Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mimetic Theory and Islam pp 47–63Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Becoming of a Model: Conflictive Relations and the Shaping of the Quranic Ibrāhīm

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 139 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter explores the shaping and reshaping of the figure of Abraham within the so-called Abrahamic religious traditions. The author urges caution in appealing to Abraham as a common ancestor or integrative figure; she looks instead to the conflictive potential of ‘Abraham who becomes Ibrāhim’. Drawing on the studies of Neuwirth and Sinai, the author shows the significance of Ibrāhım as the foundation of a spiritual bonding which replaces older tribal affiliations in the Arabian peninsula. Three aspects of conflict are identified: polytheism versus monotheism, father versus son and Muslim versus Jewish community. Abraham is less the father of nations, more a model of faith to be imitated. Further blind spots of the tradition are identified, such as the absence of women in the Quranic narrative. Nevertheless, Ibrāhım can still be a focal point for interreligious dialogue, provided the ambivalence and conflictive potential of Abraham and his ‘promise’ are acknowledged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As will be shown, I actually reject this term. By doing so, I follow Ulrich Bechmann (2007, pp. 110–126).

  2. 2.

    ‘Die Autorität der - hier freilich noch ungenannten Schrift - entmachtet die paganen, von den Vätern überkommenen Ideale’ (Neuwirth 2010, p. 213).

  3. 3.

    A. T. Khoury 2000, p. 57. Khoury points to Ibn ῾Abbās who explains that Ibrāhīm pretends to suffer from an illness caused by the stars in order to be left alone with the idols and destroy them.

  4. 4.

    The salvation of the prophet in danger is a central theme in the Quran. God cares for those who believe and punishes those who fight the believers.

  5. 5.

    For details on Midrashic parallels, see Speyer (2013). Sinai (2009) and Neuwirth (2010) each refer to Speyer.

  6. 6.

    Neuwirth explains that during the middle Meccan period, the term dhurriya appears. According to Neuwirth, the root dharra/dhurra means ‘seed’ or ‘grain’ [Samenkorn] and sounds like the Hebrew zera῾. The term is used in the biblical stories about the patriarchs, including Abraham. Thus she concludes that the Quran uses dhurriya as a biblical substitute for the pagan tribal nasab system with its focus on sons and fathers. I consider this argument to be highly speculative. See Neuwirth (2010, p. 215).

  7. 7.

    Sinai (2009, pp. 119–120) points to the close interaction of Q 51 and Q 37. Q 37:101 (nearly) literally repeats Q 51:28 and thus calls into memory the first annunciation of a son, the laughing of the wife and so on. According to Sinai, the annunciation in Q 51 is the actual focus of the Quranic stories about Ibrāhīm.

  8. 8.

    For the discussion in early Islamic history, see particularly R. Firestone (1989), pp. 95–132.

  9. 9.

    The consent of the son is part of the Midrash as well. Both father and son submit; thus the reward will be greater. See A. Neuwirth (2010, p. 636). See also Q 2:124.

  10. 10.

    Another interesting trace would be Muhammad’s family background. According to tradition, Muhammad’s grandfather ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib b. Hāšim intends to sacrifice his son (Muhammad’s father) ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib. See al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir, as discussed by Firestone (1990, pp. 142 ff) and Sherwood (2004, pp. 821–861).

  11. 11.

    Although the Islamic tradition dates the sacrifice after the foundation of the Kaaba, Sinai favours a different chronology for the Quran and dates Q 2:124f after Q 37:102ff. Thus, the Kaaba is a reward for the test of faith Ibrāhīm has passed. See Sinai (2009, p. 137, fn. 26). Furthermore, it has to be noted that following Paret, Ibrāhīm is not necessarily the subject of Q 2:124. It could also be God. See Paret (1986, pp. 28ff).

  12. 12.

    Neuwirth observes no direct biblical roots of the episode but points to parallels in late antiquity which are rewritten in Q 2. See Neuwirth (2014, pp. 220–223).

  13. 13.

    According to Witztum (2009), the legitimisation works through a re-enactment of late antique Vitae Abrahami; he points to parallels between the rabbinic tradition, Syriac and Greek homilies and the Quran and the Islamic tradition. As Abraham and Isaac founded the altar on Mount Moriah, Father and Son founded the altar on Golgotha. Similarly, Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl now found the Kaaba.

  14. 14.

    See Bechmann (2007, pp. 121–122). For J. Assmann, see i.a. J. Assmann (1999).

  15. 15.

    For example, when Q 37:112–113 are discovered to be later additions which draw a line between righteous and evil descendants. According to Reuven Firestone, this shift in the Islamic exegetic tradition is not accidental: ‘God’s covenant would exist only with the genealogical (Judaism) or spiritual (Christianity) decendants [sic!] of Isaac. To the older and established monotheistic creeds, Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs and of the greatest prophet of Islam, remained the symbol of the rejected covenant. The ambiguous story of the Sacrifice in the Quran became an excellent basis for the claim that God’s true covenantal relationship would obtain neither with the biological nor the spiritual descendants of Isaac. The Quran would be understood to prove that Ishmael was the true hero of the Sacrifice. By demonstrating his willingness to obey God’s ultimate command of personal annihilation, Ishmael would reflect the true character of the Arab Muslims, whom God had chosen because of their excellent virtues’ (Firestone 1989, p. 131).

  16. 16.

    There are obviously parallels between the Quranic move from genealogical to spiritual succession and comparable thoughts in the New Testament. Paul in particular emphasises that those who believe are the heirs of Abraham (see Gal 3. 6–18). Family conflicts resulting from different religious conflicts are another parallel; for example, Mk 13.12 warns that children and parents will surrender each other to death.

  17. 17.

    ‘O Allah, send grace and honour on Muhammad and on the family and true followers of Muhammad, just as you sent Grace and Honour on Ibrāhīm and on the family and true followers of Ibrāhīm. Surely, you are praiseworthy, the Great. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family and true followers of Muhammad, just as you blessed Ibrāhīm and the family and true followers of Ibrāhīm. Surely, you are praiseworthy, the Great.’

  18. 18.

    Thus one could say the conflict about the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif/Mount Moriah is an inherited conflict of antagonistic interpretations. On early Islamic Jerusalem, see i.a. Busse (1991), Grabar (1996) and M. Rosen-Ayalon (1989).

  19. 19.

    See Q 22:26–27. Q 22:26ff is considered to be an addition to Q 2:125 and offers prescriptions for the pilgrimage to Mecca. See Sinai (2009, p. 144). On the connection between Abraham and Mecca, see particularly Firestone (1992, pp. 5–24).

  20. 20.

    For an introduction to Jewish, Christian and Muslim interpretations of the two women and their children, see particularly P. Trible (ed.) 2006. A comparative perspective is given by Bakhos, The Family of Abraham.

  21. 21.

    Q 19: 22–26 talks about Maryam being saved by God from death in the desert. These verses resemble the biblical account of Hagar/Hājar in the desert.

  22. 22.

    Leemhuis 2010, p. 508. For interpretations of Hagar and Sara in rabbinic and patristic exegesis, see I. Pabst (2003).

  23. 23.

    For Muslim interpretations of Hagar and Sara, see, for example, Hassan (2006, pp. 149–167). An analysis of Muslim Hagar from a Christian perspective is offered by T. Michel (2005, pp. 99–104). On the development of the connection between Mecca and Abraham, see Firestone (1992).

  24. 24.

    See Gal 4.21–31 and the numerous exegetical discussions. Compare also the architectonic illustrations of this rivalry, the depictions of the free church (Sara) and the unfree and blind synagogue (Hagar) during the Middle Ages. For Sara and Hagar in the arts, see A. Rosen (2013).

  25. 25.

    Girard , in contrast, focuses on the Abrahamic revolution as the end of human sacrifice. See i.a. Palaver (2009, pp. 29–73).

  26. 26.

    H.-B. Gerl-Falkovitz 2008, p. 125. Gerl-Falkovitz bases her argument on Brague and keeps it quite short and simple: JHWH is not Allah and Abraham is not Ibrāhīm.

  27. 27.

    See especially Brague 2007, pp. 103–104.

  28. 28.

    Brague 2007, 111–113.

  29. 29.

    Brague 2013, p. 110. It is no accident that these considerations of reason as the basis for dialogue are part of a Festschrift for Benedict XVI and reflect his Regensburg speech.

  30. 30.

    See Bechmann (2007), especially pp. 124–125.

  31. 31.

    Of particular interest would be the ways in which Abraham/Ibrāhīm (and the sons) have been and are used for (violently) drawing differences and (blindly) initiating dialogue. See the critique in Levenson 2012, Chapter 6. Levenson is particularly sceptical about B. S. Feiler (2005) and K.-J. Kuschel (1995). Feiler, a popular American author, is considered to be too simplistic when declaring Abraham to be a universal figure, belonging to all humanity. Levenson argues that Kuschel’s approach is more careful but still too blind to the essential differences between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Abraham/Ibrāhīm.

References

  • Asad, Talal. 1997. Genealogies of Religion. Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assmann. January, 1999. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhos, Carol. 2014. The Family of Abraham. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, Ulrich. 2007. Abraham und Ibrahim. Die Grenzen des Abraham-Paradigmas im interreligiösen Dialog. MThZ 58: 110–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brague, Rémi. 2007. Schluss mit den “drei Monotheismen”! Communio 36: 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Der Kosmos der Vernunft und sein Schöpfer. Anmerkungen zur Regensburger Rede. In Der Theologenpapst. Eine kritische Würdigung Benedikts XVI, ed. Jan-Heiner Tück, 97–112. Freiburg im Br., Wien: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, Heribert. 1991. Zur Geschichte und Deutung der frühislamischen Harambauten in Jerusalem. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina, Vereins 107: 144–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiler, Bruce S. 2005. Abraham. A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, Reuven. 1989. Abraham’s Son as the Intended Sacrifice. Issues in Quran’ic Exegesis. Journal of Semitic Studies 34: 95–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Journeys in Holy Lands. The Evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Abraham’s Journey to Mecca in Islamic Exegesis. A Form-Critical Study of a Tradition. Studia Islamica 76: 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerl-Falkovitz, Hanna-Barbera. 2008. Nicolaus Cusanus, De Pace Fidei (1454). In Westliche Moderne, Christentum und Islam. Gewalt als Anfrage an monotheistische Religionen, ed. Wolfgang Palaver, Roman Siebenrock, and Dieter Regensburger, 107–126. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabar, Oleg. 1996. The Shape of the Holy. Early Islamic Jerusalem. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, Riffat. 2006. Islamic Hagar and Her Family. In Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives, ed. Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russell, 149–167. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoury, Adel Theodor. 2000. Der Koran. Bd. 11: Sure 37,1–182 - Sure 57,1–29. Gütersloher: Verlahhaus Gerd Mohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuschel, Karl-Josef. 1995. Abraham: Sign of Hope for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Keine Religion ist eine Insel: Vordenker des interreligiösen Dialogs. Kevelaer: Verlagsgemeinschaft topos plus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leemhuis, Fred. 2010. Hajar in the Qur’an and Its Early Commentaries. In Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, 503–508. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, Jon D. 2012. Inheriting Abraham. The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, T. 2005. Hagar: Mother of Faith in the Compassionate God. Islam & Christian-Muslim Relations 16: 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuwirth, Angelika. 2010. Der Koran als Text der Spätantike. Ein europäischer Zugang. Berlin: Insel Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Eine “religiöse Mutation der Spätantike”: von tribaler Genealogie zum Gottesbund. Koranische Refigurationen pagan-arabischer Ideale nach biblischen Modellen. In Genealogie und Migrationsmythen im antiken Mittelmeerraum und auf der arabischen Halbinsel, ed. Almut-Barbara Renger and Isabel Toral-Niehoff, 203–230. Berlin: Excellence Cluster Topoi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pabst, Irene. 2003. The Interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar-stories in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature. Sarah and Hagar as Female Representations of Identity and Difference. Lectio Difficilior 4: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palaver, Wolfgang. 2008. Im Zeichen des Opfers. Die apokalyptische Verschärfung der Weltlage als Folge des Monotheismus. In Westliche Moderne, Christentum und Islam. Gewalt als Anfrage an monotheistische Religionen, ed. W. Palaver, R. Siebenrock, and D. Regensburger, 151–176. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Abrahamitische Revolution, politische Gewalt und positive Mimesis. Der Islam aus der Sicht der mimetischen Theorie. In Im Wettstreit um das Gute. Annäherung an den Islam aus der Sicht der mimetischen Theorie, ed. W. Guggenberger and W. Palaver, 29–73. Wien: LitVerlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paret, Rudi. 1986. Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Aaron. 2013. Changing the Family Portrait. Hagar and Sarah in Art and Interfaith Dialogue. Religion Compass 7: 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam. 1989. The Early Islamic Monuments of al-Haram al-Sharif. An Iconographic Study. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Jonathan. 2015. Not in God’s Name. Confronting Religious Violence. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, Yvonne. 2004. Binding-Unbinding. Divided Responses of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to the “Sacrifice” of Abraham’s Beloved Son. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 72: 821–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinai, Nicolai. 2009. Fortschreibung und Auslegung. Studien zur frühen Koraninterpretation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speyer, Heinrich. 2013 [1931]. Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran. Hildesheim: Georg Olms AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroumsa, Guy A. 2011. Das Ende des Opferkults. Die religiösen Mutationen der Spätantike. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witztum, Joseph. 2009. The Foundations of the House (Q 2: 127). BSO 72: 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Michaela Quast-Neulinger

Authors
  1. Michaela Quast-Neulinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Quast-Neulinger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Loyola Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Michael Kirwan

  2. School of Advanced Study, University of London, London, UK

    Ahmad Achtar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Quast-Neulinger, M. (2019). The Becoming of a Model: Conflictive Relations and the Shaping of the Quranic Ibrāhīm. In: Kirwan, M., Achtar, A. (eds) Mimetic Theory and Islam. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05695-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation