Asbab al-Nuzul

[DKleinecke]

Asbab al-Nuzul are stories about the occasion of revelation of a part
of the Qur'an. The classical presentation is in "Kitāb asbāb al-nuzūl
(Book of occasions of revelation)" by al-Wāhidī (d. 1075). It is thus
a rather late concept as a separate genre but indicidual stories of
this sort go back in islamic history as far as our records reach. I
have been examining the use of the Qur'an by Muhammad bn Ishaq (died
AH 151, the earliest Islamic writer preserved) in his Sirat Rasul
Allah.

In Ibn Ishaq an asbad al-nuzul is simply part of his tafsir (Qur'anic
commentary). In fact all of his tafsir is based on a weak version of
asbab al-nuzul. He makes statements like "After Badr was over God sent
down the whole Sura Anfal about it" (Guillaume's translation p 321)
and proceeds to do a tafsir of that surat. Note that this hardly
qualifies as an occasion of revelation. Very few of Ibn Ishaq's
stories actually describe the occasion. Almost all of them say that
God sent down concenring such and such ... without specifiying when it
was snet down. Statements of this type could be prophecies as well as
after-the-fact explanations.

One exception to this last statement is a very precise occasion of
revelation is a long complex story that includes a tafsir of the 18th
surat, "The Cave" (pp 133-141 in Guillaume's translation). This is
placed very early in the Makkan era (before the migration to
Abyssinia) and explains the 18th surat whose peculiarities have been
widely noted. The unusual subject matter is explained as the answer to
a triple riddle posed by Muhammad's opponents. The entire story
appears to be given the isnad "a traditionalist told me from Sa'id bn
Jubayr and from 'Ikrima (freedman of 'Abdullah bn 'Abbas)." This
particular traditonalist is elsewhere called "a maula of the family of
Zayd bn Thabit" but never named.

Ibn Kathir has a version of this story, credited to Ibn Ishaq
(probably via al-Tabari's tafsir). But he does not draw any conclusion
at all about the surat as a whole. He does discuss the details each
separated from other.

Maududi is quite explicit abut the overall interpretation I have
mentioned - the surat is the answer to riddles. Another twentieth-
century Muslin commentator says "This chapter deals entirely with the
Christian religion and the Chrstian nations and that is the reason for
giving it the name "The Cave". The distinctive characteristic of
Christianity is its institution of monkery which required for its
practice such corners of solitude as caves...." In my opinion, the
riddle notion is more plausible.

Relatively few of Ibn ishaq's asbab al-nuzul have any isnad at all but
most of those where any source is named name 'Ikrima. This appears to
prove not only that Ibn ishaq had predecessors but that the school of
exegesis alleged to come from Ibn Abbas (but more likely from 'Ikrima)
was in existence. Ikrima died in 105 and Ibn Ishaq does not claim to
have heard him. But the fact the Ibn Ishaq does not name the link
between himself and Ikrima implies he believed his story originated
with Ikrima. This pushes the beginnings of tafsir back to the end of
the first century. But it is not clear how much of this story
originated with Ikrima and how much was added Ibn Ishaq. I suspect the
tafsir of the surat is Ibn Ishaq's addition to 'Ikrima's story.

Sa'id bn Jubayr (executed AH 95 in Kufa) occurs in other isnads as
narrating from Ibn Abbas. I have passed over him on the basis that
his name appears here as a piece of pro-Alid propaganda (very common
in Ibn Ishaq). It is possible he played a more signiificant role.

To get a flavor for what Ibn Ishaq's tafsir sounds like here is his
version of 18.1ff with Ibn Ishaq's additions in parentheses:

"He said: Glory belongs to God who has revealed the book to his
servant (meaning Muhammad) Verily thou are an apostle from Me (ie
confirming what they ask about thy prophethood) [but this sentence is
not in my copy of the Qur'an] He hath not made therein crookedness.
It is straight (ie. it is level without any difference) ...
[Guillaume's translation p137].

It seems clear that the an adequate comparison can be made only in
Arabic. That will have to await another time.

Wansbrough divides tafsir into five categories that historically
appear in the following order
1. Haggadic
2. Halakhic
3. Masoretic
4. Rhetorical
5. Allegorical
He concludes that Masoretic tafsir (concern with the meanings of
words, etymolgy, dialects and the like) was not practiced until the
third century. Certainly the state of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat as edited by
Abd al-Malik bn Hisham supports that dating. Ibn Ishaq (died 151) is
created with with no masoretic interest but Ibn Hisham has added
numerous masoretic notes. I have adopted the rule that masoretic
comments not assigned to Ibn Hisham do belong to him but the
assignment has been lost in transmission.

By haggadic exegesis Wansbrough means stories, hopefully edifying,
about matters in the text. As an example he repeats the same story
(about the 18th surat) I discussed above in an even fuller version
from the tafsir of Muqatil bn Sulayman. I do not have access to
Muqatlil but from what I have seen of it his material is very similar
to Ibn Ishaq's but somewhat expanded in detail. By halakhic exegesis
Wanbrough means exposition of legal questions. He points out that the
Muwatta of Malik bn Anas (died 179) really makes no significant use of
the Qur'an and that it should be classifiied as pre-halakhic. He finds
halakhic material in Muqatil and wonders about later interpolations.

The story about the 18th surat is not, so far as I can tell, in the
standard hadith collections.

I see no sign that Wansbrough found anything except haggadic exegesis
in Ibn Ishaq. According to the methods he was using this seems
correct. But they were an unnecessarily blunt instrument. There is
much more here than merely edifying stories.

[DKleinecke]

I observe the following hadith from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:

"There is no sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it
was revealed and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know
about whom it was revealed. And if I knew that there were somebody who
knows Allah's Book better than I and he were at a place that camels
can reach I would go to him."

This is number 524 in Book 61 of the Muhammad Muhsin Khan translation
of al-Bukhari. In spite of it having an acceptable isnad (Amr bn Hafs
from his father from Al-A'mash from Muslim from Masruq from Abdullah)
it cannot be taken seriously as a statement of Ibn Mas'ud. But it does
disclose an early notion of what asbab al-nuzul is all about.

It is not perfectly clear. A distinction seems to be made between
surats and ayats. But this may merely be a rhetorical artifact. The
ideal stated here is knowing where every surat was revealed and about
whom every ayat was revealed. Nothing is said about when.

But perhaps the references to surats means which surats were from
Makka versus which from Madina. This is an old distinction. Ibn Ishaq
knows about - although he never mentions it overtly. He places events
from Makkan surats in Makka and Madinan from Madina.

In that case Ibn Mas'ud also know whom every verse was revealed about.
It is, to say the least, an odd attitude that every verse had its
origin in a divine comment about the behavior of some person(s). But
it differs from Ibn ishaq's attitude only in claiming completeness. So
I would date the hadith to around the middle of the second century and
suggest that Al-A'mash put it into circulation. The claim for
completeness I ascribe to Kufan bravado.

And can we assume a lost tafsir ascribed to Ibn Mas'us once existed
that was comparable to the other second century tafsirs? It is very
possible - but far from proven.