‘aIslam ḥ ad 66 to revelationaccessible onlytoaprophet al withGod ī th

ḥ ammad ammad tradition, especially with thechainof be trueorfalse contradiction, CEU eTD Collection ẓ wa u uqn ummah: Muslim community ofbelievers taw taw ta‘ tathl tashb tamth ta tabd shirk: worshippingothers sunnah: TheProphet’sexemplary deeds s ṣ shar shar‘: revealed law salaf: Ancestors of Muslims, specifically first three generations of Islam ras radd: refutation

ī ifah: thetechnical term ā ṣū rah: thebiographyofProphet ḥ hir ṭī ḥ ū r l al-d ḥī ā ū ī l: denialofthereality dat al-wuj ī l: messenger ofGodwhobroughtaBook ī ī f: literallycorruption,distortion;intendedor tur: concomitant transmission ofaTradition. ‘a :religiouslaw l: alteration m: hypostasisofGod ī th: tritheism ī d: onenessofGod ī : theevident meaning of theScripture h: anthropomorphism l: Mimesis ī n: Muslim dogmatics ū d: pantheisticunityofexistence fordivineattribute than God,associationism of thedivineattributes 67

non-deliberatechangeof theScriptures CEU eTD Collection ______.Muslim WritersonJudaismandtheHebrew “SomeAdang, Camilla,. HithertoNeglectedBibl Accad, M.“TheGospelinthe Abu Laila,Muhammad. “IbnHazm’sInfluenc Abrahamov, Binyamin. “IbnTaymiyya onthe Secondary Sources ______. “ Ibn Taymiyyah, Taq Ibn Abd al-Jabb Primary Sources Al-Qar Al-J Al-B

Ḥ ā ā hi azm, Ab qill ẓ Mashaq Leiden: Brill,1996. 14 (2003):67-81,205-20,337-52,459-79. An ExegeticalInventorialTable.”(four parts) Quarterly Muslim World Michel. NewYork:CaravanBooks,1984. Theologian’s ResponsetoChristianity:IbnTaymiyyahs’s Mu Lubn 5. Ed.M.al-Khudhayr ‘Uthm Maktabah al-Sharqiyyah,1957. ā , Ab f ā ī , Shih n ḥ ī Right AnswertoThoseWhoAlteredtheReligionofChrist ā ammad , Ab ā ū r Al-Asad n: D ā ‘Uthm ū

n alJ Mu 5(1992):17-28. ā ū 31(1987):103-115. b al-D ā BakrIbnal-Tayy r al-Kutub,1986. ḥ Ḥ āḥ ammad, ā asan Isma‘ 82, No.3-4(1992):256-272. n ‘Amr IbnBa ī i ā al-D ī ẓ badi, ‘Ab n A Ed.J.Finkel.Cairo,1926. ḥ Kit ī mad Idr Ibn n. Muslim DiscourseoftheNinth ā ī l, n.p:al-Maktabahal-‘Ilm ī b al-Fa Al-Jaw ū . Cairo:Al-D al- ḥ ī Ḥ b. r. asan. A F ā BIBLIOGRAPHY ṣ Kitab al-Tamh ī b al- l f s. ī al-Radd‘al ī Al-Ajwiba al-F ’ l-Milal wa’lAhw 68 e onChristianThinkinginResearch.” ā l-Mughn Ṣ

r al-Mi a Agreement ofReasonwithTradition.” ical MaterialintheWork ofIbnHazm.” ḥ

i ḥ l ā Bible:FromIbnRabbantoHazm. Islam andChristian-MuslimRelations ṣ ī al-Na ī ī riyyah l manbaddalad f d ī . Ed.R.J.McCarthy,Beirut:Al- Abw ī ā yah. 2003. khirah ‘anal-As’ilahal-F ṣā ā ā ī ’ wal-Ni rah l-Ta’l to theFourteenth Centuries: b al-Taw

Al-Jaw in ī Thal f waTarjamah, 1965. ḥ ḥī ā al. ī b al- n al-Mas d waal-‘Adl .” In, ā th Rasa’ll Cairo, 1899. Ṣ a ḥ A Muslim i ḥ īḥ , ed.T. Islamic ā . ī jirah

Vol. Ab The The Ed. Al- ū .

CEU eTD Collection

Caterina, Bori.“ANewSourcefor ______. Muslim “Early M. Beaumont, Ayoub, Mahmoud M.“TowardsanIslamic Christ Anthony S.W.“TheComposition ofSayfIbn. Al-Sharf Al-Jamil, Tariq.“IbnTaymiyyah andIbnal-Mu Al-Azmeh, Aziz. ______. “Islam astheInbornReligionofMankind:Concept Cook, David.“TheNew Testament Citationsinthe _____.“Textes delatradition musulmane con ______. “Bibliographiedudialogueislamo-chretien: ______. “Bibliographiedudialogueislamo-chretien: Caspar, R.,andJ.M.Gaudeul.“Bibliographiedu ______. “IbnTaymiyyah

Early Islam Early Gospel Translations intoArabic.” In Oriental andAfricanStudi Paternoster, 2005. Presentations ofChristforMuslims 27. Delusion.” Corruption ofAncientChristianity.” Refutation against Christianity]. City:Al-D 2010. ed. Yossef.Rapoport,ShahabAhmed, 229-2 Struggle forReligiousAuthorit Hazm.” Islamochristiana xeme sieclecompris.” xeme sieclecompris.” oeuvres duviieme auxeme sieclecompris.” Shahab Ahmed, 23-52.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010. Taymiyyaah’s Circle.”In ī , ‘Abdal-Majid. Christology inDialogue withMuslims. ACritical Analysisof Christian Al-Qantara Ibn Taymiyyah The MuslimWorld , ed.E.Grypeou,M.Swanson, D.Thomas, 185-237.Leiden:Brill, 2006. 6(1980):61-104. 21(2000):391-410. Al-fikr al-Isl wa Jam Islamochristiana Islamochristiana interpretation of theGospels.” . Beirut:RiadEl-RayyesBooks,2000. es, UniversityofLondon the BiographyofIbnTaymiyya.” Ibn TaymiyyahandHisTimes 70, No. 2(1980):91-121. ā y inMedievalIslam.” In ‘atu-hu ā m ī Der Islam from theNinthandTwentiethCenturies fi-l-radd‘alaal-Nas 69 : Authority,ConflictandConsensusinIbn 4(1978):247-267. 2(1976):187-249.

‘Umar’s AccountofKingPaulandHis dialogueislamo-chretie The ā ology II:TheDeathofJesus,Reality r al-T Islamochristiana ṭ ahhar al-

Ḥ 46. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, Encounter ofEastern Christianitywith les auteursetoeuvresduviieme au les auteursetoeuvresduviieme au cernant letahrifdes Ecritures.” 85 (2010):164-202. ad ū 67,No.3(2004):321-348. ī nisiyya li-l-Nashr,1986. th Literature andtheQuestionof Ḥ Transformation Ibn TaymiyyahandhisTimes ill ī : Shi‘I Polemics andthe ā , ed.Yossef.Rapoport, Fitra 1(1975):125-181. r Bulletin oftheSchool Bulletin ā [Islamic Thoughtof intheworksofIbn n: lesauteurset 22 (2005):20- . Exeter: , CEU eTD Collection Hauglid, Brian.“OntheEarlylifeofAbraham: Hassan, Mona.“ModernInterpretationsand Mi Hallaq Wael. Haddad, Wadi.“ATenth-Centur Haddad, Rashid. Guthrie, A.E.,andF.F.Bi Guillaume, Alfred, Griffith, Sidney.“TheGospelinArabic:AnIn Graham, William. Friemuth, Mahaal-Kaisy.“Al-Raddal-Jam Firestone, Reuven. Lejla.“HanbaliteCommentaryon Demiri, ______. “Arguingfrom Scripture: ______. “TheGospel,theQur’anand

Atlanta: SocietyofBiblical Literature,2003. Anticipation of Mu Press, 2010. Times Apprehending thePoliticalT 1993. Haddad, W. Z.Haddad,82-95.Gainesville, Doctrines of Christianity: al-B 4 (1951):251-256. in ArabChristianiti Legends inIslamicExegesis. 2007. Ta‘l Beauchesne, 1985. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1955. Leiden: Brill,2005. Middle Ages.”In Century.” Literature, 2003. Bible andQur’an ī q.” In , ed.YossefRapoport,ShahabAhmed, 338-366.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Ibn TaymiyyaagainsttheGreekLogicians Oriens Christianus Divine WordandPropheticinEarlyIslam The BibleinArabChristianiti La TrinitéDivinechezlesThéologiensArabes:750-1050 The LifeofMu Journeys intheHolyLand:TheEvolutionofAbraham-Ishmael Scripture andPluralism shop. “TheParaclete,Al-Mun , ed.JohnC.Reeves,133-160,A es, ed.D.Thomas, 275-294.Leiden:Brill,2007. ḥ ammad.” In ḥ y Speculative Theologian’sRefutation of the Basic ammad: ATranslationofIbnIs Albany: StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1990. 69 (1985):126-67. hought ofIbnTaymiyyah.” In the BibleinChristian/ ā qill Bible andQur’an ā ī the Bible:AnalysisofNajm al-D Presentation ofJesusinal-Ya‘q l: al-Ghaz n 70 ī .” In quiry into itsAppearan

Biblical and Qur’anicIntertextuality and the es, ed.D.Thomas, 295-313.Leiden:Brill, , ed. T. Hefferman andT.Burman,, ed.T.Hefferman 29-58. University PressofFlorida,1995. sinterpretations ofa MedievalScholar: Christian-Muslim Encounters ā l ī ’s orPsedo-Ghaz ḥ . Oxford: Oxford University Press, University Oxford . Oxford: amanna andAhmad.” , ed.JohnC.Reeves, 87-105. tlanta: SocietyofBiblical Muslim Encounterinthe . Hague:Mouton,1977. ḥ aq’s S ce intheFirstAbbasid Ibn Taymiyyaandhis ā l ī ū ’s?” In ī b rat Ras ī ī ’s Ta’r n al- MW, , ed.Y. The Bible Ṭū ū . Paris: ī l All 41, No. kh.” In f ī ’s al- ā h . CEU eTD Collection Kemali, MohammadHashim. Kassis, E.Hanna.“Critique of Scriptures. Polemics of al-Jahiz and IbnHazmagainst ______.“Ghevond’s TextoftheCorresponde andtr.“Ghevond’sTextof Jeffery, A.,ed. Jansen, J.G.“IbnTaymiyya andtheThirte Jackson, S.A.“IbnTaymiyya Ismail Abdullah,“ Hulmes, E.“ThePeople oftheBookandQuestion ofJesus.” ______. “GodActsby HisWill andPower:Ibn ______. Ibn ______. “IbnTaymiyya asanAvicennianTheol theBest Hoover, Jon.“TheJusticeofGodand Hourani, George.ReasonandTraditioninIsla Holtzman, Livnat.“Human Choice,DivineGuidanceand theFi Heikki, Räisänen.“ThePortrait

75. Islamic TextSociety, 2003. ed. YossefSchwartz,Volkhard Krec Christianity andJuadism.”In Harvard Theological Review 131. Hatfield,PA:Interdisciplinary Centuries (632–900A.D.), TranslationswithCommentary Christian–Muslim Dialogue: ACollection of Muslim Radicalism.” 41-85. Intellectual Discourse 342. Yossef RapoportandAhmed Shahab,55-77.Ox in hisTreatiseonthe Vol Sufficiency. Taymiyya.” Press, 1985. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2010. Ibn TaymiyyahandHisTimes Ḥ The MuslimWorld ad ī th inTheological Treatises byIbnTaymiyyah andIbnQayyimal-Jawziyyah.” Taymiyya’s TheodicyofPerpetualOptimism Taw Near EastSchoolofTheologyTheologicalReview Theological Review ḥī d 70(1980):122-133. andTrinity:AStudyofIbnTaymiyyah’s Quaderni diStudi 14,No.1(year):89-106. ontrialinDamascus.” The PrinciplesofIslamicJurisprudence The of JesusintheQur’an:ARefl untary Attributes.”In 37,No.4(1944):269-332. Religious Apologetics- , ed.YossefRapoportand 27,No.1(2006):34-46. Biblical ResearchInstitute,1993. h, 237-250.Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck,2002. the Letter of Leo IIIto‘Umarthe LetterofLeo II.”In 71 mic Ethics.Cambridge: Cambridge University enth Century:AFormative PeriodofModern

Arabi

of All Possible Worlds:of AllPossible TheTheodicyofIbn nce between‘Umar IIandLeoIII.” Taymiyyah’s Theology ofaPersonal God ogian: AMuslim Appro Documents from theFirst ThreeIslamic 5-6(1987-88):391-396. ford: OxfordUniversityPress,2010. Journal ofSemiticStudies Ibn TaymiyyahandHisTimes . Leiden:Brill,2007. - PhilosophicalArgumentation ection of a Biblical scholar.” ection ofaBiblicalscholar.” ṭ , ed.N.A.Newman, 63- Ahmed 163-187. Shahab, ra Tradition:TheUseof Theology 27,No.2(2006):53- al-Jaw . Cambridge: The . Cambridge: ach toGod’sSelf- 95(1992):334- ā b al- The Early 39 (year): Ṣ a ḥīḥ , ed. The In .” , CEU eTD Collection ______. “ThePredictionandPrefigurationof Mu ______. “Assessiingthe Relations ______.“The Qur’anicContextofMus McAuliffe, JaneDamen. “TheAbrogationofJuda Makdisi, George.“TheHanba Makari, Victor.IbnTaymiyyah’s Ethics:The Madigan, Daniel. ______. ______.“Did IbnTaymiyya HaveaScrewLoose?” Little, Donald.“The Historical andHistoriogr Leirvik, Oddbjørn. ______. “Some HithertoNeglectedBiblical Lazarus-Yafeh, H. ______“L'Influence d'Ibn Taytniyya.” In Laoust H. Khoury, P. Khalil, Mohammad Hassan.“IbnTaymiyyah onReasonandRevelationinEthics

C. Reeves,107-132.Atlanta: Societ Harrasowitz, 1998. Framework ofNon-Fic Perspective.” Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress,2001. Taymiya.” 5 (1992):17-28. Princeton UniversityPress,1992. A. T.Welch andP.Cachia,15-33.Edinbur l’institute françaiss’arch of IslamicPhilosophy 7(1996):141-158. Essai surlesdoctrines sociales Paul d’Antioche,Éveque International JournaloftheMiddleEast The Qur’an’sSelf-image.Writingand Images ofJesusinIslam Intertwined Worlds:Medieval Concilium Isra’liyy 2,(2006):103-132. li SchoolandSufism.” tional ArabicLiterature 3(1994):154-163. éologie orientale,1939. ā melkite deSidon(XIIes.) t : AnExegeticalConundrum.” In etpolitiques d'Ibn Taimîya y ofBiblical Islam: PastInfluence . London:Continuum, 2010. lim BiblicalScholarship.” Social Factor.Chico, MaterialintheWork ofIbn 72 aphical Significance of the Definition of Ibn

gh: Edinburgh UniversityPress,(1979). ism andChristianityinIslam: AChristian Studia Islamica IslamandBibleCriticism. ḥ ammad.” In Humaniora Islamica , ed.StefanLeder,345-69.Wiesbaden: Literature, 2003. 4(1973):311-327. AuthorityinIslamicScripture . Beirut,1964. and Bible andQur’an CA: ScholarPress,1983. 41(1975):93-111. Present Challenge . Cairo: lmprimerie de Islam andChristian Story-Telling in the Story-Telling inthe 2(1974):61-72. Ḥ azm.” Princeton: . Al-Mas , ed.John ” Journal ,

ed. ā q .

CEU eTD Collection Reynolds, G.S. Reeves, John.“Some Explorationsofthe Pulcini, Theodore Period RelationtohisOtherWorks.” In Nickel, Gordon.“EarlyMuslim Accusationsof ______, ed.andtr.“The BookofReligionandEmpire.” In Mingana, A.,ed.“TheNestorianPatriarchTi ______.A MuslimTheologian’s Michel, Thomas. “IbnTaymiyya’s Critique of Memon, U.Muhammed. Platti, E.“Ya Özervali, M.S.“TheQur’anicRationalTheolo Omari, Racha.“IbnTaymiyyah’s “TheologyoftheSunna”andhisPolemics withthe

______, and S. K. Samir. ______, andS.K.Samir. Newman, 174-246.Hatfield,PA:Interdisciplin Translation ofHisKit Islamic TranslationSeries.C Qur’an Scriptures Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993. 900 A.D.), TranslationswithCommentary Dialogue: A CollectionofDocumentsfrom Islamic Centuries(632–900A.D.), Early Christian–MuslimDialogue:ACollectio Ṣ 3-14. Hague: Mouton-Paris:De Gruyter,1976. Critique of ChristianOrigins Commentary onKeyQur’anicVerses.”In Shahab, 78-100.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010. Mutakallim Shahab, 101-122.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010. Ash‘arites.” In Thomas, 207-223.Leiden:Brill,2007. a ḥ i ḥ l ḥ ī ya Ibn‘Ad , ed.JohnC.Reeves,43-60.Atlanta: , ed. S. Kh. Samir, J.S.Nielsen,172-191.Leiden:Brill,1994. , ed.S.Kh.Samir, manbaddalad . Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001. . ExegesisofPolemicalDiscourse:IbnHazm onJewishandChristian A MuslimTheologianintheSectar ū n.” In IbnTaymiyyahandHisTimes ī Ibn Taimay’'sStruggleAgainstPo ’ andhisRefutationofal-Warraq’ IbnTaymiyyahandHisTimes Critique ofChristianOrigins: AParallelEnglish-Arabic Text ā ī b Iqti n al-Mas Response toChristianity:IbnTaymiyyah’s Al-Jaw ḍā ity: Brigham YoungUniversity, 2010. . Leiden:Brill,2004. ' a īḥ ṣ - . Christian-Arabic ApologeticsDuringtheAbbasid ṣ New York:CaravanBooks,1984. Intertwining ofBibleandQur’an.”In ir mothy Iandthe‘Abbasi 73 ā Translations withCommentary t al-mustaq falsafa gy of IbnTaymiyyah andhisCriticism ofthe

, ed.N.A.Newman, 568-684.Hatfield, PA: Society ofBiblicalLiterature,2003. The BibleinArab Christianiti the FirstThreeIslamicCenturies(632– .” ary BiblicalResearchInstitute,1993. n ofDocumentsfromtheFirstThree Ta ian Milieu: ‘Abd al-Jabbar and the ian Milieu:‘Abdal-Jabbarandthe , ed.YossefRapoportandAhmed Hamdard Islamicus ī , ed.YossefRapoportandAhmed ḥ m mukh r pular ReligionWithanAnnotated s Treatiseon theTrinity in ī f :Muq The EarlyChristian–Muslim ā lafat a d CaliphMahdi.”In ā til IbnSuleym ṣḥā 6,No.1(1983): b al-ja , ed.N.A. es, ed.D. Bible and ḥī m ā . The b al- ā The n’s n’s

. CEU eTD Collection

______. Saleh, Walid. “AMuslim Hebraist:Al-Biqai’s Sahas, D.J. Saeed, Abdullah.“TheChargeofDistortion Robinson, N.“JesusandMa Robbins V.KandNewbyG.D.“AProlegome Roberts, N.Nancy.“ReopeningtheMuslim-Chris ______. Ṣā ______. “IbnTaymiyyah andtheRiseofRadical Swanson, Mark.“IbnTaymiyya andtheKit ______. SerjeantR.B.“NotesandCommunica Stern, M.“‘Abdal-Jab Siddiqi, Muhammad.“Muslim and ByzantineChristia Shahab, Ahmed. “IbnTaymiyyah andtheSatanicVerses.”

li ḥ , Literature, 2003. Bible toInterpret theQur’an,” (2002): 419-436. (1990):161-175. Bible.” In (1996): 342-366. Critical ReflectionsonIbnTaymiyyah’s ResponsetoChristianity.” Treatise Press, 2010. Times Introduction totheFoundationsofQur’ University PressofFlorida, 1995. Encounters Responds toaNinth-centuryArabicChristian Apology.In Taymiyyah’s anti-ChristianPolemic,” of Roman Customs.” pages. Ibn Taymiyyyah’s Response.” Terminology]. Bayr Ṣ ub In DefenceoftheBible:ACritical Edit The Qur’ananditsBiblicalContext ḥī John ofDamascusonIslam“theHerecy Ishmaelites . , ed.Yossef.Rapoport,ShahabAhme ‘Ul . Leiden: Brill,2008. Bible andQur’an , ed. Y. Yazbeck Haddad and Wadi , ed.Y.YazbeckHaddad andWadi ū m al- ā r’s AccountofHowChrist’sRelig

Ḥ ū ad t: D Theological Studies ry intheQur’an:Some NeglectedAffinities.” ī th waMu ā r al-‘Ilm li’l-Malayiin, 1979. r al-‘Ilm li’l-Malayiin, , ed.JohnC.Reeves,23-42.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblical Speculum Greek OrthodoxTheologicalReview ṣṭ ala 74 BSOAS . London:Routledge,2010. of Jewishand Chri 83(2008):629-654.

Bible TreatiseandHis ḥ 19,No.1(1968):128-185. ā non totheRelationofQur’anand ā ion andanIntroductiontoal-Biqa`i’s Bible atuhu nic Exegesis.” In b al-Burh tian Dialogue ofthe d, 123-162.Oxford:OxfordUniversity 22,No.1/3,(1959):124-141. tions: TheOxfordManuscriptofIbn n Relations:Letterof [The Scienceof [The Hermeneutics: An Analysis of an Hermeneutics: AnAnalysisofan Zaidan Haddad,95-107. Gainesville: Studia Islamica ion wasFalsified bytheAdoption ā n: aMuslim Controversialist . stian Scriptures.” ” Leiden:Brill,1972. Ibn Taymiyyah and His Ibn TaymiyyahandHis Defense of Using the Defense ofUsingthe 13th-14th Centuries: 87(1998):67-124.

PaulAntiochand Christian-Muslim 31, No.1(1986): MW Ḥ ad 86, No. 3-4 86,No.3-4 ī Religion th and its and MW 92 20 CEU eTD Collection Tritton, A.S. “Reason andRevelation.”In _____. Tottoli, Roberto.“OriginandUseoftheTe Tien, Anton,ed.TheApologyofal-Kind ______. “ApologeticandPolemic inthe ______, andBarbaraRoggema. ______. ______. “TheBibleandtheKal toChristianity.” In ______. “EarlyMuslimResponses _____Anti-Christian Polemic inEarlyIslam:Ab ______. “PaulofAntioch’s‘LettertoAMuslimFr ______. “TheDoctrineofTrinityintheEarlyAbbasidera.”In ______. “TheBibleinEarlyMuslimAnti-ChristianPolemic.” ______. “TheMiraclesofJesusinEarlyIslamic Polemic” Thomas, David. Tarif, Khalidi.

(1990): 193-210. 175-191. Leiden:Brill,2007. A. R.Gibb 2002. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993. Translations withCommentary Collection ofDocumentsfromtheFirst Rapoport andAhmed Shahab,247-265.Oxfo Volume 1(600-900).Leiden:Brill,2009. Rule, ChurchLifeandScholarshipinAbbasidIraq Leiden: Brill,2001. Syrian ChristiansunderIslam:TheFirstThousandYears Christianity Relations Trinity.’ Harvard UP,2001. al- Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2002. (1994): 221-243. Biblical prophetsintheQur' Ṣ Christian Doctrines inIslamicTheology a ḥ i ḥ l The Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1992. 7(1996):29-38. Anti-Christian Polemic inEarlyIslam, ī , ed.G.Maqdisi,619-631. Leiden:Brill,1965. manbaddalad , ed.L.Ridgeon,3-29.NewYork:St.MartinsPress,2000.

Muslim Jesus:SayingsandStoriesinIslamicLiterature ī ā n al-Mas m.” In Christian-Muslim Relations ā n andMuslimliterature , ed.N.A.Newman, 381-516.Hatfield,PA: Arabic andIslamicStudies in HonourofHamilton The BibleinArab Christianiti ī īḥ Letter fromCyprus .” In In .” rm Ira’iliyyat inMuslim Literature.” 75 .”

In ū ThreeIslamicCenturies(632–900A.D.), The EarlyChristian–MuslimDialogue:A IbnTaymiyyahandHisTimes

ʻĪ . Leiden:Brill,2008. rd: Oxford University Press,2010. rd: OxfordUniversity sá al-Warr iend’ andthe‘LetterfromCyprus’.”In

Ab , 231-54.Leiden:Brill,2003. Christians attheHeartofIslamic ū ‘Isaal-Warraq’s‘Againstthe Journal ofSemiticStudies ā andIbnTaymiyyah’s . ABibliographicalHistory q's 'Against the Islam and Christian-Muslim . Richmond,CurzonPress, , ed.D.Thomas, 203-22. Islamic Interpretations of es, ed.D.Thomas, . Cambridge: . Cambridge:

Incarnation , ed. Yossef , ed.Yossef Arabica Jaw 39 46 ā b . . CEU eTD Collection Wolfson H.A. Widengren, Geo.“HolyBookand Wheeler, BrannonM., ______. “TheEarlyDevelopment oftheMuslim AttitudetotheBible” In Watt, Montgomery W. “HisName isAhmad,” theOriginofGospel van Koningsveld,P.S.“TheIslamic ofPauland Image

1968. F. BruceandE.G.R Exegesis. the Glasgow.UniversityOrientalSociety Barnabas.” The PhilosophyoftheKal London: Continuum, 2002. Jerusalem StudiesinArabicandIslam Prophets intheQuran:AnIntrodu upp, 210-236.Manchester:Manche Tradition inIslam.” In ā m . Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 1974. 76 The MW

16 (1955– 43,1953,110-117. 20(1996):200-28. Holy Book and HolyTradition 1956 ction totheQuranandMuslim ):50–62. ster UniversityPress,

Transactionsof , ed.