Anti-Jewish Traditions.
The different tendencies in the codifications are shown in divergences in the decrees attributed to the prophet. While one reads, "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission-his enemy I am" ("Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133), people with fanatical views haveput into the mouth of the prophet such words as these: "Whoever shows a friendly face to a dhimmi is like one who deals me a blow in the side" (Ibn ?ajar al-Haitami, "Fatawi ?adithiyyah," p. 118, Cairo, 1307). Or: "The angel Gabriel met the prophet on one occasion, whereupon the latter wished to take his hand. Gabriel, however, drew back, saying: 'Thou hast but just now touched the hand of a Jew.' The prophet was required to make his ablutions before he was allowed to take the angel's hand" (Dhahabi, "Mizan al-I'tidal," ii. 232, 275). These and similar sayings, however, were repudiated by the Mohammedan ?adithcritics themselves as false and spurious. They betray the fanatical spirit of the circle in which they originated. Official Islam has even tried to turn away from Jews and Christians the point of whatever malicious maxims have been handed down from ancient times. An old saying in regard to infidels reads: "If ye meet them in the way, speak not to them and crowd them to the wall." When Suhail, who relates this saying of the prophet, was asked whether Jews and Christians were intended, he answered that this command referred to the heathen ("mushrikin"; "Musnad A?mad," ii. 262).
Under the dominion of the Ommiads the followers of other religious faiths were little disturbed, since it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots. Omar II. (717-720) was the only one of this worldly-wise dynasty who trenched upon the equal privileges of unbelievers; and he was under the pietistic influence. Intolerance of infidels and a limitation of their freedom were first made a part of the law during the rule of the Abbassids (see Abbassid Califs), who, to bring about the ruin of their predecessors, had supported theocratic views and granted great influence to the representatives of intolerant creeds (comp. "Z. D. M. G." xxxviii. 679; "R. E. J." xxx. 6). Under them also the law was introduced compelling Jews to be distinguished by their clothing ("ghiyar"; Abu Yusuf, "Kitab alKharaj," pp. 72-73, Bulak, 1302). At a later period such distinguishing marks became frequent in the Mohammedan kingdoms, especially in North Africa, where the badge was known as "shaklah" (Fagnan, "Chroniques des Almohades et des Haf-idcs Attribu' - Zerkechi," p., 19, Constantine, 1895).
Influence of Judaism on Islam.
The debt of Islam to Judaism is not limited to the laws, institutions, doctrines, and traditions which Mohammed himself borrowed from the Jews and incorporated in his revelations (see Koran). For its later development, also, Islam made use of much material presented to its teachers through direct association with Jews, through the influence of converted Jews, and through contact with the surrounding Jewish life. Many a Jewish tradition has thus crept into Islam and taken an important place there. It is related that 'Ayisha, the wife of the prophet, owned to having received the idea of the torments of the grave ("'adhab al-?abr" = Hebr. "?ibbu? ha-?eber") from Jewish women, and that Mohammed incorporated it in his teaching. Other eschatological details of Judaism served to embellish the original material, much of which goes back to Parsee sources (e.g., the leviathan and "shor ha-bar" as food = preserved wine as a drink in paradise; the "luz"="'ujb" out of which men's bodies will be reconstructed at the resurrection, etc.; see Eschatology). From the very beginning Jews versed in the Scriptures ("?abr" [plural, "a?bar"] =Hebr. "?aber") became of great importance in providing such details; and it was from the information thus supplied that the meager skeleton of the teachings of the Koran was built up and clothed.
These a?bar hold an important position also as sources for information concerning Islam. It will be sufficient here to refer to the many teachings in the first two centuries of Islam which are recorded under the names Ka'b al-A?bar (d. 654) and Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. circa 731). In the first place, Islam owes to this source its elaborations of Biblical legends; many of these elaborations are incorporated in the canonical ?adith works, and still more in the historical books (e.g., ?abari, vol. i.); and they early developed into an important special literature, a compilation of which is found in a work by Tha'labi (d. 1036) dealing exhaustively with these subjects and entitled "'Ara'is al-Majalis" (frequently printed in Cairo). Here belong the many tales current in Islamic legendary literature under the name "Isra-'iliyyat" (= "Jewish narratives"; comp. "R. E. J." xliv. 63 et seq.). According to the researches of F. Perles and Victor Chauvin, a large number of the tales in the "Thousand and One Nights" go back to such Jewish sources (see Arabian Nights).
The system of genealogy, so important among the Arabs, connecting early Arabian history with that of the Biblical patriarchs, also goes back to Jewish sources. In particular a Jewish scholar of Palmyra is mentioned who adapted the genealogical tables of the Bible to the demands of Arabic genealogy (comp. references in Goldziher, "Muhammedanische Studien," i. 178, note 2). It was likewise such Jewish converts who offered the material for certain theories hostile to Judaism; for example, the view, not generally accepted by Mohammedans (ib. i. 145), but which is nevertheless very widely spread, that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was consecrated as a sacrifice ("dhabi?") to God, originates from the teaching of a crafty convert who wished to ingratiate himself with his new associates (?abari, i. 299).
Influence of Jewish on Mohammedan Law.
Islam in the course of its development borrowed also a large number of legal precepts from the Jewish Halakah. The importance attached to the "niyyah" (= "intentio") in the practise of law is at first glance reminiscent of the rabbinical teaching concerning "kawwanah," even though all the details do not coincide. The Mohammedan regulations appertaining to slaughtering, those relating to the personal qualifications of the "sho?e?" (Arabic, "dhabi?") as well as those in regard to the details of slaughtering, show plainly the influence of the Jewish Halakah, as a glance into the codes themselves will prove. These are easily accessible, in the original as well as in European translations (Nawawi, "Minhag al-?alibin," ed. Van den Berg, iii. 297, Batavia,1882-84; "Fat? al-?arib," edited by the same, pp. 631 et seq., Leyden, 1894; Tornaw, "Das Muslimische Recht," p. 228, Leipsic, 1855). For example, the Mohammedan law in regard to slaughtering ordains expressly that the "?ul?um" (Hebr. "?aneh") and the "mari'" (Hebr. "weshe?") must be severed, and forbids killing in any other manner. On the other hand, the law, peculiar to Islam, that the slaughterer in the performance of his duty must turn the animal toward the "?iblah," has given material for halakic reflections on the part of Jews (Solomon ben Adret, Responsa, No. 345; "Bet Yosef," on ?ur Yoreh De'ah iv., end). The rule that God's name be mentioned before slaughtering is probably a reflection of the Jewish benediction, as are also in general the eulogies ordained by Islamic tradition at the appearance of certain natural phenomena (Nawawi, "Adhkar," p. 79, Cairo, 1312), which may be traced back to the influence of Jewish customs. Mohammedan law has adopted literally the provision "ka-mak?ol ba-she-poperet" in the case of the precept concerning adultery, and it betrays its source through this characteristic form of speech ("R. E. J." xxviii. 79), which is not the only one that teachers of Islam have taken over from rabbinical linguistic usage (ib. xliii. 5).
The attempt has been made by Alfred von Kremer ("Culturgesch. des Orients Unter den Chalifen," i. 525, 535) to show by many examples that the codifiers, of Mohammedan civil law were influenced by Talmudic-rabbinical law. There is, however, legitimate doubt in the case of many of such coincidences whether Roman law, the influence of which on the development of Mohammedan law is beyond question, should not be considered as the direct source from which Islamic teachers borrowed. Such a question must arise from a consideration of the legal principle of the "isti??ab" (= "pr'sumptio"), the meaning and application of which coincide fully with that of the rabbinical principle of the ("Wiener Zeitschrift f'r die Kunde des Morgenlandes," i. 239). Likewise the rules and , and the fundamental principle of the ("isti?la?") are found literally among the cardinal juridical principles of Islamic law (ib. p. 229; "Muhammedanische Studien," ii. 82, No. 6). In spite of the fact that it is a principle of Islamic tradition to avoid all imitation of the usages and customs of the ahl al-Kitab and that the disapproval of many usages of religious as well as of secular life is specifically ascribed to such a cause ("R. E. J." xxviii. 77), still many religious practises of Judaism have been incorporated into Islam; for example, many details in the ceremony of burying the dead, as "?a?arah" (washing the dead), holy texts being recited during the washing of the various parts of the body (Al-'Abdari, "Madkhal," iii. 12, Alexandria, 1293). Such intrusive customs are not seldom censured by the purists of Islam as being "bid'a" (unorthodox innovations), in opposition to the "Sunnah" (old orthodox usage). Those elements of Mohammedan religious literature which correspond to the Jewish Haggadah offer a large field for derivation; in this connection See ?adith.
Islam is regarded by Mohammedans, as may be easily conceived, not only as the final stage of the divine revelation, but also as being quantitatively richer than either Judaism or Christianity. More ethical demands are made by it than by the older religions. This idea found expression in an old ?adith which even at a very early period was misinterpreted to read: "Judaism has 71, Christianity 72, and Islam 73 sects." The word which was taken to mean "sects" denotes literally "branches," and should be interpreted "religious demands," "the highest of which is the acknowledgment of God and Mohammed, and the lowest the removal of offense from the way" (on the original meaning of this saying see Goldziher, "Le D'nombrement des Sectes Mohametanes," in "Revue de l'Histoire des Religions," xxvi. 129-137).
Polemics.
The theological relation of Islam to Judaism is presented in an extensive polemical literature on the part of Mohammedan scholars. The subject-matter of this literature is closely related to the attacks and accusations already directed against Judaism by the Koran and the ?adith. In the Koran (ix. 30) the Jews are charged with worshiping Ezra ("'Uzair") as the son of God-a malevolent metaphor for the great respect which was paid by the Jews to the memory of Ezra as the restorer of the Law, and from which the Ezra legends of apocryphal literature (II Esd. xxxiv. 37-49) originated (as to how they developed in Mohammedan legends see Damiri, "?ayat al-?ayawan," i. 304-305). It is hard to bring into harmony with this the fact, related by Jacob Saphir ("Eben Sappir," i. 99), that the Jews of South Arabia have a pronounced aversion for the memory of Ezra, and even exclude his name from their category of proper names.
More clearly still does this literature bring forward an accusation, founded on suras ii. 70, v. 15, that the Jews had falsified certain portions of the Holy Scriptures and concealed others (iii. 64, vi. 91). Even in Mohammed's time the rabbis were said to have misrepresented to the prophet the law in regard to adulterers ("R. E. J." xxviii. 79). In later times the details as to these falsifications were continually augmented. It was said, for example, that in order to rob the Arabs of an honor done to their ancestors the Jews wrongly inserted in the Pentateuch the choice of Isaac as the child whose sacrifice God demanded of Abraham and which the pa?riarch was willing to make, whereas in reality it was Ishmael (comp. "Muhammedanische Studien," i. 145, note 5). But the accusation of misrepresentation and concealment is most emphatic in connection with those passages of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Psalms in which the adherents of Islam claim that Mohammed's name and attributes, his future appearance as "seal of the prophets," and his mission to all mankind were predicted.
Mohammedan, theologians divide these charges into two classes: they hold (1) that in some cases the original text itself has been falsified, while (2) in others it is the interpretation of a genuine text that has been wilfully perverted. Whereas in the earlier period of the controversy these accusations were made against the "a?bar" as a class, who were represented as leading the Jewish people astray, lateron the personal nature of the charge was accentuated, and the fault ascribed to Ezra "the writer" ("al-warra?"), who in his restoration of the forgotten writings was said to have falsified them ("Z. D. M. G." xxxii. 370). Abraham ibn Daud ("Emunah Ramah," p. 79) combats this accusation. According to tradition, Ibn ?utaiba (d. 276 A.H. = 889 C.E.) was the first to bring together the Biblical passages supposed to refer to the sending of Mohammed. His enumeration of them has been preserved in a work by Ibn al-Jauzi (12th cent.), from which it has been published in the Arabic text by Brockelmann ("Beitr'ge f'r Semitische Wortforschung," iii. 46-55; comp. Stade's "Zeitschrift," 1894, pp. 138-142). These passages recur with more or less completeness in the works of all Moslem apologists and controversialists (comp. the enumeration of the Biblical names of the prophet and the Biblical verses relating to him in "Z. D. M. G." xxxii. 374-379), and are usually combined with similar New Testament prophecies supposed to refer to him (
?, confused with
?, is taken to mean Mohammed). Of the Biblical names supposed to allude to Mohammed, Jewish apologists have been compelled most often to refute the identification of with the name of the prophet of Islam.
With this portion of the polemic directed against the Bible is often connected an exposition of the contradictions and incongruities in the Biblical narrative. The first to enter this field was the Spaniard Abu Mohammed ibn ?azm, a contemporary of Samuel ha-Nagid, with whom he was personally acquainted (see Bibliography below). He was the first important systematizer of this literature; and his attacks upon Judaism and its Scriptures are discussed by Solomon ben Adret in his "Ma'amar 'al Yishmael" (Schreiner, in "Z. D. M. G." xlviii. 39).
Restriction of Recognition of Islam.
One of the earliest points of controversy was the contention of the Jews that, although Mohammed was to be regarded as a national prophet, his mission was to the Arabs only or in general to peoples who had had as yet no revealed Scriptures ("ummiyin"; Kobak's "Jeschurun," ix. 24). In opposition to this, Mohammedan theologians and controversialists declared that Mohammed's divine mission was universal, hence intended for the Jews also. Abu 'Isa Obadiah al-I?fahani, founder of the 'Isawites (middle of the 8th cent.), admitted that Mohammedanism as well as Christianity was entitled to recognize its founder as a prophet, whose mission was intended for "its people"; he thus recognized the relative truth of Islam in so far as its followers were concerned (?ir?isani, ed. Harkavy, - 11).
The turning-point in this controversy was the question of abrogation of the divine laws, inasmuch as a general acceptance of Islam presupposed the abolition of the earlier divine revelations. Otherwise the abolition of the Sabbath law (see "Kaufmann Gedenkbuch," p. 100), of the dietary laws, and of other Biblical precepts and regulations given by God would lose all claim to validity. Consequently the Mohammedans, while maintaining the authority of the ancient prophets, had to demonstrate the provisional and temporary nature of such of the earlier divine laws abrogated by Mohammed as they did not claim to be out-and-out inventions. So much the more vigorously, therefore, did the Jewish dogmatists (Saadia, "Emunot we-De'ot," book iii.; Abraham ibn Daud, "Emunah Ramah," pp. 75 et seq.) oppose from a philosophical standpoint this view, which attacked the essential principles of the Jewish religion.
The anti-Jewish controversialists of Islam assumed as an established fact that the Jews were required to hold an anthropomorphic, corporeal conception of God ("tajsim," "tashbih"). Judaism is even held responsible for the anthropomorphic conceptions found in other confessions (see "Kaufmann Gedenkbuch," p. 100, note 1). The Biblical passages brought forward as proof (among the earliest of them is Gen. i. 26-27) are counted with those which it is claimed were falsified by the Jews. Besides the Biblical passages, references from the Talmud in which extremely anthropomorphic statements are made concerning God ("God prays, mourns," etc.) are also brought forward to support these charges. The material for the last-named class of attacks was probably furnished by the Karaites, who are treated respectfully by the Mohammedan controversialists, are characterized as standing closer to Islam, and in general are exalted at the expense of the Rabbinites.
Ibn ?azm extends the attack against the Jews to the rabbinical amplifications of the laws, to the "bonds and chains" with which the Jews have, with unjustifiable arbitrariness on the part of the Rabbis, been bound. Since the time of the Jewish, apostate Samuel. b. Ya?ya, the polemic has taken the form of satire, directed most often against the minuti' of the precepts on slaughtering and on the order of procedure in connection with the "bedikat ha-re'ah." The same controversialist also began to criticize the text of certain prayers (which he cites in Hebrew) and to hold up the conduct of the Rabbis to ridicule. Later Islamic controversialists have copied extensively from this convert from Judaism.
Bibliography: M. Lidzbarski, De Propheticis, Qu' Dicuntur, Legendis Arabicis, Leipsic, 1893;
G. Weil, Biblische, Legenden der Muselm'nner, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1845;
V. Chauvin, La Recension Egyptienne des Mille et Une Nuits, in Biblioth'que de la Facult'de Philos. et Lettres de Li'ge, Brussels, 1899.
Dozy, Het Islamisme, Haarlem. 1863 (French transl. by Chauvin, entitled Essai sur l'Histoire de l'Islamisme, Paris, 1879);
A. von Kremer, Gesch. der Herrschenden Ideen des Islams, Leipsic, 1868;
idem, Culturgeschichtliche Streifz'ge auf dem Gebiete des Islams, ib. 1873;
idem, Culturgesch. des Orients Unter den Chalifen, Vienna, 1875-77;
Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, London, 1885;
Sell, The Faith of Islam, Madras, 1886;
I. Goldziher, Die 'hiriten, Ihr Lehrsystem und Ihre Gesch.:
Beitrag zur Gesch. der Muhammedanischen Theologie, Leipsic, 1884;
idem, Muhammedanische Studien, Halle, 1889-90;
C. Snouck Hurgronje, De Islam, in De Gids, 1886;
N'ldeke, Der Islam, in Orientalische Skizzen, pp. 63-110, Berlin, 1892;
Grimme, Mohammed, part ii., M'nster, 1894;
E. Moutet, La Propagande Chr'tienne et Ses Adversaires Musulmanes, Paris, 1890;
T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, London, 1896;
R'ling, Beitr'ge zur Eschatologie des Islams, Leipsic, 1895;
H. Preserved Smith, The Bible and Islam, or the Influence of the Old and New Testament on, the Religion of Mohammed (Ely Lectures), London, 1898;
Pautz, Muhammeds Lehre von der Offenbarung, Leipsic, 1898;
M. Steinschneider, Polemische und Apologetische Literatur in Arabischer Sprache Zwischen Muslimen, Christen, und Juden, in Abhandlungen f'r die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vi., No. 3, ib. 1877;
I. Goldziher, Ueber Muhammedanische Polemik Gegen Ahl al-Kitab, in Z. D. M. G. xxxii. 341-387;
M. Schreiner, Zur Gesch. der Polemik Zwischen Juden, und Muhammedanern, ib. xlii. 591-675.
Abdallah b. Isma'il al-Hashimi, a polemic against Christianityand its refutation by 'Abd al-Masi? b. Is?a? al-Kindi (commencement of 9th cent.), London. 1880;
comp. Al-Kindi: The Apology Written at the Court of Al-Mamun in Defense of Christianity Against Islam, with an, Essay on its Age and Authorship, London Soc. for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1887 (comp. Steinschneider in Z. D. M. G. xlix. 248, note 2);
Ibn ?utaiba (d. 276 A.H. = 889 C.E.), ed. Brockelmann;
Al-Mawardi (d. 450 = 1058). ed. Schreiner, in Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 502-513;
Ibn ?azm (d. 456 = 1064), Kitab al-Milal wal-Ni?al, Cairo, 1319 = 1901;
Samau'al b.Ya?ya al-Maghribi (Jewish apostate, wrote 1169), If?am al-Jahud (extracts therefrom revised and published by M. Schreiner in Monatsschrift, xlii. 123-133, 170-180, 214-223, 253-261, 407-418, 457-465);
Mohammed ibn ?ufr (a Sicilian; d. 565=1169), Khair al-Bishar bi-Khair al-Bashar, Cairo, 1280=1863;
A?mad b. Idris al-?imhaji al-?arafl (d. 684= 1285), Al-Ajwibat al-Fakhirah 'an al-As'ilat al-Fajirah, ib. 1320=1902;
Sa'id b. ?asan of Alexandria (Jewish apostate; wrote 720=1320), Masalik al-Na?ar (excerpts published by I. Goldziher in R. E. J. xxx. 1-23);
Mohammed ibn ?ayyim al-Jauziya (d. 751=1351), Irshad al-?ajara min al-Yahud wal-Na?ara, Cairo, 1320=1902 (for different title see Steinschneider, l.c. p. 108, No. 87);
Abdallah al-Tarjumani (Christian apostate, wrote 823=1420), Tu?fat al-Arib fi al-Radd 'Ala Ahl-al-?alib, Cairo, 1895 (transl. by Jean Spiro in Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, xii. 68-89, 179-201, 278-301, under the title Le Pr'sent de l'Homme Lettr' pour Refuter les Partisans de la Croix;
Turkish transl. by Mohammed Dhini, Constantinople, 1291=1874);
Abu al-Fa?l al-Maliki al-Su'udi (wrote 942=1535), Disputatio pro Religione Mohammedanorum Adversus Christianos, ed. F. T. van den Ham, Leyden, 1890;
Sayyid 'Ali Mohammed (a Shiite), Zad ?alil (Indian lithograph, 1290=1873; the Biblical references are inserted in the Arabic text with Hebraic letters and Arabic transcription);
Proof of the Prophet Mohamet from the Bible, No. 23 of the publications of the Mohammedan Tract and Book Depot, Lahore, is wholly modern;
Al-Kanz al-Maurud fi-ma Ba?iya 'Alaina min Na?s Shari'at al-Yahud (a Druse polemic against the Pentateuch;
extracts from it have been published by I. Goldziher in Geiger's J'd. Zeit. xi. 68-79);
I. Goldziher, Proben Muhammedanischer Polemik Gegen den Talmud: i. (Ibn Ha?m) in Kobak's Jeschurun, viii. 76-104;
ii. (Ibn. ?ayyim al-Jawziya), ib. ix. 18-47 (Arabic text with German transl.)'an especial anti-Talmudic polemic.K. I. G.
Read more:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=289&letter=I#ixzz0TMjZbgMZ