The Qurʾān in Context

Historical and Literary Investigations into the

Qurʾānic Milieu

Edited by

Angelika Neuwirth
Nicolai Sinai
Michael Marx

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2010
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 461

­Al-Ḥawāmīm: Intertextuality and Coherence

in Meccan Surahs

Islam Dayeh

1. Introduction

Among the twenty-nine surahs beginning with disconnected letters

(al-ḥurūf al-muqaṭṭaʿa), seven begin with the disconnected letters ḥā
mīm. These are surahs 40 (Ghāfir), 41 (Fuṣṣilat), 42 (ash-Shūrā), 43
(az-Zukhruf), 44 (ad-Dukhān), 45 (al-Jāthiya), 46 (al-Aḥqāf), with
surah 42 beginning with ḥā mīm ʿayn sīn qāf. These surahs are com-
monly known in traditional Muslim sources as the Ḥawāmīm.1
In what follows I would like to argue that an intertextual reading,
attentive to the chronological development of these surahs, will cor-
roborate the thus far common, yet unstudied notion that these surahs
are interrelated. Surah coherence—a notion which has received fair
attention recently—will be broadened to include coherence in a num-
ber of surahs.2
The idea of surahs forming pairs, triplets, or quadruplets is itself
not entirely new. For example, the Pakistani Qurʾan scholar Amīn
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1903–1997) expounded the notion of surah pairs and
groups which he regarded as a central task of exegetical activity.3
Others have proposed surah groups, which include, for instance, the
so-called al-Raḥmān surahs; this group of surahs bears a frequent
occurrence of the divine attribute al-Raḥmān.4 Another such group
is al-Musabbiḥāt, i.e., surahs that begin with the verb sabbaḥa and

1
  Cf. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān, 6, ḥadīth no. 4612; Ibn Māja, Sunan,
Iqāma, 71, ḥadīth no. 1046; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol 1, no. 401; Dārimī, Faḍāʾil
al-Qurʾān, 14 and 22; Tirmidhī, Sunan, Thawāb al-Qurʾān, 2.
2
  Recent studies on the structure and the coherence of the surah include: Neu-
wirth, Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren; Mir, Coherence in the Qurʾan;
Robinson, Discovering the Qurʾan; and el-Awa, Textual Relations in the Qurʾan.
3
  For a thorough study of Iṣlāḥī’s exegetical contributions, see Mir, Coherence in
the Qurʾan, esp. 75–98.
4
 Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns (henceforth GQ), vol. 1, 121; and, Robinson,
Discovering, 89–92.
462 islam dayeh

its variants yusabbiḥu and sabbiḥ; there are also the Ṭawāsīn, i.e.,
surahs which begin with the disconnected letters ṭā sīn.5 It will be
argued that consideration of formal, formulaic, and thematic aspects
shows that the surahs in question are interrelated in a variety of ways,
and that this interrelatedness grants the surahs their coherence.
Moreover, this coherence is to be understood in terms of comple-
mentarity, i.e., a surah complements one surah and is complemented
by another. It follows that consideration of the dialectics of comple-
mentarity is necessary when engaging in an exegesis of the Qurʾan.6

2. The Disconnected Letters, the Introduction, and Muṣḥaf Adjacency

Let us begin our investigation by looking at the disconnected letters

at the beginning of the surahs.7 We will observe that these surahs
share the same introductory letters ḥā mīm, which is a preliminary
indication of a meaningful connection between them. Moving on to
the immediately following verses, we notice that the letters ḥā mīm
are followed by verses in which the Qurʾan is the focal theme. The
verses contain a Qurʾanic self-confirmation which corresponds to a
pattern in which the disconnected letters are followed by a confirma-
tion of the authoritativeness and authenticity of the Qurʾan. This pat-
tern is evident in the following examples of the first two verses of
some surahs:
‫ل�ا � لا �� ف����ه �ه�د � �ل�ل�م��ت��ق�� ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ذ‬
‫ت‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ى‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ��‫ � �ل�ك ا � ك‬. ‫ا �ل�م‬
‫ق‬ ّ
 2 (al-Baqara)
Q
‫ن‬ ‫ق‬
‫ح� �م���ص�د ��ا �ل���م�ا ب���ي� ي��د ي��ه‬ ‫ل�ا ب� ب�ا �ل‬
� ‫ن�ز‬ ‫�ق‬
��‫ � ل ع� ي�ل��ك ا � ك‬. ‫ ا �ل�ل�ه لا �إ �ل�ه �إ لا ن�هوا �ل�ح� ا �ل�� ��يو�م‬. ‫ا �ل�أم‬
‫� ي‬ ‫ن�ز ت �ة‬
Q 3 (Āl ʿImrān)

‫� � �ل�ل�م�ؤ �م��ن�� ن‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫� �ن �ت �ن ذ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫و� � ل ا �ل�ورتا و أال�إن�ز �ج� ي���ل‬

�‫ي‬ ‫�� ن� �يف� �ص�د ر ك حر�ج �م� �ه �ل� � �� ر ب��ه و� كرى‬ ‫كا ب� � � ل �إ �يل��ك ��لاي� ك‬ �� . ‫ا �ل���م���ص‬ Q 7 (al-Aʿrāf)

  They are surahs 26 (ash-Shuʿarāʾ), 27 (an-Naml), and 28 (al-Qaṣaṣ). Hans Bauer

5

notices that these three surahs all begin with the Moses narrative (Bauer, “Über die
Anordnung der Suren und über die Geheimnisvollen Buchstaben im Qoran,” 333).
6
 Since this study strives to be a close textual examination, it will be advisable to
read this article along with a parallel reading of the Ḥawāmīm.
7
 Traditional Muslim attitudes toward the disconnected letters are too vast to be
recounted here. On the whole, these opinions reflected their exegetical methods and
objectives. Cf. for example, as-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, 219–221. See also the important
collection of articles republished in: Der Koran, Wege der Forschung (ed. Rudi Paret,
Darmstadt 1975): Bauer, “Über die Anordnung der Suren und über die Geheimnisvol-
len Buchstaben im Qoran,” 311–335; Goossens, “Ursprung und Bedeutung der Kora-
nischen Siglen,” 336–373; Seale, “The Mysterious Letters in the Qurʾan,” 374–378;
Jones, “The Mystical Letters of the Qurʾan,” 379–385.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 463
‫قآ ن ن‬ ‫ت آ ت ت‬
��‫� ا � ك‬ ‫ا �لر��ل�ك � ي�ا‬
�‫ل�ا ب� و�ق�ر�آ ن� �م�ت��ب ي�� ق‬
‫ �م�ا �أ �ن�ز � نل��ا ع��ل��ك ا �ل�� � � �ل� �ش‬. ‫ط�ه‬
Q 15 (al-Ḥijr)
‫ى‬ �� �� ‫ت آ ت ي آ ن رت‬ Q 20 (Ṭāhā)
‫�ؤ �ن ن‬ ‫�ش‬ ‫ن‬
�‫ �ه�د �ى وب��� ر�ى �ل�ل�م �م� ��ي‬. ���‫كا ب� �م��ب ي‬ ��‫� ا �ل���ق ر� � و‬ ‫ط��س ��ل�ك � ي�ا آ‬
‫ وا �ل���ق ر� ن� ا �ل‬. ���‫ي‬
Q
 27 (an-Naml)
‫�ي����م‬
‫حك‬ �
‫ذ‬ ‫س آن ذ‬
Q 36 (Yā Sīn)
‫�ر‬‫�ص وا �ل���قآر� � � �ي� ا �ل�� ك‬
‫ن‬ ‫ق‬
Q 38 (Ṣād)
‫� وا �ل���ق ر� � ا �ل���م�� ج�ي���د‬ Q 50 (Qāf)
In the Ḥawāmīm surahs, the formulae tanzīl al-kitāb min allāh and
innā anzalnāhu are employed to convey this meaning. Furthermore,
we notice that the introductory phrase, tanzīl al-kitāb min allāh,
appears elsewhere in the Qurʾan: we find it in surah 39 (az-Zumar),
the immediately preceding surah in the order of the surahs in the
Muṣḥaf.8
‫ت‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ت‬
�‫ح‬
‫�ق‬ ‫ل�ا ب� ب�ا �ل‬ ��‫ �إ ن�ا � �ن�ز � نل��ا �إ �يل��ك ا � ك‬. ‫�ي����م‬ ‫حك‬ �‫ل�ا ب� �م� ن ا �ل�ل�ه ا �ل�ع�ز ��ز ا �ل‬
‫ن ي‬ �‫ت‬ ��‫ت���ن�ز ي�ل ا � ك‬ Q 39 (az-Zumar)
‫�ز‬ ‫ع�ز‬ ‫ن�ز‬
��‫ ت��� ي�ل ا � ك‬. ‫ح��م‬ �
‫ل ن‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل�ا ب� �م�� ا �ل�ل�ه ا �ل� �ي ا �لت�ع�لي����م ف ت آ ت ق آ‬ ‫ن�ز‬ ‫ت‬
Q 40 (Ghāfir)
‫م‬ �‫ع‬�� � ���
‫ل‬ ‫ا‬�
� � ‫ع‬�
�‫ ب� ذ� � ي� � ر � ربي و مي � و‬. ‫ � ي�ل � ر � ر ي �م‬. ‫� �م‬
‫ا‬ � � ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � �
‫ل‬ �‫ص‬ �� � ‫ك‬
‫ا‬
�� � ��‫ح‬ � �
‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ن‬ �
‫م‬ ‫ح‬
� �
‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ن‬ �
‫م‬ � �� �‫ح‬ Q 41 (Fuṣṣilat)
‫ي� �م� ن ق���ب�ل�ك ا �ل�ل�ه ا �ل�ع�ز ��ز ا �ل‬
� ‫� ذ�� �ل�ك � �ح �ل��ك �إل � � ن‬ ‫ ك‬. �‫ �ع��س تق‬. ‫ح��م‬ �
‫�ي����م‬
‫حك‬ ‫ى ا ل�� � ت �ق ن ي‬ ‫يو ي� �إ ي و‬
‫���ع� ن�ل��ا ه �ق �آ �ن‬ ‫ �ن‬. ‫ل�ا � ا �ل���م� �� ن‬
Q 42 (ash-Shūrā)
�‫نم و‬ ‫�ل‬ � ��
‫ع‬ � � ��
‫ك‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ع‬
� �
‫ل‬ ‫ا‬
�� � ‫ع‬�
‫ر �ة ربي‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬
‫�ب ي� �إ أ ج‬ ‫ و ت ب‬. ‫� �م‬
��‫ك‬ � ‫ا‬ �‫ح‬ Q 43 (az-Zukhruf)
‫كا �م��ن ذ�� � ن‬ ‫���ة �ن‬ � � � ‫ه‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ن�ز‬
� ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ��‫ وا � ك‬. ‫ح��م‬ �
�‫ري‬ �
� ‫ا‬ ‫ �إ � ع�ز �ز يف� ي ل� �ب رك �إ‬. �‫ل�ا ب�ت �� �ب ي‬
‫ا‬
� �‫م‬ ��‫ل‬ ‫ا‬
��‫ل‬ � ‫ا‬ �� �‫م‬ �‫ل‬ ‫ا‬
‫ن�ز‬ ‫ت‬
Q 44 (ad-Dukhān)
‫ل‬� ‫ن‬
‫ي �م‬���
�‫ك‬ �
‫ح‬ ‫ا‬
‫�ز‬
� �‫ل‬
‫ع�ز ي‬
� ‫ا‬ ‫�ه‬‫ل‬��
‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ � �‫ ت� ن�ز ي�ل ت ب‬. ‫� �م‬
�‫م‬ � �‫ل‬
‫ا‬
��‫ك‬ � ‫ا‬ �� �‫ح‬ Q 45 (al-Jāthiyah)
‫ل‬
�� � � � ‫ن‬ ��‫ ��� ي�ل ا � ك‬. ‫ح��م‬ �
‫ي �م‬���
�‫ك‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ي‬ �‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�ه‬‫ل‬�‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ��‫ل�ا ب� �م‬ Q 46 (al-Aḥqāf)

That surah 39 (az-Zumar) is adjacent to surah 40 (Ghāfir) according

to the order of the surahs in the muṣḥaf, suggests that surah 39 could
also belong to the group in question. This is especially the case when
we discover that according to one of the early codices of the Qurʾan
(muṣḥaf Ubayy), surah 39 begins with the letters ḥā mīm.9 In addition,
it will be noticed that the Ḥawāmīm surahs, including surah 39 (az-
Zumar), all appear in the Textus Receptus in adjacency, i.e. in an order
following one another.
Thus far, we have observed that surahs 40 through 46 begin with
the same disconnected letters and that these letters are followed
immediately by an introductory verse stating the authoritative nature
of the Qurʾan. Furthermore, surah 39 (az-Zumar)—which appears

8
 Notice however that the surah, according to the textus receptus, does not begin
with the disconnected letters ḥā mīm. An exception to this is muṣḥaf Ubayy according
to which the surah does begin with these letters.
9
  As-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān, vol. 1, 128, fī jamʿihi wa tartībihi. Referring to this codex,
Hans Bauer has made the interesting suggestion that this surah might have belonged
to the rest of the Ḥawāmīm (Bauer, “Über die Anordnung der Suren,” 324). This sug-
gestion will be explored further in this study.
464 islam dayeh

immediately before the surahs beginning with ḥā mīm (40, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45, and 46)—similarly begins with a confirmation of the
Qurʾan’s authority. The opening verse in surah 39 is exactly identical
to the second verse in surahs 44 and 46, and resembles the second
verse in surah 40. This may account for the aforementioned report
purporting that (per muṣḥaf Ubayy) surah 39 begins with the discon-
nected letters ḥā mīm. The question that arises here is of a redactional
nature. Was the placing of these surahs in the current order of the
muṣḥaf intentional? Tentatively, one could make the case that what-
ever function these disconnected letters might have had10 and what-
ever led to the absence (or possible removal) of the disconnected
letters ḥā mīm at the start of surah 39, the arrangement of the surahs
in this sequence does suggest an initial understanding that these
surahs are interrelated.

3. Meccan Surahs and Chronology

Still, matching introductions and the adjacency of the surahs in the

muṣḥaf is arguably insufficient to establish that surahs 39 through 46
cohere. To argue for the inclusion of surah 39 and for the inter-
relatedness of the whole group, an examination of thematic and for-
mulaic parallels recurring in the group is required. One would have
to demonstrate that a chronological development of ideas or that a
coherent body of ideas is discernable in these surahs.
A significant result of the literary-historical study of the Qurʾan
has been the division of surahs into four main periods: early Meccan,
middle Meccan, late Meccan and Medinan. This division has yielded
many interesting ideas about the prophetic vocation and the emer-
gence of the early Muslim community.11 My concern here is with the
Meccan period; and of the three Meccan divisions, in particular, with

10
  Bauer and Goossens have suggested that the disconnected letters ḥā mīm are
abbreviations for the words jaḥīm and ḥamīm (both denoting hellfire) which occur
most frequently in these surahs (cf. surah 40:72 and surah 44:46 and 48). The remain-
ing surahs, although they do not contain the word ḥamīm, are replete with eschato-
logical content. Cf. Bauer, “Über die Anordnung der Suren,” 334 and Goossens,
“Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 361–362. On the other hand, Alan Jones has argued that
these letters are mystical symbols intended to convey an impression of obscurity and
thus they do not have any specific meaning, cf. Jones, “The Mystical Letters,” 383–
385.
11
  For a summary, see Robinson, Discovering, 76–96.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 465

the late Meccan period. Late Meccan surahs share several charac­ter­
istics:
(a) The verses appear longer than the early Meccan surahs, but
equal in length to the verses of middle Meccan surahs, ending with
the penultimate -ūn and -īn.
(b) The themes are similar to the preceding Meccan surahs: they
preach monotheism and recount the Prophet’s disputes with the
Meccans over the resurrection, the day of reckoning, and the false-
hood of the Arabian deities.
(c) The targeted listener is addressed with the formula “Oh you
people” (yā ayyuhā n-nās), a vocative formula that denotes an engage-
ment with several discourses (pagan, Jewish, and Christian).
(d) Since these surahs were revealed just before the emigration to
Medina, many instances of Medinan interpolations are to be found
in them—an indication of a need for revision due to the change of
circumstances in Medina after the Hijra.12
(e) In addition, I would add, this period is characterized by a certain
mood of worry and anxiety present throughout the surahs which
appears to reflect the exasperation caused by the adamant resistance
to the Prophetic recitations. This aspect will appear in the thematic
analysis below.
Let us consider now the chronological order of these surahs. Unlike
Medinan and early Meccan surahs which apparently bear allusions
to the person of the Prophet and to the happenings that occurred
during the lifetime of the community, late Meccan surahs appear to
be most elusive in terms of their reference to historical events. Theodor
Nöldeke, who exerted much effort in establishing a chronology of
Qurʾanic revelations based on literary criteria, himself questioned the
possibility of arriving at a chronology of late Meccan surahs. He
argued that these surahs reveal no inner-development on which a
chronology could be based.13 The following table presents the chro-
nology of the surahs in question as proposed by Nöldeke.

12
 On the notion of Medinan revision and interpolations, see Watt, Bellʾs Introduc-
tion to the Qurʾan, 86–100, and Nagel, Medinensische Einschübe in mekkanischen
Suren. In this context, it should be noted that the notion of the surah as a coherent
unit should not necessarily imply a particular opinion about when a surah reached its
final form. Surahs may be conceived of as entities for quantifying Qurʾanic material
which belong to a particular period or setting. Coherence is thus gradual and relative.
Cf. Marshal, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers, 75.
13
 Nöldeke, GQ, vol. 1, 144: “Da in den Suren der dritten Periode so gut wie gar
keine Entwicklung mehr sichtbar ist, so können wir noch weniger als in denen der
466 islam dayeh

Chronological order of surah Surah

53rd surah 44 (ad-Dukhān) [middle Meccan]
61st surah 43 (az-Zukhruf) [middle Meccan]
71st surah 41 (Fuṣṣilat) [late Meccan]
72nd surah 45 (al-Jāthiya) [late Meccan]
80th surah 39 (az-Zumar)14 [late Meccan]
83rd surah 42 (ash-Shūrā) [late Meccan]
88th surah 46 (al-Aḥqāf) [late Meccan]

Nöldeke’s proposed chronology (the order of the Ḥawāmīm­­including

surah 39) differs radically from the chronologies proffered by Muslim
exegetes. Apart from surahs 41 and 45, which come at the 71st and
72nd place, all the remaining surahs are scattered throughout the
Meccan period. His aforementioned general statement aside, Nöldeke
does not provide clear criteria according to which he based this par-
ticular chronology. He does not tell us why he places 44 and 43 before
the rest of the surahs. Rather, he seems to be more interested in
discussing alleged Medinan interpolations and surah divisions, and
less in surah inter-texts and development.15 For instance, the fact that
these surahs all begin with the disconnected letters Ḥā Mīm and simi-
lar introductory verses and appear adjacent in the textus receptus
appears to be insignificant. The question that arises here is why did
Nöldeke propose this particular chronology and what were his
criteria?
I would venture to suggest that his main criterion here was histori-
cal. The question Nöldeke was concerned with was this: are there any
allusions in the text to historical events or, in other words, are there
any extra-Qurʾanic reports that could date the text? And to be more
accurate, the extra-Qurʾanic reports that he refers to are in fact mere
reports found in the exegetical literature, i.e., single narratives whose
correspondence to the context of the surah is often either biased or
manipulated creatively by the exegetes, at best. Nöldeke is aware of
the fragile nature of these odd reports, and does in fact reject many.16

älteren Perioden eine irgend sichere chronologische Reihenfolge aufstellen.”

14
 Note, however, that Nöldeke does not consider the possibility of surah 39 (az-
Zumar) being related to the rest of the Ḥawāmīm.
15
  His notes on these surahs can be found in GQ as follows: surah 44, p. 124; surah
43, p. 131–132; surah 41, p. 144–145; surah 45, p. 145; surah 40, p. 153; surah 39,
p. 154; surah 42, p. 157–158; surah 46, p. 160–161.
16
  Cf. previous footnote.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 467

But his treatment of this sole criterion is nevertheless indicative of

the criterion at work here. What dictates Nöldeke’s chronology of
these surahs is, in my view, an inadequate understanding of historical
criteria which is only complicated by the evident neglect of literary
considerations. In light of these observations, it is imperative to recon-
sider his proposed chronology and to question the justifiability of his
difficulties in establishing a chronology of these surahs. Does Nöldeke’s
chronology treat these surahs adequately?
Alternative and much earlier chronologies may shed some light
on our problem. Let us consider now the chronologies of these surahs
proposed by Muslim exegetes, as quoted by the author of al-Itqān,
as-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505). They are:

1. 39 (az-Zumar) → the Ḥawāmīm surahs, without specifying

the chronology among the surahs [attributed to Abu Jaʿfar
al-Naḥḥās’ an-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh].
2. 39 (az-Zumar) → 40 (Ḥā Mīm al-Muʾmin) → 44 (Ḥā Mīm
ad-Dukhān) → 41 (Ḥā Mīm as-Sajda)17 → 42 (Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn
Sīn Qāf) → 43 (Ḥā Mīm az-Zukhruf) → 45 (al-Jāthiya) → 46
(al-Aḥqāf) [attributed to al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil an-Nubuw­wa].
3. 39 (az-Zumar) → 40 (Ḥā Mīm al-Muʾmin) → 41 (Ḥā Mīm
as-Sajda) → 42 (Ḥā Mīm ʿAyn Sīn Qāf) → 43 (Ḥā Mīm az-
Zukhruf) → 44 (ad-Dukhān) → 45 (al-Jāthiya) → 46 (al-Aḥqāf)
[attributed to Ibn aḍ-Ḍurays’ Fadāʾil al-Qurʾān].

These cited chronologies are attributed to exegetes and philologists,

and are not prophetic traditions. Thus what we have before us are
chronologies proposed and constructed by exegetes on the basis of a
set of various criteria. The first chronology states that the Ḥawāmīm
surahs, as a cluster, follow surah 39, but does not specify in which
order these surahs appear. The second and third chronologies offer
a detailed ordering which corresponds to the general chronology,
while the second chronology inserts surah 44 between surahs 40 and
41.
As in the case of Nöldeke’s chronology, these variant chronologies
are not documented with literary analysis explaining the reasons for
their particular ordering. Arguably, one would have to refer to the
auxiliary Qurʾanic sciences such as an-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh and

17
  Ḥā Mīm as-Sajda is another name for surah 41, Fuṣṣilat.
468 islam dayeh

Asbāb an-Nuzūl to discern the criteria that determined these proposed

chronologies, a task which is beyond the scope of this study. Unlike
Nöldeke, however, these variant chronologies cited by as-Suyūṭī pay
due attention to the introductory verses and their adjacent ordering
in the muṣḥaf.
Thus, whereas Nöldeke’s chronology of these particular surahs
appears to be inattentive to any literary criteria, these three variant
chronologies seem to use the introductory verse and Muṣḥaf adja-
cency as criteria. I will, for the sake of argument, base the remainder
of this study on this chronology. I will advance three main criteria
upon which I will examine the inter-textual nature of these surahs:
formulaic, thematic, and historic.

4. Formula Criticism

I refer here to the work of Milman Parry (d. 1935) and Albert Lord
(d. 1991) on epic poetry, which has profoundly stimulated interest
in modes of oral composition and, in particular, in recurring patterns
of biblical phrase and formula.18 Following Parry’s definition, a for-
mula in the Homeric epic is “a group of words which is regularly
employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given
essential idea.”19 Formulae are present in oral poetry because they are
useful. They are available to the poet to use while he is singing so that
he need not invent them under the pressure of performance.20
Important contributions have been advanced in the study of the
composition of ancient Arabic poetry by Michael Zwettler and James
Monroe on the basis of the works of the “oral-formula” hypothesis
worked out by Parry and Lord.21 The application of formula criticism
in the study of Qurʾanic composition however remains controversial.
Recently, strong support for such an approach has been advocated
by the non-Arabist folklorist Alan Dundes.22

18
  Parry, The Making of Homeric Verse; Lord, The Singer of Tales, and Epic Singers
and the Oral Tradition.
19
  Parry, Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making, vol. 1, 80.
20
  Watters, Formula Criticism and the Poetry of the Old Testament, 8–9.
21
  Monroe, “Oral composition in pre-Islamic poetry”; Zwettler, “Classical Arabic
poetry between folk and oral tradition,” and his seminal monograph The Oral Tradi-
tion of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its Character and Implications.
22
  Dundes, Fables of the Ancients. But see the reviews of both Abbas Kadhim and
Helen Blatherwick (see bibliography).
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 469

In a tentative evaluation of formula criticism, Angelika Neuwirth

observes that, in light of her studies on the structure of the Meccan
surahs, the idea of the Qurʾanic text being composed and recomposed
during oral performance is hard to maintain. She avers that
[t]hough such a performance practice may apply to many early sūras,
it can hardly be assumed for the bulk of the qur’ānic corpus. Some early
sūras that were already composed without written assistance attest to
an origin in nocturnal vigils, rather than in public performances. Later
sūras, comprised of multipartite verses with little poetic shaping and
thus devoid of effective mnemonic technical devices, strongly suggest
an almost immediate fixation in writing, or may even have been written
compositions to begin with.23
Neuwirth’s insights are highly significant and underline a major limi-
tation of the application of formula criticism to Qurʾanic composition:
any application of formula criticism must take into account the struc-
tural features of Qurʾanic composition, features that are suggestive
of an immediate fixation in writing or that the surahs may have been
written compositions to begin with. Thus, the Parry-Lord notion of a
formula composed for the purposes and under the pressure of oral
performance must be applied with caution when discussing Qurʾanic
composition.
There is however an aspect of the formula which remains unex-
plored. The Qurʾan, inasmuch as it is the lectionary and recital of
the Muslim community, it is also the first Arabic book; it is the first
Arabic literary text to have been committed to writing. The Qurʾan
thus signifies an important transitional stage in the history of Arabic
language and literature. The Qurʾan witnessed and actively ­contributed
to a transformation of literary culture from a predominantly oral to
a written one. This transformation was not limited to the technologi-
cal, but left great impressions on modes of composition, narration,
and rhetoric. While the Qurʾan strives to establish itself as the literary
canon of the Arabs, it does so in a predominantly oral environment,
whose literary sensibilities and modes of rhetoric are deeply rooted
in performance, persuasion, and oral verse-making ingrained in for-
mulaic language. Thus, the literary and technological conditions in
which the Qurʾanic text emerged shaped the way in which it was
composed. Residues of oral literature, such as public speech and
­persuasion, and formulaic language, are evident throughout the

23
 Neuwirth, “Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features,” 100.
470 islam dayeh

Qurʾan. One may describe Qurʾanic composition as a literaturization

of ancient Arabic rhetoric.24 A consequence of this observation
strongly relates to our interest in oral-formulaic language: the endea­
vor to compose a written and finely structured Arabic literary canon
could not have been successful without employment of oral modes
of Arabic rhetoric and composition deeply rooted in the formula.
Turning to the Qurʾanic exegetical tradition, attention to what may
be called the Qurʾanic formulae is early and can be traced to the clas-
sical philological discipline of al-mushtabihāt (or, al-mutashābihāt)
which were primarily mnemonic registers devised to assist memoriza-
tion. One such register is al-Kisāʾī’s (d. 804 AH) Mutashābih al-
Qurʾān.25 In the preface to his book, al-Kisāʾī states that his purpose
is to provide a list containing parallel words and utterances, so as to
facilitate efficient memorization of the Qurʾan.26 However, what was
initially a mnemonic register gradually proved to be of value for liter-
ary criticism of the Qurʾan. In his entry on the mushtabihāt, as-Suyūṭī
dedicates several pages to this particular genre, its primary literature
and its uses, and discusses numerous cases pertaining to literary criti-
cal matters. Beyond the pragmatic needs of a mnemonic register such
as al-Kisāʾī’s, as-Suyūṭī and the works he cited stressed, as it were,
the literary function of these registers. Accordingly, these parallel
words and utterances occur due to the repetition of a specific narra-
tive in a variety of forms in correspondence to contextual considera­
tions.27
The resemblance between the notion of mutashābih and Parry’s
aforementioned definition of formula is striking. Both definitions
agree on two basic characteristics of a formula: multiple existence
and variation. Though the idea of a “repeated word-group” is not
explicit in as-Suyūṭī’s definition, it is implicit in the sense that ishtibāh,
confusion, only arises when verses are similar—they belong to the
same word group. Notions of fluidity and improvisation are not
accounted for here and nor should we expect them to be. However,

24
  George Kennedy defines the term Literaturization as “the tendency to shift focus
from persuasion to narration, from civic to personal contexts, and from speech to
literature, including poetry,” see his Classical Rhetoric, 2ff.
  For a list of these registers, see: Al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān,‫ آ‬nawʾ 63,
‫ ت�ن��ا ظ� �م� نك�ل�م�ا ت‬، ‫ل�ا � �م�ا �ت �ش�� �ا ��ه �م� ن �أ �ل��ف� �ا�ظ ا �ل���ق � ن‬‫ذ ت‬ ‫أذ‬
25
vol. 2, 224–227.
‫ت‬ � � ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ � ‫ر‬ � ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ��‫�ر�يف� �ه�� ا ا � ك‬
‫��ك‬
‫ق‬ ً‫ا‬ ‫ذ‬
� ‫ وت����قو��ة‬،‫ �عون� �ل��ل��ق�ا ر ��ئ ع��ل �را ء ت��ه‬،‫كا ب�ن��ا �ه�� ا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ق‬
  Al-Kisāʾī, Mutashābih al-Qurʾān, 50:   
‫ح��ف� ظ����ه‬ ‫ �يل� ك‬،� ‫ا �ل��ف� ر��ا‬
26

‫ي‬ ‫ى‬ �� �‫�و‬

‫ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬
  Al-Suyūtī, al-Itqān, vol. 2, 224ff. (nawʿ 63): ‫ و�وا �ص�ل‬،‫و�هو �إ ي�را د ا �ل���ق���ص� ا �لوا ح�د �يف� �صور���ش�تى‬
‫�خ��ت���فل� ��ة‬
27

. ‫م‬
�
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 471

there is a certain awareness of the nature of narrative and of how

slight variation in formulae occurs due to contextual considerations.
There are even efforts to discern the exegetical and rhetorical differ-
ences between variants within the same formula group. These efforts
should be taken into consideration when analyzing Qurʾanic
formulae.
Our textual corpus, al-Ḥawāmīm, provides a plethora of examples
whereby the merit of such an approach is evident. As the objective
here is to explore elements of interconnectedness, the application of
formula criticism will thus be limited to the identification of parallel
formula and the function they serve in maintaining textual cohesion.
Moreover, a mere calculation of the frequency of repetition of a given
formulae is inadequate without an investigation into how these spe-
cific formulae were employed and incorporated in a variety of contexts
and a multitude of surahs for the pragmatic-communicational objec-
tives of the text.
What follows is a study of twenty cases of potential parallel formula.
This list, it should be noted, does not claim to be exhaustive of all
parallel formula in our corpus. Furthermore, since our concern is
with cross-surah reference, rather than inner-surah reference, I have
left out numerous parallel formulae within the individual surah. Our
guiding question, it will be recalled, is whether our corpus contains
parallel formula; and if so, to what extent do these formulae shed
light on the interconnectedness of the surahs?

1) Q 39:1, 40:2, 41:2, 45:2, 46:2 (as opening, occurring only in these
surahs):
َ ْ َ ْ َّ َ َ‫َ ُ ْ ت‬
‫�ا � �م� ن ا �ل��ل�ه ا �ل�ع � ا �ل‬
� � ‫ت‬ ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
ِ ِ ِ‫���ن�زِ ي�ل ا ل كِ�� بِ ِ � ِ �زِي�ز‬
‫�م‬���
‫ي‬ �
‫ك‬ ‫ح‬ 1
َ ْ َ ْ َّ َ‫ن‬ َ‫َ ُ ْ ت‬ ‫�غ ف‬
‫�م‬ � � � �
ِ ���‫� �ِم�� ا ل��لِ�ه ا ل�ع�زِي�زِ ا ل�ع�ِ�لي‬
ِ‫�ا ب‬��ِ‫ت��� ي�ل ا �ل ك‬ ‫[ �ا �ر‬40]
ِ‫ن�ز‬
2
َّ َ َّْ َ‫تَ ٌ ّ ن‬ ‫ف‬
‫�م‬ � � ‫ح‬ � �
ِ ���‫���ن�زِ ي�ل ِم�� ا لر �م� نِ� ا لرحِ ي‬ 2 ‫[ ����ص�ل� ت‬41]
�
َ ْ َ ْ َّ َ َ‫َ نْ ُ ْ ت‬ ‫��ا ث����ة‬
‫�ا � �م� ن ا �ل��ل�ه ا �ل�ع � ا �ل‬
� � ‫ت‬ ‫[ ا ��جل ي‬45]
ِ ���‫�ي‬
‫�م‬ ‫ح ِك‬ ِ‫����زِ ي�ل ا ل كِ�� بِ ِ � ِ �زِي�ز‬ 2
َ ْ َ ْ َّ َ َ‫َ نْ ُ ْ ت‬ ‫أ� ف‬
ِ‫�ي����م‬
‫ح ِك‬ ‫�ا � �م� ن ا �ل��ل�ه ا �ل�ع � ا �ل‬
�
ِ‫����زِ ي�ل ا ل كِ�� بِ ِ � ِ �زِي�ز‬
� ‫ت‬ � ‫ح���ق�ا‬
2 � �‫[ ال‬46]

The formulae here are relatively identical, all beginning with the noun
tanzīl, followed by an attribution of the revelation to God.
472 islam dayeh

2) Q 39:3, 40:28 (occurring only twice in the Qurʾan):

ٌ َّ‫��ف‬
َ ٌ ‫نَّ َّ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ ُ َ ذ‬
� ‫� ا �ل��ل�ه لا ي���ه ِ�د �ي� �م� ن� �ه َو‬
‫كا ِ� ب� ك�� �ا ر‬ ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
ِ‫�إ‬
3
ٌ َّ‫نَّ َّ َ َ َ ْ َ نْ ُ َ ُ ْ �فٌ َ ذ‬ ‫�غ ف‬
‫ � ا �ل��ل�ه لا ي���ه ِ�د �ي� �م�� �هو�م��س ِر� ك‬28
�‫��� ا ب‬ ‫[ �ا �ر‬40]
ِ‫�إ‬
The first formula appears in the context of the denial of monotheism,
thus the appellative kādhib kaffār, i.e. a liar, an ingrate. The second
appears at the end of a narrative which exemplifies the arrogant denial
of the Mosaic message, thus the appellative musrif kadhdhāb, i.e. a
prodigal, a liar. The nuanced differences correspond to the respective
contexts.

3) Q 39:15, 42:45 (occurring only twice in the Qurʾan):

َ َ‫أَ ن �فُ َ ُ ْ أَ ْ ْ َ َ ْ �ق َ َ �ة أََ ذ‬ َ‫نَ َّذ نَ خ‬ َْ َّ‫ُق ْ ن‬
‫��سُروا � ��� ���س�ه��م َو� �ه�ِ�لي���ه��م ي� ْو�م ا �ل��ِ ي���ا �م�ِ � لا � �ِل�ك‬
ِ � �‫ي‬� ��ِ ‫�خ�ا �ِ�سر�� ا �ل‬
‫ي‬
‫ �� � ا �ل‬15
�
ِ‫ل �إ‬
‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
ِ ِ
ُ‫ُ�ه َ ا �ْل�خُ ْ َ نُ ْ ُ ن‬
���‫���سرا � ا �ل���م��بِي‬ ‫و‬
َ ْ َ ْ ْ َ‫نَ َّذ نَ خَ ُ أَ ن �فُ َ ُ ْ َأ‬ َْ َّ‫ن‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ق‬
� � ‫�خ‬ ‫�ل‬
� ‫� ن �ن‬ ‫�ش‬
‫��سروا � ��� ���س�ه��م و� �ه�ِ�لي���ه��م ي�و�م‬
ِ ِ � �‫ و��ا ل ا �ل��ي� � �م� وا �إِ � ا �ا �ِ�س ِري� ا �ل ِ��ي‬45 ‫[ ا �ل�� ور �ى‬42]
ُّ َ‫نَ َ ذ‬ َ َّ َ‫َأ‬ ْ
‫�م‬ ���
‫ي‬ �� ‫م‬� � ‫ا‬ ��
‫ع‬ � �‫ا �ل���ق يَ���ا �َم��ة � لا ن� ا � ظّل����ا ����م��ي‬
�ِ‫ف‬
ٍ ِ‫�ق‬ ٍ ‫ب‬ ‫لِ ِ ي‬ ِ‫�إ‬ ِ ِ
The first formula follows the imperative qul and appears in a series
of five qul verses in the surah (verses 10–15). The believers are told
to announce that the “losers are those who lose themselves and their
family on the day of reckoning” and thus the announcement is part
of a polemic and serves as a warning. It appears again in surah 42 in
the context of presenting the destiny of the unbelievers in the here-
after. Here the same statement is evoked and quoted, presumably
from surah 39, this time however it is pronounced by the believers
in an eschatological setting.

4) Q 39:16, 42:23 (occurring only twice in the Qurʾan):

ُ‫ذَ َ ُ�خَ فُ َّ ُ َ َ ُ َ َ فَ تَّ�ق‬
�ِ‫� ِّو�� ا �ل��ل�ه �بِِ�ه عِ� ��ب�اد ه ي�ا عِ� ��ب�ادِ ��ا ��� و ن‬
�‫� �ل�ك ي‬
ِ 16 ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
َ
َ� َّ ُ َ�َ ُ‫ذَ َ ّذ َُ �شّ ُ َّ ُ َ َ ُ ّذ نَ آ َ �ن‬ َ
�ِ‫� �ل�ك ا �ل ِ�� �� ي���ب�� ر ا �ل��ل�ه عِ� ��ب�اد ه ا �ل ِ���ي� � �م� وا وعِ�م��لوا ا �ل���ص�ا ل‬
� ‫ح�ا‬
ِ‫ت‬ 23 ‫[ ا � �ش‬42]
‫ل�� ور �ى‬
ِ ‫ي‬ ِ
There is a slight formulaic similarity which may serve to illustrate the
contrast.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 473

5) Q 39:23, 39:36, 40:33 (occurring only these three times):

َ ْ‫َ َ ن ُ ْ ْ َّ ُ ف�ََ َ ُ ن‬
ٍ ‫� �ِل�ل ا �ل��ل�ه �م�ا �ل�ه �ِم�� �ه‬
‫�اد‬ ‫و�م�� �ي���ض‬ 23 ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
َ َ َ َ َ
‫ََ ن ُ ْ ّ ف‬
ٍ‫� �ِل�ل ا �ل��ل�هُ ��م�ا �ل�هُ �ِم� نْ� �ه�اد‬
‫�م� ����ض‬ ‫�ز‬
‫[ ا �ل �م ر‬39]
ِ ‫و �ي‬
36
َ ْ‫َ َ ن ُ ْ َّ ُ ف�ََ َ ُ ن‬ ‫�غ ف‬
ٍ ‫� �ِل� ِل ا �ل��ل�ه �م�ا �ل�ه �ِم�� �ه‬
‫�اد‬ ‫و�م�� �ي���ض‬ 33 ‫[ �ا �ر‬41]

Identical formulae employed in the three contexts to convey the

notion of God’s guidance and protection.

6) Q 39:26, 41:16 (occurring only these two times):

َُ ْ‫ف�َأَ ذَ �َق ُ ُ َّ ُ �ْلخِ�زْ َ � �ْلََ ُّ نَْ ََ َ ذَ ُ ْ آ َ َأ‬
� ‫ � � ا ���ه��م ا �ل��ل�ه ا � �� فِ� ا‬2 6
‫حي���ا�ةِ ا �ل�د �ي��ا و�ل�ع�� ا ب� ال� خِ�ر�ةِ � ك‬
‫�ب��ر‬ ‫ي ي‬ ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
َ
ْ‫ُّ نَْ ََ َ ذَ ُ ْ آ َ أ خ‬ َ َْ ْ َ َ‫ّ نُ ذ قَ ُ ْ َ ذ‬
َ
‫�ز‬ �
‫حي���ا�ةِ ا �ل�د �ي��ا و�ل�ع�� ا ب� ال� خِ�ر�ةِ � � �ى‬‫� ا �ل�خِ�زْ�� �فِ� ا ل‬
� ‫ف‬
‫[ ����ص�ل� ت‬41]
‫يِ ي‬ ‫ ِ�ل� ِ�� ي�������ه��مع�� ا ب‬16 �

Apart from the alteration in the subject (the first is “God,” while the
second is “we”) and the ending, the formulae are parallel. Both appear
in the context of describing the fate of the earlier nations that
disbelieved.

7) Q 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3 (occurring also in 12:2; 20:113):

َ‫َ َّ َ َّ ُ ْ ََّ�قُ ن‬ ‫قُ آنً َ َ ًّ �غََْ ذ‬
�‫ �ر� �ا �عرب�ي��ا ي��ر ِ� �ي� عِ� و�جٍ �ل�ع���ل�ه��م ي�ت�� و‬28 ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
ِ
َ‫قُْآنً َ َ ًّ ّ �قَ َ ْ َُ ن‬ ‫ف‬
�‫�ر� �ا �عرب�ي��اِ�ل�� ْو�ٍم�ي�ع�ل�مو‬ ‫[ ����ص�ل� ت‬41]
�
ِ
3

The adverbs qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan appear frequently in this corpus.

The intention here is to emphasize the Arabic nature of the text.

8) Q 39:48; 45:33 (occurring only these two times):

‫�َّ َ نُ َ ْ َ ْ ئُ ن‬ َ‫ََ َ َ ُ ْ َ ّ ئَ تُ َ َ َ ُ َ ق‬
� ‫�����س��بوا َوح�ا � بِ���ه��م م�ا‬
�‫كا �وا �بِِ�ه ي�����ست����ه�زِ �و‬ ‫ وب��د ا ��ل�ه��م��س�ِي���ا � �م�ا �ك‬4 8 ‫[ ا �ل�ز �مر‬39]
ِ
‫ْ َ ْ ئُ ن‬ َ َ
ُ‫َّ ن‬ َ‫َ ق‬ ُ َ َ ُ‫ََ َ َ ُ ْ َ ّ ئَ ت‬ ‫��ا ث����ة‬
�‫كا �وا �بِِ�ه ي�����ست����ه�زِ �و‬� ‫� �م�ا �عِ�م��لوا َوح�ا � بِ���ه��م�م�ا‬ ‫ وب��د ا ��ل�ه��م��س�ِي���ا‬33 ‫[ ا ��جل ي‬45]
ِ
Identical formulae despite the verb change: kasabū and ʿamilū. Both
formulae describe the fate and response of the unbelievers on the day
of reckoning upon witnessing their wrongdoings.
474 islam dayeh

9) Q 39:71, 39:73, 41:20 (occurring only three times):

ْ َ َ ُ َ َ َ َ ُ َْ‫َ َ َ َ ُ َ ُ َ أ‬
ْ �ُ‫��زَنَتُ َ أ �لَ ْ َأ ك‬‫ْخ‬ ‫��تّ ذ ا�ؤ ف �ت � ْ َ َ ق‬
‫ح� ت� � ب�وا ب���ه�ا و��ا ل ��ل�ه��م ����ه�ا � �م ي�� تِ م‬
� � ��ِ�� ‫ حى �إ � ا �ج � و�ه�ا‬71
ِ
‫] ا �ل�ز �مر‬39[
َ َ
ْ ُ‫��زَنَتُ َ �َ َا ٌ َع��لْ ك‬ َ ْ ُ َ َ ‫َ �تَّ ذَ َا�ؤُ َ َ فُ �ت َ ْ أْ ُ َ َق‬
‫�م‬� �‫ح� ت� � ب� َوا ب���ه�ا َو��ا ل ��ل�ه��م خ ����ه�ا �س�ل �م ي‬ ��� ��‫حى �إ � ا �ج � و�ه�ا و‬
ِ ِ
� 73 ‫] ا �ل�ز �مر‬39[
َ
ْ ُ ُ ُ ُ َ ْ ُ ُ َ ْ ‫� َّ ذَ َ َ ُ َ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ َ ْ ُ ُ ْ َ أ‬ َ ‫ف‬
‫ح�تى �إِ � ا �م�ا �ج �ا�ؤ و�ه�ا �ش����ه�د ع��لي���ه��م��س���م��ع�ه��م و� ب����ص�ا ر �ه��م و�ج ��لود �ه��م‬ ‫] ����ص�ل� ت‬41[
�
ِ ِ
20
All three formulae appear in eschatological contexts. The first con-
cerns the arrival of the unbelievers in hell and the guardian’s reproach-
ing them. The second, in contrast, concerns the arrival of the believers
in paradise and the welcoming of the guardians. The third, whose
context is likewise eschatological, employs only the conditional clause
ḥattā idhā jāʾūhā.

10) Q 39:75, 40:7, 42:5 (occurring only three times):

ّ‫�َق‬ْ ُ ْ ُ ْ ّ َ َْ� َ‫ُ َ ّ ُ ن‬
‫�م َوق���� َ بَ�ي� نَ���ه��م �ا �ل‬
�ِ‫ح‬ �‫��م ِ�د رب���ه‬
‫ح بح‬ ��� �‫ �����س‬7 5 ‫] ا �ل�ز �مر‬39[
َ
ِ‫ب‬ �ِ‫�ض‬
‫ي‬ ِ ِ ْ ِ �‫ي ِ�ب و‬
ُ َ ‫�َ َ ّ ْ َُ ْ�ؤ � �نُ نَ َ َ ْ �تَ �غْ ُ نَ � ّ ذ � نَ آ‬ �‫ح نَ� ب‬ُّ ُ
‫ي� � �م��نوا‬ ��ِ ‫ح�م ِ�د رب���ه��م و�ي ِم� و� �ِ�ه و�ي����س� ����فِرو� ِل�ل‬ ِ ‫و‬���‫ي���َ��س��ب‬ 7
‫�غ ف‬
‫] �ا �ر‬40[
ِ‫ب‬ ِ
ِ ْ ِ
َ
‫أ‬ ْ ْ َ
َ َ‫ح َ ّ ْ َ ْ �تَ �غ ُ ن‬ َ ُ ُ
ْ �‫ح نَ� ب‬ َّ ‫] ا � �ش‬42[
�ِ‫��م ِ�د ربِ���ِه��م و�ي����س� ����فِرو� لِ����م� ن� �يفِ� ال� ر�ض‬ ِ ‫ي�����س�ِ�ب���و‬ 5 ‫ل�� ور �ى‬

The three verses illustrate the angelic prayers. Similarity occurs

only in the first verbal clause in each verse.

11) Q 40:11, 42:44 (occurring only twice):

َ ‫فَ َ ْ َ خُُ ّ ن‬ ‫�غ ف‬
‫ ����ه�ل �إِلى �ر و�جٍ �ِم�� ��س��بِي�� ٍل‬11 ‫] �ا �ر‬40[
َ ‫َ ْ َ ََ ّ ّ ن‬ ‫�ش‬
‫ �ه�ل �إِلى �مر ٍد �ِم�� ��س��بِي�� ٍل‬44 ‫] ا �ل�� ور �ى‬42[
This is an interesting case of parallel formulae. The focal verbs are
antonyms (kharaja and radda): while the former denotes a way for-
ward, the latter denotes a way back. The formulae complement one
another.

12) Q 41:13, 42:38 (occurring only twice):

َ ُ َ‫فَ نْ أَ ْ َ ُ فَ �قُ ْ أَ ن ذَ ْتُ ُ ْ َ �قَ �ةً ّ ثْ َ َ �قَ َ َث‬ ‫ف‬
ٍ ‫�م�ص�ا عِ� �� � �ِم���ل�ص�ا عِ� �� ��ةِ ع‬
‫�اد و����مود‬ �‫� وا ��� �ل � ��� ر� ك‬‫��إ � � �عر �ض‬ ‫] ����ص�ل� ت‬41[
�
ِ
13
‫ظ‬ َ ْ ْ َ َ َ َ‫فَ نْ أَ ْ َ ُ ف�َ أ ْ َ ْ ن‬
َ َ
‫] ا � �ش‬42[
‫ح���فِي������ا‬ ‫��إ � � �عر �ض‬
�‫� وا �م�ا � ر��س��ل��ا ك ع��لي���ه��م‬ ‫ل�� ور �ى‬
ِ ِ
38
 ‫‪intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 475‬‬

‫‪Identical conditional clause.‬‬

‫‪13) Q 41:25, 46:18 (occurring only twice):‬‬

‫� ّ َ ْ ن ّنَ ُ ْ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫َ َ قَّ َ َ ْ ُ ْ �قَ ْ ُ أُ َ َق ْ �خَ َ تْ َ‬
‫� �م� ن ق���بْ� �ه��م�ّم� نَ ا �ل‬
‫�جِ� ن� وال�إِ � سِ�� �إِ ���ه��م‬ ‫� �‬ ‫�‬ ‫ف‬
‫[‪���� ]41‬ص�ل� ت�‬
‫ِ � �لِ ِ ِ � ِ‬
‫�م��د ��ل�‬ ‫‪ 2 5‬وح� ع��لي���ِه��م ا ل�� ول يفِ� � �م� ٍ‬
‫نَ‬ ‫َ نُ �خَ‬
‫كا �وا �ا ��سِ ِر�ي�‬ ‫�‬
‫ُ‬ ‫َ‬‫ّ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ َّ َ َ ْ ْ َ ُ أُ‬ ‫أ‬
‫ن ْ‬ ‫�َّ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ْ‬
‫� �م� ن ق���ب� �ه��م�م� نَ ا �ل‬‫ق �خ تْ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ح���ق�ا �ف� ‪� 18‬‬
‫�جِ� ن� وال�إِ � سِ�� �إِ ���ه��م‬ ‫�‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫�م��د ��ل�‬‫ٍ‬ ‫ح ق� ع��لي���ه��م ا �ل���ق ْول �يفِ� � �م�‬ ‫[‪ ]46‬ال� �‬
‫ِ‬ ‫�لِ ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫َ نُ� �خَ � � نَ‬
‫كا وا �ا �سِ ِري�‬ ‫�‬

‫‪Identical formulae.‬‬

‫‪14) Q 41:30, 46:13 (occurring only twice):‬‬

‫نَّ َّذ نَ َق ُ َ ُّنَ َّ ُ ثُ َّ ْ �تَ�قَ ُ تَتَنَ�زَُّ َ َ ْ ُ ْ َ َ َ أ ت‬
‫� ف‬ ‫���ةُ � لا �‬
‫�خ�ا �وا ولا‬ ‫‪� 30‬إ � ا �ل ِ���ي� ��ا �لوا رب���ا ا �ل��ل�ه �ما ����س� � �ا �موا ���� ل ع��لي���ه��م ا �ل���م�لا ئِ� �ك‬
‫ف‬
‫[‪���� ]41‬ص�ل� ت ‬
‫�‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ت‬
‫ح�ز ن�وا‬
‫�‬
‫نَّ َّذ نَ َق ُ َ ُّنَ َّ ُ ثُ َّ ْ �تَ�قَ ُ فَ َ خَ ْ فٌ َ َ ْ ْ ََ ُ ْ َْ�زَنُ نَ‬ ‫أ‬
‫ح �و�‬ ‫ح���ق�ا �ف� ‪� 13‬إ � ا �ل ِ���ي� ��ا �لوا رب���ا ا �ل��ل�ه �ما ����س� � �ا �موا ��لا �و�� ع��لي���ه��م ولا �ه��م ي�‬ ‫[‪ ]46‬ال� �‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫‪Identical formulae.‬‬

‫‪15) Q 41:46, 45:15 (occurring only twice):‬‬

‫َ نْ �َ َ َ �ً فَ َْ َ أَ َ فَ َ َ ْ َ َ َُّ َ َ َّ ّْ َ‬ ‫ف‬
‫ح�ا ��ِ�لن��ف� ِ��سِ�ه َو�م� نْ� � ��س�ا ء ���ع��لي���ه�ا َو�م�ا رب��ك �بِ ظ����لا �ٍم �ِل��ل�ع��بِ ي�� ِ�د‬
‫�م� عِ�م� �ص�ا ل‬
‫�‬‫� ل ِ‬ ‫‪ 46‬‬ ‫[‪���� ]41‬ص�ل� ت ‬
‫�‬
‫َ‬
‫َ نْ �َ َ َ �لً فَ نَ�فْ َ َ نْ أ َ فَ َ َ ْ َ ثُ َّ َ َ ّ ُ ْ تُ ْ َ ُ نَ‬ ‫��ا ث����ة‬
‫�م �ر ج���عو�‬ ‫ح�ا ��ِ�ل�� ��سِ�ه و�م�� � ��س�ا ء ���ع��لي���ه�ا �م �إِلى رب� ك�‬
‫ِ‬ ‫�م��عِ�م�ل�ص�ا ِ�‬ ‫‪ 15‬‬ ‫[‪ ]45‬ا ��جل ي ‬
‫ِ‬
‫‪Identical formulae. While the former occurrence ends by stressing‬‬
‫‪God’s justice, the latter stresses the notion of a return; they therefore‬‬
‫‪complement each other.‬‬

‫‪16) Q 41:48, 42:35 (occurring only twice):‬‬

‫َّ‬ ‫َ ُ ُ َُ‬ ‫َ َ َّ َ نْ ُ َّ َ ْ ُ‬
‫كا نُ�وا يَ��د �عو نَ� �م� ن ق���بْ� َوظَ���نّوا �َم�ا ��ل�ه��م�ّم� ن م‬
‫�‬ ‫� �ل�ع����ه��م�م�ا �‬
‫ف‬
‫[‪���� ]41‬ص�ل� ت ‬
‫حي�����ٍص‬
‫ِ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫و �ض‬ ‫‪ 48‬‬ ‫�‬
‫َ َ ْ َ َّذ َ َُ ُ نَ آَ َ َ َ ُ ّ َّ‬
‫نم‬ ‫� ن‬ ‫َ ن �‬ ‫[‪ ]42‬ا � �ش‬
‫حي�����ٍص‬ ‫و�ي�ع��لم ا �ل ِ���ي� ي�ج��ادِ �لو� يفِ� �ي�ا تِ���ا �م�ا ��ل�ه��م�ِم�� �ِ‬ ‫‪ 35‬‬ ‫ل�� ور �ى ‬

‫‪The first formula appears in the context of the fate of the unbelievers:‬‬
‫‪their associates fail them and they perceive that they have no place‬‬
476 islam dayeh

of refuge. The second appearance of the formula, which would seem

to be a quotation of the first, refers to those who dispute the signs
(or verses) of God, that they have no refuge.

17) Q 41:52, 46:10 (occurring only twice):

َ َ َّ ُ‫َّ ث‬ َ‫ُق ْ أَ َأَ ْ�تُ ْ ن َ ن‬
‫��فَ ْ �تُ �َ نْ أ َ ُّ � َّ نْ ُ َ � �قَ ق‬ ْ ‫ف‬
‫ا‬� � �� ‫�ه‬ �
‫��م‬�‫م‬ � ‫�ض‬ � �‫م‬ ‫�ه‬
�ٍ ِ‫كا � ِ � ِ ِ ل��لِ م ر م ب�ِِ � � ل ِ � و يفِ� �ش‬ ��‫ك‬ � ‫�ه‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫�د‬ ‫�ن‬�‫ع‬� ‫ن‬ �‫م‬ � � � ‫��ل � ر� ي� ��م �إ‬ ‫] ����ص�ل� ت‬41[
�
ِ
52
َ
ٍ‫ب� ِ�عي���د‬
ٌ َ َ َ ُ‫َّ َ َ �فَ ت‬ َ‫ُق ْ أَ َأَ ْ�تُ ْ ن َ ن‬ ‫أ� ف‬
‫��� ْر�م ب�ِ�ه َو�ش����ه�د � �ش� �ا ِ�ه�د‬‫كا � �ِم� نْ� ِ�ع��ن ِ�د ا �ل��لِ�ه وك‬
� � ‫��ل � ر� ي� ��م �إ‬ 10 �� ‫ح���ق�ا‬ �‫] ال‬46[
ِ ِ ِ
Both verses open with the same conditional clause: “Say: If it is from
God and you reject it,” conveying the recurrence in various occasions
of the debates on the authenticity of the Qurʾan.

18) Q 42:51, 43:4 (occurring only twice):

ٌ َ ٌّ َ ُ َّ‫ن‬ ‫] ا � �ش‬42[
‫�ي����م‬‫��ه ع��ل�حِك‬ ‫ل�� ور �ى‬
‫�إِ ِي‬
51
ٌ َ ٌّ َ َ� َ‫� �ََ �ْن‬ َ‫َ نَّ ُ أُ ّ ْ ت‬ ‫ف‬
‫�ي����م‬
‫� ل�د ي��ا ل�ع��ل�حِك‬ � �
ِ‫و�إِ ��ه يفِ� � �ِم ا ل كِ��ا ب‬ 4 �‫] ا �ل�ز خ�ر‬43[
�
‫ِي‬
The appellatives ʿaliyy and ḥakīm appear together only twice in the
Qurʾan, in these two verses. In the first verse they are attributes of
God and denote exaltedness and wisdom. In the second verse (which
appears in the immediately following surah) they are attributes of the
Qurʾan and denote sublimity and decisiveness.

19) Q 43:2, 44:2 (occurring only twice):

ُ ْ َ‫َ �ْ ت‬ ‫ف‬
�ِ‫� ا �ل���م��بِي�� ن‬ �
��ِ‫ وا ل ك‬. ‫ح��م‬
ِ‫�ا ب‬ 2 ��‫] ا �ل�ز خ�ر‬43[
ُْ ‫َ � ت‬ َ ْ ‫�خ ن‬
�ِ‫� ا �ل���م��بِي�� ن‬ � � ‫] ا �ل�د �ا‬44[
��ِ‫ وا ل ك‬. ‫ح��م‬
ِ‫�ا ب‬ 2

Identical formulae. These introductory verses appear in

adjacent surahs.

20) Q 43:20; 44:24 (occurring only twice):

َ‫َّ َ ُ ذَ َ ْ ْ نْ ُ ْ َّ َْخُ ُ ن‬ ‫ف‬
�‫�م�ا ��ل�ه��م �بِ�� �ِل�ك �ِم� ن� ِع��ل �إِ � �ه��م �إِ لا ي�ر�صو‬ 20 �‫] ا �ل�ز خ�ر‬43[
�
‫ٍم‬
َ‫َ َ َ ُ ذَ َ نْ ْ نْ ُ ْ َّ َظُ �نُّ ن‬ ‫��ا ث����ة‬
�‫و�م�ا ��ل�ه��م �بِ�� �ِل�ك �ِم�� ِع �إِ � �م �إِ ي و‬
����� ‫ا‬‫ل‬ �‫�ه‬ ‫��ل‬ ‫] ا ��جل ي‬44[
‫ٍم‬
24
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 477

Identical formulae, except for the verb at the end: yakhruṣūn, yadhun­
nūn.
At the end of this survey several points should be accentuated. The
formulae conveyed in these verses were pronounced and recited in
different texts and on a multitude of occasions throughout the Meccan
period. Reasons for the repetition and re-employment of a formula
have been briefly referred to above. The use of formulaic techniques
complies with a principle of economy of language required on the
part of the composer, lest the audience cease to comprehend. In addi-
tion to this principle of economy, a certain measure of flexibility is
also evident.
Indeed, the efficacy of a formula is closely connected to its ana-
phoric potential, i.e., the capacity it has to direct the attention of the
listener to an external, previously mentioned point of reference. In
our case, the reference is being made to earlier recitations in the
Ḥawāmīm corpus.
The following metaphor might help to explain this idea. Similar to
the spin of a thread, the formula is interwoven into the text and fused
with other formulae to develop the text’s very texture, in the same
manner thread is interwoven with thread to weave a cloth. When
creating a new cloth, this thread or something equivalent is used again
to weave a new cloth. While this new cloth is composed from these
similar threads, its Gestalt resembles the original, previous cloth. The
formula, likewise, not only refers, by way of intertextuality, to an
external discourse, but depends for its novelty and its creative con-
tinuity on this external, previous discourse.
A case in point is the function of the formula in the Ḥawāmīm
corpus. In order for the individual surah to achieve its communica-
tional objectives effectively and yet remain in continuity with the
Qurʾanic unfolding discourse, the surah is composed in such a man-
ner so that it is read with consideration of its predecessor. The best
possible reading of surah 46 would therefore be that which is dove-
tailed with a reading of the previous surahs and, especially surah 41.
And the best possible reading of surah 41 would be in light of a read-
ing of surah 40 and 39, and especially surah 39, etc.
In sum, this exercise has shown us the significance of formal pat-
terns and how they function thematically. Variation in repetition is
sometimes employed to disclose a certain aspect of a discourse, while
retaining the core meaning. Having examined these formal and
478 islam dayeh

f­ ormulaic patterns, let us consider now the more general and over-
arching thematic aspects which these surahs share.

5. Thematic Complementarity

The following part of this study is dedicated to exploring themes

prevalent in the Ḥawāmīm corpus. I will attempt to demonstrate that
the surahs treat corresponding and recurring themes, and that this
recurrence is not simply redundant repetition, but rather reveals a
thematic correlation that functions as conversations and dialogues
between the surahs.
Islāḥī called the recurrence of themes in several surahs complemen-
tarity, giving emphasis thereby to this significant aspect of Qurʾanic
composition, while stressing that the nature of this correlation is one
whereby a surah complements another surah. Iṣlāḥī’s meticulous
efforts in identifying surah-surah relations led him to identify six
different types of complementarity, which are:
(a) Brevity and detail, e.g. the relation between surahs 73 (al-Muz-
zammil) and 74 (al-Muddaththir). While the first is brief, the second
is detailed.
(b) Principle and illustration, e.g. the relation between surahs 58
(al-Mujādala) and 59 (al-Ḥashr).
(c) Different types of evidence, e.g. the relation between surahs 12
(Yūsuf) and 13 (ar-Raʿd).
(d) Difference in emphasis, e.g. the relation between surahs 2 (al-
Baqara) and 3 (Āl ʿImrān).
(e) Premise and conclusion, e.g. the relation between surahs 105
(al-Fīl) and 106 (Quraysh).
(f) Unity of opposites, e.g. the relation between surahs 65 (aṭ-Ṭalāq)
and 66 (at-Taḥrīm).28
These types intimate various manifestations of one core idea, which,
put in plain words, is the presence of germ ideas that are expounded
and retold according to the considerations and contexts of subsequent
recitations. To establish thematic coherence it is not sufficient, in my
opinion, to simply identify analogous themes. What is required is an
examination of how these themes are contextualized, what nuanced
differences they bear, and, if possible, to explain these nuances in

28
  Mir, 77–79, citing Iṣlāḥī.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 479

light of the thematic unity of the surah, surah character, and historical
criteria.
In order to verify whether or not such complementarity exists in
our corpus, let me propose for analysis six themes prevalent in all or
some of these surahs. Some themes appear to be central to the general
Meccan discourse, especially the middle and late Meccan, such as the
confirmation of the Prophet’s prophethood and the discourse about
the opposition of the unbelievers, whereas other themes appear to be
of a more universal monotheistic nature. All this will become clearer
through illustration. I would like to focus on these particular themes,
while noting beforehand that this attempt does not claim to exhaust
all possible thematic parallels.

5.1. The Arabic Nature of the Qurʾan (qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan)

One of the more striking aspects of some of the passages in our corpus
is the overt concern with the language of the Qurʾan (see Q 39:1.2.28,
Q 40:2, Q 41 throughout, but especially verses 2.3.26.44, Q 42:3.7.17
and 51–53, Q 43:2–4, Q 44:4, Q 45:2.28–29, and Q 46:4.9.12). Why
do these surahs insist over and over again that the Qurʾan is composed
in Arabic? Is the language of the text not evident to its audience?
A close reading of these passages will show that the Qurʾan is not
defining the language in which it is composed, for that is evident, but
what it is in fact stating is that the language employed is a compre-
hensible one, a language that the audience of the Qurʾan can under-
stand. The reader of these surahs will notice these surahs are intensely
occupied with this issue. Among these surahs perhaps surah 41
(Fuṣṣilat) deals with the linguistic nature of the Qurʾan the most.
What can be gleaned from these passages dealing with the Arabic
nature of the text, I would suggest, is that there might have been a
query, or even a challenge posed to the language of this revelation.
This query could have sounded like this: if the Prophet claims that
this revelation is from the same source of earlier revelations, then
why was his revelation not revealed in one of the languages of these
earlier revelations (e.g. Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, etc.)? This challenge
could have come from a pagan, a Jew, a Christian, or from all of them.
The issue at stake here is the integrity of the linguistic medium itself,
the Arabic language. Why an Arabic revelation?
The Qurʾanic response recurs throughout the corpus: bi-lisānin
ʿarabiyyin mubīn, qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan ghayr dhī ʿiwajin, qurʾānan
480 islam dayeh

ʿarabiyyan la-ʿallakum taʿqilūn, al-kitāb al-mubīn, allāhu anzala

aḥsana l-ḥadīth, and wa-hādhā kitābun muṣaḍḍiqun lisānan ʿarabiyyan
li-yundhira alladhīna ẓalamū wa-bushrā li-l-muḥsinīn. In plain words:
a clear and comprehensible language so that the audience may under-
stand its message. The Qurʾan therefore makes a clearly conscious and
courageous preference for a comprehensible language which the audi-
ence will comprehend, over a scriptural language whose only virtue
is its antiquity. Furthermore, the passages hint at a theory of divine
communication that is essentially pragmatic: qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan li-
tundhira umma l-qurā wa-man ḥawlahā.29 It is not my concern to
engage in an exegesis of these passages, but rather to underline some
of the more salient themes and to direct attention to their distinctive
features. I will briefly add that the reader of these passages will observe
how significant this theme is in the corpus, so much that it is accorded
great attention and elaboration. It would seem to me therefore that
the truth of the Qurʾanic message is intimately related to the language
of its composition, Arabic, but this is a claim whose substantiation
is beyond our current interest.
As for the interrelatedness of these surahs, that all of them address
the issue of the linguistic nature of the text may suggest the centrality
of this issue in the period during which these texts were recited.
Moreover, the recurrence of this theme throughout the corpus is
further justification of their interconnectedness.

5.2. The Refusal of the Prophetic Message (at-Takdhīb)

Another theme which these surahs dwell upon is the reaction of the
unbelievers to the prophetic message (Q 39:24.25.32.41.45.59.60, Q 40,
throughout the surah, but especially verses 4.5.68–70.83, Q 41:5.8–
15.23–33.41, Q 42:7–16.48, Q 43:7.22.23.40.47.51–53.58, Q 44:13.14,
and Q 46:4.9.12). The treatment of this highly important aspect of
prophetic experience is well elaborated throughout the corpus. I will
underline several chief issues which appear in these surahs. First and
foremost, the reader will notice a conscious effort to handle this rejec-
tion. The Qurʾan does not explicitly counter-reject the original rejec-
tion, but takes up this matter rather cleverly and creatively appropriates
their rejection into the Qurʾanic discourse. This gradually evolves into
an argument for the truth of the Qurʾanic message. We are told about

29
  This notion is emphasized in other passages in the Qurʾan, cf. Q 14:4: wa-mā
arsalnā min rasūlin illā bi-lisāni qawmihi li-yubayyina lahum.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 481

this rejection overtly, and are provided with a catalogue of forms in

which this rejection manifests itself: mockery, ridicule, unwillingness
to listen, turning away, and accusations of sorts. This rejection is
characterized brilliantly by several narratives such as that of ʿĀd and
Thamūd in surah 41 and the people of Abraham in surah 43. But by
far, the most exemplary typification of this rejection of the Qurʾanic
message is Pharaoh’s attitude to Moses and the Israelites. This nar-
rative occurs in surahs 40, 43 and 44.
Two characters are particularly interesting here. The first is a man
from the people of Pharaoh, muʾmin āl firʿawn, who conceals his faith
in the Mosaic prophecy and stands defiant against the tyranny and
rejection of Pharaoh (Q 40:28ff.). The second is a man from among
the Israelites, presumably a Jew of Arabia, who acts as witness to the
truth of the Qurʾanic message, wa-shahida shāhidun min banī isrāʾīla
ʿalā mithlihī (Q 46:11). The similarities between the two characters
are remarkable and allude to a particular concern with the attitude
of the unbelievers throughout the corpus and the likely presence of
supporters even among the rejecting community in Mecca.
Rejection of the Qurʾanic message brought about even greater and
far more complex challenges than that concerning the linguistic
nature of the text. One of these evident and fundamental challenges
was the question of prophetic diversity and genealogy. If the Muham­
madan claim of belonging to a prophetic genealogy is true, then what
precisely characterizes this message (the Qurʾan)? Wouldn’t this claim
only inflict more conflict and struggle among the adherents of these
prophets? And a more fundamental question, what was the cause of
this conflict in the first place? These questions and their cognates
were provocative and evidently hostile, but they were nevertheless
significant challenges that the Qurʾan had to debate (cf. for instance
surah 42:7–16).

5.3. Oppression
Intimately related to the theme of the rejection of the prophetic mes-
sage is the theme of the oppression that his community suffered at
the hands of the unbelievers (Q 40: throughout the surah, especially
35–36.45.51–57.60.77.83–85, Q 41:15.35.38, Q 43:51–53, Q 44:19.31,
Q 45:13, Q 46:35). The unbelievers are designated here as tyrant
oppressors (al-mustakbirūn), whereas the believers are designated as
the oppressed, the weak (al-mustaḍʿafūn). These designations appear
482 islam dayeh

noticeably in surah 40 (Ghāfir), in which a central theme is the oppres-

sion and the suffering of the believing community, the doom of the
oppressors, and consolation of the community by a promise of a vic-
tory that awaits them. The surah therefore begins with a set of appel-
latives attributed to God stressing his might and sovereignty over the
oppressors. Moreover, the surah contains a frequent occurrence of
words denoting might, strength, and power (baʾs, shidda, kibr, qahhār,
etc.), cf. 40:35.56.60.75.76.
The Qurʾan instructs the oppressed believers to practice persever-
ance and to endure oppression until divine victory is granted them
(40:51.52.54). In this context, ṣabr becomes part of the Qurʾanic dis-
course and appears as a virtue typified in several exemplary prophets
(40:35, 42:43). In surah 42:43 (ash-Shūrā) there is an allusion to the
merit of perseverance and forgiveness: wa la-man ṣabara wa-ghafara
inna dhālika min ʿazmi l-umūr. In Q 46:35 (al-Aḥqāf), this virtue
becomes a characteristic of a certain group of prophets, whom are
given the appellative ulū l-ʿazm, and the Qurʾanic command then is
to endure like the endurance of those prophets: fa-ṣbir kamā ṣabara
ulū l-ʿazmi mina r-rusul. The veneration of these prophets, ulū l-ʿazmi
mina r-rusul, in these particular passages calls for a literary analysis
of how the refusal of the Qurʾanic message and the subsequent per-
secution of the community were creatively appropriated and refash-
ioned such that it would become an integral part of the Qurʾanic
Heilsgeschichte and further evidence to the truth of the prophetic
claim.30 The Ḥawāmīm would appear to be a good place to start.

5.4. Reflection on Emigration

However, the Qurʾanic attitude toward the rejection, mockery, and
oppression of the Prophet and his community was not limited to
instructions of endurance and promises of an eventual divine victory.
There were indeed hints at a practical solution which would end the
suffering of the community, namely, emigration (Q 39:10, Q 44:23–
32). Although the Qurʾanic word hijra only appears in later Medinan
texts (cf. 2:218), the idea could be traced to earlier Meccan texts.
There are two occurrences in the Ḥawāmīm corpus in which the
emigration of the community from Mecca is referenced. The first is

30
  Cf. Q 40:51–55. Notice the manner in which the two verses about God’s guid-
ance to Moses and the Israelites (53 and 54) appear in the context of the instruction
to practice ṣabr and the promise of victory.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 483

39:10, wa-arḍu allāhi wāsiʿa, i.e., “and God’s earth is spacious,” which
may be considered as an allusion to emigration. The second occur-
rence, Q 44:23–52, which is more explicit in this regard, is a continu-
ous narrative and not just a brief hint. The narrative retells the exodus
of the Israelites from Egypt following the tyranny of Pharaoh. Similar
to the narrative in 40:28ff., in which the Prophet is likened, mimeti-
cally, to Moses, and his community is likened to the Israelites, the
same is true of this narrative in surah 44 (which is chronologically
later than the narrative in surah 40). Here, the exodus-narrative is
considered a divine blessing and a journey that was undertaken under
the full guidance of God. A close reading of this narrative suggests
that since the Israelites fled from the tyranny of Pharaoh, so too can
this be the fate of the community of believers, if God wills it. Therefore,
the Ḥawāmīm creatively illustrate the sense of despair and worry the
community was feeling, and is a deep reflection on the possibility of
a recurrence of the divinely guided exodus.

5.5. Anthropology
Several passages in our corpus pertain to Qurʾanic anthropology
(Q 39:4–6, Q 40:64.67, Q 42:50, Q 46:15–18). There is an emphasis
that man is a creation of God, and is a sign, āya, illustrating God’s
creativity and design. This is, more or less, the general context in
which the majority of these passages appear. However, there are at
least two additional contexts in which anthropological passages are
to be found. The first is the context of the Qurʾanic refutation of God
having offspring, which might be a reference to theological debates
that occurred in the Meccan context (39:4–6). The second appearance
of these anthropological passages is in the context of the relationship
of an unbelieving man to his believing parents, and vice versa, in
other words, the struggle between kinship and faith (46:15–18). What
is interesting here is that these passages are far more intricately
involved in their respective contexts than an isolated reading of the
passages might suggest.
Concerning the interconnectedness of these surahs, these passages
focus special attention to describing the stages of human creation, a
description whose purpose is to stress that creation is a calculated
and designed process (ajal musamman).
484 islam dayeh

5.6. Eschatological Imagery

There is considerable eschatological content in all the Ḥawāmīm
surahs (Q 39:16.56.67–75, Q 40:7–9.46–56.71–76, Q 41:19–22,
Q 42:44–45, Q 43:74–77, Q 44:13.40, Q 45:27–37, Q 46:6.20.34). This
element has led some to designate the Ḥawāmīm as “die Höllensuren
des Koran,” i.e., the hellfire surahs of the Qurʾan.31 This designation,
as appealing as it may seem, nevertheless fails to grasp the literary
significance of these narratives.
A close reading of these eschatological narratives makes evident
that there is a striking pattern in these hell-episodes, but it is not the
violent or terrifying language in which they are formulated, for we
do not know of any pleasant portrayal of such a place, but rather in
the literary characteristics which they all share: their dialogical nature.
We observe this in an episode in which a dialogue takes place between
the believers and the unbelievers and another dialogue takes place
between the unbelievers and the guardians of hell, and another
between the unbelievers and their bodily organs which act as witnesses
against them. Additionally, there are dialogues that take place between
the unbelievers and God, and between the believers and God. The
following table presents these episodes, the characters involved in
each dialogue, and the fine distinctions which each dialogue
reveals.

31
  Goossens, “Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 361. “Die Eschatologie dieser Suren
behandelt nun weniger die Freuden des Paradieses, als die qualvollen Strafen des
Jenseits. Unter namentlichem Hinweis auf frühere Strafgerichte Allahs warnen sie die
Sünder vor dem Höllenpfuhle. Die 7 Suren bilden, mehr oder weniger ausgeprägt, die
Höllensuren des Korans.”
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 485

Pericope Characters involved in Specifics

(verses) dialogue
39:67–75 Believers; unbelievers, Dialogue between unbelievers and guard-
guardians of hell; ians of hell (verses 71.72), dialogue
guardians of paradise. between believers and guardians of para-
dise (verses 73.74).
40:46–51 Oppressors Dialogue between oppressors and
(al-mustakbirūn); oppressed (verses 47.48), dialogue
oppressed (aḍ-ḍuʿafāʾ); between unbelievers and guardians of hell
guardians of hell. (verses 49.50).
40:71–75 Unbelievers; passive Dialogue between unbelievers and guard-
voice (presumably ians of hell (verses 73.74).
guardians of hell).
41:19–22 Unbelievers (aʿdāʾ The ears, eyes and skin act as witnesses to
allāh); their ears, eyes the acts of the unbelievers (v. 20) followed
and skin (as witnesses by a dialogue between unbelievers and
to their doings). their bodily organs (v. 21).
42:44–45 Unbelievers (adh- Reaction of unbelievers upon receiving
dhālimūn); believers. their punishment (v. 44), reaction of
believers upon receiving their reward
(v. 45), no dialogue.
43:74–77 Unbelievers; Mālik or Dialogue between the unbelievers and the
Malak (the guardian of guardian of hell (v. 77).
hell)
44:40–57 Contrast between the reward of the believers and punishment of
the unbelievers, no dialogue.
45:27–35 Narrative voice, Divine voice announcing the fate of the
embodying the charac- believers and the unbelievers and the jus-
ter of a divine judge. tification therefore.
46:20 Unbelievers; judge. Fate of the unbelievers, justification of
this fate.
46:34 Unbelievers, judge. Fate of the unbelievers, dialogue between
unbelievers and God.

The dialogical nature of these eschatological narratives has not been

given the scholarly attention it deserves. These narratives indicate the
significance these episodes are meant to convey. A close look at these
narratives will show that the main objective of these episodes is the
exposure of the contrast between the two parties, the believers and
the unbelievers, and this exposure occurs in the presence of witnesses
and a just God. Evidently then, the eschatological narratives of the
Ḥawāmīm bear far greater potential than mere stories of frightening
scenes, as suggested in the title “Höllensuren.” Furthermore, the dia-
logues are composed in what is clearly forensic language, i.e. the
486 islam dayeh

jargon of court cases (e.g. shahida, tujzawna, kitāb, nastansikhu).

Thus, for instance, we find in Q 41:21–22 and Q 46:34 a narrative
which depicts a juridical case in which evidence is brought against
the unbelievers. In Q 46:36, for example, the unbelievers admit to
their wrongdoings. The episodes in which the unbelievers reveal regret
and appeal for forgiveness are numerous, Q 40:49, and Q 42:44. Thus,
the perspective that these surahs complement each other produces
the cinematographic effect of a grand and continuous drama whose
actors are well-known to the listeners, and whose scenes are presented
progressively as the Qurʾan unfolds.
With this in mind, it becomes clear that the scenes are not isolated
narratives, but in fact complement each other and, as far as their
generic characteristics are concerned, they reveal apparent dialogical
and forensic aspects, which grant these scenes a richer exegetical hori-
zon. An issue to which we will return is to what extent these episodes,
in virtue of their dialogical and forensic language, are a reflection of
the discussions and debates that took place between the Prophet and
his Meccan townsmen.

6. Additional Correspondences

In addition to the formal, formulaic, and thematic aspects that I have

dealt with above, there exist more detailed and intricate correspon-
dences which are further corroboration of the interconnectedness of
the Ḥawāmīm surahs. These correspondences have been collected
and organized in the form of the table below (see Appendix). These
various observations, taken together, substantiate further the view
that the Ḥawāmīm were composed and recited in the same period of
time and that the redactors of the Muṣḥaf were aware of this and
consequently arranged these surahs in an order that corresponds,
more or less, to the order in which they were recited.
But when were these surahs recited? How can we describe this
Meccan period? Can we refer to extra-Qurʾanic sources here to under-
stand the general milieu in which these texts were composed and
recited, and thereby arrive at a better understanding of why these
surahs display so many similarities? These questions will be the subject
of the next section.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 487

7. The Meccan Sitz im Leben: The sīra and Qurʾanic Narratives

Although there are weaknesses in sīra sources, when carefully used

they offer valuable information for understanding Qurʾanic material.
The sīra, specifically Ibn Isḥāq’s sīra as redacted by Ibn Hishām, is
our main interpretative narrative.32 Ibn Isḥāq’s recounting of the
nascent community’s struggle for existence in Mecca is chronological,
with some periodic allusions to the Qurʾan.33 The sīra relates episodes
of Meccan hostility, the Prophet’s response, the vulnerability of his
community, and their need for a place of protection. Debates between
the Prophet and the leaders of Quraysh occupy a large part of the
reports. These reports tell us about the Quraysh’s challenge to the
Prophet to advance evidence that would vouch for the truth of his
prophecy.34 The Qurʾanic response takes the form of warnings embod-
ied in punishment narratives. Subsequently, Quraysh reacted by
mocking these narratives and responded scornfully by challenging
the Prophet to quicken the fulfillment of his warnings, which would
include their own destruction.35 Then Quraysh, who are depicted as
being poorly acquainted with the Judeao-Christian tradition, begin
to feel outwitted by the Qurʾanic recitations and turn to Jewish schol-
ars of Arabia for support. Here surah 18 (al-Kahf) is referred to in
the context of a Jewish challenge to the Prophet.36 This is followed by
a series of reports about Meccan persecution of the oppressed
(al-mustaḍʿafūn) among the Muslim community.37 The Prophet then
orders his followers to immigrate to Abyssinia (al-Ḥabasha) where a
just Christian king rules.38 Meanwhile, matters worsen in Mecca as
the Meccans decide to endorse a boycott on Banū Hāshim, the family,
and sole protectors of the Prophet. The boycott was approved in the
form of a written document (aṣ-ṣaḥīfa) which was in effect for two

32
  This has been dealt with in detail by the Tunisian historian Hishām Djait in his
recent monograph, Tārīkhiyyat ad-Daʿwa al-Muḥammadiyya fī Makka [The Histori­
city of the Muhammadan Call in Mecca], 26–40. I will refer to Ibn Hīshām, as-Sīra
an-Nabawiyya, ed. Muṣṭafa as-Saqqa, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī, and ʿAbd al-Ḥafīdh Shalabī,
vol. 1.
33
  For example, Q 18 (al-Kahf), in: Ibn Hishām, Sīra, 294–297; Q 41 (Fuṣṣilat), in
Ibn Hishām, 293–294; Q 38 (Ṣād), in Ibn Hishām, 418; Q 46 (al-Aḥqāf), in Ibn
Hishām, 422.
34
  Ibn Hishām, 294–297.
35
  Ibn Hishām, 298.
36
  Ibn Hishām, 300–304.
37
  Ibn Hishām, 317–321.
38
  Ibn Hishām, 321–333.
488 islam dayeh

years.39 Just shortly after the suspension of the boycott, the Prophet’s
wife Khadīja, and his main protector, his uncle Abū Ṭālib, died. The
pestering continued and the Prophet felt more vulnerable and weaker
than before; he began to seek the support of neighboring cities and
tribes. His attempt to gain support and protection from the tribe of
Thaqīf in the neighboring city of aṭ-Ṭāʾif failed.40 This was followed
by a persistent and a mostly fruitless effort to win the leaders of Arab
tribes, through meetings during the Ḥajj seasons.41 Success was
achieved however through talks with pilgrims from Yathrib (later
called al-madīna al-munawwara) at a place called al-ʿAqaba. The
results were very important: the acceptance of the prophetic message
and the conversion of several Yathribines. The event was called bayʿat
al-ʿaqaba al-ūlā,42 and was followed by further important meetings
with pilgrims from Yathrib. The two main tribes of Yathrib, Aws and
Khazraj agreed to safeguard the Prophet and to provide a safe refuge
for the persecuted Muslims in Mecca. This significant event was called
bayʿat al-ʿaqaba ath-thāniya.43 Meccan Muslims began to immigrate
to al-Medina, followed shortly thereafter by the Prophet.
The intention of reminding the reader of these events is to provide
a general background against which these Meccan surahs may be
understood. In comparing the events with the Ḥawāmīm surahs, it
is apparent that numerous instances of correspondence do exist. Yet
as clear and simple as the chronological account may seem, it appears
less clear, on the other hand, whether it is possible to discern a cor-
responding trajectory of ideas in the surahs in question. Common
sense would seem to suggest beginning by identifying crucial moments
and turning points which might have been the subject of reflection
and commentary by the Qurʾan. Such moments would include, for
example: the Meccan rejection of the Prophet’s recitations, their
oppression of his followers, the Prophet’s perplexed feelings, and his
search for protection and support. This is what I have attempted to
do in the previous sections.
A characteristic of the Qurʾanic presentation of biblical and escha-
tological narratives is the manner in which these narratives are re-told:
they appear merged with the account of Meccan persecution.

39
  Ibn Hishām, 350–354.
40
  Ibn Hishām, 419–422.
41
  Ibn Hishām, 422–427.
42
  Ibn Hishām, 428–435.
43
  Ibn Hishām, 438–452.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 489

Moreover, the rapid switch of verb tenses (al-iltifāt) is a narrative

technique which implies that biblical history, conveyed through these
narratives, was not a distant and vague memory; rather, it was inti-
mately present and re-enacted there in Mecca.
Evidently then, the middle and late Meccan surahs expose the state
of oppression the Prophet and his community experienced in Mecca.
An attentive reading of the narratives communicated in these surahs
shows the severity of the situation.44 It was indeed the most difficult
and most crucial period in the lifetime of the young community.
Nowhere in the Qurʾan is such a harsh response to the unbelievers
present, as is presented in the middle and late Meccan surahs, sym-
bolized in the punishment narratives.45 The Ḥawāmīm are replete
with such narratives.46 The suffering of Ṣāliḥ, Hūd, Noah, Moses, and
Abraham in these narratives are analogous to the sufferings of the
Prophet and his community. And ʿĀd, Thamūd, the proud Pharaoh,
and their hosts (al-malaʾ) were evidently the adversaries, Quraysh.
These narratives sought to remind them of past nations which had
brought disaster and calamity upon themselves after having refused
to accept the call of their messengers. In addition to an eschatological
punishment, the Qurʾan threatens the Meccans with a temporal pun-
ishment that would lead to the destruction of Mecca itself. In surah
41:13 the Prophet is commanded to warn the Meccans: “But if they
[i.e. the Meccans] turn away, then say: I warn you of a thunderbolt
like the thunderbolt of ʿĀd and Thamūd.” The punishment narratives
are therefore proof of the complex and painful situation the Prophet
and his community experienced.47
Simultaneously, the Qurʾan begins to urge the believers to remain
strong and defiant against oppression and to endure the persecution
of the Meccans. It is ultimately a trial of faith. In this context, the
believers are told countless consoling and edifying stories about the

44
  Paret, “Der Koran als Geschichtsquelle,” 24–42.
45
  Paret, Muhammad und der Koran, 84–89.
46
  There is mention of (a) Noah and his contemporaries in Q 40:5.31 and Q 42:13,
(b) ʿĀd and their messenger Hūd in Q 40:31 and Q 41:12–16, (c) Thamūd and their
messenger Ṣāliḥ in Q 40:31 and Q 41:13.17, (d) Moses and the Israelites and their
oppression at the hands of Pharaoh and his men in Q 40:23.26.27.37.53; Q 41:45;
Q 42:13; Q 43:46; Q 46:12.30, (e) Abraham and his people in Q 42:13 and Q 43:26.
There is even reference to Yūsuf in Q 40:34, and to ʿĪsā in Q 42:13 and Q 43:63.
47
  For a detailed analysis of the Qurʾanic punishment narratives in light of the
biography of the Prophet, see Marshal, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers,
52–115.
490 islam dayeh

strength and faith of previous believers, for example, in surah 40

(Ghāfir).
Mecca, however, was no longer a safe place. Persecution and
oppression were growing, and the Qurʾanic appeal to endurance and
patience seemed futile. It is at this moment that Qurʾanic narratives
begin to focus on the theme of the emigration of the oppressed. In a
fresh telling, surah 44 (ad-Dukhān) places the story of the Israelite
flight from Pharaoh in the context of Meccan arrogance and disbelief,
as if anticipating or, even suggesting, such an option for the oppressed
believers of Mecca.

8. The Ḥawāmīm in the ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān Literature

The perspective that these surahs together form an interconnected

group is not altogether new; there is in fact a recurring understanding
in the Qurʾanic exegetical literature that the surahs are interconnected.
Perhaps the most evident illustration of this contention is the numer-
ous ḥadīths describing the merits of those who recite the Ḥawāmīm.
These ḥadīths were fabricated, undoubtedly, out of piety, like much
of the fadāʾil al-qurʾān literature.48 If anything, these fabricated ḥadīths
wanted to inform the reader about the merits of reciting these surahs,
and not so much to emphasize that they cohere. Nevertheless, the
fact that these fabrications focus on the merits of reciting these surahs
rather than on what connects these surahs together is implicit evi-
dence that these surahs were considered interconnected and were
presumably treated as a whole in the Muslim tradition, even if the
notion in the fadāʾil al-qurʾān literature was only vaguely ex­­
pressed.
There are however more explicit statements in the exegetical tradi-
tion which allude to the interconnectedness of these surahs. Let us
consider three of these statements. The first is taken from Ibn Salāma’s
an-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh. Ibn Salāma (d. 410 AH):
َ ‫أ‬ ََ َ ‫َ ت‬
‫كا � ا �ل�ل�ه ����س��ب ��سور ن��ز �ل� ت� �ف� ا �تل�� �يل� ف� وا ح�د �ةً ب��ع�د وا ح�د �ة لا ا �ل‬
�
.‫حوا �مي����م‬ �� � ����‫�ل‬
‫ٍ �إ‬ ‫ي‬ ٍ ‫و ي س يف� بِ ِ ع‬

48
  Cf. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Fadāʾil al-qurʾān, 6, ḥadīth no. 4612; Ibn Mājah, Sunan,
Iqāma, 71, ḥadīth no. 1046; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, no. 401; Dārimī, Fadāʾil
al-qurʾān, 14 and 22; Tirmidhī, Sunan, Thawāb al-qurʾān, 2.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 491

This citation emphasizes the point that it is only these seven surahs
(al-Ḥawāmīm) which were arranged in the muṣḥaf one after the other
with correspondence to their order of revelation.49
The second citation is taken from az-Zarkashī’s al-Burhān fī ʿulūm
al-Qurʾān:

‫ �م� ن �ق�ا ل �ه ذ�� ا �ق�ا � ا �ل‬،�‫� ��ع� ا ��س��� اًم� �ل��ل��س �ة ��د �خ � ال �ع ا � ع��ل��ه�ا �ُ���صَ �ف‬ ُ
‫�م�ا‬�‫حوا �مي����مك‬ ‫��م ا �ل‬
� � ‫�ق‬
‫ل يف� �ج ع‬ � ‫ور وي ل �إ ر ب ي � وي ر و‬ ‫و �د ي ج ل‬
‫ن �ق آ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ع��� ا �ل��س��ل ف� �م ن���ه��محم‬
‫��م�د � نب� ��س��ير � ن� � ن� ي����ق�ا ل ا �ل‬
� ‫ ك ض‬. ‫����ق�ا ط�� ا �ل��ط ا ��س�� ن‬
‫حوا �مي����م و�إ����م�ا ي��� �ا ل � ل‬ ‫ي‬ � � ��‫�ره ب‬ ‫ي ل س و و ي� و‬
‫ق‬ ‫آ‬ ‫آ‬
‫ن‬
‫” و��ا ل ا � نب� �ع��ب�ا ��س ر �ض�ى ا �ل�ل�ه‬.� �‫ح��مد ي�ب��ا�ج ا �ل���ق ر‬ � ‫ “ � ل‬:‫ �ق�ا ل �ع��ب�د ا �ل�ل�ه � نب� �م��س�عود ر �ض�ى ا �ل�ل�ه �ع��ن�ه‬.‫ح��م‬ �
‫ق‬ ‫أ‬ ‫آ‬ ُ
‫ن‬
� ‫كا‬ � “ :‫��د ا �م‬ ‫” و��ا ل �م��س�عر � نب� ك‬.‫حوا �مي����م‬ ‫ ا �ل‬:‫ � وق��ا ل‬،‫ح��م‬
� � �‫ و�بل��ا ب� ا �ل���ق ر� ن‬،‫��ل���ش�ئ �لب��ا ب�ا‬�‫ “ �إ ن� �ل ك‬:‫�ع ن����ه���م�ا‬
‫آن‬ ‫ف‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ذ ذ‬ ‫ئ‬
.� �‫� �ا ئ�ل ا �ل���ق ر‬ ‫�ر� �ل�كك�ل�ه � ب�و�ع��بي���د �يف� ����ض‬ ‫” � ك‬.‫ي����ق�ا ل ��ل�ه� ن� ا �ل�عرا ���س‬
‫أ‬ ‫أ أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ن‬
‫ن‬ ‫ق‬
� ‫ “ �إ‬:‫حو�ص �ع� ن� � ب�ى �ع��ب�د ا �ل�ل�ه ��ا ل‬ � �‫ح�ا ق� �ع� ن � �ى ال‬ ‫�و��ه ث�ن��ا �ع��ب�د ا �ل�ل�ه ��سرا ئ�ي�� �ع� ن � �ى ��س‬
� ‫ل � ب �إ‬ ‫�إ‬
�‫وق��ا ل ح�مي���د � نب� �ز �ج‬
‫�ب‬ ‫ي‬
‫ن ق ت ن�ز َ ف� ّ أ‬ ‫آ‬
‫�ن ذ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ف‬
� ‫�ن‬ ‫ف‬
� ‫ث‬ �‫غ‬ ‫ث‬ ‫�ث‬ ‫َ ثَ �ق ن ك‬
‫ ��ب��ي� ���م�ا �هو ي���س��ير ي���ه وي���ع�� ج�� ب� �م� �ه �إ � �ه��ب��ط ع��لى‬،����‫�م���ل ا �ل�� ر� � �م���ل ر�ج �ل ا ���ط��ل� �ير��اد �م�� لا �مر ب�� �ر�ي‬
‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ َ ‫� دَ �مث���ا ت‬
�‫ ن� �َمث��َ�َ ا � �غل���� ث‬:‫���! ف����ق��� �ل�ه‬ ‫��� و� ��جع‬ ‫ ف����ه ذ�� ا � ��جع‬،‫� �م� ن ا � �غل�ي��� ث� ال� ول‬ ُ‫� ت‬
� � ‫ ف����ق�ا ل �ع‬،� ‫� �ا ت‬‫رو �ض‬
ِ ‫ي‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�إ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ِ ِ � ‫�ب‬ ِ‫�ج‬ ِ
‫آن أ‬ َ
�‫� �ا � �َمث���ل‬ ‫أ َ ثَُ ظ �ق آ ن نّ َ ثَ �ؤ‬
.�‫ � ور د ه ا �بل��غ�و�ي‬.”� �‫ح��م �يف� ا �ل���ق ر‬ ِ‫ و�إ� �م���ل�ه لا ء ا �لرو �ض ت‬،� �‫ال� و ِل �م���ل�ع�����ما �ل�� ر‬
Az-Zarkashī (d. 749 AH) makes two points here. The first relates to
the letters ḥā mīm: whether the plural is ḥawāmīm, and whether it is
correct to call these surahs the ḥawāmīm. Second, he cites several
traditions pertaining to the merits of the recitation of these surahs.
One of these traditions depicts the ḥawāmīm as a series of gardens,
leaving one garden and entering another, the beholder is only amazed
at what he perceives. Likewise, the reader of the ḥawāmīm surahs,
reading one surah after another, is marveled by what he finds.
The third statement is from Tartīb as-Suwar by as-Suyūṭī (d. 911
AH):

‫ت‬ ‫آ �خ‬ ‫أ‬

‫ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ و�ج �ه �لا ء ا �ل‬:‫� �قول‬
��‫ ت�� �ى ا �ل���م��ط�ا �ل �يف� الا ���ت��ت�ا ب�ت���ن�ز ي�ل ا � ك‬:“‫حوا �مي����ما �ل����س��ب ��سور „ا �ل�ز �مر‬
�‫ل�ا ب� و �يف‬ �
‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ي‬ ‫�إ‬
‫ت‬ َََّ َ‫ت‬
‫ت‬ ّ‫�ن �ة �ة ث ن‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫أ‬ ّ ُ‫� ف أ‬
� � ‫ا‬ �� ‫ل‬ ‫ت‬ � � ‫ا‬ �
‫ل‬
� ‫ا‬ � � � � �
�‫ م �إ � حو مي����م ر��ب��� ا �ش ��ر �ك�ه�ا يف‬. �‫ و� ل�ك م� �ا ����س��ب� �ج ي�ل��ل‬،“‫ � ول ا �ل �مر „ ح��م‬:�‫��ع� ب‬
‫�ز‬ ‫ح��� � �يب� � نب� ك‬��‫�م���ص‬

  Ibn Salāma, Asbāb an-Nuzūl, printed on the margin of al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb

49

an-Nuzūl, 267 (concerning the asbāb of surah 40).

‫‪492‬‬ ‫‪islam dayeh‬‬
‫�ة ف‬ ‫أن‬ ‫أ‬
‫ح��م“‪ ،‬و� ن���ه�ا �م�ي�ك���ة‪ ،‬ب� ور د �ف� ا �ل‬
‫ت‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫الا ف���ت��ت�ا ب��ـ“�‬
‫ي�ه�ا‬‫ح�د ي� ث� � ���ه�ا �ن�ز �ل� ت� ج��م�ل� ‪ ،‬و����‬ ‫�‬
‫ي‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل�ا ب� ب��ع�د „�‬ ‫�را � ك��‬ ‫ح��م“‪ ،‬وب��� ك‬
‫ح‬
‫َ ت ث ن �ةً‬ ‫ف‬ ‫فُ ّ ّ‬ ‫ت ف� ن ظ ث ن �ةَ‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫َ‬
‫ش������بَ�هٌ �م� ن�ت�ر �ي�� ب� � وا � „ا �لر“ ا ل����س��‪� .‬ا ����ر �ا �ي�� ا حوا �مي����م و هي� „ ���ص��ل��“‪� ،‬يك�� � �ش� �ا ب���ه�� �ا �ي��‬
‫�‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬
‫ل‬
‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬
‫ت أُ َ آ ثُ‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫أ‬
‫ت‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬
‫� „ا �لر“ „�هود“ �يف� ��غ� ي����يرال� ��س��لو ب� �يف� و�ص� ا � ك��‬ ‫ذ� ا ت‬
‫��م� ت� �ي�ا ��ه �م‬
‫كا ب� � ح ك‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ل�ا ب� و� � �يف� „�هود“‪�� ( :‬‬ ‫و‬
‫ت آ ت ت‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ُ‬
‫ل�ا ب�) و �يف�‬
‫ئ‬
‫كا � ����ص�ل� ت� � �ات��ه) � ��س�ا � � ا ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ف ت �‬
‫� (ا �لر) ( ��ل�ك �ي�ا � ا � ك��‬ ‫ي و يف� ر و‬ ‫����ص�ل��) و يف� „����ص�ل��“‪ �� ( :‬ب‬
‫ت‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ُ ت‬
‫ل�ا ب�)‪.‬‬‫ل�ا ب�) � و (وا � ك��‬ ‫حوا �مي����م‪( :‬ت���ن�ز ي�ل ا � ك��‬ ‫��س�ا ئ�را �ل‬
‫�‬
‫أن‬ ‫أ‬
‫ورو�ن��ا �ع� ن �ج �ا �بر � نب� �ز ��د وا � نب� �ع��ب�ا ��س �ف� ت�رت�ي�� ب� �ن�ز ول ا �ل��سور‪ � :‬ن� ا �ل‬
‫حوا �مي����م �ن�ز �ل� ت� �ع���ق� ب� „ا �ل�ز �مر“‪ ،‬و� ���ه�ا‬ ‫�‬
‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي �‬
‫ث �ز خ ف ث‬ ‫�ش‬ ‫�ة ث‬ ‫م�ؤ ن ث‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن�ز ت �ت �ت ت ت‬
‫ح���‪„ :‬ا �ل��� �م��“‪� ،‬م „ا �ل��س�� ج��د “‪� ،‬م „ا �ل�� ور �ى“‪� ،‬م „ا �ل �ر��“‪� ،‬م‬ ‫���ر �ي�ب���ه�ا �ف� ا �ل���م���ص���‬‫� �ل�� �م� � �ا �يل��ا � ك‬
‫ي‬
‫ض‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ث‬
‫ير�ه�ا‪ ،‬وت��ل�ك �م��ن�ا ����س��ب��ة �ج � ي�ل���ة وا ��‬
‫� �ة‬
‫ح� �يف�‬
‫�خ �ن�ز �غ ُ‬
‫��ل���ل�ه�ا ول ��‬ ‫ح���ق�ا �ف�“‪ ،‬و�ل�م ي�ت�‬‫��ا ث�ي���ة“‪� ،‬م „ال� �‬ ‫„ا �ل�د �خ �ا ن�“‪� ،‬ثم „ا ��جل‬

‫� ��ع�ه�ا‪.‬‬ ‫و �ض‬
‫�ف �ت �ت ��ة �ل� ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫آ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�ذ ث ظ‬
‫حرو��‬ ‫كل ر ب� �م� ن� � رب�ا ا �ل���ق ر� � ت�وا �ل� ت� ����س��ب ��سور�م�� � � ��ح� ب�ا‬ ‫�ة‬
‫��� ا �م���هر يل� �ل��طي���ف� � � خ� � ‪� ،‬ه ‪ � :‬ن��ه � �‬ ‫�ه ك‬
‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫رى و ي� يف� ع‬
‫ت �ت �ة‬ ‫ذ ق ذ ت‬ ‫ا �ل���م���ق����ط�ع��ة ف����ه ذ�� ه ا �ل����س��ب �م���ص�د ر�ة ب��ـ“�‬
‫ح��م“‪ ،‬و����س��بع �يف� ا �لر�بع ا �ل�� �ي� ���ب�ل�ه � وا � „ا �لر“ ا �ل����س�� �م� وا �يل�� ‪ ،‬و‬ ‫ع‬
‫� ت �ق � ت ال � �ة � ا ف� �ت �ت �أ ا � �ق �آ ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ف‬
‫�‬ ‫أ ف‬
‫„ا �ل���م���ص“ „ال� �عرا ��“‪ ،‬إ� ���ه�ا �م� ���ص�ل� ب��ـ“�يو���س“ ع��لى م�ا ��� �د م�� �إ �ش� �ا ر �إ يل��ه و � � ��ح ول ل�� ر �‬
‫ت ن ق‬ ‫ن ف ث‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ت ن ن ذ‬
‫�ر�م�ا �ن� �ف� ا �ل�ع�� ج��ا ئ� ب�‪„ :‬ت�رت�ي�� ب� ا �ل‬
‫�‬
‫حوا �مي����م‬ ‫ب���سور���ي� �م�� � �ل�ك‪ ،‬و� ول ا �ل����ص� ا �ل��ا �ين� ب���سور���ي�‪ .‬و��ا ل ا �ل ك� ي ي‬
‫�ف �ت ت ت أ‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ذ ُ َّ‬
‫ل�ا ب� � و و� �فص� �ه‪� ،‬م‬ ‫كل��سور�ة �م ن����ه�ا ا ��س� � ���‬
‫ح�� ب�ا � ك��‬ ‫كل ا �ل�� �ي� خ�����ص� ت� ب��ه‪ ،‬و�هو‪� � � :‬‬
‫�ت‬
‫ا �ل����س��ب �ل���م�ا ب�ي� ن���ه�ا �م� ن� ا �ل� �ش�� �ا �‬
‫ع‬ ‫ع‬
‫تَ �ش ُ � ا � نّ‬
‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ظ‬
‫��ل �ِم يف� ا �ل�����ا �م‪ ،‬ا ����هى“‪.‬‬ ‫ت���ف� �ا و� ا �ل���م�� �اد�ير �يف� ا �ل��طول وا �ل�� ���صر‪ ،‬و��� �ا �‬
‫كل ا �ل ك‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ت‬
‫فُ ّ ّ‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫ف نّ َ �غ ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ق‬
‫��ل� ت�‪ :‬وا � ظ���ر �إلى �م��ن�ا ����س��ب��ةِ ت�رت�ي�بِ���ه�ا‪� ،‬إ� � �م��ط��ل „ �ا �ر“ �م��ن�ا ����س� ب� �ل���م��ط��ل „ا �ل�ز �مر“‪ ،‬و�م��ط��ل „����ص��ل� ت�“‬
‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬
‫ح ا �م��� �م��ن�ا ����س� ٌ �ل���م��ط��ل �ه د‪ ،‬ا � �ه ث�ا ن����ة ذ� ا ت (ا �ل ) �م��ط��ل „ا �ل خ� �ف “ �م�ؤا�خ‬
‫ب� ع و يل�ت� ي� ي و � ر و ع ر ر�‬ ‫�و ي �م‬ ‫ا � �ه� ث�ا ن�ي���ةُا �ل‬
‫ٍ‬ ‫يل�ت� ي‬
‫أ � �ق �ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ن‬
‫��ا ث�ي�� “ �ل���م��ط��ل „ال� ح�� �ا �“‪.‬‬ ‫�ل���م��ط��ل „ا �ل�د �خ �ا �“‪ ،‬وك‬
‫��� ا �م��ط��ل „ا ��جل‬
‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬
‫‪As-Sūyūṭī here offers a detailed analysis. Three issues may be high-‬‬
‫‪lighted. First, his observation concerning the similarity between the‬‬
‫;‪introduction of surah 39 (az-Zumar) and the rest of the Ḥawāmīm‬‬
‫‪this observation, he points out, explains what has been reported about‬‬
‫‪the muṣḥaf of Ubayy (cf. above). Second, he stresses the correspon-‬‬
‫‪dence between the chronological order of the surahs and the canonical‬‬
‫‪order in the muṣḥaf. Third, comparing the order of the Ḥawāmīm‬‬
‫‪with the order of the six surahs beginning with alif lām rā (surahs‬‬
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 493

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15), as-Suyūṭī makes several notes pertinent to the
redaction and composition of the surahs.

9. Conclusion

This study has shown that the Ḥawāmīm surahs are anything but
“amorphous” or incomplete,50 but rather reveal a clear sense of char-
acter and unity. This sense of unity probably must have led to the
arrangement of the surahs in their canonical order in the muṣḥaf.
I have argued that the surahs are interconnected and that what
accounts for their interconnectedness is more than just formal ele-
ments such as the disconnected letters at the beginning of the surahs.
Concerning the chronological order of these surahs, I have argued,
in contrast to Nöldeke’s proposition, that the surahs were most prob-
ably revealed in the order most exegetes have presented and that the
surahs exhibit a recurrence and development of a particular set of
themes. Acknowledging Iṣlāḥī’s theory, I have proposed to render
this recurrence, which is an essential element of Qurʾanic composi-
tion, complementarity.
In addition, this study has strengthened the notion of a coherent
identity and character that dominates the surah. Exploring formal,
formulaic, and thematic parallels within the surah group has addition-
ally confirmed the importance and the need for such an approach to
the rest of the Qurʾanic corpus. Clearly, an intertextual reading of the
Qurʾan is indispensable if we wish to explore the redaction as well as
the literary composition of the text. Furthermore, although I have
not engaged in an exegesis of these surahs, I have underlined some
of the most salient aspects which should be taken into account when
doing so. I have shown, for instance, that the surahs are intimately
intertwined with the Meccan context and the vicissitudes of the
nascent Muslim community. In the case of eschatological imagery,
for example, we have observed that the dialogical and forensic nature
of these episodes are significant and have major exegetical implica-

50
  This has been suggested by Seale, “The Mysterious Letters in the Qurʾan,” 377.
He writes: “These short amorphous Suras I reckon to be unfinished compositions
which the Prophet kept aside with the hope of being able to add to them such embel-
lishments as parables and snatches from history, and so were marked ḥadīth muqaṭṭaʿ,
as an indication of their unfinished character.” By ḥadīth muqattaʿ, Seale is referring
to his interpretation of the disconnected letters Ḥā mīm.
494 islam dayeh

tions. This observation is the outcome of the perspective that the

relationship between the surahs is one of complementarity.
In conclusion, I would like to make a note concerning the scholarly
value of the exegetical literature that I referred to briefly in the last
section. Considering the quotations mentioned in section 8, the sig-
nificance of these brief yet highly erudite statements becomes mani-
fest. Indeed, these citations do not examine the interconnectedness
of these surahs in the detailed manner I have attempted; yet they have
touched upon several significant aspects of this interconnectedness.
Their mentioning of the disconnected letters, the introduction, the
surah order, the stylistic similarities (tashākul al-kalām fī n-nidhām),
and the illustration of the complementarity between the surahs in the
image of the series of gardens are all worthy of notice. This brings
me to my last conclusion. This study suggests that quite often the
literary student of the Qurʾan has more to benefit from a critical and
resourceful reading of the traditional exegetical literature than from
much of modern Qurʾanic scholarship. The difference between the
two approaches is the difference between the view that the text is a
finely interconnected whole, as our quoted exegetes assumed, and the
view that it is a patchwork of miscellaneous texts, as most contem-
porary scholars assume.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 495

Appendix: Additional Correspondences

Corresponding Specifics
surahs
Q 39 and 40 (1) One of the significant, yet less evident correspondences
between these two surahs is the correlation between the end
of the surah 39 and the beginning of surah 40. Both the end
of surah 39 and the introductory verses of surah 40 intimate
the theme of divine mercy and forgiveness and that punish-
ment (al-ʿadhāb) is only inflicted on those who deserve it.
In addition, both end with an introduction giving mention
to angels. The correspondence between the end of surah 39
and the beginning of surah 40 leaves the reader with the
impression that surah 40 picks up from where surah 39
ended.
(2) There is an apparent relation between surah 39:2.14 and
surah 40:14: both demanding pure submission to God. It
would appear that the latter occurrence complements the
former.
(3) Q 40:18, wa-andhirhum yawma l-āzifa, complements
Q 39:71.73 in their employment of the word zumar. Both
words, āzifa and zumar, denote crowds of people and/or
their movement. In Q 39, the first occurrence, two crowds,
zumar, are portrayed being driven to their final destiny.
This portrayal having been introduced and perhaps even
appreciated by the audience, the image is then encapsulated
in surah 40, in the second occurrence, whereby the por-
trayal in surah 39 is evoked in the genitive construction
yawm al-āzifa, the day of the driven, marching crowds.
(4) The apparent relationship between the exhortations and
admonitions of the believer of the people of Pharaoh,
muʾmin āl-firʿawn, which are narrated in surah 40:41–44
and the many commands that appear in surah 39, such as
surah 39:11–17.
Q 39, 40, and 41 The passages surah 39:8, surah 41:51, and surah 42:48 all
treat the topic of man’s ambivalent attitude toward the state
of grace and convenience, niʿma, and the state of misfortune
and calamity, muṣība. The passages complement one
another by reflecting on various aspects of the same topic.
Q 41 and 42 The contrast between virtues and vices which is alluded to
briefly in surah 41:34, wa-lā tastawī al-ḥasanatu wa-la-l-
sayyiʾatu, is lengthily expounded in surah 42, especially in
vv. 20–26 and 40.
Q 41 and 43 Q 41:25, wa-qayyaḍnā lahum quranāʾ fa-zayyanū lahum,
complements Q 43:36–38, nuqayyiḍ lahū shayṭānan fa-huwa
lahū qarīn, whereby the latter (which is arguably also the
later chronologically) passage illustrates in more detail the
former.
496 islam dayeh

Corresponding Specifics
surahs

Q 39, 40, 41, In Q 39:75, 40:7–9, 41:38, and 42:5, mention is made of the
and 42 angels who are portrayed surrounding the divine throne,
ever-praising, ever-praying.
Q 44 and 45 In the context of the debate over the possibility of the resur-
rection of the body after death, Q 45:25–26 ascribes to the
unbelievers the same argument which was ascribed to them
in surah 44:34–36, namely, the demand for an immediate
resurrection of their forefathers.
 intertextuality and coherence in meccan surahs 497

Bibliography

Bauer, Hans. “Über die Anordnung der Suren und über die Geheimnisvollen
Buchstaben im Qoran.” In Paret (ed.), Der Koran, 311–335.
Blatherwick, Helen. Review of Alan Dundes’ Fables of the Ancients? Folklore in the
Qurʾan. Journal of Qurʾanic studies 6 (2004): 84–88.
Djait, Hisham. Tārīkhiyyat ad-daʿwa al-muḥammadiyya fī makka. Beirut, 2007.
Dundes, Alan. Fables of the Ancients? Folklore in the Qurʾan. Maryland, 2003.
El-Awa, Salwa. Textual Relations in the Qurʾan: Relevance, Coherence and Structure.
London, 2006.
Goosens, Eduard. “Ursprung und Bedeutung der Koranischen Siglen.” In Paret
(ed.), Der Koran, 336–373.
GQ = Nöldeke, Theodor. Geschichte des Qorāns, völlig umgearbeitet von Friedrich
Schwally. Reprint, Hildesheim, 1961.
Ibn Hishām. As-Sīra an-nabawiyya. Edited by Muṣtafa as-Saqqa, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī,
and ʿAbd al-Ḥafiẓ Shalabī. Cairo, 1955.
Ibn Salāma, Abū l-Qāsim. An-Nasikh wa-l-mansūkh. Printed in the margin of
al-Wāḥidī, Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Aḥmad. Asbāb an-nuzūl. Cairo, 1315/1897–
1898.
Jones, Alan, “The Mystical Letters of the Qurʾan.” In Paret (ed.), Der Koran,
379–385.
Kadhim, Abbas. Review of Alan Dundes’ Fables of the Ancients? Folklore in the
Qurʾan. Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 6 (2004): 78–84.
Kennedy, George. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from
Ancient Times. Chapel Hill and London, 1999.
al-Kisāʾī. Mutashābih al-Qurʾān. Beirut, 1998.
Lord, Albert B. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, 1960.
Lord, Albert B. Epic Singers and the Oral Tradition. Ithaca, 1991.
Marshal, David. God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers. Surrey, 1999.
Mir, Mustansir. Coherence in the Qurʾan: A Study of Iṣlāḥīʾs Concept of Nazm in
Tadabbur-i Qurʾan. Indianapolis, 1986.
Monroe, James. “Oral composition in pre-Islamic poetry.” Journal of Arabic literature
3 (1972): 1–53.
Nagel, Tilman. Medinensische Einschübe in mekkanischen Suren. Göttingen, 1995.
Neuwirth, Angelika. Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren. Berlin,
1981.
Neuwirth, Angelika. “Structural, linguistic and literary features.” The Cambridge
Companion to the Qurʾan, edited by Jane D. McAuliffe, 97–113. Cambridge,
2006.
Paret, Rudi. Muhammad und der Koran. Stuttgart, 1957.
Paret, Rudi. “Der Koran als Geschichtsquelle.” Der Islam: Zeitschrift für Geschichte
und Kultur des islamischen Orients 37 (1961): 24–42.
Paret, Rudi, ed. Der Koran: Wege der Forschung. Darmstadt, 1975.
Parry, Adam, ed. The Making of the Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman
Parry. Oxford, 1971.
Parry, Milman, Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. 1: Homer and
the Homeric Style. Cambridge (MA), 1930.
Robinson, Neal. Discovering the Qurʾan: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text.
Washington D.C., 2003.
Seale, Morris. “The Mysterious Letters in the Qurʾān.” Der Koran: Wege der Forschung,
edited by Rudi Paret, 374–378. Darmstadt, 1975.
498 islam dayeh

as-Suyūṭī. al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān. Beirut, 2003.

as-Suyūṭī. Tartīb as-suwar. Beirut, 2000.
Watt, Montgomery. Bellʾs Introduction to the Qurʾan. Edinburgh, 1970.
Watters, William. Formula Criticism and the Poetry of the Old Testament. Berlin,
1976.
Wensinck, A. J. et al., eds. Concordance et indices de la tradition musulmane. 8 vols.
Leiden, 1936–1988.
az-Zarkashī. al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān. Beirut, 2002.
Zwettler, Michael. “Classical Arabic poetry between folk and oral tradition.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society 96, no. 2 (1976): 198–212.
Zwettler, Michael. The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its Character and
Implications. Columbus, 1978.