The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an

[فداء الرسول]

The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an

الشبهة السامري في القرآن

The "samaritan" error In The Qur'an

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

According to the Christian missionaries and apologists, comparisons between the Qur'anic and Biblical narrations expose serious errors within the Qur'an. The Qur'anic narrations are said to be either 'absurd' or 'historically impossible'. Take for example the story of Moses as related in the Qur'an: the Qur'an mentions a certain Haman who was associated with the Court of Pharaoh - when in reality, say the missionaries, he was a counsellor of Ahasuerus who lived 1,100 years after Pharaoh; the Qur'an mentions that Pharaoh crucified or impaled his victims upon a stake, yet crucifixion was unknown in Egypt at that time.

Relying heavily on a single (prolific) Christian orientalist, the missionaries also state that the Qur'an, according to Surah 20, says the Israelites were led astray by a "samaritan" - yet the Samaritan people did not exist until many centuries later. What evidence is presented to support these claims? Can the presuppositions of the Christian missionaries be taken seriously in the light of contemporary Samaritan scholarship? This paper proposes to examine the origin of the Samaritans as suggested by the Christian missionaries.

2. The "samaritan" Error

The "samaritan" error in the Qur'an can be traced to Judeo-Christian attitudes provided by a prima facie consideration of the Old Testament material. Even after the advent of critical biblical scholarship, it was supposed that the picture of the Samaritans as a people of mixed race and religion, as provided in II Kings 17, was for all intent and purposes an accurate one. A prime example comes from the 1898 edition of James Hastings' A Dictionary Of The Bible. In the article "Samaria, Territory Of" by C. W. Wilson, the description of the Samaritans is given as:

In 2 K 17:29 these colonists are termed 'Samaritans.' Josephus says... that they were called Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin... and he regarded the Samaritans of his day as their descendents. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods, an act which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of God of the land.[1]

Descriptions of Samaritans worshipping an admixture of gods owe a great deal to later day Jewish polemics, in particular, that arising from Josephus' Antiquities as well as from the Old Testament itself. It is not surprising that the views concerning the Samaritans origins also positively influenced in a different way the anti-Islamic polemics in the West in the beginning of the 20th century CE. For example, while discussing the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens stated that:

"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf..."[2]

That these claims have literally pullulated amongst the Christian missionaries is something of an understatement. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:

The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.[3]

Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:

The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.[4]

Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:

As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.[5]

Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur'an. Archer says:

Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger, foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer ("watchman") - in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.![6]

Similar claims were also made by ‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi,[7] Robert Morey,[8] Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.[9]

Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur'an. He says:

At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Smir). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an 20. 85-95).[10]

According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and transferring "Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person."[11]

Except for Jomier and Newman, almost all these claims can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall – the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the "samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,

But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[12]

It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. In the same vein, Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:

The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

And furthermore:

How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.

Similar statements are repeated here, as if they singularly embody the truth, concerning the origins of Samaritans.

The problem with this claim is that the Samaritans were not known as a distinct ethno-religious group until around 722 B.C., when the term "samaritan" was coined...

The claim of the Christian missionaries concerning the origin of the Samaritans rests on the events mentioned in II Kings 17. We will begin by discussing the claims of the Christian missionaries that II Kings 17 describes the origins of Samaritans. What do the scholars of Samaritan studies say about the claim that II Kings 17 accurately describes the origins of Samaritans? This will be discussed along with the usage of the terms "samaritan" and "Samarian" in light of recent historical investigations. Finally, we will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.

3. II Kings 17: The Source Of Samaritan Origins?

Before we go into the historical background of II Kings 17, a background relating to the events leading to sacking and exile of Israel in the 8th century BCE is necessary. About two centuries earlier a united Israel had reached its peak under the leadership of Saul, David and Solomon. However, after Solomon's death, a civil war broke out and the former united kingdom split into two kingdoms: Judah in the south with Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel in the north whose capital was eventually established in Samaria. The two kingdoms struggled for nearly two centuries before Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The account in II Kings 17 implies that the Samaritans descended from peoples deported by the Assyrians from other parts of the vast empire during the mid-8th century BCE. The Assyrian ruler brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. Eventually the term "Cuthean", that is people of Cuthah, sometimes also referred collectively to denote new settlers, became the Jews' name for Samaritans and a word of contempt for these genetically and religiously impure people. This name was also adopted by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities in his polemics against the Samaritans. Thus, according to the Jewish version of history, the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. The question now is whether there is any truth in this version of the history.

للمزيد من مواضيعي

 

الموضوع الأصلي : The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an     -||-     المصدر : مُنتَدَيَاتُ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءِ الدَّعَويِّة     -||-     الكاتب : فداء الرسول

[فداء الرسول]

SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS?

As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. The verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim or shomeronim appears and is usually translated into English as "Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew text below).



But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)

The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated with the worship of idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by this name at all. They call themselves shamerin
, that is "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah.[13] The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14] Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:

.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law.[15]

Similarly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:
.. the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."[16]



The Encyclopaedia Judaica under the entry "Samaritans" says:

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[17]

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries, the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans because this word means "inhabitants of Samaria". Now that the issue of the names that differentiates the Samaritans from the inhabitants of Samaria is dealt with, let us now move to the claim of the missionaries which says that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of foreigners in the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

II KINGS 17:18-24 - A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OR A HISTORICAL ABSURDITY?

The narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 relates that the population of Israel in its totality was deported and exchanged to an alien population. However, the archaeological evidence shows that this narrative is incorrect. Estimates of the population in Israel show that in the Middle Bronze Age II [2000 - 1550 BCE] it was approximately 140,000 and in the Iron Age [1200 - 586 BCE],[18] during the period of divided monarchy, the population of northern kingdom of Israel reached nearly 600,000.[19] A survey of Judea, Samaria and the Golan carried out in 1967-1968 suggests a total of 560,000.[20] On the other hand, Roland de Vaux estimated the total population during this time to be around 800,000.[21]

The Assyrian ruler Sargon II was responsible for defeating the northern kingdom of Israel and sending them into exile. An Assyrian inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported 27,290 prisoners from Samaria,[22] suggesting a depopulation of the order of nearly 5% of Israel's population.[23] Hence 95% of the population remained. Also it can be claimed that the Assyrian kings in their royal inscriptions tended to exaggerate the number of exiles, as they considered a larger number to show the extent of their power and might.[24] If we accept this, then the total number of people exiled would be further reduced. We are essentially left with most of the population intact. Obviously there is a serious historical problem here with II Kings 17:18-24. Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible concerning the claim of the Samaritans' origins, A. D. Crown says:

This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution.[25]

A similar observation was made by Coggins about 30 years ago. Using the estimate of Roland de Vaux of 800,000 people in the northern kingdom of Israel and the inscription from the time of Sargon II, he says:

If this is at all accurate it would imply the deportation of between 3 and 4% of the population. Not much stress can be placed on the actual wording of the Assyrian annals, but they would suggest - and the circumstances of a siege would bear out - that the majority of the deportees would have been the inhabitants of Samaria itself, no doubt including many who had gone there as refugees during the siege.[26]

Such discrepancies were also mentioned by Frank Cross[27] and The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible.[28]

Coggins and others have suggested that most of the affected people would have been from the upper class, as they would be readily identifiable as potential leaders of resistance.[29] In place of those exiled, the settlers brought in would not have enjoyed the majority, as the native Israelites continued to enjoy being the overwhelming majority of the population. Clearly, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by the Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by the archaeological evidence.

How do the Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule? According to their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to "the community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the rest of the tribes of Israel" who "did not deviate from the way of the holy law, nor did they worship other gods. They did not behave as the nations did, and did not forsake the chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but they continued to worship the Lord their God...".[30] As Coggins pointed out, even if this idealization is discounted in the Samaritan Chronicles, it is clear that the "religious features of later Samaritanism show no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between native Israelites and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country".[31]

Unlike the claim of the Christian missionaries, there is nothing to suggest in the Samaritan Chronicles that they adopted a syncretism between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. On the contrary, the Chronicles clearly affirm their monotheism during the Assyrian rule. It must be emphasized that the Samaritans' devotion to the Torah was already recognized from the fact that it alone constituted their canon of Scripture. This is further emphasized by the word shamerin - the keepers of the Torah. This very name implies a group which maintained the traditional ways and was suspicious of change.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE MISSIONARY VIEWS

The Christian missionaries and apologists have had some difficulty in coming to terms with Samaritan scholarship. Although this is partly due to basic errors in comprehension, more seriously, it is primarily due to the fact that contemporary scholarship including the archaeological evidence undermines the veracity of the biblical account. Recognising these basic problems of method, the missionaries have attempted to synthesise their views on the Samaritans into one coherent account; resultantly we are left with nothing more than a mishmash of interpretations with little validity. For instance, consider the Christian missionary Andrew Vargo's "three views " of the Samaritan origins:

The Jewish view. The Samaritans are the descendants of the colonists that King Shalmaneser, of Assyria, brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign regions after he conquered Samaria in 722 B.C.. King Shalmaneser then deported the native population according to II Kings 17.

Samaritan view: The Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes who were left behind when their brethren were deported by the Assyrians.

Modern Scholars: The Samaritans are descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria.

He claims that "all three explanations of the origins of the Samaritans are correct, at least to some degree". It is hard to see why all the three "explanations" can be true to "some degree" at the same time. Simple logic dictates that if the "Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes" then they could not have been simultaneously "the descendants of the colonists" resettled by the Assyrian rulers. Furthermore, Vargo claims on behalf of unnamed and unknown "modern scholars" that the Samaritans are "the descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria". In fact, we have not come across this view at all in modern scholarship on the Samaritans. What we know is that modern Samaritan scholarship has firmly rejected equating shomronim in II Kings 17:29 with Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Moreover, it was seen that there are serious historical problems with II Kings 17:18-24 which severely undermines the biblical account concerning the claims of the Samaritan origins.

To complete the argument what does modern scholarship say about II Kings 17 being the alleged source of the Samaritans' origins? Let us start with A Companion To Samaritan Studies published in 1993. One can consider it as a dictionary 'desk reference' for Samaritan studies. As for II Kings 17 and the origins of the Samaritans, it says:

Older scholarship took 2 Kings 17 as a reliable account of the origins of Samaritanism and in many translations that is the only place where the word Samaritans is found in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. KJV, RSV). The idea that this passage can give us information about the Samaritan origins is now abandoned though it is undeniable that at an early date the text of understood in this sense. Thus Josephus (Ant. 9:291) states that the heterodox community formed after the Assyrian capture of Samaria was the direct forerunner of the Samaritan or Cuthaean community of his day. Egger has shown how many of Josephus' references to the Samaritans cannot properly be understood of the Samaritan religious community. Josephus' work is a clear example of anti-Samaritan polemic at work extrapolating materials from one setting to another as part of his condemnation of the Samaritans.[32]

Similar conclusions were also reached by Lester Grabbe. He says:

The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem priests) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.[33]

Writing in 2002, Anderson and Giles in their book The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans say that II Kings 17 cannot be considered an objective account of Samaritan history:

The Cutheans are simply the inhabitants of the north, not the Samaritan sect. Sargon's deportation of the indigenous Israelite population probably affected primarily the aristocracy within the city of Samaria. The people groups brought into the region replacing the deportees remained a minority. The invectives of the 2 Kings account address this select few and not the general population, and certainly not a religious sect [i.e., the Samaritans] that had, according to the bulk of evidence, not yet attained a sense of self-awareness.

...

It is generally recognized that the account in 2 Kings 17 is not objective and unbiased history. The purpose of 2 Kings 17, as well as other passages in the Hebrew Bible (particularly in Chronicles and Ezra), is to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals.[34]

After examining the evidence, Anderson and Giles conclude that the Samaritans did exist during the time of Assyrian invasion, not as a separate sect but as a part of the northern kingdom of Israel. In other words, Samaritans did not emerge after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

After doing a detailed discussion on the alleged presence of the Samaritans in II Kings 17, Coggins concluded that:

The simple truth is, as it is hoped that the first main part of the study has shown, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan hostility, but that is most that can be said.[35]

The New Bible Dictionary under the entry "Samaritans" says:

... Samaritans are mentioned only in 2 Ki. 17:29, a passage which describes the syncretistic religion of those peoples whom the king of Assyria transported to the N kingdom of Israel to replace the exiled native population after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BC).

Several reasons argue strongly against the identification, favoured by Josephus and many others since, of this group with the Samaritans as they are more widely known from the NT..., some of whose descendents survive to the present day in two small communities at Nablus and Holon: (i) the word used (hamrnîm) seems merely to mean 'inhabitants of (the city or province of) Samaria (mrôn)', and this fits the context of 2 Ki. 17 best; (ii) there is no evidence that the later Samaritans inhabited Samaria. The earliest certain references to them, by contrast, all points clearly to their residence at Shechem..., whilst one of the Josephus' sources refers to them as 'Shechemites'...; (iii) nothing whatever that is known of later Samaritan religion and practice suggests the pagan influence of 2 Ki. 17 or Ezr. 4.[36]

It is worthwhile adding that modern biblical scholarship has recognized that antagonism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed for many centuries which goes back to the period of the united monarchy. The account in II Kings 17 was written from a southern viewpoint and was quick to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals. Independence from Jerusalem, an identifying characteristic of Samaritanism, draws unqualified criticism in the Hebrew Bible.[37] Modern Samaritan scholarship also realizes that there was no sudden break that separated Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the rift developed over a long period of time with certain events causing more hostility than others.[38] Perhaps it was after John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim in 2nd century BCE, the two communities went separate ways.

To summarize, modern scholarship conclusively refutes the claim of Samaritan origins based on II Kings 17. The Christian missionary and apologist views, including Vargo's "Jewish view" and the views of his unknown and unnamed "modern scholars", can now be safely discarded.

[فداء الرسول]

6. Conclusions

Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In a similar vein, the Christian missionaries and apologists have claimed that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE. Based solely on the evidence of II Kings 17, the missionaries and apologists claim the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) during the time of Moses is a historical contradiction.

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries and apologists, specialists in Samaritan studies have noted that the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Furthermore, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by archaeology. This historical discrepancy severely undermines the veracity of the biblical claim concerning Samaritan origins. Consequently, modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritans.

In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.

The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans or the extant archaeological evidence; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation. As we observed in this study, the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is consistent with modern investigations into the origins of the Samaritan sect.

And Allah knows best!

[فداء الرسول]

رد شبكة التوعية الاسلامية على رد المبشرين على الموضوع اعلاه

،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:

The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

We have already discussed the origins of the Samaritans in the paper The "Samaritan" Error in the Qur'an. We had mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful study of the Samaritan Chronicle has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.

The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect.

This paper responds to a different allegation, that the Qur'anic story mentioned in surah 20: 85-95 was in fact based on Jewish myths and fables.

The Christian missionary Tisdall attempts to explain the origin of the "Samaritan" story in his book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an:

This legend also comes from the Jews, as is evident from the following extract which we translate from Pirqêy Rabbi Eli'ezer, § 45, "And this calf came out lowing [the sound uttered by cattle; moo], and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yehûdah says that Sammaêl was hidden in its interior, and was lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The idea that the calf was able to low must come from the supposition that, though made of gold (Exodus 32. 4), it was alive, since it "came out" (5. 24) of the fire. Here, again, we see that the figurative expression, when taken literally, led to the growth of a myth to explain it. The Muhammadan commentator in explaining the words "a calf in body" in the Qur'an as signifying that it had "flesh and blood" has only gone a step further, and he does this to explain how it was that the animal could low. Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly, but the word Sammaêl puzzled him. Not understanding that this is the Jewish name of the Angel of Death, and perhaps misled as to the pronunciation, he mistook the word for the somewhat similar "Samiri", which means "Samaritan." Of course he made this mistake because he knew that the Jews were enemies of Samaritans, and he fancied that they attributed the making of the calf to one of the latter. He was doubtless confirmed in his belief by some indistinct recollection of having heard that Jeroboam, king of what was afterwards called Samaria, had "made Israel to sin" by leading them to worship the calves which he made and placed in Dan and Beth-el (I Kings 12. 28, 29). But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years later after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[1]

He believes that the story is entirely Jewish in origin, and furthermore, he also mentions the "amusing anachronism" in the Qur'an concerning the mistaken usage of the term "Samaritan". This "amusing anachronism" has already been refuted.

Now, concerning the Jewish origins of the story, Tisdall would like us to believe that Muhammad lifted this material from a Rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Tisdall presumably used Abraham Geiger's book, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? as his source.[2] Concerning the golden calf Abraham Geiger writes:

Muhammad says that the calf lowed as it come forth. With this is to be compared the Rabbinical statement: "There came forth this calf lowing and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel." In the Qur'an it is said that among the people of Moses there was a tribe which kept the truth. This seems to refer to the tribe of Levi and especially to their behaviour about the calf, although possibly it may refer also to their belief in Moses' mission to Pharaoh of which we have spoken before. In the biblical accounts a statement is made, which is explained by the Rabbis as follows: "From Exodus 32. 26, it is clear that the tribe of Levi was not implicated in the matter of the golden calf."[3]

Not surprisingly, Geiger also uses the rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer[4] to support his theory that Muhammad copied this story (or 'legend' as Tisdall prefers to call it) from Jewish sources. Similar claims have been made by Robert Morey,[5] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi[6] and N. A. Newman.[7]

Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to compose the account found in surah 20:85-95.

[فداء الرسول]

2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

But Tisdall's explanation is probably the most inaccurate and inexcusable suggestion he has yet put forward. An examination of the another contemporary source of Tisdall's time reveals the answer. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, in the same year as the publication of Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer":

Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm.[8]

Thus, according to Tisdall, Muhammad composed the account found in surah 20: 85-95 using a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! Long before Tisdall wrote The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Jewish scholars had already mentioned that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer post-dated Islam. But surprisingly the famous Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall was oblivious to this fact!

Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also been subject to recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman:

... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.[9]

This view of late compilation of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer (as well as Midrash Tanhuma!) is also echoed in Encyclopaedia Of Islam:

Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about, the Kur'an appears to present the earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) would seem to date from after the rise of Islam.[10]

A detailed analysis of the dating and composition of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is available here.

Since Tisdall lifted most of his material from his master Abraham Geiger, it is not at all surprising to find that Tisdall's sense of poor chronology matches greatly with Geiger's. Other examples of Tisdall's poor and embarrassing scholarship are exposed in his discussions concerning the Prophet's wives teaching him stories from the Bible, Salman the Persian and the story of Cain & Abel as possible Judeo-Christian sources of the Qur'an.

Finally, Stillman advises us in his conclusion:

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an.[11]

Christian missionaries would of course choose to ignore this advice as "The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge" by any means is sometimes more important than accuracy and truth!

3. To Moo Or Not To Moo?

The Christian missionaries seem to also have a problem with the golden calf: Did the golden calf moo? They write:

Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him?

We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves report the idols or statues of Virgin Mary performing "miracles" for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has given these idols the power to perform miracles, even though idolatry is so much detested by God?

It is quite clear in the Qur'an that God will test people:

Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false. [Qur'an 29:2-3]

Some of these trials will expose the hypocrisy and falsehoods in the hearts of those who claim to believe; and for others it will strengthen their faith and resolve - for they are indeed the true believers. This whole life is but a test for the true believer. Just as the Children of Israel were tested, other nations were also tested. The people of Thamud for example were tested by the she-camel.

There's no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise!

And Allah knows best!