One of the thorniest problems of Islamic history, is how its creed developed. The standard Islamic explanation is that an Archangel delivered it to Muhammad in the oral form of the Qur'an, and that the first Caliphs followed that creed while compiling the inspired verses for later generations.
But against this pious concoction, we also have the accounts of Christian and Jewish contemporaries from that period, which relate how said contemporaries interacted with the first caliphs and amirs, and vice versa. In the questions the Arabs ("Mhaggraye") ask, they reveal what they assumed, and what remained for them to learn.
The first record of "Hagarian" doctrine is a Syriac epistle to the Christians of Iraq. Ancient sources claimed the "glorious Amir" was Umayr Ibn Sa'd; the "blessed Father" was the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, John I. Our copy dates from 874 CE and arrived in the British Museum, whence an F. Nau published it in French in the Journal Asiatique March-April pp. 248f. From there Alphonse Mingana published an abridged English translation in The Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society (1916) pp. 223-32 and reprinted it in The Muslim World 7 (1917) pp. 402-14. Ibn Warraq reprinted it yet again in The Origins of the Koran pp. 97-113. There is now a more modern translation.
The document's epistolary frame asked of its readers that they "pray for the illustrious Amir
that God might grant him wisdom and enlighten him as to what is the will of the Lord
".
The text then answers questions about Christianity that a nonbeliever might have.
It is therefore a work of "soft-apologetics", primarily meant to help Christians
answer questions that the non-Christian Hagarian might have of them (respectfully!).
Here follows the text according to Mingana, supplemented from the modern translation. I've underlined the passages that bear on Ismailite doctrine.
... We inform your love that on the ninth of this month of May, on the holy Sunday, we went in before the glorious General Amir. The blessed Father of all was asked by the Amir whether the Gospel, which is in the hands of all who are called Christians in all the world, was one and without any difference whatever. The blessed Patriarch answered.... Then the Amir asked why if the Gospel was one, faith was different; and the blessed one answered, Just as the Torah is one and the same and It is accepted by us Christians and by you Mhaggreye, and by the Jews and by the Samaritans, and each is distinct in faith; ...
The Amir then asked, "What do you think of the Christ? Is he God or not?" Our Father then answered.... And the glorious Amir asked him this question, "When the Christ, whom you call God, was in the womb of Mary, who was holding and governing heaven and earth?" Our blessed Father answered.... And the glorious Amir said, "What were the views and the belief of Abraham and Moses?" Our blessed Father answered.... And the Amir said, "Why did they not write clearly and show their belief about the Christ?" and our blessed Father answered.... When the Amir heard these things, he only asked whether the Christ born of Mary was God, and whether God had a son, and whether this could be proven by the Torah and by reason. And our blessed Father said, "Not only Moses, but all the holy prophets have previously related these points of the Christ...." And the glorious Amir said that he would not accept the proof of these points by quotations from the prophets; but only required that it should be proven to him by quotations from Moses that the Christ was God. And the blessed Father among other quotations, brought forth the following from Moses, "Then the Lord from before the Lord brought down fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah;" [Gen 19:24, sort of] and the glorious Amir required that this quotation should be shown to him from the Book. And our Father showed it to him dla tuhhaya [without delay], in the complete Greek and Syriac Books. In that assembly, some Mhaggraye were present with us, and saw the text with their own eyes, and the existence of the glorious name of the Lord twice. And the Amir called a certain Jew, who was believed by the Jews to be a Knower of Books, and asked him if this was literally true in the Torah; and the Jew answered, "I do not know with certainty."
Then the Amir digressed from this point and asked about the laws of the Christians, how and what they were, and if they were written in the Gospel; and asked, too, if a man dies and leaves sons or daughters, with a wife, a mother, a sister, and a cousin, how would his heritage be divided among them?.... A long discussion ensued; and nor only the best-known men among the Mhaggraye were present there, but also the heads and the rulers of the town, and of the faithful and Christ-loving [Arab] tribes: Tannukhians, Tu'ians, and 'Aqulians [of southern Syria; c.f. Roman Arabia pp. 132-6]. And the glorious Amir said, "I want you to do one of these three things: either to show me that your laws are written in the Gospel, and that you are following them, or to follow the laws of the Mhaggraye." And our Father answered, "Our laws, the laws of us Christians, are just, equitable, and in harmony with the teaching and the Commandment of the Gospel, the prescriptions of the Apostles and the laws of the Church." It is with this that the first gathering of that day ended, and up to now we have not been again with the Amir.
Mingana noted that the author knew of literate Arabs. But even so the author made no mention that anyone knew of the Qur'an, nor of any other Arabic-language book - not even of a translation of the Torah.
The author also made no mention of Muhammad, despite that a context of prophecy arose in the discussion. Had this letter been a product of 874 CE, it would certainly have mentioned Muhammad in that context and probably the Qur'an as well. By 691 CE the caliph Abd al-Malik had already made his decisions vis-à-vis Christianity, and by 700 CE the Near East had accepted Muhammad as a prophet - obviating any need for a Hagarian to quibble over non-Islamic proof texts in dispute with Christians. I see no reason to doubt that this epistle was written from occupied Syria in the 640's CE.
Mingana seems to imply that the Hagarians had certain "teaching[s] of the Koran", but not the actual Qur'an as post-750 CE Muslims would recognise it. The first part of the conversation is doctrinal, and the second legal.
The Hagarians had by that time accepted that Jesus was the "son of Mary" (virgin birth?) and that he was "the Christ", although it is uncertain that they understood what that meant. They were even willing to allow for a written form of "the Gospel" as a basis for legislation, as long as the Christians could show through their own conduct that Jesus's law served a practical and moral purpose. This implies they saw Jesus as primarily a lawgiver, and by extension probably Moses as well (whence these Arabs had learnt about Abraham). In that view I suppose "the Gospel" primarily meant Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, along with an infancy narrative based on Matthew or Luke, but not including John 1.
The legal section's only specific section is inheritance law, which neither the Hagarians nor the Christians explain. The letter does show that the Hagarians already had a legal code. Inheritance law appears in Numbers 27 (part of "Torah") and a different law in sura 4; but whether the Hagarians were thinking of either law, or of something completely different, none can say.
The Qur'an would remember their respect for the "Taurat" in the demands that Hagarenes believe in the "Scripture which He sent down before
" (4:136),
and that they consult "those who are reading the Book [in the context of Exodus] before you
"
on points of doctrine (10:94).
From the time of Muhammad to the Sufyanid era, in rock inscriptions, in popular culture, or in outsiders' records, there is no record of a non-Christian Arab venerating a nabi ("prophet") in the Jewish sense. This letter shows that the Amir - a chieftain of Umar, and presumably Ismailite - was not even willing to accept arguments from the Jewish canonical prophets (by contrast with 3:21,84's high regard for al-nabiyyûna). The parallel Islamic concept of rasul ("messenger") is different, but in any case this letter does not address it.
Sebeos and Guidi relate that Muhammad based his legitimacy in Jewish (and Samaritan) eyes on his descent from Abraham. That may have worked for Palestine, but when Muhammad's successors carried the torch on to Syria, suddenly they found themselves in charge of millions of Christians. They could not all be killed or expelled.
The Syriac epistle dates to an epoch when the Hagarians were casting about for a theology that might appeal not just to fellow Ismailites and to Jews, but to Monophysite Christians. This theology had to be based on that Abrahamic sub-scripture on which the Hagarians had claimed their religious legitimacy. We are here seeing the formation of a Hagarian canon, to be based on Abrahamic descent and on the legislation of Moses and, now, Jesus. But the nabi apparently had to await a new caliph to acquire his due.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)
zimriel@sbcglobal.netThe first version of this project was written 9-12 Feb 2003 on a tazo-chai buzz. 18 Feb: better info. 16 March: more Qur'anic quotes. 8 June: in light of sura 47, I cannot speak of the rasul, but I stand by what I said of nabi. 15 June: new project on sura 5's pro-Christianity, moved some arguments there as a sequel. 8 Oct: inheritance law.