Suras 16 and 23 share blocks of text. One example is 16:93: wa-law shâa Allâhu la-ja'alakum ommatan wâhidatan and 23:52: wa-inna hathihi ommatukum ommatan wâhidatan. But here I showed this part of 16:93 is part of a much larger paraphrase of 5:48. 23:52 preserves much less, in a different context, and also most likely from 5:48 (here).
23:24 in an aside, says
"had God wished he could have sent angels
(wa-law shâa Allâhu la-anzala malâ-ikatan)".
This is thematically similar to 16:2, where God sends angels to
whom He pleases (yunazzilu al-malâ-ikata... man yashâo).
This is the only appearance of malâ-ikatan in sura 23,
and the only place in sura 16 where malâ-ikatan appear in a
revelatory sense.
Another shared block is 23:91 subhâna Allâhi 'ammâ yasifûna and 23:92 fa-ta'âlâ 'ammâ yushrikûna. 16:1 runs subhânahu wa-ta'âlâ 'ammâ yushrikûna, and 16:3 repeats the latter clause. But 16, like 23, is also based on 28 - and 28:68 contains a passage parallel to both 16:1,3 and 23:91-92 (again, c.f. here and here). What the two share is the idea of parallel couplets.
Sura 16 and 23 share larger blocks than this, that discuss Allah's blessings. The most egregious examples are 16:4-16,65-67 and 23:12-22. This project investigates these blocks and decides on their provenance.
I use the Pickthall translation, because it was the first one I found on the 'Web.
Like the famous passages in Mark, Luke, and Matthew, these passages in 16 and 23 may be read together. Also like the three gospels, some of the passages might be attributable to known shared sources (suras 5 and 28, in this case) - but the bulk of it cannot. I propose that what 16 and 23 share, independently of any other known sura, amounts to an Islamic synoptic problem analogous to the one in Christianity.
Note that with the exception of 16:66, sura 16:4-16,65-67's verses do not slip into the first person. That sura is not theoretically against referring to Allah's retinue in this way (c.f. 16:36,40,41,43,44,55,56,63,64,75,84,88,89). 16:66 is moreover a recap of 16:5 that follows close on 16:63-64.
23:12-22 poses the opposite problem: Allah's name goes unmentioned except in 23:14. 23:23,24,32,38, and so forth show that this sura otherwise had no fear of His name. The mention in 23:14 moreover appears at the end of the verse; and following that, the subject shifts from "man" in the third person to "ye" in the second, and then gratuitously brings up the Day of tub'athûna (c.f. 23:100).
In addition to the external parallels, there are internal parallels too. 16:5 parallels 16:66, 16:10 parallels 16:65, and 16:11 parallels 16:67.
16:11 has an apparent plus in olives with respect to 16:67. That plus is also present in 16:9-11 against 23:17-19. In all three, date-palms and grapes appear in that order as a unit.
Also, 16:10's huwa allathî anzala mina al-samâ-i mâ-an lakum grammatically leads to minhu sharâbun and to wa-minhu shajarun fîhi tusîmûna. Water is sufficient for quenching thirst, but is not sufficient for creating trees. The latter phrase is out of place.
If we assume that the oil-bearing tree of Mount Sinai was understood by most readers as an olive tree: then 16:11 is a harmony of 23:19-20, 16:10 is a harmony of 23:18+20, and 16:67 is a reflection of 23:19 alone.
As shown here, 16:66b-67 owes much to 47:15. To revisit 16:10, that verse has minhu sharâbun left over, once one removes its parallel wa-minhu shajarun fîhi tusîmûna. This minhu sharâbun plus most likely derives from 16:67's reference to minhu sakaran wa-rizqan hasanan and 16:66b's li-l-shâribîna.
23:21 incorporates the remainder of 16:5,66a.
Given that cows are not the primary point of the shared passages nor of either sura,
it is most likely 23:21 preserves the truest reading; in this case
16:5a's "and the cattle hath He created
" is simply carried over from
16:4. I will however allow that 23:21's manâfi'u kathîratun may or may not be preferable to 16:5's dif-on wa-manâfi'u
(it really does not matter).
In 16:4-16,65-67, many of the lines have formulaic endings:
| 11 | dates, grapes... olive | inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin yatafakkarûna |
| 12 | day, night | inna fî thâlika la-âyâtin li-qawmin ya'qilûna |
| 13 | things of shades | inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin yaththakkarûna |
| 14 | sea, ships | wa-la-'allakum tashkurûna |
| 15 | paths | la-'allakum tahtadûna |
| 65 | rain | inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin yasma'ûna |
| 67 | dates, grapes | inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin ya'qilûna |
These endings exist elsewhere in sura 16 - and in each case there, too, it is an ending to a blessing:
| 69 | bees | inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin yatafakkarûna |
| 78 | ears, hearts | la-'allakum tashkurûna |
| 79 | birds | inna fî thâlika la-âyâtin li-qawmin yu/minûna |
| 81 | protection | la-'allakum tuslimûna |
16:90 counts Allah's commands as a blessing, complete with the ending, la-'allakum tathakkarûna. But this does not match the other verse endings given above; rather, it is a harmony of la-'allakum t- and inna fî thâlika la-âyatan li-qawmin yaththakkarûna. 16:17 also ends with taththakkarûna, although the verse is a polemic question and clearly not one of the blessings. I consider 16:90's ending an editorial flourish.
In sura 23, meanwhile, there is only one such instance of inna fî in the entire sura. 23:30 reads, in full, inna fî thâlika la-âyâtin wa-in kunna la-mubtalîna. "The sign and the test" follows the list of blessings from 23:12-22 and the story of Noah in 23:23-29. It is most likely sura 23's author intended the "sign" to refer to the former and the "test" to the latter.
From the above survey, it turns out that sura 23:18-20 contains a purer form of 16:10-11//67, and 23:21 a purer form of 16:5,66a. 23 also lacks 16's parallels with 47. Sura 23 did not rely on 16.
But if 16 did rely on 23, why did 16 convert its "we" into "Allah" in all cases but one, and that one case a successor to 16:63-64? If 16 had borrowed from that particular text, it should have borrowed the "we" as well.
And perhaps 23's form is too pure. 23:22 is an abrupt end to 23:12-22, and introduces "the ship" (al-fulka) that is irrelevant to any other portion of 23:12-22. In its sura, it serves only as a link to the next portion, about the Ark. Sura 16 devotes an entire verse to the load-bearing property of al-fulka (16:14), without bringing up Noah, and also gives more space to that property of cattle (16:7-8).
The easiest way out is to posit a third "sura", an Arabic
"Hymn to the Creator" (or pair of hymns) that
preceded suras 16 and 23 both.
This hymn or hymns concluded each stanza with a refrain, made of variants of "this is a sign for those who reflect
" or "that you may give thanks
". Most of its elements are now found in sura 16;
but where sura 23 does preserve them, the latter seems to do them
better justice.
Both suras 16 and 23 depended on the Dome of the Rock, and were therefore written after 71 AH. But around 80 AH, as it happens, was the career of the eternally famous graffiti author Uthman b. Wahran. This man wrote, or transcribed, a variant of 56:28-40 that lauded the pleasures of Paradise for the "Companions of the Right Hand". So although these witnesses are late, they witness to the survival of an earlier, more worldly Islam. The hymn's sensual view of God's grace is also found in sura 47 and is not totally lost in sura 3. The poem could not, however, survive sura 5 and its ban on liquor, already accepted Islamic practice in Sebeos's day.
This shows that before the final "'Uthmanic" Qur'an, Islam included in its canon not only suras like al-Imran, but a smattering of religious poems. This hymn survived past the authorship of suras 3 and 4 (and probably 5), past even the Dome of the Rock, and was popular enough to be used independently by two additional suras.
We can even say something of the moral universe of the Arabic monotheism
that found its expression here. The hymn praised Allah for a bunch of stuff
we now know is the inevitable result of natural laws.
(Praising Allah for not removing the Moon from orbit is logically identical
to praising the burglar for not removing the stereo from your car.)
This poem shows a fatalistic view of Allah, Who holds ultimate power in
the universe. It is not the God of the Gospel of Luke.
It is rather the God Whose angel told Mary,
"God does what He will; when he wishes a thing he sayeth only,
'Be!' - and it is
" (sura 3:47).
And it did not reject the fruits of this world for the promise of the next.
We can also - now - say something of sura 23. It knew suras 19 and 28, yet it is doubtful it knew sura 16. 16 was swiftly accepted; sura 43 used it as early as the end of the first century AH (here). If 23 could have ignored it, 23 must have been an early sura itself.
Some final notes. Lately there has been some noise made about an "Arabic anti-trinitarian Christian hymnody", that allegedly preceded the Hegira and now makes up approximately one-third the Qur'an. I have read a review of this theory from Ibn Rawandi, which Ibn Warraq included in his book, but I confess to not knowing nor caring too much about it. I do not even know what a "hymnody" is, except that I suspect it has something to do with hymns. But if one were looking for a non-trinitarian hymn written in Arabic, here is a potential example.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)
zimriel@sbcglobal.net
17 April 2002: drew up the synopsis on a hunch... and left it there until 26-28 April 2003. Posted 28 April. 11 May, for fairness I had to include two faint 16 // 23 parallels. 25 June, sura 5 as a cutoff point for canon.