Skip to content

The Seal of the Prophets and the Finality of Prophecy. On the Interpretation of the Qurʾānic Sūrat al-Aḥzāb (33)

Pages 65 - 96



This article begins by reconsidering Q 33:40 which opens with the declaration that Muḥammad “is not the father of any of your men”. It will be argued that this does not mean that Muḥammad is sonless, as is usually assumed by modern scholars, but rather that he is free to marry the divorced wife of Zayd b. Ḥāritha, his adopted son. The assertion that Muḥammad is “the seal of the prophets”, which appears in the second half of the same verse, is designed to demonstrate that Muḥammad brings the successive chain of prophetic revelations to its final manifestation. This notion implies that Muḥammad enjoys God's protection like any other prophet before him, especially Moses whose contemporaries criticized him for having married a black woman. They were punished for their criticism, and so will be those who doubted the lawfulness of Muḥammad's own marriage with Zayd's divorcee. As for the specific significance of the qurʾānic seal metaphor, this article goes on to show that it denotes confirmation as well as finality of prophecy. This means that the finality of prophecy is a qurʾānic idea, not a post-qurʾānic one, as maintained by some modern scholars. A reconsideration of the texts on which these scholars rely (including biblical and post-biblical ones) will show that these texts do not bear out their opinion.


1 This article was prepared with the support of the Irene Halmos Chair for Arabic Literature, at Tel Aviv University. My thanks are due to the anonymous readers who commented on previous versions of this study. I should also like to thank David Powers for sharing his ideas with me through an e-mail correspondence, back in 2008.

2 David S. Powers: Muḥammad is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of the Last Prophet. Philadelphia 2009.

3 It appears 4th among the Medinan sūras listed by ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī (d. 135/753). For his list see Muḥammad b. Ayyūb b. al-Ḍurays: Faḍā ʾil al-Qurʾān. Ed. Ghazwat Budayr. Damascus 1987, pp. 33–34. The list recurs in later sources. See N. Robinson: Discovering the Qurʾān: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text. Washington 22003, pp. 69–70.

4 Powers 2009, p. 51.

5 E. g. E. Landau-Tasseron: “Adoption, Acknowledgement of Paternity and False Genealogical Claims in Arabian and Islamic Societies.” In: BSOAS 66 (2003), p. 169: “[Q 33:40 states] that the Prophet had no male offspring”.

6 Powers 2009, pp. 68, 149. See also idem: “Adoption.” In: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān.

7 Powers 2009, p. 70.

8 Powers 2009, p. 70, observes that “had this verse been revealed to Muḥammad, it might have begun as follows: ‘O, Muḥammad, you are not the father of any of their men.’” However, the Qurʾān contains several other instances in which God addresses a larger audience, with indirect reference to the qurʾānic prophet (e. g. Q 3:144; 24:63; 49:2; 53:2, etc.).

9 Powers 2009, pp. 65–66.

10 See e. g. G. S. Reynolds: The Qurʾān and its Biblical Subtext. London / New York 2010, pp. 208–214.

11 Cf. Powers 2009, p. 63; H. Motzki: “Marriage and divorce.” In: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān.

12 See further, Powers 2009, p. 64.

13 W. Madelung: The Succession to Muḥammad: a Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge 1997, pp. 14–15. For a different perception cf. Powers 2009, p. 65.

14 Powers 2009, pp. 63–64.

15 See on him Landau-Tasseron 2003, p. 169; M. Lecker: “Zayd b. Ḥāritha.” In: EI2.

16 On the significance of Q 33:4, see further Landau-Tasseron 2003, pp. 185–186.

17 On the affair of Zayd's wife, see further H. Bobzin: “‘The Seal of the Prophets’: Towards an Understanding of Muḥammad's Prophethood.” In: A. Neuwirth / N. Sinai / M. Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the qurʾānic Milieu. Leiden 2010, pp. 576–577.

18 Bobzin (2010, pp. 577–578) suggests that the passage about Zayd, as well as Q 33:40, refer to the Jews of Medina in particular.

19 On the qurʾānic usage of sunna cf. U. Rubin: Between Bible and Qurʾān: the Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image. Princeton N. J. 1999, pp. 168–169.

20 See R. Paret: Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz. Stuttgart 1971, p. 401 (with reference to Geiger and Speyer).

21 Powers (2009, pp. 48–49) observes that according to Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Q 33:38 alludes to the affair of David and Bath-Sheba. But again, it is better to follow the internal context of Sūrat al-Aḥzāb which leads to Moses. On more general aspects of Moses as a paradigm, see Bobzin 2010, pp. 579–581.

22 Cf. Bobzin 2010, p. 575.

23 See Q 2:101; 3:81. The Qurʾān, too, is muṣaddiq, i. e. confirms the monotheistic message delivered in previous scriptures: Q 2:41, 89, 91, 97; 3:3; 4:47; 5:48; 6:92; 35:31; 46:12, 30.

24 Jesus: Q 3:50; 5:46; 61:6. John: Q 3:39.

25 A. A. Ambros: A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic. Wiesbaden 2004, p. 83.

26 In Q 83:26 we hear of a “sealed” (makhtūm) drink offered to the righteous in paradise, whose seal (here: khitām instead of khātam) is musk. Perhaps this imagery pertains to the aftertaste of the beverage.

27 A. Jeffery: The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an. Baroda 1938, p. 121.

28 Y. Friedmann: “Finality of Prophethood in Sunnī Islam.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), pp. 177–215. See also idem: Prophecy Continuous: Aspects of Aḥmadī Religious Thought and its Medieval Background. Berkeley 1989, pp. 49–93.

29 Friedmann 1986, p. 183.

30 Madelung 1997, p. 17, with note 34.

31 Bobzin 2010, p. 565.

32 Powers 2009, pp. 54, 151, 226.

33 G. Hawting: Review of Powers 2009. In: Islamic Law and Society 18 (2011), p. 118.

34 Ibn Saʿd: Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt. Beirut 1960, I, p. 134; Muḥammad b. Mukarram b. Manẓūr: Mukhtaṣar Taʾrīkh Dimashq li-Ibn ʿAsākir. Damascus 1984–1988, II, p. 290; Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar Ibn Kathīr: al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya. Beirut 1974, V, p. 304. Cf. Powers 2009, p. 56.

35 See Powers 2009, p. 9; M. J. Kister: “The Sons of Khadīja.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 16 (1993), pp. 70–73.

36 Cf. Powers 2009, p. 56.

37 Friedmann 1986, pp. 187–188; idem 1989, pp. 59–60. Cf. Powers 2009, pp. 56–57

38 Friedmann 1986, p. 190.

39 It is reported that Muḥammad allotted to her an estate he possessed in the formerly Jewish territory of the Banū l-Naḍīr. See Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, II, p. 290; Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 303.

40 Abū l-Qāsim ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibatullāh b. ʿAsākir: Taʾrīkh madīnat Dimashq. Ed. ʿUmar b. Gharāma l-ʿAmrawī. Beirut 1415/1995–1421/2000, III, pp. 144–145; Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, pp. 310–311 (from Ibn ʿAsākir).

41 There are other reports about a eunuch named Mābūr who came from Egypt together with Māriya as part of the gift from the Patriarch of Alexandria. See Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, II, p. 264; Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 303. See also C. Cannuyer: “Māriya, la concubine copte de Muḥammad, réalité ou mythe?” In: Acta Orientalia Belgica 21 (2008), p. 253.

42 Sulaymān b. Aḥmad al-Ṭabarānī: al-Muʿjam al-awsaṭ. Ed. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān. Riyad 1985–95, IV, p. 415 (no. 3699); Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī: Majmaʿ al-zawāʾid wamanbaʿ al-fawāʾid. Repr. Beirut 1987, IX, p. 164.

43 Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī: Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa. Ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Qalʿajī. Beirut 1988, I, pp. 163–64; Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba. Ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī. Cairo 1970, I, pp. 172–173; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdallāh al-Suhaylī: al-Rawḍ al-unuf. Ed. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Saʿd. Cairo 1971, I, p. 216; Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 304.

44 See Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 135; al-Ḥākim Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh al-Naysābūrī: al-Mustadrak ʿalā l- Ṣaḥīḥayn. Hyderabad 1342–1923, II, p. 604; Abū Saʿd ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī ʿUthmān al-Khargūshī: Sharaf al-muṣṭafā. Ed. Nabīl al-Ghamrī. Mecca 2003, II, pp. 51–52 (no. 254).

45 Yūnus b. Bukayr; Kitāb al-siyar wa-l-maghāzī li-Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. Ed. Suhayl Zakkār. Damascus 1978, p. 271. See also Abū Nuʿaym Aḥmad b. ʿAbdallāh al-Iṣbahānī: Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyāʾ. Cairo 1938, repr. Beirut 1967, III, pp. 177–178; Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 304. See also Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, II, p. 291. Another similar version is traced back to Anas b. Mālik. See Yūsuf b. ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbd al-Barr: al-Istīʿāb fī maʿrifat al-aṣḥāb. Ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī. Cairo 1960, IV, p. 1912.

46 Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 304 (from al-Wāqidī).

47 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 137 (from al-Wāqidī). See also Ibn Kathīr 1974, V, p. 304. For more traditions about Ibrāhīm's resemblance to Muḥammad, see Ibn Ḥajar 1970, I, pp. 174–175.

48 Haythamī 1987, IX, pp. 164–165. In yet another version, Māriya is the one who brings the dead child to Muḥammad. See Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad al-ʿAjlūnī: Khashf al-khafāʾ wa-mazīl al-ilbās. Beirut 1351/1932, II, p. 156.

49 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 139; Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, II, p. 266.

50 This seems to be suggested by L. Halevy: Muḥammad's Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society. New York 2007, p. 134.

51 On sonlessness as a calamity, see Halevy 2007, p. 134; Powers 2009, p. 64.

52 Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī: al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Beirut n. d., VIII, p. 54 = Adab [78], Bāb man sammā bi-asmāʾi l-nabiyy [108].

53 See references in Friedmann 1986, pp. 188–189.

54 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, pp. 135, 136; Ibn Bukayr 1978, p. 271; Ibn Ḥajar 1970, I, p. 175.

55 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 140; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal: al-Musnad. Beirut 1978, III, 133, pp. 280–281.

56 The same is stated about Idrīs in Q 19:56.

57 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 140.

58 Ibn Māja, Muḥammad b. Yazīd: al-Sunan. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Cairo 1952, I, p. 484 (no. 1511) = Janāʾiz [6], al-Ṣalāt ʿalā ibn rasūli llāhi [27]. Quoted in Friedmann 1986, p. 188. See also Ibn Bukayr 1978, p. 270.

59 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 144; Abū Nuʿaym Aḥmad b. ʿAbdallāh al-Iṣbahānī: Maʿrifat al-ṣaḥāba. Ed. Muḥammad Rāḍī b. Ḥājj ʿUthmān. Medina—Riyad 1988, II, p. 142 (no. 708). See also Cannuyer 2008, p. 254.

60 Ibn Saʿd 1960, I, p. 140.

61 Abū l-Layth Naṣr b. Muḥammad al-Samarqandī: Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Ed. ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ, ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-Mawjūd, and Zakariyyā al-Nawtī. Beirut 1993, III, p. 53. Cf. Friedmann 1986, p. 189; idem 1989, p. 61.

62 Abū Isḥāq Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Thaʿlabī: al-Kashf wa-l-bayān ʿan tafsīr āy al-Qurʾān. Ed. Abū Muḥammad b. ʿĀshūr, and Naẓīr al-Sāʿidī. Beirut 2002, VIII, p. 5; ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī: al-Wasīṭ fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-majīd. Ed. ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd et al. Beirut 1994, III, p. 474; Abū l-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Jawzī: Zād al-masīr fī ʿilm al-tafsīr. Beirut 1984, VI, p. 393.

63 See Friedmann 1986, pp. 191–192.

64 Muqātil b. Sulaymān: Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Ed. ʿAbdallāh Maḥmūd Shiḥāta. Cairo 1979, XIII, pp. 498–499. On Muqātil's comments, cf. Powers 2009, pp. 54–55.

65 Powers (2009, p. 54) prefers to understand Muqātil's statement in the sense that “had Zayd continued to be Muḥammad's son”, he would be a prophet [italics mine]. Such reading is designed to sustain Powers' theory concerning the theological background to Muḥammad's sonlessness, but it does not seem to reflect the plain Arabic sense of Muqātil's text. The verb kāna seems to be used here in its standard sense (“was”). For the sense of “continued to be”, the Arabic would usually require the use of mā zāla.

66 ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hishām: Al-Sīra l-nabawiyya. Ed. Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī, and ʿAbd al-Ḥāfiẓ Shalabī. Beirut 1971, I, p. 265. See also Sulaymān b. Aḥmad al-Ṭabarānī: al-Muʿjam al-kabīr. Ed. Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī. Baghdad 1980–1985, V, pp. 83–84 (no. 4651).

67 See Ambros 2004, p. 33.

68 For the traditions revolving around the term abtar see Kister 1993, pp. 85–92.

69 Kister 1993, p. 91.

70 Kister 1993, p. 79.

71 E. g. al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr: Jāmiʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Cairo 1323/1905, repr. Beirut 1972, XXI, p. 77 (on Q 33:6).

72 E. g. al-Suhaylī 1971, II, p. 145.

73 Powers 2009, pp. 66–67.

74 Powers (2009, pp. 65–66) argues that according to a tradition recorded in Ṭabarī's tafsīr, the reading with the words wa-huwa abun lahum was “the first reading”. But the term al-qirāʾatu l-ūlā does not refer to the status of the written Qurʾān. It alludes to one of two oral “proof-readings” of the Qurʾān which Gabriel is said to have carried out with Muḥammad during the last year of the prophet's life. In each of the previous years, there was only one proof-reading. The traditions about these proof-readings are designed to indicate that Muḥammad was involved in person in establishing the final textual structure of the Qurʾān. For these final two oral proof-readings and the discussion of their supposed relationship to the written pre-ʿUthmānic and ʿUthmānic Qurʾān codices, see Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: Fatḥ al-bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Cairo 1310/1892, repr. Beirut n. d., IX, pp. 40–41 (on Bukhārī: Ṣaḥīḥ, Faḍāʾil al-Q urʾān [66], Bāb kāna Jibrīl yaʿriḍu l-Qurʾān [7]). More importantly, the statement that a given reading is the “first reading” is a common device designed to lend some authority to an un-canonical variant, usually with additional words. A typical example of this device is provided in the case of Q 49:4: “Those who call out to you from behind the private chambers, most of them do not understand.” According to a tradition related by Yazīd b. Rūmān (Medinan d. 130/747), this verse was originally revealed with the additional words: “of the people of Tamīm”. These words appeared after the clause: “those who call out to you from behind the private chambers”. Yazīd states that “this is the first reading” (wa-hiya l-qirāʾatu l-ūlā). See Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī: Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk. Ed. Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Repr. Cairo 1987, III, p. 120 [ed. Brill: I, p. 1717]. Of course, no one will take this anti-Tamīmī “first reading” as indicating that the name of Tamīm appeared in the supposedly first version of the written Qurʾān.

75 Friedmann 1986, pp. 186–187.

76 These deductions are stated explicitly in Ibn Ḥajar n. d., VII, p. 60 (on Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Faḍāʾil aṣḥāb al-nabiyy [62], Bāb manāqibʿAlī [9]).

77 Bukhārī n. d., V, p. 24 = Faḍāʾil aṣḥāb al-nabiyy [62], Bāb manāqib ʿAlī [9].

78 E.g. Ibid.: VI, p. 3 = Maghāzī [64], Ghazwat Tabūk [78].

79 Ibn Hishām 1971, IV, p. 163. See also ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Hammām al-Ṣanʿānī: Al-Muṣannaf. Ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī. Beirut 1970, V, pp. 405–406 (no. 9745).

80 Ṭabarī 1987, IV, p. 340 (ed. Brill: I, p. 2942); Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, XII, p. 219.

81 On the problematic historicity of the reports about Ibn Sabaʾ, especially those of Sayf b. ʿUmar, cf. Madelung 1997, pp. 1–2.

82 Ibn Ḥajar n. d., VIII, p. 114 (from Ibn al-Jawzī).

83 Haythamī 1987, IX, p. 149.

84 Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, XI, p. 332.

85 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī: Jumal min ansāb al-ashrāf. Ed. Suhayl Zakkār and Riyāḍ Ziriklī. Beirut 1996, I, p. 451.

86 See ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī: al-Tafsīr. Beirut 1991, II, p. 169; Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī: al-Tabyān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Ed. Aḥmad al-ʿĀmilī. Beirut n. d., VIII, p. 346; al-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭabrisī: Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Beirut 1957, XXI, pp. 148–149.

87 Ṭabarānī 1980–1985, III, pp. 57–58 (no. 2675); Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, XVII, p. 340.

88 Ṭabarī 1987, VII, pp. 219–220 (ed. Brill: II, p. 1757). For previous studies of the letter see P. Crone / M. Hinds: God's Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam. Cambridge 1986, pp. 26–28, 118–119; U. Rubin: “Prophets and Caliphs: the Biblical Foundations of the Umayyad Authority.” In: H. Berg (ed.): Method and Theology in the Study of Islamic origins. Leiden 2003, pp. 88–90.

89 Ṭabarī 1987, VII, p. 219 (Brill: II, p. 1757).

90 Ibid.: VII, p. 220 (Brill: II, pp. 1757–1758).

91 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal 1978, V, p. 404. See also Abū Nuʿaym 1967, I, p. 275. See more versions in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal 1978, IV, p. 273; Bayhaqī 1988, VI, p. 491. Cf. Ṭabarānī 1980–1985, I, p. 157, no. 368.

92 G. G. Stroumsa: “Seal of the Prophets: the Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), pp. 61–74.

93 Stroumsa 1986, pp. 69–70. On the Manichaean context of the seal metaphor see also C. Colpe: Das Siegel der Propheten. Berlin 1990, pp. 227–243.

94 Powers 2009, p. 52.

95 Jeffery 1938, pp. 120–121; Ambros 2004, p. 84.

96 A. Jeffery: The Qurʾān as Scripture. New York 1952, p. 78.

97 Stroumsa 1986, p. 64.

98 Powers 2009, p. 272, note 58.

99 Colpe 1990, pp. 28–34, 235–37; Powers 2009, p. 272, note 59.

100 G.D. Dunn: Tertullian. London 2004, p. 83 [Adversus Judaeos, VIII, pp. 12–14]. Tertullian is quoted in E. E. Urbach: “Matay pasqah ha-nebuʾah? [When did prophethood cease?].” In: Tarbiz 17 (1946), p. 10.

101 R. W. Thomson: Athanasius. Oxford 1971, pp. 231–233 [De Incarnatione, 40]. Athanasius is quoted already in Urbach 1946, p. 10.

102 E. g. Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. ad 215). See Urbach 1946, p. 10.

103 Bobzin 2010, p. 566.

104 J. Neusner: Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran. Leiden 1971, p. 95 [19:11].

105 Friedmann 1986, p. 192; idem 1989, p. 63.

106 ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Shayba,: al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār. Ed. ʿAbd al-Khāliq al-Afghānī. Bombay 1979–1983, IX, pp. 109–110 (no. 6704).

107 Friedmann 1986, p. 192; idem 1989, p. 63.

108 Powers 2009, p. 53. This perception of the tradition of ʿĀʾisha is shared by Bobzin 2010, p. 565.

109 Ibn Abī Shayba 1979–1983, IX, p. 110 (no. 6705). The tradition is quoted from Ibn Abī Shayba in Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī: al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr bi-l-mathūr. Cairo 1869, repr. Beirut n. d., V, p. 204. Cf. Bobzin 2010, pp. 565–566.

110 See e. g. the traditions assembled in Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī: Nuzūl ʿIsā b. Maryam ākhira l-zamān. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭāʾ. Beirut 1985.

111 E. g. Bukhārī n. d., IV, pp. 204–205 = Aḥādīth al-anbiyāʾ [60], Bāb nuzūl ʿĪsā [49].

112 ʿAbdallāh b. Muslim b. Qutayba: Taʾwīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth. Ed. Muḥammad Zuhrī al-Najjār. Beirut 1972, pp. 187–189. On Ibn Qutayba's explanation, cf. Friedmann 1986, pp. 192–193. Friedmann seems to assume that the reconciliation between ʿĀʾisha's statement and the second coming of Jesus is Ibn Qutayba's own idea. But al-Mughīra's version indicates that this is not the case.

113 Ṭabarī 1987, IV, p. 340 (ed. Brill: I, p. 2942); Ibn Manẓūr 1984–1988, XII, p. 219.

114 ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Māwardī: al-Nukat wa-l-ʿuyūn fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Ed. ʿAbd al-Maqṣūd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. Beirut 1992, IV, p. 409.

115 Jārullāh Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī: Al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqā ʾiq al-tanzīl. Cairo 1977, III, pp. 264–265. Cf. Colpe 1990, pp. 242–243.

116 Abū l-Faḍl Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ālūsī: Rūḥ al-maʿānī. Repr. Beirut n. d., XXII, p. 34.

117 Umayya b. Abī l-Ṣalt: Dīwān. Ed. Sajīʿ Jamīl al-Jubaylī. Beirut 1998, p. 112, line 20.

118 Friedmann 1986, p. 184.

119 On the “false prophets” after Muḥammad see Friedmann 1986, pp. 193–199; Powers 2009, pp. 53–54.


Export Citation