Ebook Qur Anic Stories God Revelation and The Audience 1St Edition Leyla Ozgur Alhassen Online PDF All Chapter

Qur anic Stories God Revelation and
the Audience 1st Edition Leyla Ozgur

Alhassen
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/qur-anic-stories-god-revelation-and-the-audience-1st-
edition-leyla-ozgur-alhassen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Experience of God A Phenomenology of Revelation 1st

Edition Robyn Horner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-experience-of-god-a-
phenomenology-of-revelation-1st-edition-robyn-horner/
Mosques Leyla Uluhanli
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mosques-leyla-uluhanli/
No Truth Without Beauty God the Qur an and Women s

Rights Sustainable Development Goals Series El-Ali
https://ebookmeta.com/product/no-truth-without-beauty-god-the-
qur-an-and-women-s-rights-sustainable-development-goals-series-
el-ali/
A Ryan Revelation New York Ruthless short stories 7

1st Edition Sadie Kincaid
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-ryan-revelation-new-york-
ruthless-short-stories-7-1st-edition-sadie-kincaid/
Domestic and Regional Uncertainties in the New Turkey
1st Edition Ozgur Tufekci
https://ebookmeta.com/product/domestic-and-regional-
uncertainties-in-the-new-turkey-1st-edition-ozgur-tufekci/
Revealing Revelation How God s Plans for the Future Can

Change Your Life Now Amir Tsarfati Dr Rick Yohn
https://ebookmeta.com/product/revealing-revelation-how-god-s-
plans-for-the-future-can-change-your-life-now-amir-tsarfati-dr-
rick-yohn/
The God Conversation Using Stories and Illustrations to

Explain Your Faith J P Moreland Tim Muehlhoff
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-god-conversation-using-stories-
and-illustrations-to-explain-your-faith-j-p-moreland-tim-
muehlhoff/
Creating the Qur an Stephen J. Shoemaker
https://ebookmeta.com/product/creating-the-qur-an-stephen-j-
shoemaker/
Your Story Well Told Creative Strategies to Develop and

Perform Stories that Wow an Audience How To Sell
Yourself 5th Edition Corey Rosen
https://ebookmeta.com/product/your-story-well-told-creative-
strategies-to-develop-and-perform-stories-that-wow-an-audience-
how-to-sell-yourself-5th-edition-corey-rosen/
-
Qur’aˉ nic Stories
Edinburgh Studies in Classical Arabic Literature
Series Editors: Wen-chin Ouyang and Julia Bray
Tis series departs from conventional writing on Classical Arabic Literature.

It integrates into its terms of enquiry both cultural and literary theory and
the historical contexts and conceptual categories that shaped individual
writers or works of literature. Its approach provides a forum for path-
breaking research which has yet to exert an impact on the scholarship.
Te purpose of the series is to open up new vistas on an intellectual and
imaginative tradition that has repeatedly contributed to world cultures and
has the continued capacity to stimulate new thinking.
Books in the series include:

Qur’ānic Stories: God, Revelation and the Audience
Leyla Ozgur Alhassen
Te Reader in al-Jāhiz: Te Epistolary Rhetoric of an Arabic Prose Master
Tomas Hefter
Recognition in the Arabic Narrative Tradition: Discovery, Deliverance
and Delusion
Philip F. Kennedy
Counsel for Kings: Wisdom and Politics in Tenth-Century Iran
Volume I: Te Na‚īªat al-mulūk of Pseudo Māwardī: Contexts and Temes
Louise Marlow
Counsel for Kings: Wisdom and Politics in Tenth-Century Iran
Volume II: Te Na‚īªat al-mulūk of Pseudo Māwardī: Texts, Sources and
Authorities
Louise Marlow
Al-Jāhiz, the Quibbler: Equivocations in Kitab al-Óayawan and Beyond
Jeannie Miller
Al-JāªiÕ: In Praise of Books
James E. Montgomery
Al-JāªiÕ: In Censure of Books
James E. Montgomery
Óikāyat Abī al-Qāsim: A Literary Banquet
Emily Selove
edinburghuniversitypress.com/series/escal
Qur’ānic Stories
God, Revelation and the Audience
Leyla Ozgur Alhassen

Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish
academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social
sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to
produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website:
edinburghuniversitypress.com
© Leyla Ozgur Alhassen, 2021
Edinburgh University Press Ltd

Te Tun– Holyrood Road
12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry
Edinburgh EH8 8PJ
Typeset in 11/15 Adobe Garamond by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire,
and printed and bound in Great Britain
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978 1 4744 8317 9 (hardback)

ISBN 978 1 4744 8320 9 (webready PDF)
ISBN 978 1 4744 8319 3 (epub)
Te right of Leyla Ozgur Alhassen to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright and
Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498).
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vi

Acknowledgements vii
1 Introduction: A Narratological and Rhetorical Approach to

Qur’ānic Stories 1
2 Knowledge, Control and Consonance in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62 14
3 God, Families and Secrets in the Story of Sūrat Maryam 19:1–58 40
4 Evidence, Judgment and Remorse in Sūrat Yūsuf 75
5 Merging Words and Making Connections in Sūrat ˝aha 100
6 Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚ and its Audience 128
7 Conclusion: Reading the Qur’ān as God’s Narrative 156
Bibliography 160
Index 171
Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1 Qur’ānic narrative discourse and story 5
Table 3.1 Various models of the structure of 19:1–58 46

Table 3.2 Verse endings in Sūrat Maryam 47
Table 3.3 Structure in Sūrat Maryam 19:1–58 48
Table 3.4 Signs become more signs 69
Table 5.1 Semantic connections between diferent parts of the Sura 120
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the series editors Wen-chin Ouyang and Julia Bray, as well
as the reviewers of this book, whose feedback has drastically improved it.
Tey, along with Nicola Ramsey, Emma Rees and Kirsty Woods, made this a
smooth and transparent editing and publishing process. Many thanks to the
Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley,
as well as to Asad Ahmed, Robert Alter, Charles Hirschkind, Margaret Larkin
and the late Saba Mahmood for our discussions on my research. I began my
journey of studying Arabic literature at the University of California, Los
Angeles, with Michael Cooperson, who helped me develop and refne my
thoughts for this book with his knowledgeable, detailed and insightful guid-
ance. Immense gratitude goes to him and the rest of my dissertation commit-
tee members for their support in this process: Carol Bakhos, Lowell Gallagher
and Nouri Gana. Tanks are also due to Kecia Ali, Sarra Tlili, Asad Ahmed
and Michael Cooperson for sharing publishing and professional advice. Te
completion of this book was partially funded by a National Endowment
for the Humanities Summer Stipend. I am also grateful to have received a
Sultan Fellowship from the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University
of California, Berkeley. Many thanks to Arielle Tonkin for expanding my
mind by exploring beauty and justice together. It is a blessing to have such
an enlightening and encouraging friend. I am grateful to the artist, Salma
Arastu, for sharing her artwork depicting Qur’ānic verse 20:46 for the cover
of this book. I have been repeatedly struck by the generosity with the gifts
of time and thought that my colleagues and friends have given me by read-
ing and commenting on drafts of this book, and in conversations about my
research.
I thank my parents, Necva and Mehmet Ozgur, for their support and
viii | qur’āni c s to r ie s
love. Tey have been my number-one supporters and were always eager to
hear about and discuss my research. My husband, Fares Alhassen, helped me
manage my time and encouraged me to fnish this book. My appreciation
and love go to my entire family. I hope that my children will one day read
this book and beneft from it.
I dedicate this book to my parents, my children and to my dear friend,
Angeles Flores, who taught me that love, learning and knowledge can all be
intricately connected.
1
Introduction: A Narratological and
Rhetorical Approach to Qur’ānic Stories
I n Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān we read about a woman dedicating the child in her womb
to God (3:35). Here, a story begins with a dialogue, but the readers are not
told that this is a woman to whom they should pay close attention, nor that
the woman is pregnant, nor even her name. Instead, the readers overhear her
prayer to God and from her prayer can infer certain things. With this story,
the audience realises their lack of knowledge and that they know things only
if and when the narrator chooses to relate them.
In response to such reading experiences, this book adopts a literary
approach to the Qur’ān1 and analyses the structure, rhetorical devices, nar-
ratological features, semantic devices, themes and audience reception as
evidenced in scholarly exegesis (tafsīr). For example, Chapter 3 on Surat
Maryam employs a structural analysis, looking at verse length and echoing
phrases in order to demonstrate how the structure changes from a focus on
family relationships to a relationship with God. Tis approach centres on
the relationship between narrator and audience, and how the text aims for a
response from its audience. One may notice, for example, in Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚
a selective presenting and withholding of information in which readers are
given new and exclusive information about Mūsā’s marriage, balanced by
incomplete descriptions of a contract that he enters and, later, the location of
his conversation with God. Tis is a narrative technique that keeps listeners
and readers of the Qur’ān in the dark and makes them wonder about certain
things; the narrator makes it very clear that what we know about this story
is what God tells us. Here, it is useful to look at the reception of Qur’ānic
stories in the context of Qur’ānic commentary: commentators try to supply
the missing details about which the text makes one curious– such as the
exact number of the years that Mūsā agrees to work for his father-in-law and
2 | qur’āni c sto r ie s
the reasons why readers are told that it may be eight or ten years, but not the
exact number.
Tis study examines the interaction of the text with the audience. First
and foremost, it is important to mention that the Qur’ān is a text that is
not only read, but also heard and recited. When I refer to the audience of
the Qur’ān as the audience or readers, this may be considered a shorthand
term that also includes the reciters and listeners of the Qur’ān. Who exactly
is this audience? It is not a reader approaching the text from a historical
standpoint– such a reader would probably look to other sources to draw
comparisons and to ask questions about the text diferent from the present
concerns. Neither is it a hostile or polemical reader– such a reader might
dismiss narrative techniques when feeling challenged by them. Rather, it is an
analytical believer who also has a sense of literary or artistic appreciation– a
believer who can read a text knowing that it has resonated (and continues
to do so) with millions of people who belong to the same community of the
faithful, who will wonder and try to understand what the text does and how
it works to achieve such results. Te commentators whose works I analyse as
examples of readers encountering the text hail from both modern and classi-
cal tafsīr traditions. Tey provide multiple loci for looking at the Qur’ān as
a dialogue between God– t he ultimate narrator in and of the Qur’ān– a nd
the audience.
It is worth taking a moment to consider the Qur’ānic references to God
as refected in the present study. In the Qur’ān, God or Allah is referred to in
the third person masculine singular huwa and the frst person plural naªnu
(which is usually explained as refecting God’s majesty). At the same time,
Allah is not considered to be gendered in Islamic theology. Accordingly, I
refer to God as God or He, and I have reduced my use of the pronoun in
order to keep gendered reference to a minimum.
Te Qur’ān itself describes its audience (for example, 2:2 and 2:26) and
addresses them by using the second person singular and plural.2 Te second
person singular sometimes specifcally addresses the Prophet Muªammad
(see, for example, 5:41, 5:67, 8:64, 8:65, 8:70, 9:73, 33:1, 33:28, 33:45,
33:50, 33:59, 60:12, 65:1, 66:1, 66:9, 73:1 and 74:1). Tere are also second
person singular addresses that do not specifcally mention the Prophet. We see
this, for instance, with the word ‘qul,’ ‘say’, that initiates some verses (112:1,
i ntroducti on | 3
113:1, 114:1 and more). Commentators and translators tend to interpret this
‘you’ as a direct address to the Prophet Muªammad; yet, it can also be fruit-
fully analysed as a direct address to the reader.3 Te Qur’ān uses the plural to
address all people (2:21, 2:168, 2:172, 2:178 and many more), other beings
(55:31), specifc faiths (4:47), those who believe (2:104, 2:153, 4:19, 4:29,
4:43 and many more), those who disbelieve (66:7) and messengers (23:51).
In this work I juxtapose scholarship from diferent socio-historical con-
texts in order to explore the performative dimensions of the Qur’ānic narra-
tive. While many scholars of the Qur’ān focus on its historical dimensions
– its development, its canonisation and the history of its interpretation– a nd
while some assert that it cannot be studied as literature since it uses a limited
number of narrative strategies, I approach the Qur’ān as a dynamic literary,
religious and performative text. Accordingly, the following pages will discuss
the text in reference to theories from Qur’ānic Studies, structuralism, rhetoric
and narratology.4 Narrative is an integral feature of the Qur’ān, and a nar-
ratological and rhetorical approach can contribute new insights to our under-
standing of the canonised text and how it utilises stories to further theological
messages. It is hoped that this book will complement already existing histori-
cal and comparative studies5 by ofering a text-focused narrative analysis.
Key narrative features of Qur’ānic stories will be discussed: how char-
acters and dialogues are portrayed, what themes are repeated, what verbal
echoes and conceptual links are present, what structure is established and
what theological beliefs are strengthened by these narrative choices. Some
otherwise puzzling narrative features can be seen as instances in which God,
as the narrator, centres Himself while putting the audience in their place,
thus rendering the act of reading an interaction between God and the readers.
My analysis is structured around the concept of tawªīd, or the oneness of
God, as presented in the Qur’ān.6 Te Qur’ān is a theocentric text, and nar-
rative choices are made to achieve the strongest possible theocentric impact.
Hence, God is central in the content and style of Qur’ānic stories; narrative
choices serve to highlight God, God’s omnipotence and God’s omniscience.
We can look at the Qur’ān as a union of the temporal with the eternal.7
For instance, Michael Sells writes about boundary moments in the Qur’ān
and investigates how ‘the structures of language (with temporality built into
them) are transformed through contact with a realm beyond temporality’.8
While Sells focuses only on specifc boundary moments, reading the entire
Qur’ānic text as the meeting or joining of the eternal with the temporal pre-
sents a useful approach.
Here, I am interested in ‘the impact, intended or actual, of a text on
its audience or recipients’.9 Rather than making claims about the Qur’ān’s
intentions, I extract and elaborate upon narrative choices that have a logic
of their own and refect the theological message that over the centuries has
found resonance amongst listeners, readers and interpreters, in order to
come to a better understanding of ‘the power that the text has exerted on
generations of Muslims’.10 Given its nature as a performance text, in the
present context the Qur’ān is to be considered as an event, a performance, a
relationship and an act of revelation. Te Qur’ān is an interaction between
the speaker who establishes God’s ethos and the audience.11 In a manner
most relevant to this context, Ulrika Martensson explains Aristotelian rhe-
torical concepts thus: ‘In classical rhetoric, a speaker has three means to
persuade the audience: His own moral character (ethos), the emotional
state of the listener (pathos), and the argument (logos).’12 Jane Dammen
McAulife writes that the relationship between reader and Qur’ānic text is
a dynamic one: ‘Te reader/hearer is changed through the event and brings
that transformed consciousness back to the text in an ever-adjusting series
of reciprocally transformative exchanges’.13 Te reading process, then, is an
active one: ‘Te rhetorical afectivity of the Qur’ān challenges any notion of
receptive passivity, any sense that hearing or reading it can be a matter of the
mere conveyance of meaning’.14
Wayne Booth also provides relevant ways to think about the relationship
between the Qur’ānic narrator, text and audience. One may think about
the way in which readers feel about talented narrators: We may ‘surrender
ourselves to the great authors and allow our judgment to merge completely
with theirs’.15 Tere can also be a ‘growing intimacy between the narrator and
the reader’.16 Regarding the relationship that the text develops between reader
and narrator, one may moreover add the sense of awe that the Qur’ānic
reader feels for the omniscient narrator. Booth writes that narrators ‘succeed
by persuading the reader to accept them as living oracles. Tey are reliable
guides not only to the world of the novels in which they appear but also to the
moral truths of the world outside the book’.17 Tis notion works beautifully
i ntroducti on | 5
as an image of God appropriate for the Qur’ān, a book that presents itself as
a source of Truth.
We can fnd many layers of narration in Qur’ānic stories. Drawing on
Seymour Chatman’s presentation of Gerald Prince’s frame transmission, as
well as Gerard Genette’s distinction between stories and narrative discourse,
one may then peel back these layers of narrative discourse, of which there
exist three: Within the frst layer, God as narrator addresses the audience.
In the second layer, God the narrator addresses the Prophet Muªammad.
Within the second layer is embedded a third layer, featuring God as a char-
acter interacting with other characters. Te model of layers (Figure 1.1) is
particularly useful when analysing Qur’ānic stories, as it helps to maintain a
clear perspective about the various interactions between God, the characters
Qur’anic and
Narrative Discourse
the audience. 18 and Story
Narrative
Discourse
God (as narrator)
to audience
Narrative
Discourse
God (as narrator)
to Prophet
Muḥammad (p)
Story:
God (as a
character)
to characters
Figure 1.1 Qur’ānic narrative discourse and story
Furthermore, it is possible to discern auto-intertextual patterns in which

an image, a word or a phrase connects one Qur’ānic story to another. In the
context of Qur’ānic Studies, my work is inspired by Anthony H. Johns,19
M. A. S. Abdel Haleem20 and, more particularly, Toshihiko Izutsu who
investigates the ways in which semantic echoes based on root letters connect
verses in and across suras, and how these connections develop meaning.21 I
am equally indebted to Biblical Studies, and especially the works of Robert
Alter, which demonstrate how to analyse stories within their larger contexts,
as well as in terms of their connections to other stories.22 Alter examines
semantic echoes based on root letters and discusses repetition in themes, both
of which constitute elements of the present study.23 In Qur’ānic commentary
(tafsīr), this type of intertextual approach can be found under the term tafsīr
al-Qur’ān bi-l-Qur’ān.
Tis work centres around the dynamic relationship between God, the
Qur’ān, Qur’ānic commentary, the characters in Qur’ānic stories and the
audience, as exemplifed by the living traditions of tafsīr around the world.
I use commentaries on and translations of the Qur’ān as examples of read-
ers’ understanding of the text. Tafsīr provides a context to see whether it
is merely my own perspective– resulting from everything that makes me
who I am, that makes me ask, understand and read in particular ways– or
whether other readers have seen the text in the same way. In other words, I
engage in conversation with tafsīr, in an approach to secondary sources that is
reminiscent of Khaled Abou El Fadl’s Conference of the Books.24 My goal here
is not to present a historical or comparative study, a literature review, history
or survey of tafsīr. Neither do I look at its historical progression, or at how
common or infuential an interpretation may be. Rather, I bring tafsīr into
the conversation because it is a record of how some audiences approached,
understood and read the text.
We will encounter the commentaries of al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), al-˝abarī
(d. 310/923), al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), al-˝abrisī (d. 548/1153),
al-Jalālayn (d. 863/1459 and 911/1505), al-Ta‘ālibī (d. 875/1471), Abū
al-Su‘ūd (d. 951/1544 CE), Sayyid Qu†b (d. 1387/1966) and Muªammad
al-Ghazālī (d. 1417/1996). I also refer to the comments of Muhammad Asad
(d. 1412/1992) in his translation of the Qur’ān, as he uses various com-
mentaries, including those of al-Baghawī ((d. 516/1122), al-Zamakhsharī
(d. 538/1144) and al-Rāzī (d. 605/1209). Tese nine commentators illus-
trate some of the many possible reactions to the stories, employing various
exegetical approaches and representing diferent time-periods. In addition,
tafsīr can lend insight into a variety of topics such as occasions of revelation, a
community’s commentaries on certain verses and linguistic issues concerning
those verses.
Given the great number of tafsīr, no attempt has been made to be com-
i ntroducti on | 7
prehensive, whether in terms of location, time-period, or exegetical position.

I use Qur’ānic commentary as a lens through which to see some of the many
ways in which Qur’ānic verses can be used, interpreted and disputed. While
some of these commentators count amongst the earliest (al-Tustarī), others
are modern (Sayyid Qu†b). Al-˝abarī uses interpretation through transmit-
ted material; al-˝abrisī presents a Shi‘i commentary; al-Tustarī ofers Suf
perspectives; and al-Zamakhsharī’s commentary focuses on the rhetorical
aspects of the Qur’ān. I analyse these commentators’ interactions with the
text, the questions that the text pushes them to ask and answer, and the evi-
dence that they provide or that they fail to provide, thus contributing to our
overall understanding of tafsīr. Te commentaries serve as examples of read-
ers’ responses to the text, an encapsulation of the interaction of the Qur’ān
with its readers and listeners; therefore, they can further our understanding
of Qur’ānic narrative workings. Tis approach to commentaries in itself con-
stitutes an argument that no one or no group of tafsīr is authoritative; rather,
it is a way of resisting authoritarian, simplistic or hegemonic approaches to
tafsīr and the Qur’ān. Te point is their variety, in a horizontal expanse, and
not their hierarchy.
Within this general framework, I examine stories that represent some of
the variety and depth of Qur’ānic narrative technique. Sūrat Yūsuf fgures
here because it is unlike many other Qur’ānic narratives in that it consists of
one isolated and lengthy iteration of the story of Yūsuf. Te sections from
Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Sūrat Maryam form a pair, showing several repeated
elements, as well as other elements that are not repeated. I chose Surat ˝ā
Hā because it is a lengthy telling of Mūsā’s story and because Mūsā’s stories
are the ones most frequently told in the Qur’ān. Tis is paired with Sūrat
al-Qa‚a‚ because, like the previous pair, these two suras show ways in which
the Qur’ān makes use of repetition. Alternatively, one may have compiled
and analysed the stories of characters in the Qur’ān, but such a choice would
have resulted in rewriting the stories. Mirroring this book’s structure around
the Qur’ānic stories’ structure is more conducive to understanding them as
they stand. In the end, the choice fell on stories that in diferent ways resisted
contemporary expectations of how stories should be told, on stories that
are told frequently and on stories that illustrate instances of repetition and
intratextuality. Although this is not a comparative study, it is worth noting
that the characters and stories from the Qur’ān under study here also appear
in the Bible and the Torah.
Troughout, I will discuss the overarching questions of how Qur’ānic
stories withhold knowledge, create consonance and forge connections, espe-
cially in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, Sūrat Maryam, Sūrat Yūsuf and Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚.
We will explore the ways in which the text withholds from the audience
information concerning signs and secrets, non-narrative verses, evidence,
judgment and remorse, as well as the ways in which it provides new myster-
ies. In Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, one may also notice the withholding of control. Tis
elucidates how the Qur’ān uses stories and narration to demonstrate and
instil in its readers a belief in God’s omniscience and omnipotence. God
knows all and shows this to the audience by withholding certain things from
them.
Although the narrator asserts God’s power and control through narrative
technique, we also see what I call the ‘creation of consonance’ in Sūrat Āl
‘Imrān, Sūrat ˝aha and Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚. Te creation of consonance presents
a useful concept to discuss the Qur’ānic narrative strategy to build a relation-
ship between various elements of the text: God, revelation and the audience.
Te word ‘creating’ is intended to bring to mind the Creator, who is the
Qur’ānic narrator and author. Tis usage in and of itself argues that the
Qur’ān’s style goes hand in hand with the beliefs about God that it empha-
sises. Its narrative choices work to further beliefs about God and people’s
relationships with God.
Te last overarching question concerns the ways in which the Qur’ān
makes connections through semantic echoes (in Sūrat Maryam, Sūrat ˝aha
and Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚). I explore how the Qur’ān uses semantic echoes to estab-
lish structure and to make intratextual allusions. Tese allusions occur within
a story, between various parts of the same suras and with other suras. Te
semantic echoes connect verses throughout the Qur’ān in intricate webs; they
complicate themes and comment on stories. By using intratextual connec-
tions, the Qur’ān rewards the attentive audience member who reads and lis-
tens carefully, notices echoing words or phrases and then traces them to other
parts of the text, comparing them with each other and refecting on them.
Each chapter employs a diferent analytical approach and focuses on a
diferent theme. Tis will enable me to elucidate key features of specifc sto-
i ntroducti on | 9
ries, while also examining the breadth of the literary techniques in Qur’ānic
stories.
Knowledge, Control and Consonance in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62
Tis chapter focuses on the story of Maryam, Maryam’s mother, ‘Īsā and
Zakariyyā in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, 3:33–62. Tis Qur’ānic narrative puts the
readers– including Qur’ānic commentators– and characters in their place,
by emphasising God’s knowledge and control, as well as the readers’ and
characters’ defciency in both. Tis is achieved by cryptic explanations within
the story, such as Maryam’s words about provisions she has received, mostly
unexplained leaps across time and portrayals of dialogues that do not ft our
conceptions of historical reality. At the same time, the story comforts the
audience by developing a consonance between the readers and the characters,
and even the readers and God, while also including echoes that signal to the
audience that they can understand more of the story if they read more of it
in other passages within the Qur’ān. Based on these notions, this chapter will
explain some otherwise puzzling stylistic choices.
God, Families and Secrets in the Story of Sūrat Maryam 19:1–58
Te subsequent chapter concerns a story in Sūrat Maryam, 19:1–58, which

includes some of the same characters as the previous story, as well as an itera-
tion of the story in Āl ‘Imrān. I focus on the story’s structure, showing that,
although it begins with the themes of God and family, the latter becomes less
prominent and is eventually replaced by the theme of God and faith. Tus,
God the narrator not only makes Himself central to the family, but God
makes Himself replace the family. I then trace connections between this story
and the sura’s other parts that comment on it. At the same time, by contrast-
ing the characters’ secrets with God’s secrets, the narrator once again rein-
forces God’s privileged and omniscient position, while we further develop
our understanding of the reader’s place. In addition, I analyse examples from
the tafsīr that demonstrate how readers notice and respond to the narrative
portrayal of isolation and secrecy in the story.25
Evidence, Judgment and Remorse in Surat Yūsuf
Te chapter on the story of Yūsuf takes at hand this lengthy, detailed story
that features only one single iteration in the Qur’ān. I focus on the way in
which God centres Himself in that story, specifcally by showing through the
narrative style that all that matters is God’s forgiveness, truth and judgment;
human notions of evidence, guilt and remorse are insignifcant. By concen-
trating on these prominent themes, we further advance our understanding of
God the narrator in the Qur’ān. Also part of the discussion are the points at
which commentators struggle with these themes presented in the story; we
sometimes see commentators supplying details that are not in the Qur’ān and
thereby witness how the text has pushed them into a position of curiosity or
puzzlement.
Merging Words and Making Connections in Sūrat ˝aha
Sūrat ˝aha, which discusses Mūsā at length, constitutes the vantage point
for the next chapter. Here, I explore the ways in which the narrator shapes
the perceptions and norms of the readers through the narrative style, while
making them work. Tis approach is inspired by Wayne Booth’s scholarship
on diferent types of narrators and the narrator’s interaction with the reader.
I discuss examples of this interaction based on the following three categories:
God the narrator confrming His own words, God the narrator confrming
good people’s words and semantic connections. In this context, God appears
as an omniscient and reliable narrator who sometimes withholds information
from readers or makes them work hard by using subtle language. Tis chapter
also discusses several examples of how commentators fll in the gaps within
the Qur’ānic story.
Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚ and its Audience
In this chapter, I examine the story of Mūsā in Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚. Albeit another
lengthy iteration of Mūsā’s story, it includes details that do not fgure in Sūrat
˝aha. Tis discussion utilises an intratextual approach in order to gain insight
into how Qur’ānic verses can explain each other. Te Qur’ān is an oral and
a recited text and, therefore, any intratextual references are striking. Here, I
focus on the way in which the narrator provides new and sometimes exclusive
i ntroducti on | 11
details, while also presenting new mysteries. In addition, we see allusions

to other stories and verses in the Qur’ān. Trough these narrative devices,
the narrator sometimes makes the reader a privileged one (again, a concept
inspired by Booth); yet, these are balanced by mysteries meant to keep the
audience in their place. At the same time, the narrator rewards hard-working
and attentive readers who continue to engage with the text, who thus under-
stand more and consequently notice references to other stories within the
Qur’ān. Furthermore, I discuss commentators’ reactions to these mysteries.
In its entirety, this book aims to contribute to discussions on scrip-
ture, the Qur’ān as literature, Qur’ānic stories, Qur’ānic commentary and
Qur’ānic literary style, while also ofering an introduction to Qur’ānic narra-
tive and to some of the ways in which the Qur’ān interacts with its readers.
Qur’ānic stories present features that can deepen our understanding of Arabic
literature and of stories in general. Although the present research does not
directly address the questions of whether there exists narrative in the Qur’ān
or whether the Qur’ān features a coherent structure, it implies (and presents
evidence for) both.26 Discussing irony in Sūrat Yūsuf, Mustansir Mir– w ho
has played a critical role in the literary analysis of the Qur’ān– argues that
irony may also be found in other places in the Qur’ān and that readers may
not understand or misunderstand it,27 simply because they are not reading
the text from a literary perspective. Mir expands this point:
. . . it is doubtful whether the theology of the text can be fully compre-

hended in disregard of its literary dimension. In a wider sense, therefore,
[my work] may be taken as a plea for studying the Qur’ān as literature not
only for the sake of cultivating a largely ignored area of Qur’ānic studies,
but also for the sake of developing a better understanding of the content of
the Qur’ān.28
Hence, this study lends insight into the Qur’ānic message itself, by exam-
ining intersections of language, interpretation, ambiguity, power, control,
authority and knowledge through the lens of Qur’ānic stories. Troughout
the Qur’ānic text, God the narrator shows that He can do as He wills, in
regard to the characters, the readers as readers and the readers as actual people.
God chooses to reveal what He wills to whom He wills, in the manner that
He wills. Tus, both narrative style and content in the Qur’ān encourage
readers to believe in one omnipotent, omniscient God and to know their own
place in relation to God.
Notes
1. I have chosen to use the translation of the Qur’ān by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem
as a convenient vantage point for discussion. Where other translations are used,
this will be clearly indicated. Abdel Haleem, Te Qur’ān: English Translation and
Parallel Arabic Text.
2. For more on Qur’ānic addressees, see Hofmann, ‘Agnostic Poetics in the
Qur’ān’ 43–5.
3. See, for example, Ozgur Alhassen, ‘You Were Not Tere’; Saleh, Classical Tafsīr
Tradition 113; Yazicioglu, Understanding the Qur’ānic Miracle Stories 165
(in reference to Saleh, Classical Tafsīr Traditions 119); Morris 204. Similarly,
Anthony Johns mentions in Surat Yūsuf that, although Yūsuf begins by address-
ing his prison-mates in the dual form, ‘then using the plural, he turns to the
world outside the story’ (12:39–40). Johns, ‘Joseph in the Qur’ān’ 33.
4. For more on a literary approach to the Qur’ān, see Ernst 8–9, 11.
5. For examples, see Angelika Neuwirth, Michael Pregill and Gabriel Said
Reynolds. Teir research questions are of a historical nature, such as who the
Qur’ān’s audience was, how it changed and why. Moreover, they employ a
comparative methodology, looking at the Torah and various Biblical sources in
comparison to the Qur’ān.
6. Al-Ghazālī 333; Ben Abdeljelil 14.
7. See Kazmi 202; Neuwirth, ‘Qur’ān and History’ 16; Klar 7; Wahyudi 19; Laude
159.
8. Sells, ‘A Literary Approach to the Hymnic Sūras of the Qur’ān’ 4.
9. Zebiri 95–6, 104, 111. See also: Kermani, God Is Beautiful 69, 73.
10. Zebiri 115.
11. Ozgur Alhassen, ‘You Were Not Tere’ 69.
12. Martensson 381.
13. McAulife, ‘Text and Textuality’ 68.
14. McAulife, ‘Text and Textuality’ 70.
15. Booth 213.
16. Booth 216.
17. Booth 221.
18. Morris includes a model specifcally for Sūrat Yūsuf: ‘Frame NARRATOR;
Divine “WE”; ACTORS; INNER “ASIDES.” ’ Morris 205.
i ntroducti on | 13
19. For example: Johns, ‘Narrative, Intertext and Allusion in the Qur’anic
Presentation of Job’ 2, 22 and 23.
20. For example: Abdel Haleem, ‘Qur’anic “jihād” ’ 147, 156 and 163.
21. Izutsu, God and Man in the Qur’an and Te Structure of Ethical Terms in the
Quran.
22. Alter, ‘Sodom as Nexus’ 38.
23. Alter, Te Art of Biblical Narrative 95–6.
24. Abou El Fadl, Conference of the Books.
25. Parts of this chapter have been previously published in Ozgur Alhassen, ‘A
Structural Analysis of Sūrat Maryam Q. 19:1–58.’
26. For discussions on coherence in the Qur’ān, see Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān;
Cuypers, Te Banquet; Ernst; El-Awa, Textual Relations in the Qur’ān; and
Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an.
27. Mir, ‘Irony in the Qur’an’ 185.
28. Ibid.
2
Knowledge, Control and Consonance in
Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62
I. Introduction
S ūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62 contains a story in which God is portrayed as

saying ‘Be’ and it is. Maryam questions how she could possibly have a
child, and she is told: ‘ “Tis is how God creates what He will: when He has
ordained something, He only says, ‘Be’, and it is” ’ (3:47). Tere follows a
verse comparing the creation of ‘Īsā to the creation of Ādam: ‘In God’s eyes
Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to him, “Be”, and he
was’ (3:59). Tus, we see God creating as He wills, with God saying ‘Be’ and
it is, kun fa-yakūn. When examining the entire story in verses 3:33–62, one
fnds that the Qur’ānic narrative style serves to embody this image of God
the narrator as omnipotent and omniscient.1 Several stylistic choices that are
otherwise puzzling can be explained by this idea; thus, the style in this story
serves to put both the audience and the narrator/God in their place.
First, an overview of the verses in the sura is in order. Te sura begins
with disconnected letters, which are not to be recited as a word; their mean-
ing is unknown. Here, the letters are: ‘Alif Lam Mim’ (3:1).2 Ten the sura
mentions God’s revelation of the Qur’ān and previous books. A verse states
that ‘nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from God’ (3:5), which stands
in contrast to the discussion of the limited human knowledge that will follow.
Te readers are told that God ‘shapes you all in the womb as He pleases’
(3:6), which can be considered a comment on the story that is to come, of
Maryam’s mother being pregnant with her. Ten follows a verse that men-
tions clear and ambiguous verses in the Qur’ān, once again striking in a story
that itself harbours many ambiguities:
kno w l edg e, control a nd con s o na nce | 15
3:7 it is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet]. Some of its
verses are defnite in meaning– these are the cornerstone of the Scripture
– and others are ambiguous. Te perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambi-
guities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specifc meaning
of their own: only God knows the true meaning. Tose frmly grounded in
knowledge say, ‘We believe in it: it is all from our Lord’– o nly those with
real perception will take heed.
According to this verse, God, and possibly a few people, know the true mean-
ing of the Qur’ān. While Abdel Haleem’s translation says that ‘only God
knows the true meaning’, this could be taken to mean ‘only God and those
frmly grounded in knowledge know the true meaning’. Te idea of ambigu-
ity in the text plays a prominent role in this chapter. Connected to this, this
verse contains the idea of knowledge, which is relevant for the following
discussion. In particular, there are ‘those frmly grounded in knowledge’
(al-rāsikhūna fī-l-‘ilm) and ‘those with real perception’ (ūlū-l-albāb). It is
ambiguous whether these are the same or diferent people; if they are difer-
ent, perhaps this refects diferent levels or ways of knowing. Karen Bauer
explores diferent locations of knowledge and feeling in the words used in the
Qur’ān for the heart and mind—qalb, ‚adr, fu’ād and lubb.3 Perhaps these
diferent locations for knowledge can result in diferent types of knowledge.
Moreover, Carl Ernst writes about the gendered language in verse 3:6–7 and
how it seems to be refected in the story– prefaced with the word ‘wombs’,
al-arªām, in 3:6, then through the phrase ‘hunna umm al-kitāb’, which is
translated above as ‘these are the cornerstone of the Scripture’, but could
instead be translated as ‘these are the mother of the book’.4 While this gen-
dered language is an important topic, this chapter will focus on other themes
of the story and the sura.
In the next verse, faithful readers are told to pray for God’s constant
guidance (3:8). While there may be some ambiguities in the text, there is
no doubt about Judgment Day (3:9). Wealth and children are of no beneft
in the hereafter (3:10), although children will feature in the story to come.
Fir‘awn and his people are mentioned (3:11). We see contrasts between this
life and the next (3:12–15), and a description of those who believe (3:16–17).
Ten one reads that ‘God bears witness that there is no god but Him’, and
‘True Religion, in God’s eyes, is islam: [devotion to Him alone]’ (3:18–9).

People are told to have faith, told about faith and disbelief, and punishment
and reward (3:20–6). God causes night and day, which are like life and death
(3:27). God knows what we reveal or conceal (3:29), and everything that
people do is revealed (3:30)– this again seems to connect to narrative tech-
niques in the story to come. People should love God and follow the Prophet
(3:31–2).
Ten comes the story that serves as the focus of this chapter (3:33–62).
Te story is followed by verses on conficting claims by the people of the book
(3:63–77) and by the people who change the scripture (3:78). We read about
scripture and prophethood (3:79–83) and a list of prophets (3:84). Tere
are descriptions of disbelief, punishment, repentance, reward (3:85–92) and
inventing lies about God and scripture (3:93–4). Tere is mention of the
faith of Ibrāhīm and the Ka‘ba (3:95–7), people of the book (3:98–9 and
3:113–15), addresses to those who believe (3:100–12 and 3:118–43), those
who disbelieve (3:116–17) and verses that declare that prophets die (3:144–
5). Again, the readers are told that night and day are signs of God (3:190),
followed by a description and prayer of those who believe (3:191–4), as well
as God’s response to them (3:195). Tere are words about the reward for
those who do good (3:198), which includes people of the book, who ‘would
never sell God’s revelation for a small price’ (3:199), and a fnal command to
those who believe to be patient and to have resolve (3:200). Troughout the
sura one can fnd the idea of revelation and how people receive revelation:
through acceptance (belief), rejection (disbelief), interpretation, or manipu-
lation, which are then met with reward or punishment.
In this chapter, my focus is on one dimension of the idea of revelation
and its reception: the literary themes of knowledge, control and consonance,
as a means to look at the relationship that the narrator develops between God,
the audience and the text. Tese themes are prominent in this story and in the
sura, and they are useful for exploring the relationships between the narrator,
the readers and the text in the Qur’ān. Te frst section of this chapter will
concentrate on God’s withholding of knowledge, the second on God’s with-
holding of control and, fnally, the last on God’s creating consonance. All of
the parts of the story in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān work towards putting the readers and
even the characters in their place, by emphasising God’s knowledge and con-
trol, and the readers’ and characters’ defciency in either. At the same time,
the story comforts people by developing consonance between the reader and
the characters, and even between the reader and God, while also providing
echoes that signal to the audience that they can understand more of the story
if they read more of it in other places in the Qur’ān.
Here, I borrow the concept of performativity from discourse theory in
order to analyse Qur’ānic language. According to this concept, language
sometimes operates in such a way that, once something is said, it is made
true.5 For example, in a marriage ceremony, when an ofciate says, ‘I now
pronounce you husband and wife’, the couple indeed becomes husband and
wife. In this Qur’ānic story, there exists several examples of performative
language; as we will see, this perfectly illustrates Qur’ānic beliefs about God.
Chapter 2 will also present diferent layers of narration, as previously dis-
cussed in the Introduction. Seymour Chatman, Gerald Prince and Gerard
Genette ofer useful frameworks to discuss the three layers of narration in
Qur’ānic stories. Drawing from Genette, we will begin with narrative dis-
course to indicate the presentation of the story (the actions that are being
described).6 Within the frst layer of narrative discourse, God as narrator
addresses the audience. In another layer, God the narrator addresses the
Prophet Muªammad. Finally, within that layer, God as a character interacts
with other characters. Tis chapter will demonstrate how narrative discourse
is carried by dialogue, so that a character’s speech perfectly refects the direc-
tion that the story will take. Te theory of layered narration will help to trace
the themes of knowledge, control and consonance within the story.
II. Withholding Knowledge
Te theme of knowledge emerges in a number of ways. As discussed above,

the themes of knowledge and revelation appear before the story begins, in
the verse that mentions clear and ambiguous verses (3:7).7 In the story itself,
we see frst the reader’s defcient knowledge, then the characters’ defcient
knowledge and, fnally, the narrator’s supreme knowledge. Some of the
examples of the withholding of knowledge derive from ambiguities. Angelika
Neuwirth argues that the ambiguities of the story of Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān come
from Rabbinic infuences on this Medinan sura.8 However, ambiguity and
the withholding of knowledge also occur in Sūrat Maryam, Sūrat Yūsuf and
Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚, all Meccan suras. Indeed, the withholding of knowledge is

a part of Qur’ānic narrative technique that is used to instil in the audience
belief in God’s omniscience.
After a brief introduction, the narrator sets up the story in such a way that
the audience quickly realises their defcient knowledge. Te entire pericope is:
3:33 God chose Adam, Noah, Abraham’s family, and the family of Imran,
over all other people,
34 in one line of descent– God hears and knows all.
35 Imran’s wife said, ‘Lord, I have dedicated what is growing in my womb
entirely to You; so accept this from me. You are the One who hears and
knows all’,
36 but when she gave birth, she said, ‘My Lord! I have given birth to a
girl’– God knew best what she had given birth to: the male is not like the
female– ‘ I name her Mary and I commend her and her ofspring to Your
protection from the rejected Satan’.
37 Her Lord graciously accepted her and made her grow in goodness, and
entrusted her to the charge of Zachariah. Whenever Zachariah went in to
see her in her sanctuary, he found her supplied with provisions. He said,
‘Mary, how is it you have these provisions?’ and she said, ‘Tey are from
God: God provides limitlessly for whoever He will’.
38 Tere and then Zachariah prayed to his Lord, saying, ‘Lord, from Your
grace grant me virtuous ofspring: You hear every prayer’.
39 Te angels called out to him, while he stood praying in the sanctuary,
‘God gives you news of John, confrming a Word from God. He will be
noble and chaste, a prophet, one of the righteous’.
40 He said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when I am so old and my wife
is barren?’ [An angel] said, ‘It will be so: God does whatever He will’.
41 He said, ‘My Lord, give me a sign’. ‘Your sign’, [the angel] said, ‘is that
you will not communicate with anyone for three days, except by gestures.
Remember your Lord often; celebrate His glory in the evening and at dawn’.
42 Te angels said to Mary: ‘Mary, God has chosen you and made you
pure: He has truly chosen you above all women.
43 Mary, be devout to your Lord, prostrate yourself in worship, bow down
with those who pray’.
44 Tis is an account of things beyond your knowledge that We reveal to

you [Muhammad]: you were not present among them when they cast lots
to see which of them should take charge of Mary, you were not present with
them when they argued [about her].
45 Te angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose
name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour
in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God.
46 He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood. He will be
one of the righteous’.
47 She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched
me?’ [Te angel] said, ‘Tis is how God creates what He will: when He has
ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is.
48 He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel,
49 He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I have come
to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make the shape of a bird for you
out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God’s permission, it will become
a real bird; I will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to
life with God’s permission; I will tell you what you may eat and what you
may store up in your houses. Tere truly is a sign for you in this, if you are
believers.
50 I have come to confrm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and
to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden. I have come
to you with a sign from your Lord. Be mindful of God, obey me:
51 God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him– that is a straight path”.’
52 When Jesus realized they [still] did not believe, he said, ‘Who will help
me in God’s cause?’ Te disciples said, ‘We will be God’s helpers; we believe
in God– witness our devotion to Him.
53 Lord, we believe in what You have revealed and we follow the messen-
ger: record us among those who bear witness [to the Truth]’.
54 Te [disbelievers] schemed but God also schemed; God is the Best of
Schemers.
55 God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will
purify you of the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those
who follow you superior to those who disbelieved. Ten you will all return
to Me and I will judge between you regarding your diferences.
56 I will make the disbelievers sufer severely in this world and the next; no
one will help them’.
57 As for those who believe and do good deeds God will pay them their
reward in full but God does not love evildoers.
58 We relate to you [Muhammad] this revelation, a decisive statement.
59 In God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to
him, ‘Be’, and he was.
60 Tis is the truth from your Lord, so do not be one of those who doubt.
61 If anyone disputes this with you now that you have been given this
knowledge, say, ‘Come, let us gather our sons and your sons, our women
and your women, ourselves and yourselves, and let us pray earnestly and
invoke God’s rejection on those of us who are lying.
62 Tis is the truth of the matter: there is no god but God; God is the
Exalted, the Decider’.
With only a short introduction and no explanation of time or place, 3:35

begins a dialogue: ‘Imran’s wife said, “Lord, I have dedicated what is grow-
ing in my womb entirely to You; so accept this from me. You are the One
who hears and knows all”.’ Te audience jumps into the story, overhearing a
woman’s prayer to God. Te reader does not know who she is and learns that
she is pregnant only through her prayer. Here, God narrates the story and
simultaneously is present within the story. God is in two places and fulflling
two roles at the same time; God is omnipotent.9
Tis selection of verses also exemplifes the centrality of dialogue in the
Qur’ān– rather than explaining that something is the case, the text presents
it through dialogue– and, due to this device, the readers recognize their
defcient knowledge. Tis may be called the ‘primacy of dialogue’, a term
inspired by the scholarship of Robert Alter and Marilyn Robinson Waldman.
Waldman argues that what Alter calls a ‘preference for direct speech, particu-
larly dialogue’ very much applies to Qur’ānic stories.10 Te audience realises
their lack of knowledge and that they know things only if and when the nar-
rator chooses to relate them. Of course, the audience was not present when
this dialogue took place; therefore, the only way to know it is through the
Qur’ānic telling of it.
Just as the narrator withholds information from the reader by making
it known through inference in dialogue, the narrator also leaves unclear the
identity of the speaker; thus, the audience once again faces their defcient
knowledge. Maryam’s mother delivers the mentioned baby and fnds out
that the baby is a girl, not a boy. In verse 3:36 someone says, ‘the male is
not like the female’, but it is unclear whether the words are spoken by the
woman or by God (by the character, or the narrator, or both simultaneously).
Two modern scholars, Abboud and Khalafallāh, claim these are the mother’s
words.11 Tis verse is reminiscent of verse 3:7, where we are told of two cat-
egories of verses, but not which are which, and that God– and it is unclear
whether enlightened people are included here– k nows the true meanings of
the Qur’ān. If the speaker is the woman, she seems to point out that, while
she wanted her child to serve God, the child is a girl, and hence she is wor-
ried since girls are diferent from boys. In Qur’ānic commentary, there can
be found explanations that she specifcally wanted her child to serve God in
the temple, and that this was a role for men.12 If the words come from the
narrator, they would constitute an ironic statement, since God knows that
girls are diferent from boys; in this context, a girl is exactly what is needed to
fulfl God’s plan, since the girl is Maryam who will be the mother of ‘Īsā. (Te
readers still are not presented with any of this information, again exemplify-
ing the very controlled release of information to the reader.) Ironically, the
reader does not know who has spoken which words: We are ignorant about
the source of our ignorance. Regardless of who the speaker is, as the story
progresses, it becomes clear that the mother’s fears are unfounded, as her
child does indeed grow up in a place of worship. Tus, the narrator points
out the mother’s defcient knowledge and, simultaneously, the reader’s. Tere
is the same delayed release of information, highlighting the reader’s lack of
knowledge, with the words: ‘I name her Mary’ (3:36). Only then does the
mother make a point of mentioning the baby’s name, and the audience learns
who the child is.
In the next verse, the readers are told that Maryam was in the care of
Zakariyyā, but not why or what happened to her mother (3:37). Te read-
ers thus face their ignorance in another aspect of the story.13 Ten, with an
abrupt shift, ‘kullamā’, ‘whenever’, we are told about a particular detail of
Maryam’s upbringing (3:37). Whenever Zakariyyā came to see Maryam in
the temple, he would fnd her with provisions or food. Helen Blatherwick
writes that this ‘prefgures’ the dates that Maryam is told to eat when she is
in labour, in Sūrat Maryam.14 Tis is an elegant connection between diferent
Qur’ānic stories and diferent scenes in Maryam’s life. Also, as will be seen
below, Maryam is told that she will have a child in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Sūrat
Maryam, but the readers are told about the labour and the dates only in Sūrat
Maryam. Here, in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, Zakariyyā asks from whence the food is
coming and Maryam responds that it is from God (3:37).
Tis scene arouses readers’ curiosity, as is evident in tafsīr discussions
about the verse. While the Qur’ān itself does not seem to foreground plausible
explanations for the incident, some commentators do. Abū al-Su‘ūd explains
that Maryam is so young that she does not quite understand the question
and, therefore, is not surprised about the situation.15 Al-Zamakhsharī says
that she was as young as ‘Īsā when he spoke as a baby.16 Tafsīr texts on this
verse discuss what kinds of provisions she receives– what season’s fruits,
and even what kinds of fruits.17 Te commentators’ eforts to explain the
details of this verse show that their curiosity was piqued, but not satisfed.
Here, as elsewhere, the commentators are responding to the indeterminacy
of the text, which they treat as a mystery to explore. For other stories, tafsīr
works try to fll in details; their authors attempt to specify the age of people,
specifc locations and more. Clearly, the narrative inspires curiosity, and the
narrator exploits this curiosity to instil beliefs about God. One such belief is
to highlight the blessings of one who is close to God, by showing that what
is impossible for some becomes possible for Maryam because of God’s will.
Just as the story inspires the reader’s curiosity in the description
of Maryam’s provisions, it also inspires curiosity later in the story, when
Zakariyyā is surprised by news of the child for whom he had been praying
(3:40). Here we may wonder why Zakariyyā is portrayed as praying for some-
thing that he later is surprised to see fulflled. Much like this scene inspires
our curiosity, it also inspires commentators’ curiosity, as is evident from their
explanations of the verses. Abū al-Su‘ūd writes of an unsatisfactory explana-
tion given for Zakariyyā’s surprise: He had said the prayer sixty years before
he received the news and then forgotten about it.18 One may consider this an
unsatisfactory explanation because the narrator is depicting a miracle, and a
miracle would seem less remarkable if the person asking for it had forgotten
about it. Yet, it may also be that Zakariyyā is surprised because so much time
has passed; perhaps he had given up hope. Clearly, Abū al-Su‘ūd is unable to
come to terms with the scene, since he himself fnds this explanation unsat-
isfactory. Sayyid Qu†b explains Zakariyyā’s surprise as stemming from a ten-
dency to think of laws and of God’s actions as being restricted to those laws;
thus, he is surprised when something defes those laws.19 Elsewhere, Qu†b
explains that it is natural that Zakariyyā is surprised about the child. People
cannot defy reality, and so he desires to know how God does so.20 Tis still
does not explain why he would pray for something that defes the laws. Te
commentators’ impulse to fll in the blanks here quite strikingly demonstrates
that I am not the only reader whose curiosity is piqued by this scene.
In the context of the theme of knowledge within the story, Zakariyyā
is perhaps shown as willing to pray for something, even if logically he does
not understand how it could happen, in order to demonstrate that there
are diferent levels to knowledge and understanding. Here we can recall the
earlier discussion about knowledge revolving around verse 3:7, which men-
tions ‘those frmly grounded in knowledge’ (al-rāsikhūn fī-l-’ilm) and ‘those
with real perception’ (ūlū-l-albāb). We do not know who these people are,
whether these are diferent categories or levels of knowledge, and we may
wonder where Zakariyyā and his beliefs about his prayer would ft. Also, one
may recall Bauer’s work on diferent locations of knowledge and feeling in
the Qur’ān for the heart and mind– qalb, ‚adr, fu’ād and lubb.21 Zakariyyā
might believe that God can do anything, but still not understand how it
actually happens. Another perspective is that Zakariyyā does not know what
he is willing to believe.
As this story piques the curiosity of the audience with the intent to point
out their defcient knowledge, it also portrays characters giving unclear or
cryptic answers to questions, to the same efect. One cryptic phrase occurs
when Zakariyyā asks Maryam about her provisions and she responds that
God ‘provides limitlessly for whoever He will’, yarzuqu man yashā’ bi-ghayri
ªisāb (3:37). Tis may mean that the provisions are in an amount without
account, meaning that they are plentiful, or it may mean that the giving is
performed in a manner without account, implying that one does not know
when or how they appear. Te vagueness of the phrase exemplifes that yet
again we are not to understand everything, and somehow this is satisfying to
the characters here. When comparing the characters’ reactions to those of the
audience, there is variety in both: those who do not understand, those who
think they do, those who wait and see, and those who are satisfed with not
knowing.
Importantly, the phrasing in Maryam’s words is almost exactly the same
as an earlier verse in which a second-person addressee is told to say to God:
‘You provide limitlessly for whoever You will’, tarzuqu man tashā’ bi-ghayri
ªisāb (3:27). Maryam’s words echoing the earlier phrase show the strength of
her faith, and that she says exactly what God tells people to say. Here, then,
once again we see how much God has blessed her, which is what Maryam’s
mother had wanted. Maryam’s words submit to God’s words.
Another example of a cryptic answer to a clear question occurs after
Zakariyyā is told that he will have a child. He asks how this could happen,
and ‘[an angel] said, “It will be so: God does whatever He will” ’ (3:40).22 Te
translator, Abdel Haleem, inserts that ‘[an angel] said’, although the Arabic
merely says qāla, ‘he said’. It is thus unclear whether the speaker is God talk-
ing about Himself in the third person, or one of the angels who spoke previ-
ously. We do not know who the speaker is, and the speaker tells the character,
Zakariyyā and the reader simultaneously that God does what God wills. Tis
brief phrase reminds the readers of God’s place and of humankind’s place–
again, an explanation that is not an explanation. On one level, this provides
a satisfactory answer (God can give whatever He wants to whomever He
wants), but at the same time it is not (how exactly does God bestow these
things?).
Trough a variety of tactics, the audience is made aware of their igno-
rance; similarly, characters in the story are portrayed not knowing things.
After Maryam’s mother’s speech about giving birth to a girl and the speech
by an unknown speaker (3:36), the narrator explains: ‘Her Lord graciously
accepted her and made her grow in goodness’ (3:37). As if to allay the moth-
er’s fears and to show the audience that Maryam’s gender was part of God’s
plan, there is much positivity in this verse. It exudes goodness, with the root
ª-s-n repeated twice: God not only accepts the child, but God does so in a
good way (ªasanin), and God ‘made her grow in goodness’ (wa anbatahā
nabātan ªasanan). God has blessed Maryam and her child, just as her mother
had prayed. Tis shows that Maryam’s mother’s fears about having a girl were
unfounded. Just as the audience is deliberately left ignorant of important
facts, so too are the characters in the story mistaken in some of their assump-
tions and fears.
Later in the story, there exists even more evidence that Maryam’s moth-
er’s fears were unfounded. Te story describes a scene in which Maryam is
praised: ‘Te angels said to Mary: “Mary, God has chosen you and made
you pure: He has truly chosen you above all women” ’ (3:42). Te word for
chosen, ‘i‚†afāki’ is repeated twice and constitutes the same word used at the
beginning of the story (3:33), when introducing Maryam’s lineage. In 3:42,
Maryam is described as being chosen over the women of the world; in verse
3:33, her family is chosen over the worlds. Te echoes are loud and clear and
serve to bring the stories together, while showing that Maryam’s mother’s
fears were unfounded, and that God especially selected her child and her line-
age. Maryam is then told to ‘be devout’ (uqnutī) to her Lord, to bow and to
prostrate with those who prostrate (3:43). Once again, although her mother
– possibly– w as worried about being able to dedicate her to God since she is
a girl, the story illustrates that gender is not a problem. We repeatedly see that
Maryam’s mother’s expectations and fears were wrong; she was wrong about
what she thought she knew.
While characters are shown not knowing things, and while the audience
is also made aware that they do not know things, the narrator asserts what
God knows throughout the story. Twice the narrator shows God’s knowledge
of characters that have not yet been born. Zakariyyā is told of the child whose
birth he prayed for: ‘Te angels called out to him, while he stood praying
in the sanctuary: “God gives you news of John, confrming a Word from
God. He will be noble and chaste, a prophet, one of the righteous” ’ (3:39).
He is not told that he will have a child and name him Yaªyā; rather, he is
told the name and characteristics of the child that is yet to be born. Te
unborn Yaªyā is a fully feshed character already: His identity is solid, and
he already is what he is supposed to become. Sayyid Qu†b seems to be struck
by this verse and comments that Yaªyā’s name and characteristics are known
before he is born.23 Trough this verse, the narrator shows God’s omnisci-
ence and omnipotence– God knows Yaªyā’s name and personality before
he even exists. Tis presents an example of an issue presented above, in the
Introduction: How does a being not bounded by sequence and causality tell
a story to creatures who are limited by both?
In addition, this example uses a phrase that readers cannot quite under-
stand. In the verse mentioned above, Yaªyā is described as ‘confrming a
Word from God’, mu‚addiqan bi-kalimatin min allāh (3:39). Some commen-
tators write that this phrase means that Yaªyā confrms ‘Īsā, who is referred
to as a word from God. Sayyid Qu†b writes that there is no proof for such an
interpretation.24 Other commentators not only take this as the meaning of the
verse, but also add a story to explain it. Al-˝abarī writes that ‘Īsā and Yaªyā’s
mothers were pregnant at the same time, and one day Yaªyā’s mother told
Maryam that she felt the child in her womb (Yaªyā) move or even prostrate
to that in Maryam’s womb (‘Īsā).25 As we have seen repeatedly, commentators
seem intrigued by this verse and include a number of details to explain it.
In Maryam’s story in verses 3:45–8, there is another example of the
narrator showing God’s knowledge of characters that are not yet born, again
using the term ‘Word’. Maryam is told of ‘news of a Word from Him’,
bi-kalimatin minhu, words that leave us pondering the meaning of ‘Word’
(3:45). Mustansir Mir explains: ‘Jesus is only one of the many “words” of
God and that, like many other events, the birth of Jesus was brought about by
God’s utterance of the simple command “Be!” ’26 Mir connects God’s saying
‘Be and it is’ to the description of ‘Isā as a word: ‘Isā comes from God’s word,
‘be’, kun. One may also add that in Sūrat Maryam, when Maryam comes to
her people with her baby, they question her about him, and since she has
vowed to abstain from talking, she points to him and he speaks. In efect, he
becomes her word (19:27–33).
Maryam is told of the birth of ‘Īsā: ‘Te angels said, “Mary, God gives
you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son
of Mary [ismuhu ‘Īsā ibnu Maryam], who will be held in honour in this world
and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God” ’ (3:45). With
the phrase ‘will be’, Abdel Haleem’s translation facilitates easier comprehen-
sion, by rendering the Arabic clearly in future tense. In fact, the Arabic uses
nominal phrases (usually explained as ‘is’) without indication of tense. Abdel
Haleem must have found it jarring to say that someone unborn (and maybe
not even yet conceived) has a name; therefore, he translated the phrase in the
future tense. Te Arabic text does not seem to mind that the reader may fnd
this jarring. A linear conception of time does not matter to the narrator. Te
verse continues to describe ‘Īsā, as does the next.
A diferent layer of narration in the story occurs in a verse that is inter-

preted as addressing the Prophet Muªammad: ‘Tis is an account of things
beyond your knowledge that We reveal to you [Muhammad]: you were
not present among them when they cast lots to see which of them should
take charge of Mary, you were not present with them when they argued
[about her]’ (3:44). Here the narrator shows what God knows, while simul-
taneously demonstrating to the audience and the Prophet Muªammad their
lack of knowledge. God the narrator is addressing a second-person singular
addressee, mentioning that the story heard is from the ghayb, or unknown,
and then adds more details about the story. Ironically, the verse renders the
readers ignorant because it adds information which it previously did not
disclose. Here, then, lies an example of performative language: God says
this was unknown, and so it was unknown.27 Moreover, these details were
unknown because they were not part of the earlier narration. God is the nar-
rator and the maker of everything; if God says something is unknown, then it
is unknown; ‘Be and it is’. Tus, God is the source of knowledge, which God
bestows as He wills. Tis also opens the mind of the audience to the ideas
of revelation, the message and messengers, all of which are topics discussed
elsewhere in this sura.28
III. Withholding Control
Just as the story in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān makes it a point to show the audience’s and
the characters’ limited knowledge while highlighting the narrator’s supreme
knowledge, it also indicates the reader’s and characters’ limited control while
highlighting the narrator’s complete control. In order to examine the audi-
ence’s lack of control, one may look at the ways in which their expectations
and understandings of reality are defed. While the audience obviously has
no control over the telling of the story, they might expect it to cater to their
understandings of reality. However, this does not happen here. Te presenta-
tion of unborn children having names and personalities already served as
one example of the reader’s assumptions about the portrayal of time being
crushed.
Something similar happens in the use of dialogue in the story. Te narra-
tor presents God as omniscient and asserts that the text holds no contradic-
tions;29 yet, in the diferent iterations of a story, God does not always convey
the same dialogue with the same words. For instance, Zakariyyā responds,
surprised about having a child: ‘He said, “My Lord, how can I have a son
when I am so old and my wife is barren?” ’ (3:40). Verse 19:8 is the only
other verse in the Qur’ān that mentions this incident, and both verses begin
with the same words, ‘qāla rabbi ānnā yakūnu lī ghulāmun’, ‘He said, “My
Lord, how can I have a son” ’. He then continues to say that he is old and
his wife is barren (3:40), or the same in the opposite order (19:8). We must
stop to wonder why an omniscient narrator portrays the dialogue of a histori-
cal occurrence in two diferent ways. What narrative purpose does it serve
to have the transcript of a dialogue that supposedly took place one time in
history in two diferent versions? Perhaps the answer once again lies in the
idea of God’s omnipotence. Limited human conception and understanding
of dialogue and history do not matter; the narrator portrays things as He
wills. Perhaps the diference in the order shows that to Zakariyyā there is no
diference in priority, meaning that neither he nor his wife is to blame for
their barrenness any more than the other. Or perhaps the narrator hints that
one can say something and think something else simultaneously. Maybe the
narrator is showing the limits of language in conveying thoughts. Or the nar-
rator may be showing the audience that they cannot understand everything.30
While the narrator shows the audience their limited control in the por-
trayal and understanding of dialogue, the narrator also conveys their lack of
control in the portrayal and understanding of time and place. Unexplained
time leaps are frequent in Qur’ānic stories, and this stylistic device establishes
the narrator’s supremacy over the reader and the text– God does not portray
time in a way that conforms to the reader’s understanding of it. One leap of
time and place occurs after Zakariyyā is told that he will have a child (3:39),
and he asks for a sign and is told to fast for three days (3:41). In the next
verse, angels tell Maryam that God has chosen her (3:42). Te reader assumes
and knows from another iteration (19:12) that Yaªyā, the child promised
to Zakariyyā, was born and that he had a good character, as promised. Te
reader also assumes that Zakariyyā has not spoken and thus fulflled the sign.
None of this is mentioned, so that the reader is at the mercy of the narrator;
since God has said something will happen, the reader can assume that it did.
Te leap in time and space without explanation serves to demonstrate to the
audience their lack of control– over the telling and understanding of this
story, over time and place– while teaching them to rely on the narrator, even
when not knowing what will come next or not fully understanding what has
already come to pass.
Much like the audience is made to see their lack of control, so are the
characters in the story. One dimension through which this becomes clear is
that the characters’ words sometimes submit to the movement of the story.
Here, I will use the concept of narrative discourse to indicate the presenta-
tion of the story (the sequence of actions that are being described), as does
Genette.31 Te phrase ‘narrative discourse’ helps distinguish between the
story itself and the way in which it is portrayed. Early in the story, Maryam’s
mother prays for Maryam and her children, among whom will be ‘Īsā: ‘ “I
name her Mary and I commend her and her ofspring to Your protection
from the rejected Satan” ’ (3:36). Her words refect the narrative discourse of
the story and give an idea of the direction that the story will take. Trough
her prayer, a connection is made to future generations, and the story moves
along accordingly, eventually moving to Maryam’s son, ‘Isā (3:45–55). Tus,
the dialogue in the story works to set the tone for the narrative discourse.
While Maryam’s mother’s words are depicted as advancing the narra-
tive discourse, something similar also happens with Zakariyyā and Maryam’s
mother. In verse 3:34, God characterises Himself thus: ‘God hears and knows
all’ (samī‘un ‘alīm). Ten, Maryam’s mother characterises God as ‘the One
who hears and knows all’ (al-samī‘ al-‘alīm, 3:35). And again, Zakariyyā
concludes his supplication by praising God: ‘You hear every prayer’ (samī‘
al-du‘ā’, 3:38). Tus, we see God the narrator frst asserting that God is
hearing and knowing; then, the characters in the story use the same epithets,
rather than many others they could choose. Te portrayal of their speeches
thus submits to or is made to submit to God’s characterisation of Himself. Of
course, every story is ultimately written by its author, and the speeches of the
characters are, too, but here the narrator seems to care little about maintain-
ing a facade of individuality and autonomy for the characters’ speech. Rather,
God asserts Himself through the characters’ speeches and simultaneously His
control over them. I further explore this in Chapter 5 on Sūrat ˝aha, where
we see the narrator confrming God’s words, as well as people’s words.
Much like the present examples of a character’s words submitting to
the discourse of the story, an instance of a character’s words and actions
s ubmitting to it can be found. After Maryam tells Zakariyyā that her provi-
sions are from God (3:37), he is depicted as saying a prayer to God, asking
to have a child (3:38). Te timing of this verse and the use of the word
‘hunālika’, ‘there and then’, makes it seem as if this is Zakariyyā’s response to
the miracle of Maryam’s provisions, that if God can provide Maryam with
food from nowhere, God can provide Zakariyyā with ofspring. Al-Jalālayn
and al-˝abarī explain that the fruits were out of season, and when Zakariyyā
saw the possibility of something arriving out of season, he prayed to have a
child, even though its time had passed.32 While this may seem to be a plau-
sible and tempting explanation, the connection between Maryam’s response
and Zakariyyā’s prayer is not made clear, and the missing link (the fruits out
of season) is not in the Qur’ān, but only in the tafsīr. Te Qur’ān seems to be
indiferent to the possibility of a connection; perhaps this is because it does
not matter whether readers understand why Zakariyyā chose to say his prayer
at that time and whether it really is a response to Maryam’s words. It appears
that Zakariyyā’s logic or his motive are not important to the storyteller, but
rather the action– that he performs this prayer. Zakariyyā’s motive and the
reader’s understanding of it are unimportant. We are not to know people’s
intentions, a narrative technique that will be explored in the discussion on
Sūrat Yūsuf. Here emerges strict Qur’ānic control over the story and its char-
acters. Te characters’ speech and actions are controlled by the narrative
discourse.
Similarly, Zakariyyā and Maryam use speech that perfectly submits to
the idea of God having complete control. After frst Zakariyyā (3:39) and
then Maryam (3:45) are told by angels that they will have children, they both
respond by addressing God. About Zakariyyā, it says twice, ‘He said, “My
Lord” ’ (3:40 and 3:41) and about Maryam it says, ‘She said, “My Lord” ’
(3:47). Although angels address them, they respond to God, which al-˝abrisī
mentions.33 Maryam and Zakariyyā are shown knowing where all power and
knowledge lies– with God– and thus address God directly.
Tus far we have explored the audience’s and character’s lack of control,
as well as the various ways in which this is manifested in the story. Te
reverse to this lies in the narrator’s supreme control. One area where this is
found consists of the narrator’s selective narration. Once again, the scene of
Zakariyyā asking Maryam about her provisions can serve as example. Te
readers do not know that Maryam has been receiving any mysterious provi-
sions, until Zakariyyā asks her about them. At that point, he seems to ask the
question that the reader wants to have answered. However, Maryam does not
answer it completely. She says, ‘ “Tey are from God: God provides limitlessly
for whoever He will” ’ (3:37). She presumably thinks that this is a satisfactory
response, and Zakariyyā does not respond with a follow-up question (or is
not portrayed as doing so); perhaps it is a satisfactory response. However, one
must wonder why the narrator makes a character ask the reader’s question,
but then does not provide a comprehensible answer. What purpose does
it serve to build up the reader’s curiosity and then not satisfy it? All of this
serves to show the reader how much control the narrator holds, and how little
control the reader has; the reader is at the mercy of the narrator, just as the
characters are at the mercy of the narrator (God). At the same time, the narra-
tor seems to be teaching the audience what satisfactory questions and answers
are, to begin with. Questions are acceptable, but not when they are excessive.
Answers may not seem complete, but they are when they acknowledge God’s
role in the world. Ultimately, the audience cannot ask the narrator their ques-
tions and cannot hear an answer, and thus the narrator asserts His control,
not only over the audience as an audience (completely unable to direct the
story, even when they want to), but also over the audience as subjects of God
(being taught what questions and answers are appropriate).
While the narrator shows God’s control through the details in a particular
iteration of the story, God also shows His control by making assertions and
using them as proof– a nother instance of the performative. When Zakariyyā
is informed that he will have a child, his response is to ask for a sign, and he
is told that his sign is to abstain from speaking: ‘He said, “My Lord, give me
a sign”. “Your sign,” [the angel] said, “is that you will not communicate with
anyone for three days, except by gestures. Remember your Lord often; cel-
ebrate His glory in the evening and at dawn” ’ (3:41). Tere is no indication
of whether Zakariyyā is unable to talk for three days, or if he chooses not to
talk. Whichever may be the case, we are not told why this is actually a sign.
Why is this a sign and not, for example, a punishment?
If we turn to tafsīr, al-Zamakhsharī explains that Zakariyyā is unable to
speak in order to devote his time to remembrance of God, instead of being
occupied with human endeavours. He further explains that this is to express
thankfulness, shukr.34 Qu†b similarly writes that Zakariyyā is unable to talk

with people so that he will connect with God instead.35 Elsewhere, Qu†b
emphasises the irony in this: Tat he is unable to talk to people, but can com-
municate with God.36 Tese interpretations assume that Zakariyyā’s being
made unable to speak is a miracle, because he was previously healthy and
able to speak. However, the Qur’ānic text does not make it clear whether he
is unable to or chooses not to speak. If he chooses not to speak because God
tells him so, why is this a sign? Although Zakariyyā has previously stood for
the reader and asked Maryam our question about her provisions, he does not
ask for clarifcation and instead seems satisfed with the sign that he is given.
Te character and audience face their ignorance juxtaposed with God’s con-
trol. Tis is an example of performative language: Because God says this is a
sign, it is a sign, and it seems to work for Zakariyyā as such.
Another occurrence of the performative in the story appears towards the
end. In verse 3:61, it seems that the Prophet Muªammad is addressed in the
second person, and he is told:
3:61 If anyone disputes this with you now that you have been given this
knowledge, say, ‘Come, let us gather our sons and your sons, our women
and your women, ourselves and yourselves, and let us pray earnestly and
invoke God’s rejection on those of us who are lying’.
Tis challenge to swear and ask for God’s curse to be upon them refects the
performative: To say something is to make it so. Tere is no point to this
challenge, unless this message actually is from God, for if there is no God
and/or this message is not from God, then there is no danger in this chal-
lenge.37 Te confdence in the language of the challenge– the assumption
that it actually is a challenge– g ives it force and power. Tis verse is typical
of the Qur’ānic narrative style that we have seen thus far: It makes assertions
and shows these assertions through its style.
Another instance of God’s control afrmed through the performative
can be found in the narrative about ‘Īsā. When Maryam is told that she
will have a child and reacts with surprise, a speaker of unknown identity
responds to Maryam: ‘ “Tis is how God creates what He will: when He has
ordained something, He only says, ‘Be’, and it is” ’ (3:47). Te next verse
(3:48) explains that ‘Īsā teaches people the Torah and the Gospel. Verse 3:49
confrms this. Abdel Haleem translates the beginning of the verse as: ‘He will
send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I have come to you . . .” ’
Te Arabic text, ‘wa rasūlan ilā banī īsrā’īl annī qad ji’tukum’ fows subtly
from narration about ‘Īsā to ‘Īsā’s words. Te short word, ‘annī’ is the reader’s
signal that ‘Īsā is talking. Tis is an abrupt shift from Maryam being told
that she would have a child, to ‘Īsā speaking as a messenger. Abdel Haleem
aptly refects this with a colon followed by a parenthesis and ‘Īsā’s speech.
Tere is no other indication of a time leap in which the angels leave Maryam,
Maryam is pregnant and delivers the baby, and ‘Īsā is born. Instead, Maryam
is told that she will have a child and then learns about his character and role
as a prophet; from there, he is delivering his message. Maryam was told that,
when God says ‘Be’, it is, and this is what the text shows the reader. God says
that ‘Īsā would be born and serve as messenger, and he is portrayed as such
through performative language that seems almost as quick as ‘be and it is’.
God said it, and so it is. It should come as no surprise that there exist so many
examples of the performative in this story; it is a perfect literary technique to
show ‘ “be” and it is’ (3:47).
Troughout the story, God asserts His control over the characters and
the audience; in the conclusion, God asserts His control over the story itself.
Verses 3:58–62 seem to be the conclusion to the story, and one may con-
sider 3:62 as the last verse in this story, because it comments on the stories,
‘al-qa‚a‚’. Verse 3:58 also comments on the narration: ‘We relate to you
[Muhammad] this revelation [al-āyāt], a decisive statement’. Te readers are
thus reminded that this story is just one of the signs– ā yāt is a concept that
will be examined in the subsequent chapters. Trough this, the story we have
read is put in its place, as is the reader. Te reader is made to understand that
the story is just a part– a part of the entire story, and a part of the many sto-
ries and vast knowledge of God– and that the reader only knows this much
because God chooses to reveal it. Tis is confrmed in the following verse,
when the readers are reminded of God’s power in regard to two stories: ‘In
God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to him,
‘Be’, and he was’ (3:59). Te next verse tells that God is the source of truth
(3:60). God has all the power and knowledge over His subject and is thus the
ultimate narrator.
IV. Creating Consonance
While the Qur’ān repeatedly works to put the characters, readers and God in
their places by asserting the characters’ and readers’ lack of knowledge and con-
trol, as opposed to God’s ultimate knowledge and control, it does not alien-
ate the reader. Instead, the story brings consonance between the readers and
the characters, the readers and God, and the readers and the story itself. I will
frst investigate how the story builds consonance between the reader and the
characters. As discussed previously, early in the story the readers are told that
Zakariyyā took care of Maryam and that, whenever he would come to see her in
the temple, he would fnd her with provisions (3:37). A reader or listener would
probably wonder where the provisions are coming from; fortunately, Zakariyyā
asks exactly this very question. (Te narrator here uses dialogue instead of nar-
ration to explain the event, an example of the above-mentioned primacy of
dialogue in Qur’ānic stories.) Te Qur’ān thus uses this question to create an
identifcation between the audience and the character, insofar as both want to
know the source of the provisions. Tus, Zakariyyā stands in for the audience,
and the audience fnds themselves in consonance with a character in the story.
Similarly, the audience can identify with a character at the end of the
story, also in a state of puzzlement. After hearing about ‘Īsā, we are told,
‘When Jesus realized they [still] did not believe, he said, “Who will help me
in God’s cause?” Te disciples said, “We will be God’s helpers; we believe
in God– witness our devotion to Him” ’ (3:52). Te verse plunges readers
into a state of unknowing, based on the use of the word ‘minhum’, which
refers to a group of people of an identity unknown to the readers (3:52).
First occurs the pronoun, then the word for the disciples. Earlier, ‘Īsā is
talking to his people, and he addresses them with the second person plural,
‘lakum’ (3:50). One might assume that the narrator in 3:52 is talking about
the people to whom ‘Īsā was speaking. Alternately, one may assume that he
is speaking to the disciples, since they are mentioned somewhat later in 3:52;
however, the text does not make this clear, and even if it did, we still do not
know who they are. Te next verse does not tell more about the disciples,
but instead gives their speech (3:53). Ten comes a verse that is puzzling and
intriguing at the same time: ‘wa makarū wa makara allāhu wa allāhu khayrū
al-mākirīn’, ‘Te [disbelievers] schemed but God also schemed; God is the
Best of Schemers’ (3:54). Abdel Haleem tries to make the Arabic text easier
by inserting the words ‘the [disbelievers]’ in the translation, and this also
conforms to al-˝abrisī’s interpretation.38 In the Arabic, there merely appears
the verb in the third person plural, ‘they’. Who are ‘they’?
We receive no answer to this question, nor further explanation, and
instead move to a new scene, a dialogue between God and ‘Īsā. Tis verse
quotes God as telling ‘Īsā: ‘ “Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to
Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers” ’ (3:55). It is not clear what is meant
by raising and purifying him, and much discussion stems from this phras-
ing. Additionally, ‘the disbelievers’ is clearly stated, but their identity is not
revealed. Just as consonance developed between Zakariyyā and the reader in
their curiosity about Maryam’s provisions, here consonance develops between
‘Īsā and the audience in terms of wondering who the disbelievers are. God
says, ‘I will judge between you’ (3:55), and this seems to be the point: Even
though ‘Īsā does not know who his supporters are or are not (3:52), and even
though the audience clearly knows even less, God knows everything and will
judge people and punish or reward them accordingly (3:55–7). Tis idea will
re-emerge in Chapter 4 on Sūrat Yūsuf.
While one can discern consonance developing between the audience
and the characters in the story, it also grows between the audience and God,
through the prayers of Maryam’s mother and Zakariyyā. About Zakariyyā,
the Qur’ān says: ‘Tere and then Zachariah prayed to his Lord, saying, “Lord,
from Your grace grant me virtuous ofspring: You hear every prayer” ’ (3:38).
Given the previous discussion of the ways in which the story shows the audi-
ence their limited knowledge, it is striking that only through this prayer are
readers told that Zakariyyā’s childlessness was problematic. While Zakariyyā
praises God for hearing supplications, the audience also overhears his sup-
plication. In the same way, the audience overhears Maryam’s mother’s prayer
to God earlier (3:35–6). Here, consonance is allowed to develop between
God and the reader in that they both overhear the same (private) prayers, and
between the reader and the characters. Of course, God the narrator chooses
to form this union, and it adds complexity to the reader’s image of the nar-
rator. God the narrator is controlling, but God also chooses to share His
knowledge at certain times and in limited ways, which, essentially, parallels
God’s revelation.
We can further advance our understanding when examining how the nar-
rator develops consonance between the reader and the story itself. For exam-
ple, after Maryam is told about ‘Īsā, he discusses diferent miracles that he
will perform ‘with God’s permission’ (3:49). His speech is unusually long for
Qur’ānic characters and continues for two more verses (through verse 3:51).
Without any clear indication, the readers have left Maryam’s story; al-˝abrisī
notes this as well.39 Te reader only knows that Maryam is no longer present
in the text. If the audience wants to know more about her story, they will have
to read elsewhere in the Qur’ān; in fact there is a good deal of detail about
her labour and delivery of ‘Īsā in another sura (19:16–29). Te Qur’ān signals
this to the reader because, in fact, ‘Īsā’s words in verse 3:51 are identical with
19:36, except for a one-letter conjunction (the latter starts with a ‘wāw’ that
is not in the former). As the Qur’ān is a text that is often recited aloud, the
verbal echo and the diference in it stand out. Tus, the conjunction can be
considered a signal to the audience that there is more of this story in other
places. Similarly, one fnds echoing phrases in ‘Īsā’s words in verse 3:49 and
God’s description of ‘Īsā in verse 5:110. It is worth noting that part of the
echo comes from the repetition of bi-idhni allāh (3:49) and bi-idhnī (5:110).
Tus, God emphasises that ‘Īsā performs miracles by God’s will, and ‘Īsā
emphasises this, too, with the same word.
While the audience may be curious to receive more information, they
do not become irritated about the lack of it, or about the shift to a diferent
focus in the story, because they know that they can read more elsewhere. In
this way, one of the efects of concealment or withholding of information in
Qur’ānic stories is to keep the audience interested and to encourage them to
read more of the Qur’ān. Te same can be said for other mysteries found in
the sura, such as the passage about ambiguous and clear verses. A reader who
is familiar with the Qur’ān or who analyses it carefully will be rewarded by
this tactic; more casual readers may miss this. Such an approach is appropri-
ate, since the Qur’ān explains that the revelation and even the stories are
for those who ‘refect’.40 Consequently, the audience feels satisfed that they
know the story and the book, and that they can navigate it, too. Tey are
rewarded and empowered by this awareness, and rather than feeling alienated
from the story, they may feel familiar with it, or they may even feel that they
know some of its secrets. Sarra Tlili, writing about the depiction of humans
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
here again we will handle you;’ and, true to the threat, on a
subsequent round, not two miles from the place, this worthy
minister, as he was passing to his appointment on the second
Sabbath in February last, was taken from his horse, struck a severe
blow upon the head, blindfolded, tied to a tree, scourged to
laceration, and then ordered to lie with his face to the ground until
his scourgers should withdraw, with the threat of death for
disobedience. All this he was told, too, was for traveling that circuit
and preaching the gospel as a Southern Methodist preacher; from
another, the children and teachers of our Sabbath School were
ejected while in session by a company of men, who were led by a
minister of the M. E. Church.
“Our parsonages, also, have been seized and occupied by ministers
of the M. E. Church, no rent having been paid to us for their use.
“Thirty-six hundred dollars, appropriated upon our application to
the United States Government for damages done to our church at
Knoxville during the war, were, by some sleight-of-hand movement,
passed into the hands of a minister of the M. E. Church. This money
is still, held from us.
“In other cases, school and church property of our’s on which
debts were resting has been forced upon the market by agents in
your interests, and thereby wrested from our poverty and added to
your abundance.
“Members of the M. E. Church constitute, in part, the mobs that
insult and maltreat our preachers, while ministers of the same
Church, by words and acts, either countenance or encourage our
persecutors. In no instance, so far as we are advised, has any one for
such conduct been arraigned, or censured even, by those
administering the discipline of your Church.
“We could specify the name of each of these churches, and the
locality, were it necessary, in which our ministers and people are
either permitted sometimes to worship, or from which they are
excluded and driven by locks, threats, mobs and bloody persecutions.
Their names are in our possession, and at your disposal. About one
hundred church edifices are held in one or another of these ways,
with a value of not less than seventy-five thousand dollars.
“Of this property, it should be added, some was deeded to the M.
E. Church before 1844, and the rest, since that time, to the M. E.
Church, South. That it is all claimed by the M. E. Church in East
Tennessee we suppose to be true, or it would not be reported and
received in their Annual Conference statistics. That it belongs to the
M. E. Church, South, we suppose also to be true, inasmuch as all
deeds since 1844 have been made to us, and all the remainder were
granted to us by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the Church suit; unless the ground be assumed by your
reverend body that when Lee surrendered to Grant the M. E. Church,
South, surrendered also to the M. E. Church all her property rights.
Surely if the United States Government does not confiscate the
property of those who are called rebels, the M. E. Church, in her
highest legislative assembly, will hardly set a precedent by claiming
the property of their Southern brethren.
“But it may, perhaps, be said that we have been sinners, rebels,
traitors, touching our civil and political relations to the Government.
If this be so, we are unable to comprehend by what authority we are
to be punished by the M. E. Church, since for our moral obliquities
we are responsible alone to God, and for our political crimes only to
the United States Government.
“It may also be asked, what jurisdiction has your General
Conference over these deeds of injustice? No civil jurisdiction, we are
aware; but your reverend body does possess a moral power of such
weight that, if brought to bear in East Tennessee, there would be an
end to these acts of oppression and cruelty. A word of disapproval,
even, from your Board of Bishops, or the publication in your Church
papers of some of the above cited facts, with editorial condemnation,
would have done much to mitigate, if not entirely to remove, the
cause of our complaints; but we have neither heard the one nor seen
the other. Why this has not been done is believed by us to be a want
of knowledge of these facts, of which we now put you in possession.
Familiar as we are with the condition of things in East Tennessee,
and with the workings of the two Methodisms there, we are satisfied
that your body could, by judicious action, remove most, if not all, of
the causes which now occasion strife, degrade Methodism, and
scandalize our holy religion. We, therefore, ask—
“1st. That you will ascertain the grounds upon which the M. E.
Church claims and holds the property in church buildings and
parsonages within her bonds in East Tennessee, as reported in her
Holston Mission Conference statistics.
“2d. If in the investigation any property so reported shall be
adjudged by you to belong of right to the M. E. Church, South, that
you will designate what that property is, and where; and also instruct
your ministers and people to relinquish their claims upon the same,
repossess us, and leave us in the undisturbed occupancy thereof.
“3d. Inasmuch as your words of wisdom and of justice will be
words of power, that you earnestly advise all your ministers laboring
in this field to abstain from every word and act the tendency of which
would be the subversion of good order and peace in the communities
in which they move.
“In conclusion, allow us to add, that in presenting this memorial to
your reverend body we are moved thereto by no other spirit than that
of ardent desire to promote the interests of our common Redeemer
by ‘spreading scriptural holiness over these lands.’
“E. E. Wiley,
“W. G. E. Cunnyngham,
“Wm. Robeson,
“B. Arbogast,
“C. Long,
“J. M. McTeer,
“George Stewart,
“Members of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South.

“April, 1868.”
This memorial, so respectful and dignified, and upon so grave a
matter, was referred, without being read or printed, to a select
committee of seven. And though presented and referred early in the
session, no further notice was taken of the it, and the committee did
not bring in a report until the very last day of the session and just
before the final adjournment. The report of the select committee was
read amid great confusion, and passed without debate by a very
small vote, but few of the members of the General Conference feeling
interested enough either to listen or vote.
The Daily Advocate, of June 3, 1868, contains the following
account of the affair, with the report of the special committee as
adopted:
“The report of the committee on the memorial of the Holston
Conference was presented and read, and, on motion, adopted.
“The report as adopted, is as follows:
“Your committee have had before them a memorial from a
committee of seven appointed by the Holston Conference, of the M.
E. Church, South, stating that our ministers and people within that
region have seized the churches and parsonages belonging to said
Church, South, and maltreated their ministers. The statements of the
paper are all indefinite, both as to places, times and persons, and no
one has appeared to explain or defend the charges. On the contrary,
we have also before us, referred to our consideration, numerous
affidavits from ministers and members of our Church, in various
parts of this country, evidently designed to refute any charges that
might be presented by this committee of seven. It seems from these
papers that as soon as the federal power was re-established in East
Tennessee whole congregations came over to the M. E. Church,
bringing with them their churches and parsonages, that they might
continue to use them for worship. It also seems that much of the
property in question is deeded to the M. E. Church, it being so held
before the secession of the Church, South. We have no proof that any
in contest is held otherwise. The General Conference possesses no
power, if it would, to divest the occupants of this property of the use
or ownership of it, paid for by their means, and would be guilty of
great impropriety in interfering at all at this time when test cases are
already before the courts. If, however, we should proceed so to do,
with the evidence before us largely ex parte, it is true, but all that, we
have, the presentation of the memorialists can not be sustained. By
personal examinations we have endeavored in vain to ascertain what
foundation there is for the affirmation that our ministers and people
encourage violence toward the ministers of the M. E. Church, South.
We believe and trust there is no foundation for the charge, for if true,
it could but meet our unqualified disapprobation. Our own ministers
and people in the South suffer severely in this way, and sometimes,
we apprehend, at the hands of our Southern brethren, but neither
the spirit of our Master, the genius of our people, nor our
denominational interest could allow us to approbate in any parties
the practice. We are glad to know that our brethren laboring in that
region had their attention early called to these matters, and we
content ourself with repeating the sentiments of their address to the
people. It was in effect as published in the Knoxville Whig, by
authority of at least four presiding elders; and several other members
of the Holston Conference, as well as often stated from our pulpits in
the South, and through our Church papers in the North, that violence
toward the preachers and people of the Church, South, is unwise,
unchristian and dangerous. Our preachers and people in the South,
so far as we are apprised and believe, have all and ever held this
position on the subject. We recommend the following:
“Resolved, That all the papers connected with this matter be
referred to the Holston Conference, believing as we do that this
Conference, in the future as in the past, will be careful to do justly,
and, as much as lieth in them, to live peaceably with all men.
“Your committee have also had before them a letter, published in
various Southern journals, and signed by S. F. Waldro, being dated
from Chicago, and presuming to state the objects and intentions of
the Methodist Episcopal Conference in the prosecution of its
Southern work. We are also informed that several similar letters have
been published in the South. No effort that we have been able to
make has enabled us to discover any such person in this city.
Certainly no such person has a right to speak in our behalf or declare
our purposes, much less does he declare them correctly. We
recommend that the paper be dismissed as anonymous and
unworthy of our further consideration.
“L. Hitchcock, Chairman.
“J. M. Reid, Secretary.”

The War Department at Washington issued an order similar to the
“Stanton-Ames Order,” in the interests of the “American Baptist
Home Mission Society,” requiring all houses of worship belonging to
the Baptists in the military departments of the South, in which a
loyal minister did not officiate, to be turned over to the agents or
officers of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and ordering
Government transportation and subsistence to be furnished such
agents and their clerks. Dated Jan. 14, 1864.
This was a new mode of warfare, and will ever stand upon the
historic page as humiliating to enlightened Christian sentiment, as it
is forever damaging to the spirit and genius of American institutions
and the true interests of Messiah’s kingdom on earth.
While American citizens are generally unwilling to be instructed in
the higher civil and religious interests of this country by foreigners,
yet it will not be denied that many of the finest, shrewdest and wisest
journalists of the country are from foreign lands.
As a befitting close to this part of the subject, and a wise warning
to the politico-religious fanatics who think little of the effect of their
reckless disregard of the sacred relations of Church and State, an
extract from the St. Louis Anzeiger, a German paper of much
character and influence, will be appropriate.
It is upon the general subject of the Administration running the
Churches, as developed in the order from the War Department
creating Bishop Ames Bishop of a Military Department, and
authorizing him to take possession of the Methodist churches of
Missouri, Tennessee and the Gulf States. It says:
“Here we have, in optima forma, the commencement of Federal
interference with religious affairs; and this interference occurs in
cities and districts where war has ceased, and even in States, like
Missouri, which have never joined the secession movement.
“Doubtless the Federal Government has the right to exercise the
utmost rigor of the law against rebel clergymen, as well as against all
other criminal citizens; nay, it may oven close churches in districts
under military law when these churches are abused for political
purposes; but this is the utmost limit to which military power may
go. Every step beyond this is an arbitrary attack upon the
constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom, and upon the
fundamental law of the American Republican Government—
separation of Church and State. The violation of the Constitution
committed in the appointment of a Military Bishop—one would be
forced to laugh if the affair were not so serious in principle—is so
much the more outrageous and wicked, as it is attempted in States
which, like Missouri, have never separated from the Union, and in
which all the departments of civil administration are in regular
activity.
“This order of the War Department is the commencement of State
and Federal interference in the affairs of the Churches. It is not a
single military suspension or banishment order, which might be
exceptional and for a temporary purpose. It is not the act of a
General who, sword in hand, commands the priest to pray for him, as
we read of in times long ago. It is far more. It is an administrative
decree of the Federal Government, appropriating Church property,
regulating Church communities, and installing Bishops. A similar
order has been issued for the Baptist Church of the South.
“If this is the commencement, where will the end be? The pretense
that it is merely a proceeding against disloyal clergymen will deceive
nobody. Bad actions have never wanted good pretenses. With the
same right with which the Secretary of War makes Bishop Ames chief
of a Church in the South he may also interfere in the affairs of all
other Churches, or even dissolve any Church at pleasure. We ask
again, Where is the end to be? and what principle of American
constitutional law will remain if freedom of religion and of
conscience is at the mercy of any commander of a military post?”
CHAPTER XV.
MARTYRDOM—REVS. J. M. PROCTOR, M.
ARRINGTON, J. M’GLOTHLIN AND JAMES
PENN.
Philosophy of Martyrdom—Living Martyrs—Names Made

Immortal by Persecution—Martyrs of Missouri—Difference
Between Martyrs for the Testimony of Jesus, only Questions of
Time and Place—The Spirit the Same Everywhere—Causes—
Explanatory Remarks—Rev. James M. Proctor Arrested Coming
out of the Pulpit—Connection with the M. E. Church, South, his
only Offense—Kept in Prison for Weeks, then Released—Rev.
Marcus Arrington—Chaplain—Insulted—Kept in Alton Prison—
Rev. John McGlothlin—Petty Persecution and Tyranny—Rev.
James Penn—Meeting Broken Up—Driven from His own
Churches by a Northern Methodist Preacher Leading an Armed
Mob—Persecution—Prayer.
Men die, but truth is immortal. The workmen are buried, but the
work goes on. Institutions pass away, but the principles of which
they were the incarnation live forever. The Way, the Truth and the
Life “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received
up into glory.”
Incarnate Innocence was “despised and rejected of men.” The
Manger, the Garden, the Cross, are but different aspects of the life
and light of men, and illustrate the history of the “Man of Sorrows.”
The disciple is not above his Lord, nor the servant better than his
Master, and if such things were done in the green tree, what hope is
there for the dry?
There are many living martyrs. Death is not necessary condition of
martyrdom. The souls of man martyrs have not yet reached their
resting place “under the altar.” They have met the conditions of
martyrdom in the garden of agony without reaching the cross. Some
men, who still live, have suffered more for Christ and his Church
than many who have ended their sufferings with their lives. Not the
nature but the cause of suffering imparts to it the moral quality and
the virtues of martyrdom. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Many
suffer and die, but not “for righteousness’ sake,” and very many “are
persecuted for righteousness’ sake” who still live. The grave does not
limit the roll of martyrs. Robinson and Headlee, and Glanville and
Wollard may have suffered less for righteousness’ sake than
Cleavland, Breeding, M‘Anally, Penn, Duvall, Spencer, Rush and
many others who still live to bear witness to the truth. True, it is
something to sacrifice life for a principle and a cause—to seal the
testimony with the blood. Moral heroism can reach no higher form,
nor express itself in a more exalted type. Its purest fire goes out and
its sublimest consecration culminates in the life blood of the martyr.
Many a noble spirit has been offered up in the sacrifice and service of
faith, and, like Isaac, bound hand and foot upon the altar, with the
fatal knife glittering and gleaming in the upraised hand of the
executioner, yet has been rescued by the interposing voice, when
perfect faith stood vindicated in the complete consecration. “Was not
Abraham, our father, justified by works when he had offered Isaac,
his son, upon the altar?” As much so as if the knife had been driven
to his heart and the fires had consumed his body. Yet Abraham’s
faith was vindicated by his works, and Isaac lived to perpetuate the
story of his offering. St. Paul says: “For thy sake we are killed all the
day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” And again: “I
protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die
daily.” He was a living martyr, and many Apostles and righteous
men have, like him, been “killed all the day long” and “die daily.”
Historical facts in support of the position taken are neither
wanting nor few, and the roll of living and dead martyrs in Missouri,
now to be recorded in these pages, will vindicate the position and
illustrate the annals of religious persecution with a chapter but little
removed from the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, and the
persecutions of the Vaudois Christians and Waldenses under Francis
I., Henry II., Catherine De Medicis and other notable instruments of
power in France, which culminated in the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew.
Many names have been given a fame as enduring as the virtues
they were made to illustrate, by the force and fire and fact of
persecution, which otherwise would have perished from the earth.
And the cause for which they were persecuted has been given a
sanctity in the hearts and a power over the lives of men which
otherwise it could not have received. A name however obscure, and a
character however humble, become illustrious despite of history
when associated with persecution, suffering and death, for a
principle and a cause which invest humanity with the purer and
higher types of intellectual, moral and religious life. Around such
names the divinest principles crystallize, and by such characters the
deepest and purest fountains of humanity are touched. Hampden,
and Russell, and Howard, and Sidney, and Eliot, and Brainard, and
Wilberforce, and Martin, and others who sacrificed all for the
political, mental and moral enfranchisement of their race, have made
themselves immortal, as their names are enshrined in the deepest
heart of our nature. They will live forever in the cause for which they
suffered. So, too, many of less note have been given a fame as
enduring as columns of brass, and they will be handed down to
posterity without the factitious aid of monuments of marble or
pyramids of granite.
Profane history, philosophy and poetry may treat the martyr for
the truth cavalierly or ignore his claims altogether, while they
panegyrize his executioner. Yet he will live in the hearts of men,
ennoble the virtues of men, illustrate the heroism of men, and thrill
the purest souls of men with life and immortality after the names of
those who despised and rejected him have perished in eternal
forgetfulness.
The sweet-spirited Cowper has anticipated this fact and put his
more than poetic conception into the most expressive and poetic
language:
“A patriot’s blood may earn indeed,
And for a time insure to his loved land
The sweets of liberty and equal laws;
But martyrs struggle for a brighter prize,
And win it with more pain. Their blood is shed
In confirmation of the noblest claim—
Our claim to feed upon immortal truth,
To walk with God, to be divinely free,
To soar and to anticipate the skies.”
The martyrs of Missouri, though unknown to fame and

unambitious of distinction, have, in their humble, unostentatious,
quiet way, suffered as keenly and as severely as any others. They
have taken the spoiling of their goods as joyfully, “counted all things
but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord,”
“counted not their lives dear unto themselves so that they might
finish their course with joy and the ministry which they have
received of the Lord Jesus to testify the gospel of the grace of God,”
and in all their sufferings for righteousness’ sake have entered as
fully into the spirit of the Master, even in sealing their testimony
with their blood, as did John Calos, Nicholas Burton, Paul Clement,
John Huss, Jerome of Prague, Bishops Latimer and Ridley,
Archbishop Cramner, or any other of the long roll of distinguished
martyrs.
The martyrs of Missouri may not occupy a place as high as others
on the scrolls of fame, yet it is only a difference of time and country.
It is the meridian of the nineteenth, instead of the fifteenth, sixteenth
or seventeenth century. We are in Missouri, one of the United States
of America, instead of Madrid, the valleys of Piedmont and Savoy, or
Paris, or Italy, or Bohemia, or Turin, or London, or any other country
or place where the blood of the martyrs has been shed for the
testimony of Jesus. The spirit of persecution is the same, and the
high sense of consecration to God and fidelity to Jesus that led the
old martyrs to the rack and the stake have not been wanting in the
ministers of the gospel in Missouri. The spirit, the heroism, the faith,
the zeal, the devotion, were all here; and but for the remaining sense
of enlightened Christianity that had been so long fostered by the
genius of our free institutions, and the power it still exercised upon
the public mind, the rack, the stake and all the horrible fires of the
Inquisition would have been here also. The absence of these and
other instruments of torture from the history of martyrdom in
Missouri is due to other causes than the spirit and design of the
authors and agents of religious persecution. The spirit was willing,
but the cause and the occasion were wanting. Mobocracy sometimes
invented a cause and made an occasion. The victim was found and
offered without an altar. In such cases brutal cruelty was scarcely
softened by religious refinement.
Some suffered for intermeddling with party politics; some for
declining to take the oath of loyalty to the Government, as ministers;
others for refusing to preach under a flag; others because they did
not pray for the destruction of all rebels; others for expressing
sympathy for one side or the other; others because they were born
and brought up in the South; others, still, for declining to sanction
the wrongs and outrages committed upon defenseless citizens, and
helpless women and children, and still others because they were
ministers and belonged to a certain ecclesiastical body.
How far these various considerations were only pretexts or
occasions can not now be determined, other than by the analysis of
the state of society heretofore given and the real animus of these
persecutions.
The following instances of persecution are furnished, in substance,
as they came into the hands of the author. Nothing is added, and
nothing material to the facts is omitted. In some instances the
phraseology is a little changed, more to secure a uniform tone and
spirit throughout the work than to alter the sense; but material are
nowhere sacrificed in the narratives of others, even to the author’s
taste. Where it can be done, the language of each one’s own history is
retained; but where only the facts and dates have been furnished,
they are put up with the strictest regard for truth and consistency.
The reader will see from the narratives themselves that it is
impossible to observe chronological order. And, indeed, the
classification of subjects makes it necessary to break the narrative of
individual persecutions where it can be done, that each individual
may illustrate the several stages of this remarkable history. For
instance, some men were persecuted during the continuance of the
war, and then again under the application of the “test oath” of the
new Constitution. These, it is true, are but different aspects and
stages of the same system of proscription and persecution, yet the
nature and bearing of events require separate treatment where it can
be done. The purposes of history can only be served by proper
classifications and distinctions. The following narratives of
persecution are fully authenticated by official records and
responsible names.
The trials and persecutions of ministers of the gospel varied
somewhat with the locality. In some parts of the State ministers were
partially exempt from the influence and power of lawless men, while
in other sections property, liberty and life were all at the mercy of
irresponsible mobs.
The following statement is furnished by the minister himself. He
has long been a faithful, earnest, exemplary member of the St. Louis
Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South. Few men have stood
higher in the ranks of the itinerant ministry in Missouri or done
more faithful service than
The Rev. James M. Proctor.
He says: “I was arrested by W. Hall, at Darby’s chapel, on Sabbath,
July 6, 1862. Hall, with his company, reached the chapel before me,
and had the ‘stars and stripes’ placed just above the church door. He
said that he had been informed that I would not preach under the
Union flag. After preaching, and just as I was coming out at the door,
near which he had taken his position, he accosted me and said, ‘You
are my prisoner.’ He trembled like an aspen leaf. I said to him, ‘Why
this emotion, sir? Show yourself a man, and do your duty.’ He
replied, ‘I hate to arrest you, but I am bound to do my duty.’ He said
I must go with him to his father’s then, and the following morning he
would take me to headquarters at Cape Girardeau. I could not well go
with him that night, as I had been caught in the rain that morning,
and had to borrow a dry suit on the road, which I was under
obligations to return that evening.
“After some parley, he granted me permission to report at the Cape
in a few days, which I did promptly, to Col. Ogden, then Provost-
Marshal. Col. Ogden paroled me to report at his headquarters every
two or three weeks. On the 29th of September, 1862, I reported to
him the fifth and last time, when I was tongue-lashed at a fearful rate
by Lieut.-Col. Peckham of the 29th Mo. regiment, and by him sent to
the guard-house.
“I asked this irate Colonel if the front of my offending was not my
connection with the M. E. Church, South. He replied, ‘Yes, sir; and
the man who will belong to that Church, after she has done the way
she has, ought to be in prison during the war; and I will imprison
you, sir, during the war.’ ‘It is a hard sentence for such an offense,’ I
said. He replied, ‘I can’t help it, sir; all such men as you are must be
confined so that they can do no harm.’
“I remained in the guard-house at the Cape until Thursday,
October 2, 1862, when—in company with thirteen other prisoners,
three of whom died in a few weeks—I was sent to Gratiot street
military prison, St. Louis. In this prison I met several very worthy
ministers of different denominations, and also Brother J. S. Boogher
and two of his brothers, nobler men than whom I have not found any
where in the world.
“October 20, 1862, I was released on parole, there being no crime
alleged against me. The little man who first arrested me was a
Northern Methodist. He wrote out and preferred two charges against
me, which were so frivolous that the officers in St. Louis would not
investigate them. I furnish them here as items of curiosity, as
follows:
“’1. He, the said J. M. Proctor, threatened to hang Mr. Lincoln.
“’2. He said that the Federal soldiers were horse thieves.’
“After my release from Gratiot street prison, St. Louis, I went to
the town of Jackson, where I was again arrested at the special
instigation of a Northern Methodist preacher named Liming. I
continued to preach during and after my imprisonment. When the
notorious test oath was inaugurated I continued to preach, and was
indicted three times before Judge Albert Jackson, of Cape Girardeau
county. Revs. D. H. Murphy and A. Munson were also indicted for
the same offense.
“I never took the test oath, nor any oath of allegiance during the
war. It was plain to all that the Northern Methodists were our worst
enemies during that long and cruel war.”
It is only necessary to add that Mr. Proctor remained at home
when permitted, attending to his legitimate calling during the war as
a minister, and was no partisan in the strife—a peaceable, law-
abiding citizen, and an humble, inoffensive minister of the gospel. As
he was informed, “the front of his offending was his connection with
the M. E. Church, South,” while it seems that both the instigators and
instruments of his arrest and imprisonment were members of the M.
E. Church, North. Proscription and persecution do not always
hesitate in the presence of opportunity.
Rev. Marcus Arrington.
It is sad to record the following details of suffering inflicted upon
one of the oldest, most useful and honored members of the St. Louis
Conference, M. E. Church, South; a man who for many years has
been an humble, exemplary and influential member of the
Conference, who occupied a high position in the confidence of the
Church, and has been intrusted with high and responsible positions
in her courts and councils. No man, perhaps, of any Church has
stood higher in the esteem of all men of all Churches in Southwest
Missouri, where he has so long lived and labored, than Marcus
Arrington. Let him tell in his own way the story of his sufferings:
“When the troubles commenced, in the spring of 1861, I was
traveling the Springfield Circuit, St. Louis Conference. I was very
particular not to say anything, either publicly or privately, that would
indicate that I was a partisan in the strife. I tried to attend to my
legitimate work as a traveling preacher.
“But after the war commenced, because I did not advocate the
policy of the party in power, I was reported as a secessionist, and in
the midst of the public excitement it was vain to attempt to
counteract the report.
“At the earnest solicitation of divers persons, I took the oath of
loyalty to the Government. This, it was thought, would be sufficient.
But we were mistaken.
“Soon after this, my life was threatened by those who were in the
employ of the Federal Government. But they were, as I verily believe,
providentially prevented from executing their threat.
“After the battle of Oak Hills, or Wilson’s Creek, July 10, 1861, it
became my duty to do all I could for the relief of the sick and
wounded, and because I did this I was assured that I had violated my
oath of allegiance. I was advised by Union men, so-called, that it
would be unsafe for me to fall into the hands of Federal soldiers.
Believing this to be true, when General Fremont came to Springfield,
I went to Arkansas, as I think almost any man would have done
under the circumstances.
“While in Arkansas, I met Bro. W. G. Caples, who was acting
Chaplain to General Price. He requested me to take a chaplaincy in
the army, informing me at the time that, by an agreement between
Generals Fremont and Price, all men who had taken the oath of
loyalty as I did were released from its obligations.
“In December, 1861, I was appointed by Gen. McBride Chaplain of
the 7th Brigade, Missouri State Guard. In this capacity I remained
with the army until the battle of Pea Ridge, March 7 and 8, 1862. On
the second day of this battle, while in the discharge of my duty as
Chaplain, I was taken prisoner. Several Chaplains taken at the same
time were released on the field, but I was retained. I was made to
walk to Springfield, a distance of 80 miles. We remained in
Springfield one day and two nights, and whilst many prisoners who
had previously taken the oath as I had were paroled to visit their
families, I was denied the privilege.
“We were then started off to Rolla, and although I had been
assured that I would be furnished transportation, it was a sad
mistake, and I had to walk until I literally gave out. What I suffered
on that trip I can not describe. When we reached Rolla I was publicly
insulted by the Commander of the Post.
“From Rolla we were sent to St. Louis on the cars, lodged one night
in the old McDowell College, and the next day sent to Alton, Ill.
“Whilst I was in Alton prison a correspondent of the Republican,
writing over the name of ‘Leon,’ represented me as a ‘thief and a
perjured villain!’
“I was kept in Alton prison until Aug. 2, 1862, when I was released
by a General Order for the release of all Chaplains.
“I then went to St. Louis, and thence South, by way of Memphis,
Tenn., into exile. I would have returned to Missouri after the war
closed but for the restrictions put upon ministers of the gospel by the
new Constitution.
“Eternity alone will reveal what I have suffered in exile. The St.
Louis Conference is properly my home, and her preachers have a
warm place in my affections. They are very near my heart. May they
ever be successful.”
Rev. Mr. Arrington pines for his old home and friends, and few
men have a deeper hold upon the hearts of the people in Missouri.
Thousands would welcome him to warm hearts and homes after
these calamities are overpast.
Rev. John McGlothlin.
As a specimen of petty local persecution the case of Rev. J.
McGlothlin, a worthy local preacher of the M. E. Church, South, who
has long stood high in that part of the State where he resides, will be
sufficient for this place.
It was with some reluctance that he yielded to the demands of
history enough to furnish the following facts. He is a modest man
and shrinks from notoriety.
In 1862 he was residing in Ray county, Mo., when Major Biggers,
the Commander of the Post at Richmond, issued an order that no
minister of the gospel should preach who did not carry with him the
Union flag. A few days after the order came out Mr. McGlothlin was
called upon to go to Knoxville, Caldwell county, to procure suitable
burial clothing for a Mrs. Tilford, a widow, who died in his
neighborhood, as he was the only man available for that service.
After the purchases were made and he was ready to return, a Captain
Tiffin, of Knoxville, stepped up and asked if he had “reported.” He
answered in the negative, and convinced the Captain that there was
no order requiring him to report, as he had license to preach. Tho
officer then asked him if he had a “flag.” He told him he had not.
“Will you get one?” “No,” said he, “I will recognize no State or
military authority to prescribe qualifications for the work of the
ministry.” The officer at once arrested him. Mr. McGlothlin
acquainted Capt. Tiffin at once with the peculiar character of his
business in Knoxville, and the necessity of his speedy return, offering
at the same time his parole of honor to report to him at any time and
place he might designate. This he promptly refused, and the officer
said that he would ride out a part of the way with him. When they
arrived within a few miles of the house where the dead lay waiting
interment, the officer pressed a boy into service and sent the burial
clothes to their destination, after detaining them three or four hours
on the way.
The minister was not released, even to attend the funeral service,
but was kept in close confinement, dinnerless, supperless, bedless
and comfortless.
The next day, with over twenty others, he was taken to Richmond
and confined in the Fair Grounds and in the old College building for
five weeks, and then unconditionally released. The only charge they
could bring against him was that he would not take the oath of
allegiance, give bond in the sum of $1,000 for his good behavior, and
buy a flag to carry about with him as an evidence of his loyalty and a
symbol of authority to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Few instances of petty persecution in the exercise of a little brief
authority can surpass this. It needs no comment, except to add that
the minister who was thus made a victim of the narrowest and
meanest spitefulness was a high-toned gentleman of unblemished
character, against whom even the petty military officers and their
spies could never raise an accusation.

Ebook Qur Anic Stories God Revelation and The Audience 1St Edition Leyla Ozgur Alhassen Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Qur Anic Stories God Revelation and The Audience 1St Edition Leyla Ozgur Alhassen Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Qur Anic Stories God Revelation and The Audience 1St Edition Leyla Ozgur Alhassen Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qur anic Stories God Revelation and

the Audience 1st Edition Leyla Ozgur

The Experience of God A Phenomenology of Revelation 1st

Mosques Leyla Uluhanli

No Truth Without Beauty God the Qur an and Women s

A Ryan Revelation New York Ruthless short stories 7

Revealing Revelation How God s Plans for the Future Can

The God Conversation Using Stories and Illustrations to

Creating the Qur an Stephen J. Shoemaker

Your Story Well Told Creative Strategies to Develop and

Tis series departs from conventional writing on Classical Arabic Literature.

Books in the series include:

Leyla Ozgur Alhassen

© Leyla Ozgur Alhassen, 2021

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

Typeset in 11/15 Adobe Garamond by

ISBN 978 1 4744 8317 9 (hardback)

List of Figures and Tables vi

1 Introduction: A Narratological and Rhetorical Approach to

Figure 1.1 Qur’ānic narrative discourse and story 5

Table 3.1 Various models of the structure of 19:1–58 46

Figure 1.1 Qur’ānic narrative discourse and story

Furthermore, it is possible to discern auto-intertextual patterns in which

prehensive, whether in terms of location, time-period, or exegetical position.

Knowledge, Control and Consonance in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62

God, Families and Secrets in the Story of Sūrat Maryam 19:1–58

Te subsequent chapter concerns a story in Sūrat Maryam, 19:1–58, which

Evidence, Judgment and Remorse in Surat Yūsuf

Merging Words and Making Connections in Sūrat ˝aha

Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚ and its Audience

details, while also presenting new mysteries. In addition, we see allusions

. . . it is doubtful whether the theology of the text can be fully compre-

S ūrat Āl ‘Imrān 3:33–62 contains a story in which God is portrayed as

‘True Religion, in God’s eyes, is islam: [devotion to Him alone]’ (3:18–9).

II. Withholding Knowledge

Te theme of knowledge emerges in a number of ways. As discussed above,

Sūrat al-Qa‚a‚, all Meccan suras. Indeed, the withholding of knowledge is

44 Tis is an account of things beyond your knowledge that We reveal to

With only a short introduction and no explanation of time or place, 3:35

A diferent layer of narration in the story occurs in a verse that is inter-

III. Withholding Control

thankfulness, shukr.34 Qu†b similarly writes that Zakariyyā is unable to talk

IV. Creating Consonance

“Members of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South.

“L. Hitchcock, Chairman.

“J. M. Reid, Secretary.”

Philosophy of Martyrdom—Living Martyrs—Names Made

The martyrs of Missouri, though unknown to fame and

You might also like