Surat al-Rum: a study of the exegetical literature.

• Author: El Cheikh, Nadia Maria

Qur'an commentaries have, in recent years, been exploited to "reconstruct trends and motivations in exegesis as revealed by the use and invention of textual and orthographic variants to the Qur'an."(1) One of the functions of interpretation is to adapt the text to the present situation of the interpreter, making the text applicable to the faith and way of life of the believers and aligning it with established social custom, legal position and doctrinal assertions.(2)

The opening verses of Surat al-Rum (30:1-5) read as follows:

Alif Lam Mim (1) The Greeks have been vanquished (2) in the nearer part of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be victors (3) in a few years. To God belongs the Command before and after, and on that day the believers shall rejoice (4) in God's help; God helps whomsoever He will; and He is All-mighty, the All-compassionate (5).(3)

Through an analysis of the exegetical texts pertaining to these verses, this article will attempt to establish a "history of reader reaction to the Qur'an,"(4) quite meaningful in this context, since the texts under scrutiny divulge a changing attitude toward the Byzantines. I have consulted major commentaries down to the late fourteenth century and studied the various interpretations given to these verses against their specific historical background. I have also examined other exegetical genres such as asbab al-nuzul, gharib al-Qur'an, ma'ani al-Qur'an, and i'rab al-Qur'an. In order to have a wide spectrum of information and opinion, I have chosen major commentators from various schools and sects: Sunni, Twelver Shi'i, Mu'tazili, and Sufi; and commentaries belonging to the polarized categories of tafsir bi-al-ra'y and tafsir bi-al-ma'thur - interpretation by the use of reason and interpretation according to what has been handed down through tradition.(5)

The opening verses of Surat al-Rum concern the Byzantine-Persian wars of the early part of the seventh century. At the time of the emperor Heraclius' accession, the Persians were menacing the Byzantine Empire from the east. In 611, the Persians undertook the conquest of Syria, capturing Antioch, the main city of the eastern Byzantine provinces, and, later on, Damascus. In 614, Jerusalem was captured and pillaged. The Byzantines' shock was increased when the Holy Cross was transported to Ctesiphon. The Persians continued their advance, occupying Egypt between 617 and 619. The emperor Heraclius eventually took the offensive, conducting campaigns against the Persians between the years 622 and 628. In 627, he finally defeated the Persians near Nineveh and the Persian king Chosroes was dethroned and killed. The provinces of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were returned to the Byzantine Empire and the relic of the Holy Cross was reinstalled in Jerusalem.

The magnitude of these wars and their importance was not lost on anyone, as they reopened the whole question of frontiers and allegiances in Arabia.(6) As each side tried to extend its own sphere of influence, the struggle had a lot of relevance for Arabian politics.(7) The Arabs of the peninsula were caught up in the tensions of the superpowers; and the wars, as reflected in the exegetical literature, seem to have led to a division within Quraysh between those who thought that the Persians would win and others who counted on a Byzantine victory. The commentators saw these opening verses of Surat al-Rum as ayat bayyinat - a sign that the Qur'an is God-sent because of the effective accomplishment of the prophecy. Many people are said to have joined Islam as a consequence.(8)

Several Qur'an scholars have alluded to the difficulty in reading and interpreting these verses. Theodor Noldeke and, later, Edmund Beck and Manfred Gotz pointed to the problematic vocalization of these verses, which has the potential of changing the meaning and the resulting historical explanation.(9) Richard Bell has stated that "it is also difficult to explain Muhammed's favourable interest in the political fortunes of the Byzantine Empire in this early period"; while Rudi Paret provides the essence of the main interpretations present in the Islamic commentaries.(10)

The most important problem in the reading of these verses concerns the forms of ghalaba (to vanquish). The majority of the commentaries read the verb in the second verse in the passive voice, ghulibat al-Rum (the Rum were vanquished), and the verb in the third verse in the active, sa-yaghlibun (they will vanquish). There is, however, a main variant which reverses the verb forms: the first verb is in the active voice, ghalabat al-Rum (the Rum were victorious), while the second is in the passive voice, sa-yughlabun (they will be vanquished). The voweling of the verbs is crucial, as it changes the meaning and interpretation of the verses in a fundamental way.

One of the earliest extant commentaries, namely, that of Mujahid (d. 104/722), provides the following explanation for the opening verses of Surat al-Rum: "He mentioned the victory of Persia over the Rum and the victory of the Ram over Persia and the rejoicing of the believers for God's assistance of ahl al-kitab (people of the Book) over ahl al-awthan (idol worshippers)."(11) Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767) states that "the Persians defeated the Rum in the nearer part of the land . . . and the kuffar of Mecca rejoiced, saying that the Persians, like us, do not have a [Holy] book and they have defeated the Rum, who are people of the Book like you, and so we will defeat you the way the Persians defeated the Rum. . . . On the day of Badr, the Muslims triumphed over the kuffar of Mecca and the news reached them that the Rum triumphed over the Persians and the Muslims rejoiced at that."(12)

Other relatively early exegetical texts of the late second/eighth and early third/ninth century are brief in their explanations of these verses but already provide the variant reading. According to the Kufan grammarian Abu Zakariyya al-Farra' (d. 207/822), "The qurra' agree on ghulibat [they were vanquished] except for Ibn 'Umar,(13) who read it ghalabat [they were victorious] and who was asked: Over what were they [the Rum] victorious? He said: Over the nearer countryside of at-Sham." Al-Farra states, however, that the tafsir tradition rejects the words of Ibn 'Umar and provides the following explanations: "The Persians were victorious over the Ram and the Muslims were saddened; the Meccan polytheists rejoiced because the Persians worshipped idols . . . while the Muslims inclined toward the Rum because they were people of the Book. . . ."(14) Another grammarian, this time from Basra, Sa'id b. Mas'ada al-Akhfash al-Awsat (d. 215/830), read it ghulibat . . . sa-yaghlibun but also adds the variant reading: "Some said ghalabat . . . sa-yughlabun because they had been victorious on the arrival of Islam and were defeated once Islam expanded."(15) Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas (d. 338/950) mentions the variant reading as being that of al-Sham, a reading refuted by the great traditionist Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), who declares that the hadith points to ghulibat as the correct reading.(16) One of the foremost hadith scholars, Muhammad al-Tirmidhi (d. 297/892), includes the variant reading in his al-Jami' al-sahih,(17) and according to Abu Ishaq al-Zajjaj (d. 311/923), this variant is related by 'Ali, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Ab-bas, and Mu'awiya b. Qurra.(18) Thus, although the early exegetical texts stress the main reading that favors the Byzantine victory, the variant reading is already found in texts of the early ninth century, with chains of authority going back to much earlier times.

Elaborate interpretations developed in the fourth/tenth century, for it was then that works of tafsir emerged that combined all of its five constitutive elements, namely, the narrative, legal, textual, rhetorical, and allegorical.(19) The first great exegete was Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/923), whose Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an was "the first major work in the development of traditional Quranic sciences,"(20) constituting a standard text upon which later commentators drew. Being the earliest complete Qur'an commentary, it contained "the compilation and material arrangement of the first two centuries and a half of Muslim exegesis."(21) Al-Tabari cites the material of the standard authorities, noting even the insignificant variants. I will quote below his classic interpretation of the opening verses of Surat al-Rum, since it sums up the various interpretations given earlier and widely accepted by the first part of the tenth century, and also because later exegetes relied on al-Tabari's text:

The qurra' differed as to the reading: the majority. of the qurra' of the amsar read it ghulibat al-Rum . . . in the sense that the Persians defeated the Rum. It has been related on the authority of Ibn 'Umar and Abu Sa'id(22) . . . I heard Ibn 'Umar reading: Alif Lam Mim. Ghalabat al-Rum; and he was asked, Abu 'Abd al-Rahman, over what were they victorious? He said: over the countryside of al-Sham.

The only correct reading for us is ghulibat al-Rum and no other reading is acceptable, for it enjoys the authoritative consensus of the qurra'.. This being so, the ta'wil(23) of the wording is: The Persians defeated the Rum . . . from the land of al-Sham to that of Persia, and (after their vanquishing) the Rum (shall be victors) over the Persians subsequent to their earlier defeat (in a few years, for it is God's will) before their victory and after, on either occasion . . . (and on that day the believers shall rejoice) and on the day the Rum defeat the Persians, the believers will rejoice for God's victory over the polytheists and for the victory of the Rum over the Persians . . . (God helps whomsoever He will) this is the victory of the...