Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66/1
Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom: Aspects of Shicite Meta-historical Exegesis on Abraham's Sacrifice in Light of Jewish, Christian, and Sunni Muslim Tradition
Reuven Firestone
CERTAIN SCRIPTURAL TEXTS seem to strike a near universal chord among thinkers across religious, ethnic, and historical boundaries, yet even when this occurs, the particularity of individual religious systems tends to cause the exegeses of those texts to work themselves out in par-ticularist, sometimes exclusive terms. In the often subtle world of inter-and intra-religious rivalry, polemical statements and claims may be made in relation to such texts with the knowledge that the audience will make the critical connection, whether consciously or unconsciously, with a subtext deriving from a competing point of view. Suggestive polemical statements are found in many genres of religious literature including those outside of what is usually deemed "religious polemics," which tend to be far more blatant, far less suggestive.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the motif of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son, where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each makes use
Reuven Firestone is Associate Professor of Medieval Jewish and Islamic Studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles, CA 90007-3796.
11 am grateful to Professors Mahmoud Ayoub and Etan Kohlberg for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. It is nevertheless the author, of course, who is responsible for any inaccuracies that may have been presented here.
93
94
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
of the powerful story in order to buttress its own particularity.2 The interpretive traditions of these religions agree that so much merit is associated with the exceptional willingness of the protagonists to carry out God's command to the last letter and often through personal suffering, that some or much of that merit is considered to have spilled over or is held as credit for the generations of those who follow them. Those lucky followers, however, are restricted in each separate religious interpretation of the event to the official believers of that religious system. This common view tends to be worked out as an equation of excellence, merit, and value. Extreme acts of personal excellence generate merit before God which may be realized through suffering, although suffering is not necessarily required in order to demonstrate excellence.3 This merit is accumulated essentially as a commodity and stored up on behalf of generations of followers, and those followers are accredited with unique value by virtue of their identification with the religious system attributing merit to the act in the first place.
This study is a comparative examination of some of the classic ways in which particular religious views run this equation in relationship to the Abrahamic sacrifice. Although the study of sacrificial theory rightly remains of great concern to the academic study of religion, it is not the purpose of this study. We are not concerned here with a theory of sacrifice per se." The goal, rather, is to examine the ways in which related but independent religious expressions process Scripture (not a common Scripture canonically but nevertheless accessible interpretively). Of particular interest to this study is the way in which some Shi'ite interpretations process the Abrahamic sacrifice in terms of Shi'ite sacred history (or "meta-history"). The larger question is, how are commonly accepted scriptural motifs, even when the underlying conceptual issues fueling the importance of such motifs are shared between religious traditions, manipulated by those traditions to buttress and enhance their own particularity at the expense of the "other"? Issues of "borrowing," "influence," or "inspiration" are irrelevant for the purpose of this inquiry since the adherents of all the religious expressions examined here were engaged in inter- and intra-religious discourse, whether directly or indirectly or whether or not chronologically contemporaneous, in which such issues as merit of the ancients, mimesis, and martyrdom were shared concepts despite the fact that each tradition and even the various vectors within each tradition applied their own twists and nuances to them.
2 The particular Islamic renderings of this narrative and their purported origins and literary journeys have occupied scholarship for over a century. For the most recent studies, see Calder, Firestone 1990.
3 On the redemptive nature of suffering, see Ayoub.
4 For synopses and critiques of the classical and contemporary theories of sacrifice, see Hecht, Strenski, and Milbank.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
95
The narrative of the Abrahamic sacrifice may be found in Qur'an 37:99-113. It parallels the biblical narrative in Genesis 22, and the two exhibit many common motifs. There are, of course, many differences between them as well, and there is room for a great deal more scholarly inquiry into the literary, historical, and theological relationship between the two scriptural versions of the attempted sacrifice and the exegetical traditions that respond to them. The most immediate peculiarity regarding the qur'anic story lies in its reluctance to identify the intended victim of the sacrifice. Neither Isaac, Ishmael, nor any other name is provided in the narrative to identify Abraham's son.
It should be stated from the outset that although the biblical rendering of the story precedes the qur'anic rendering by some 1500 years, it is not absolutely certain that the latter is directly dependent upon the former. I have presented the case elsewhere for a pre-biblical rendering of the tale based on literary, historical, and cultic considerations in which Ishmael and not Isaac would have been the intended victim (Firestone 1998). This reconstruction would correspond, at least with regard to the issue of which son was the intended victim, with Islamic exegetical traditions placing Ishmael in that role. On the other hand, even though the tradition that eventuated in the qur'anic rendering may have evolved independently of the biblical story per se, once it became a part of the Qur'an, it became subject to the close scrutiny and criticism of Jews and Christians wedded to belief in the unique and divine origin of the biblical tale. Muslim exe-getes, therefore, were forced to come to terms with both the obvious and subtle differences between the two scriptural portrayals.
The differences range from contextualization to the role of the narrator, the relationship and dialogue between father and son, dialogue in general, the divine role, human responses to the divine command, and the many other issues between them such as the role of servants, the knife, binding or laying out the prospective victim, the nature and modality of divine communications, angels, the issue of testing, the issue of progeny and the future, the redemptive offering, the role of blessing, reward, and so forth. The list could be extended almost indefinitely. Exegetical responses to the scriptural passages in the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam reflect a number of different agendas including the theological, historical, and polemical.
IDENTIFYING THE INTENDED SACRIFICE
The major item of discussion in Islamic exegetical texts is the identification of the intended victim, a problem unique to Islam for two primary reasons that will be discussed in some detail to follow. The first is that, as
96
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
just noted, the text of the Qur'an does not specify which of Abraham's sons he attempted to sacrifice. The second is that the Arab peoples trace their origins to the biblical Ishmael.
Judaism had no such problem identifying the intended victim. Isaac, a patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people, is mentioned by name five times in the brief narrative of Genesis 22, and Jewish tradition ascribes great merit to Isaac as well as Abraham for enduring that trial (Vermes 1973). Christianity was also clear as to the identity of the near-sacrifice, for, like Judaism, it considered the text of the Hebrew Bible sacred. Christianity likewise saw itself as the heir of Isaac—more in the spiritual than in the biological sense, perhaps, but nevertheless heir (Romans 9:6-9; Gala-tians 4:21-31), and privileged heir at that. When it wished to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity to its older religious sibling, the motif of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus was taken to prove its perfection of the pious but uncompleted act suggested in Genesis 22. With the near-sacrifice of Isaac seen as a prefiguration of the crucifixion, Jesus comes to displace Isaac and perfect his role as sacrifice (Hebrews 11:17-19, and Vermes 1973; Swetnam).5
Why, one might ask, would the total immolation of Jesus demonstrate such superiority? The answer may be found, as has been noted above, in the religious concept of merit accrued for righteousness, including righteousness under suffering, a value shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In Judaism, where the concept evolved before the birth of Christianity, it is identified by the term, zekhut avot—"merit of the Patriarchs" (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 11a), which is closely related to atonement, and especially vicarious atonement or kappdrdh (Kaddushin: 15, 318-319). The "merit of the Patriarchs" epitomizes the protecting influence of the ancients' merit for future generations of the Jewish people. According to this view, the very righteousness of the ancients guarantees a degree of divine protection for their descendants, for their merit is a blessing that accrues for their progeny. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son, for example, is said by some early Jewish commentators to have been the reason that God caused the Red Sea to part for the Israelites in their escape from Egyptian bondage. Thus, in an early Midrash dated to approximately the third century, "Rabbi Benaya said: By the merit of the commandment which Abraham our father carried out I will split the Sea for them, as it is written: 'and he split the wood of the sacrifice' (Gen.22:3), and it is written: 'and the waters were split' (Ex.l4:21)" (Horowitz and
5 For the interpretive process from rabbinic Judaism to Christianity see Levenson 173-213. On the iconography of the relationship, see Bregman.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
97
Rabin: 98). A more striking articulation of the same concept is found a few pages later:
Rabbi Yose HaGallili said: "When the Children of Israel entered into the Sea, Mt. Moria with Isaac's altar built upon it and the entire scene laid out upon it were uprooted from their place—with Isaac as if he were bound and placed on the altar and Abraham as if he were stretching out his hand, taking the knife to slaughter his son.... God said to Moses: Moses, My children are in trouble ... and you are standing there busied in prayer. [Moses] said before Him: What can I do?! [God] answered: 'and lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it....' (Ex. 14:16)." (100)
Credit for Abraham's merit of being willing to sacrifice his own son is recalled in Jewish tradition in order to bring atonement even to this day. This is most obvious in the liturgy for the New Year and the Day of Atonement where liturgical poetry often refers to this theme, but it is often included in the liturgy of the daily morning prayers and was earlier associated with Passover (Manns). The merit for the 'aqeddh, or the "binding" of Isaac as it is known in Jewish tradition, is of such magnitude that it is seen in rabbinic literature as the efficient cause of Israel's rescue from affliction throughout history (Levenson: 181).
JEWISH SCHEME OF MERIT: Father: Abraham Intended victim/son: Isaac
Beneficiary of merit:     The Jewish people (Abraham and Isaac's progeny)
In Christianity, the general concept of merit is contracted and centered particularly on the person of Jesus (although saints also accrue merit which may be tapped by later generations). But it is Jesus whose own merit for righteousness in the face of suffering and the ultimate personal sacrifice of death on the cross provides atonement for all those who would believe in him. As Paul would articulate it in his letter to the Gala-tians, "The purpose of it all was that the blessing of Abraham should be in Jesus Christ extended to the Gentiles ..." (3:14). But Paul continues by stating that this extension in effect becomes a restriction, for those [i.e., the Jews] who reject the divine status of Jesus will be rejected from the blessing accrued through his merit (Gal. 4:21-31).6 To put the Christianized concept most simply, the merit accrued for the completed act of personal suffering and sacrifice far outweighs that accrued for the uncompleted act (Swetnam: 176-177, 186-187, 190-191). Jesus supersedes Isaac, and the blessing that accrues for his merit passes only to those "spiritual descendants" who believe in their "Father," Jesus.
6 Cf. Fernandez.
98
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
CHRISTIAN IDENTITY ASSOCIATION: Father: God Actual victim/son: Jesus
Beneficiary of merit:     Christians (who believe in Jesus' redemptive role)
The parallel between Genesis 22 and the crucifixion was not lost on Jews and Christians from the earliest days of their mutual contact and conflict. The obvious correspondence engendered the creation of exe-getical material that, among other purposes, came to be written for or eventually used as polemic (Brock, Danielou, Hay ward).7 This exegetical material in which points are carefully articulated in reference to scriptural texts may be homiletical in form, or it may be narrative in which the associations are implicit. The latter type seems to have been beloved among Semitic cultures, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, and a good deal of narrative exegesis may be found on the biblical story. But, as noted above, polemic was not restricted to the traditions of Judaism and Christianity. Muslims too felt the need to demonstrate the exclusive truth of their religious tradition over the claims of their monotheistic cousins, and the story of the intended sacrifice came to be a reference from which polemical material was generated. This is not to suggest that it was a central Islamic text for polemical purposes, for this appears not to have been the case. Nevertheless, the unique nature of the story, the variant versions found in the Bible and the Qur'an, and the underlying genealogical associations shared by Jews and Arabs gave rise to rival exegesis on the story.
The common genealogical worldview among biblical religionists (Jews and Christians) and Muslims alike held that the Jews derived from Isaac while the Arabs, or at least the Arab line resulting in the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, derived from the line of Ishmael (Brockel-mann, Rentz, Caskel, Dagorn, Montgomery). Whether or not the qur'anic rendering of the story of the sacrifice intended Ishmael as the victim or not, the polemical implications of the ambiguous qur'anic telling are striking. Who merits the reward for submitting to God's will in the person of the intended sacrifice? Was it Isaac with the resulting reward for his merit accruing to his progeny the Jews (or his spiritual progeny, the Christians)? Or was it Ishmael, for whose willingness for self-immolation his Arab progeny derive divinely ascribed credit?
As noted above and in striking contrast to the Genesis version, the Qur'an nowhere provides the name of the intended victim within the narrative of the act itself. It is true that Isaac is mentioned in verse 112, but that reference is extremely ambiguous, and traditional Muslim scholars
^ Davies and Chilton take a unique view regarding the dating and influence of the sacrifice motifs (Davies and Chilton, Davies), which has been successfully refuted by Hayward and Vermes 1996.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
99
have read it to learn that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice as often as Isaac. Two pro-Ishmael arguments are worth mentioning here. One suggests that Q.37:112 is an annunciation of the upcoming birth of Isaac given after and as a reward for Abraham's near-sacrifice of his older brother, Ishmael. The second argues that since God had already promised progeny for Isaac elsewhere in the Qur'an (Q. 11:71), Isaac could not have been the intended victim (Tabari: XXIII, 85-86).8 The problem of who was the intended sacrifice clearly disturbed early Muslim scholars, and it took many generations until the issue was resolved. During that period, lasting some two hundred years or more, two schools of thought developed. One, which I designate the "biblicist" school, considered Isaac to have been the intended victim and the act to have taken place in or near Jerusalem. The "Arabian" school considered Ishmael to have been the intended victim and the story to have taken place in the vicinity of Mecca. The tenth-century historian and geographer, 'All b. al-Husayn al-Mascudi, sums up the dichotomy in his history: "If the sacrifice occurred in the Hijaz (the area of Arabia in which Mecca is located), it was Ishmael, because Isaac never entered the Hijaz. If the sacrifice took place in Syria (the common Arabic term for the area including Jerusalem), then it was Isaac because Ishmael did not enter Syria after he was taken from there" (1,58).
The question of who was the intended sacrifice plagued Muslim commentators from the earliest period, and few refrained from arguing in favor of one or the other son. Most of the discussion on the question does not assume an overtly polemical overtone but simply treats textual, historical, or geographical issues that would appear to effect the intent of the scriptural text (Firestone 1990:135-151). Some, however, do. They may be as simple as the statement by Ahmad b. Muhammad al-ThaclabI (d.1036): "The Jews claim that it was Isaac, but the Jews lie" (91); or of Radi al-Din Abu cAli al-Fadl b. al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (d.1158):9 "The proof for those who say that it was Isaac is that the Christians and Jews agree about it. The answer to that is that their agreement is no proof and their view is not acceptable" (XXIII, 75).
A rather detailed anti-biblicist polemic may be found in the commentary of Tmad al-Din Isma'il Ibn Kathir (d.1373):
That boy is Ishmael. He is the first son announced to Abraham in revelation. The Muslims and the People of the Book agree that he was older
8 A more compelling argument would suggest that Ishmael's association with Abraham's founding of the Ka'ba must parallel his association with the intended sacrifice that occurred in the same general area (Finkel).
9 According to Professor Kohlberg, his name was more likely, al-Tabrisi.
100
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
than Isaac. However, in their book, Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old, while Isaac was born when Abraham's age was 99 years. According to them, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but according to another version, [he commanded him to sacrifice] his oldest son. They dishonestly and slanderously introduced Isaac here by forcing him in. But this is impossible because it contradicts their own book. They forced this understanding because Isaac is their father while Ishmael is the father of the Arabs. They envy them, so they added it and distorted "your only son" in the sense that "you have no other than he." But [Abraham] took Ishmael and his mother to Mecca10 so theirs is subjective exegesis and distortion. That is because "your only son" can refer only to one for whom there is no other.... (n.d.: IV, 14)
He mentions that, although some Muslim scholars, holding the opinion that Isaac was the intended sacrifice, trace the authority of their view to Companions of the Prophet, Ibn Kathlr considers the origin of this view to be sages of the "People of the Book," whose ideas were taken into Islam without adequate proof. "The account that it was Isaac came from Kacb al-Ahbar.... All of these statements, and God knows best, are taken from Ka5b al-Ahbar. Now when he converted to Islam during the caliphate of cUmar, he began to report traditions to 'Umar on the authority of his ancient books. Perhaps <Umar listened to him and permitted the people to listen to his sources and to transmit what he had on his [Kacb's] authority, [both] the corrupt ones and the good ones. Now this Islamic nation has no need for one word of [those traditions] he possessed..." (n.d.: IV, 17).
In his book of history Ibn Kathir ascribes the authority for the Isaac position to the spurious literature known as Isrd'iliyyat, the "Israelite tales:"11
The basis of the claim that it was Isaac is from the Israelite Tales. But their book is full of distortions. It is especially true in this case. According to them, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but in the Arabic version, his first-born was Isaac. Putting Isaac here [as the intended victim] is an insertion without reason, a lie, and a falsehood, for he is neither the only son nor the first-born. Rather, it is Ishmael. (1982:1,232-233)
Ibn Kathir is one of the most strident supporters of Ishmael and most vociferous denouncers of the Isaac position. In the course of his argument he cites a polemical story that is found in many other commentaries as well. The context is the court of the Umayyad caliph, cUmar b. cAbd al-cAziz (reigned 717-720 CE), considered by later Muslim historians as the
10 That is, even though Abraham brought Ishmael to Mecca, he did not disown him. Isaac, therefore, is not Abraham's "only son."
11 On "IsraTliyat," see Goldziher, Goitein, Vajda, Newby.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
101
most pious caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. The narrator claims to have asked the caliph about whom he believed was truly the intended victim of the sacrifice:
cUmar said to him: "I would never have considered that issue before, but I think it is as you say." Then he sent for a man who was with him in Syria.12 He was a Jew who had converted to Islam and became a good Muslim. It became apparent that he was one of the religious scholars {'ulama') of the Jews, so 'Umar b. <Abd al-'AzIz decided to ask him about it. Muhammad b. Ka'b al-QurazI said: "I was with cUmar b. 'Abd al-'AzIz when he said: "Which of Abrahams two sons was he commanded to sacrifice?' He answered: 'Ishmael. And by God, O Caliph, the Jews know that. However, they envy the Arab community because their father was the one commanded [to be sacrificed] and he is the one who is ascribed for merit for his steadfastness (wal-fadl al-ladhl dhakarahu Allah minhu lisabrihi lima umira bihi). But they deny that and claim that it was Isaac because Isaac was their father.'" (Tabarl 1969:1,299; 1984: XXIII, 84-85; Tha'labI: 92; Zamakhsharl: III, 350; TabarsI XXIII, 85; Ibn Kathlr n.d.: IV, 18; 1982:1, 235-236; Hanbali: 1,40-41).
This popular tradition quite clearly articulates the Islamic belief that merit ascribed for the ancients results in benefits for their progeny in later generations, a concept that we have observed is of great importance also to Judaism and Christianity. Another popular Islamic tradition centralizes the effects of such merit on the Prophet Muhammad, who unlike all others, is the beneficiary of not one but two intended sacrifices:
We were with Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan13 when they said: "Was the intended sacrificial victim Ishmael or Isaac?" He answered: "You have come to someone well-informed about the matter! We were with the Apostle of God when a man came up and said: 'O Apostle of God, repeat to me [the knowledge] that God has bestowed upon you, O son of the two intended sacrifices {ibn dhablhayn)? So he laughed. Then I said to him, 'O Commander of the Faithful, who are the two intended sacrifices?' He answered: 'When 'Abd al-Mutt;alib was commanded to dig Zamzam,14 he vowed to God that if it were made easy for him, he would sacrifice one of his sons. The lot [arrow] fell on 'Abdullah.15 But his maternal uncles prevented him, saying, 'Redeem your son with one hundred camels!' So he redeemed him with camels. Ishmael was the second.'" (Tabarl 1969:1, 199; 1984: XXIII, 85; Tha'labI: 92; Zamakhsharl: III, 350; TabarsI XXIII, 75; Ibn Kathlr n.d.: IV, 18; Hanbali, 1,41)
12 'Umar reigned in Damascus.
13 A companion of Muhammad who became the first Caliph in the Umayyad dynasty, i* The sacred well in Mecca.
15 'Abdullah was Muhammad's father, and 'Abd al-MutJalib his grandfather.
102
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This represents only a small part of a series of traditions about the near-sacrifice of Muhammad's father, 'Abdullah, in Islamic tradition.16 All versions are associated with the sanctuary at Mecca and clearly parallel the late biblical association of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at the sanctuary in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 3:1). This tradition ascribes a special status to Muhammad as the beneficiary of double merit. He is singled out through divine grace, deriving great merit through the near-sacrifice of two of his progenitors, Ishmael and his own father 'Abdullah, each in relationship to a divine command and associated with the sacred precinct of Mecca. As such, Muhammad serves as the focal point for the coming together of two traditions: one deriving from the biblical religious milieu and the other from that of pre-Islamic Arabian religion associated with the cult center in Mecca.
The parallel between the near-sacrifice of Abraham's son with the near sacrifice of cAbd al-Muttalib's son invokes a series of striking parallels between the founders of biblical religion and the founders of Islam. If cAbd al-Muttalib's role parallel's that of Abraham in the near sacrifice of his son, then 'Abdullah parallels Isaac. Muhammad would then take the role of Jacob in biblical tradition. Muhammad, therefore, is the Islamic "Israel." Just as Jacob is the figure from whom the tribal nation of Israel derives, Muhammad is the figure around whom is formed the umma, the community of Islam.
SUNNI IDENTITY ASSOCIATIONS: #1 "biblicist" school
Father: Abraham
Intended victim/son: Isaac
Beneficiary of merit:    Problem of identification
*
#1 "Arabian" school #2 "Arabian" school Abraham <Abd al-Muftalib
Ishmael 'Abdullah N. Arabs/ Muhammad and,
Muslims by extension,
all Muslims
It is not surprising that the concept of merit ascribed to the ancestors accruing benefit or status for their descendants became an issue in the early Islamic period when Islam found itself in spiritual competition with the "Peoples of the Book." While it became abundantly clear to Jews and Christians by the end of the early Islamic conquests that the new religious civilization of Islam had won the competition on the field of battle, they could still claim spiritual ascendancy. Both Christianity and Judaism were old and established, and both claimed the merit of longevity as well as spiritual supremacy. After all, their great and sacred personages such
16 The most accessible source for these tales is the official Slra or biography of Muhammad (Ibn Hisham), translated into English by Guillaume (cf. 66-68).
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
103
as Abraham and Moses or John the Baptist and Jesus, all of whom are known also in Islamic Scripture, were not Muslims but rather Jews (or Israelites) and Christians. Islam countered not only by "overachieving" in virtually every human field—for by the ninth century it had equaled or surpassed not only the military achievements of its predecessors but also their intellectual, cultural, and scientific achievements as well—but by becoming more reliant on its own developing religious heritage. Not only did the Qur'an itself respond to Jewish and Christian claims of ascendancy (Q.3:65-67: ". . . Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian, but was upright [ hantf], one who surrenders [ muslim], and not an idolater"), Muslim religious leaders were determined by the ninth century to expunge the foreign "Israelite tales" entirely from the canon of acceptable Islamic literature (Goldziher, Goitein, Vajda, Newby).
It should be no surprise, then, that by about this time in the ninth century, the "Arabian school," considering Ishmael to have been the intended sacrifice, predominated among Muslim scholars and literati, and to such an extent that most Muslims today are unaware even that many early Muslim exegetical sources considered Isaac to have been the intended victim. Certainly since the early tenth century, most Muslims have considered the intended sacrifice to have been Ishmael and the act to have taken place near Mecca (Firestone 1989).
THE SHI'ITE PARADIGMS
The standard Syria-Isaac and Mecca-Ishmael positions may be found in a broad survey of Islamic exegetical texts reflecting the various legal and intellectual schools of Sunni Islam. An interesting variation may be found, however, in Shi'ite renderings of the story. Although the reasoned opinions of Shicite exegetes tend to side with the Mecca-Ishmael school, early examples of Shi'ite narrative exegesis retain old traditions depicting Isaac being brought to Mecca along with Abraham and Sarah in order to perform the Hajj pilgrimage. According to these traditions, Abraham is called upon in a vision to sacrifice Isaac in or near Mecca during the course of his own pilgrimage. Despite the common association of the pilgrimage sacrifice in today's Hajj with the near-sacrifice of Ishmael in submission to God's command, it is only the Shi'ite sources that consistently and explicitly provide a basis for this association through narrative exegesis of the Qur'anic rendering of the Abrahamic sacrifice (Q.37:99-113).17
17 Sunni traditions associate Abraham with the pilgrimage as well, but although they sometimes detail Abraham's ritual enactment of the pilgrimage stations, they do not describe him attempting to sacrifice his son, and only few mention that he performed a sacrifice of any kind (Firestone 1990: 98-103; cf. Calder: 380).
104
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Why Isaac rather than Ishmael is associated with Mecca in many of these Shi'ite sources and why the Sunni sources lack the association between the Abrahamic sacrifice and the important ritual sacrifice of the pilgrimage have never been explained. Some light may be shed on the topic by examining the texts in the context of internal religious polemic in early Islam.
The groups which eventually came to be known as Shi'ites derive from the shi'at 'Alt, the faction or party of 'All. They believed that 'All, the closest blood relative to Muhammad,18 should have been chosen to succeed him in leading the community of Muslims. He was repeatedly rejected until the death of the third caliph, 'Uthman, and, when he was finally appointed, he was opposed by 'Uthman's cousin and powerful general, Mu'awiya. War ensued between the two men and their followers. When 'All eventually agreed to arbitration to solve the dispute rather than insisting on his principled right to succession, an important group of his own supporters rejected him and even took up arms against him. He subdued their uprising but not their movement, and one of them succeeded in assassinating him in 661. The general who had earlier opposed him stepped into the vacuum caused by the series of crises and took power, founding the 'Umayyad dynasty of caliphs which ruled for the following century. Many of the followers of 'All remained loyal to his name even after his death and remained loyal also to his family, the closest blood relatives to Muhammad. They believed that Muhammad had intended for 'All to succeed him and argued that he had even stipulated as much in a sermon shortly before he died. They remained fervently loyal to this view and politically—and occasionally also militarily—opposed all subsequent caliphs, thereby inviting persecution by the ruling powers.
After 'All's death, the Shi'a turned to his sons Hasan and Husayn. Hasan stayed out of the fray until his death in 669, but his brother Husayn agreed to claim the right to the caliphate after the death of'All's opponent, Mu'awiya. The Shi'a began a revolt, but it was subdued by Mu'awiyas son Yazid, who massacred Husayn and his followers at Karbala1 (in today's Iraq) in 680. The death of'All's son (and Muhammad's grandson), Husayn, remembered with great mourning to this day, is considered by Shi'ites to be the most tragic of a continuing series of martyrdoms experienced by Shi'ites throughout the generations (Kohlberg 1983: 121). Shi'ism, although always a minority within the Islamic world, has always been extremely antagonistic toward Sunni Islam. As a result of their general opposition to the Muslim establishment and the violent uprisings instigated by the more activist sub-groups, the Shi'a has often suffered
18 Muhammad had no surviving sons, but 'All was both Muhammad's paternal first cousin and son-in-law.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
105
persecution at the hands of the Sunni authorities. Shi'ite Islam refers to cAli and his sons as well as their successors as the rightful leaders of the Islamic world. Their personas took on special meaning as they came to be seen as the "rightly guided" or mahdis of the community. They are the imams, which in the Shi'ite context means divinely guided leaders imbued with the divine legacy or al-wasiyya of leadership, a spark of divine knowledge and light, and divinely protected from error and sin (Rubin; Kohl-berg 1979). cAli and his descendants take on a redemptive and, indeed, messianic aura, particularly the last of his line to have a assumed physical existence before his occultation. Shi'ites await the messianic Return of the last imam, the "rightly guided" Mahdi or QaHm, the one who will "rise up" from his occultation in a glorious age to rule and set the world straight (Amir-Moezzi: 99-123).
* * *
A paradigmatic rendering of the Shi'ite traditions in which Isaac is the intended sacrifice follows (Qummi: II, 2:224-225; Tabarsi: XXIII, 77; Bahrani IV, 28-30 [2 versions]; Majlisi: XII, 125-127 [2 versions]).19
On the Day of Tarwiya,20 [the angel] Gabriel came to Abraham and said to him: "Drink the water" (irtawi or tarwa min al-ma'). That is why [the day] is called Tarwiya.21 [Gabriel then took him to Mina and after that, to 'Arafa (both stations of the Hajj) where Gabriel taught him how to do the ritual activities of the pilgrimage, and they continued through additional rites of the pilgrimage until Abraham either received a command or had a dream vision in which he was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac.22 At this point Q.37:102 is cited or paraphrased in which Abraham told his son of the divine command and asked for a response. The boy answered]: "O Father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, God willing, patient and enduring" (Q.37:102).23
19 Although Majlisi and Bahrani are late sources, they are citing the early tradition found also in Qummi (all their traditions are attributed to Abu 'Abdullah) originating not later than the ninth century. The tradition in Tabarsi is anonymous.
20 The line to follow provides a folk etymology for the meaning of the word, tarwiya. The following few lines tracing Abraham's pilgrimage under the divine guidance of Gabriel provide folk etymologies for the names of other common pilgrimage sites and terms as well, such as 'Arafa, al-Muzdalifa, etc.
21 In Tabarsi, Gabriel does not appear. Abraham simply makes the pilgrimage to Mecca after having received the vision in what the medieval Arabic texts usually refer to as Syria (i.e., the vicinity of Jerusalem).
22 The command/vision occurred at al-Mash'ar al-Haram in Qummi and Bahrani. Tabarsi does not give the location but has Abraham tell Isaac of the command at al-Jamra al-Wusta. Qummi and Bahrani #1 also associate the beginning of the actual sacrifice sequence at al-Jamra al-Wusta, one of the stone pillars representing the devil, which are stoned as part of the pilgrimage rite.
23 Qummi and Tabarsi #1 add at this point, "They both submitted themselves to the command of God" (wasallama li'amr Allah). Qur'an verses woven into the narratives are distinguished here by bold typeface.
106
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
An old man (shaykh) approached and said: "What do you want with this boy?"24 He answered: "I am planning to sacrifice him." [The old man] said: "Heaven forbid (subhan Allah), you will sacrifice a boy in an instant who has not disobeyed God?" [Abraham] answered: "Yes, for God has commanded me to sacrifice him." [The old man] said: "But Your Lord has forbidden you to sacrifice him. It was Satan who commanded this of you in your dream." [Abraham] replied: "Woe to you! The utterance which I heard most definitely came to me. You did not see. By God, I will not speak with you [any more]." Then he was resolved to do the sacrifice. But the old man said: "O Abraham, you are a leader (imam) whom people imitate. If you sacrifice your child, people will sacrifice their children." But [Abraham] refused to speak to him.
Abraham then approached the boy to slaughter him. When they had both submitted (Q.37:103) to the command of God, the boy said: "O Father, hide my face and tighten my bonds." Abraham replied, "O my little son (Q.37:102), bonds are [normally] part of [any] sacrifice, but by God, I will not bind you with them today."25
[Abraham] then laid him down,26 picked up the knife, and placed it on the boy's throat. He raised his eyes to heaven and leaned over the boy [to draw the knife across his throat]. But Gabriel turned the knife over [onto its dull side].27 A ram [or sheep] was brought from [Mt.] Thabir28 and exchanged for the boy. [Abraham] then heard a call from heaven coming from near the Khayf mosque:29 "O Abraham! You have already fulfilled the vision! Thus do We reward the righteous, for this was clearly a trial" (Q.37:104-106).
[Some of the later traditions continue (Bahrani: IV, 29-30; MajlisI: XII, 127)]:
24 The sequence of the old man challenging Abraham appears in strikingly similar form among the sources. Only Tabarsi #1 has a slightly less developed rendering.
25 This motif, which is in parallel to Jewish exegetical renderings but with a different result based on their different cultic and ritual practices, demonstrates in the Islamic version Abraham and Isaac's total submission to God's will, for Abraham need not even bind his son (cf. the Jewish sources, Tanhuma vayera' 23; Midrash Vayosha' in Eisenstein: 147; Pirqey deRabbi Eli'ezer 70b; Pesiqta Rabbati 40, etc.). This sequence is found immediately prior to the "old man" sequence in Bahrani #1.
26 Bahrani #1 and al-Majlisi give the location of the act at al-Jamra al-Wusta. Qummi, Bahrani #2, and Majlisi #1 state he laid him on a donkey saddle (or saddle blanket [MajlisI, 12:128]).
27 In some renderings, Abraham turns it back to its proper side and tries again a number of times but is repeatedly foiled by Gabriel (Bahrani #1, Majlisi 12:128).
28 One of the largest mountains in the vicinity of Mecca, located between Mecca and 'Arafa (Yaqut: 2:85).
2' Located nearby in Mina. Khayf appears to be a place of some sanctity in pre-Islamic times. It is referred to in al-Bukhari as a place associated with the tribe of the Banu Kinana where the Meccan tribe of Quraysh took an oath to be allied with them in the pre-Islamic period (Bukhari,: #aj/'ch.44 #659 and /i/iadch.l80#291). Al-Khayf is also revered in a poem of Mawhab b. Riyah Abu Unays (Ibn Hisham: 2:325; Guillaume: 508). The mosque was built on the site later (Cf. Yaqut: 2:471).
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
107
The wicked old man30 left and came to the old woman at the Ka'ba in the middle of the valley. He said [to her]: "What old man did I just see [#2: at Mina]?" and he described Abraham. She said: "That would be my husband." He said: "And who was the servant that I saw with him? " and he described [his son]. She said: "That is my son." He said: "Well, I saw him lay him down and take a knife to sacrifice him." She said: "Certainly not! I know Abraham only as the most merciful of people. How could you see him sacrificing his son?" He answered: "By the Lord of the heavens and the earth, and the Lord of this House, I saw him lay him down and pick up a knife to sacrifice him." She asked: "But why?" He answered: "He claimed that his Lord commanded him to sacrifice him." She said: "It is certainly the truth that he obeys his Lord." [The narrator] said: When she finished the stations of the pilgrimage, she was terrified that something had happened to her son. She hurried to Mina laying her hand on her head and saying: "Lord! Do not punish me for what I did to the mother of Isma'il!"31
[Bahrani #1 continues] When Sarah came and was told what had happened, she went to her son, looked, and saw the mark of the knife scratched into his throat. She complained bitterly, and a sickness appeared which killed her.32
X    X X
This narrative extends and expands upon the qur'anic rendering of the story in dramatic terms, and much may be said about its intent, exegetical method, and literary relationship with Sunni and biblicist versions. Comments here, however, must be restricted to the unique Shicite association of Isaac with the Islamic pilgrimage.
Motivation for associating the act in or near the sacred cult center of Mecca is clear. Because Abraham was well known among biblicists as the founder of religious centers in the biblical holy places of Shekhem, Hebron, Beer Sheba, etc. (Gen. 12:6-9, 13:3-4, 18, 21:22-23), it was only natural to expand the extent of his activities in order to provide an ancient and authentically monotheist sacred origin also for the previously pagan religious center of Mecca. According to the late biblical association of 2 Chronicles 3:1, the location of the biblical event of Abraham's
30 Bahrani #2 and Majlisi #1 have "the devil" (iblis).
31 The sequence of the old man/devil appearing to Abraham and the boy's mother maybe found in a few different versions also in Sunni traditions (Tabarl 1969: 292-294, 303-304; 1984: 23:82; Tha'labi: 94-95; Ibn al-Athir: 1:109-112; Ibn Kathir n.d.: 4:15; etc.) and in the Jewish Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 56:4; Tanhuma vayera' 22; Sefer HaYashar 61; Midrash Vayosha' 147; etc.). The motif of Sarah feeling guilt for her treatment of Hagar many years before (cf. Gen. 16:5-6 and 21:10-16) is not found in other Muslim narratives but seems to be peculiar to the Shi'ite tradition.
32 This motif is found also in other renderings mentioned by Majlisi (12:128). Cf. the Jewish versions of this sequence: Pirqey deRabbi Eli'ezer 32; Leviticus Rabbah 22:2; Sefer HaYashar 63-64, etc.
108
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
attempted sacrifice in the Land of Moriah was none other than Jerusalem, the center of the biblical cult, and later Jewish and Christian exegesis established many more arguments for the correlation (Ginzberg: V: 253 note 253). But even among biblicists there was not absolute agreement over Abraham's founding of the holy place in Jerusalem, for the Samaritans, who were not burdened with the evidence of the book of Chronicles, made the association of Moriah with their holy mountain to the north, Mt. Gerizim (Finkel: 158-159, Levenson: 114-118).
Given the nature of exegesis and the oral medium in which most pre-modern exegesis developed, it is natural and to be expected that geographic locations change in relationship to the geography in which new exegetical interpretation evolves. This has been documented repeatedly in studies of oral epic and folk literature (Firestone 1990:15-21). It should be of no surprise, therefore, that the locus of Abraham's response to God's command for sacrifice according to Arabs living in the vicinity of the sacred cult center of Mecca, whether Jews, Christians, adherents of indigenous Arabian religions, or Muslims, would have shifted within the local tradition to one or more sacred sites there.
Moreover, the most logical association of ancient sacrifice in the vicinity of Mecca is within the context of the ancient pilgrimage ritual. Sacrificial offerings were well known in pre-Islamic Arabia, including one or more sacrifices as part of the various cultic rituals of pilgrimage, but ritual sacrifice ceased with the establishment of Islam aside from the sacrifice practiced in Mina (just outside of Mecca) in association with the Islamized pilgrimage (Peters: 30, Wensinck: 99-100). It was the sacrifice of the ancient Pilgrimage to Mecca and its environs, therefore, which was the most likely vehicle to bridge the gaps of time and place necessary for associating Abraham's attempted sacrifice with Arabia.
The more interesting question, however, lies with the Shi'ite association of the Meccan sacrifice with Isaac, despite the indisputable fact that it contradicts the common wisdom holding that, if Isaac were the intended victim, it would have occurred in Syria (Jerusalem) while, if it were Ishmael, it would have occurred in Mecca. The contrary placement of Isaac in Mecca must be associated with one of the pillars of the Shi'ite worldview: a sense of persecution at the hands of an illegitimate and irreligious Sunni establishment. Despite the fact that there was no formal "Party of 'All" until the middle 650s or later, Shi'ites have tended to trace their persecution to as early as the first crisis of leadership and succession following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. As a response to persecution by the Sunni establishment, Shi'ism instituted defensive and protective measures as early as the eighth century, such as the policy of taqiyya or doctrine of religious dissimulation, which served to protect
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
109
its adherents from repressive campaigns conducted against them by the caliphate (Momen: 39). Moreover, during the period of Shi'ite persecutions in the early eighth century a new population of Iranians that had previously held an inferior status in the informal social structure of early Islam began to be mobilized for the Shi'ite cause.33 As early as the mid-eighth century, four of the five prominent Imami Shi'ite theologians were ethnically Persian, and the writings of some Persian converts to Shi'ite Islam during this period predicted that with the coming of the messianic Mahdl, his companions would be the non-Arabs ('ajam) who would fight the Arabs to avenge the wrong done to the imams (Arjomand: 498-500). While it may still be premature to suggest that the movement as a whole was becoming largely non-Arab in ethnicity by this time, it is likely that an increasingly Iranian Shi'ite movement would resonate with what early Islamic tradition had already established was the non-Arab Isaac rather than the Arabized Ishmael during this period. After all, it was the Arab establishment of the caliphate, whether Umayyad or Abbasid, which represented the victimizer, both of the Shi'a and of the defeated Iranians of the once great Sassanian empire.
EARLY SHI'ITE IDENTITY ASSOCIATION Father: Abraham Intended victim/son: Isaac Beneficiary of merit:      Shi'ite Muslims
A second Shi'ite tradition examines the Abrahamic sacrifice in light of the martyrdom of Hussayn. According to this popular narrative,34 when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice a sheep in place of his son, Abraham is disappointed. He wished
... that he would not have been commanded to sacrifice the sheep in his place so that his heart would be pained with the pain of the father who actually sacrificed his most beloved child with his own hand. He would therefore merit the highest level of reward for misfortunes. God then said to him: "O Abraham, which of My creations is dearest to you?" He answered: "O Lord, You have formed no creation dearer to me than Your beloved {habibuka), Muhammad." God then asked him: "O Abraham, is he dearer to you than yourself?" He answered: "He is even dearer to me than myself." [God] asked: "Is his son or is your son dearer to you?" [Abraham] answered: "Even his son." [God] asked: "Is the wrongful sacrifice of his son at the hands of his enemies more painful to your heart or
33 It was Mukhtar al-Thaqafi who seems to have begun rallying non-Arabs at Kufa (Momen: 35-36).
3* Given on the authority of al-Fadl b. Shadhan who heard it from al-Rida' (Ibn Babawayh 1970: 1,166; 1971: 58-59; Bahrani: IV, 30; al-MajlisI: XII, 124-125). I am indebted to Professor Kohlberg for the references to Ibn Babawayh.
110
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
the sacrifice of your own son by your own hand in obedience to Me?" He answered: "O Lord, his wrongful sacrifice at the hands of his enemies is even more painful to my heart." [God] said: "O Abraham, a group claiming to be of the community of Muhammad will wrongly and viciously kill his son al-Husayn after him, just as the sheep is sacrificed. They will incur My anger for that"—and in a [different] version, "My wrath." Grieved by that and his heart in pain, Abraham began to weep.35 So God said to him: "O Abraham, I have redeemed the grief you would have had about your own son if you had sacrificed him with your own hand, for your grief about al-Husayn and his death; and I have [therefore] given you the highest level of reward for misfortunes." This is the meaning of [God's] statement (Q.37:107): and We redeemed him with a magnificent sacrifice. (Cf. Ayoub: 32-33,235-236)
This tradition takes the paradigm of the Abrahamic sacrifice, applies it to the foundational narrative of Shicite Islam, and through a unique innovation equates the martyrdom of Husayn with the sacrifice of the redemptive offering in place of Abraham's son, the dhibh 'azim or "magnificent sacrifice" of Q.37:107. Abraham's grief over the future death of Husayn is accorded divine merit, and it is that very grief that provides him with the credit in the eyes of God as if he had truly carried out the sacrifice of his son.
LATER SHI'ITE IDENTITY ASSOCIATION: Father: Abraham Intended victim: Ishmael Redemptive sacrifice: Sheep/Husayn Beneficiary of merit:       Shi'ite Muslims
The identity of Abraham's son in this exegetical tradition is given as Ishmael—not Isaac—but it is a relatively late tradition for which its earliest provenance seems to be the tenth-century Ibn Babawayh. It seems to have evolved only after the transition in Islam from Isaac to Ishmael as the intended sacrifice, an observation that can be supported by the way in which the late collections of al-Bahrani and al-Majlisi organize their traditions on the topic. They faithfully preserve the earlier Shi'ite narrative in which Isaac is the intended sacrifice associated with the Meccan Hajj. Alongside it, however, are later non-narrative explanations demonstrating that the community had come to accept the general wisdom that Ishmael could be the only candidate for a Meccan sacrifice (Bahrani: IV, 29-32; Majlisi: XII, 130-134).
35 So too in Shi'ite sources other prophetic figures such as Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus all came to know of the future martyrdom of Husayn, and they all mourned his fate (Ayoub: 27-36).
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
111
The paradigmatic parallelism of this tradition would make most sense in an early Shi'ite context if Abraham's son were Isaac. Identifying the son as Ishmael suggests a later origin for the tradition. In al-Majlisi's rendering of the tradition, the name Ishmael is provided more often than in al-Bahranl's rendering. It is possible that, like the Qur'an, such exegetical narratives originally left out the name of the intended victim altogether. It would then be supplied by the hearer/reader.
Once the Islamic association of the sacrifice with Ishmael became dominant while that of Isaac began to fall out of use, the metaphysical underpining associated with the Isaac narrative for Shicite suffering at the hand of the Sunni caliphate was lost. A new and innovative interpretation therefore grew up to fill the gap, and this was the association of the Abrahamic sacrificial narrative with the deeply traumatic martyrdom of Husayn. Because Husayn's death had become such a foundational issue and paradigm for suffering in Shi'ite Islam, the greatest merit in the story of Abraham came to be seen as accruing through his grief over his prophetic knowledge that Husayn would be martyred many centuries into the future. It is the redemptive nature of that grief that corresponds with the redemptive nature of the "magnificent sacrifice" in Qur'an 37:107: "And We redeemed him with a magnificent sacrifice." Abraham's grief for Husayn therefore became the basis for the merit that he would have received for his willingness to sacrifice his own son. As the narrative articulates it, God informs Abraham: "O Abraham, I have redeemed the grief you would have had about your own son if you had sacrificed him with your own hand, for your grief about al-Husayn and his death. I have [therefore] given you the highest level of reward for misfortunes." Because Abraham's grief for Husayn was so striking, God credits him with that level of reward, thereby increasing the merit that would have accrued to him in any case for his willingness to kill even his own son.
The association of Husayn's martyrdom with the redemptive ram may have also served as a response to the Christian understanding of the crucifixion as the perfected Abrahamic sacrifice. The Christian subtext strengthens the Shi'ite polemic against Sunni Islam, for Shi'ites represent the spiritual heirs of their martyred Husayn just as Christians represent the spiritual heirs of the martyred Jesus. They can thus be comforted with belief in their own spiritual ascendancy over their antagonists the Sunnis, just as Christians could be comforted with belief in their own spiritual ascendancy over the Jews. Just as the Jews originated monotheism but refused to accept the leadership and redemptive/messianic role of Jesus, so did the Sunnis originate the perfect expression of monotheism in Islam but refused to accept the leadership role of the family of 'All and the redemptive/messianic role of Husayn and the Imams who would follow
112
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
him. Not only did the Sunnis/Jews refuse to accept the authority of the messianic figure of Husayn/Jesus, they are responsible for the very death of the redeemer. However, with the return at the end of days of the Mahdl, the rightly-guided descendant of Husayn, Shi'ites will be vindicated for their and their leaders' suffering, in parallel with the return and vindication of Jesus as the messiah.
SUMMARY IDENTITY ASSOCIATION WITH THE MERIT OF THE SACRIFICE:
Paradigm	Jewish	Christian	Sunni #1	Sunni§2	Early SMite Later Shh	
Father	Abraham	God	Abraham	'Abd al-Muttalib	Abraham	Abraham
Intended victim	Isaac	JeSUS [actual]	Ishmael	•Abdullah	Isaac	Ishmael
Redemptive	The ram	(Jesus)	The ram	100 camels	The ram	Sheep/
sacrifice						yusayn
Beneficiary	Jews	Christians	Muslims [Arab]	Muhammad and Muslims	Shi'ites	Shi'ites
REFERENCES
Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali 1994
Arjomand, Said Amir 1996
Ayoub, Mahmoud 1988
Bahräni, Häshim b. Sulaymän b. Ismä' Ii b. 'Abd al-Jawäd al-n.d.
The Divine Guide in Early ShiHsm: The Sources of Eso-tericism in Islam. Trans, by David Streight. Albany: State University of New York Press.
"The Crisis of the Imamate and the Institution of Oc-cultation in Twelver Shi'ism: A Sociohistorical Perspective." International Journal of Middle East Studies 28: 491-515.
Redemptive Suffering in Islam. The Hague: Mouton.
Al-Burhän fx Tafsir al-Qufän. Qum: Mu'assasat al-Ismä'iliyän lil-tibä'a wal-nashr wal-tawzi'.
Brock, Sebastian 1981
Brockelmann, Carl 1913
"Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition." In Melanges Dominique Barthelemy, 2-30. Ed. by Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
"Arabia." The Encyclopaedia of Islam [1st ed.] vol. 1, 372-74. Ed. by M. Houtsma, T. Arnold, R. Basset, and R. Hartmann. Leiden: Brill.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
113
Bukhäri, Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad b. Ismä'Il al-1979
Calder, Norman 1988
Caskel, Werner 1966
Dagorn, Rene 1981
Danielou, Joan 1947
Davies, R R., and B. D. Chilton 1978
§ahih Lahore: Kazi.
"From Midrash to Scripture: The Sacrifice of Abraham in Early Islamic Tradition." LeMuseon 101:375-402.
Ghamarat an-nasab ["The Abundance of Kinship"]: The Genealogical Work ofHishäm b. Muhammad al-Kalbl. Leiden: Brill.
La Geste d'Ismael d'apres l'onomastique et la traditional arabes. Paris: Champion.
"La Typologie dTsaac dans le Christianisme Primitif." Biblica 28: 363-393.
"The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40: 514-546.
Davies, P. R. 1979
Eisenstein, J. D.
1915
Fernandez, Miguel Perez 1995
Finkel, Joshua 1933
Firestone, Reuven 1989
1990
[1998]
"Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah." Journal of Jewish Studies30:59-67.
Otzar Midrashim. New York: Eisenstein.
"The Aqedah in Paul." In The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monothestic Religions, 81-94. Ed. by Frederic Manns. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.
"Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan Influences on Arabia." In The Macdonald Presentation Volume, 147-166. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
"Abraham's Son as the Intended Sacrifice (al-dhabih, Qur'an 37:99-113): Issues in Qur'anic Exegesis." Journal of Semitic Studies 34.1:95-131.
Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of"the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis. Albany: State University of New York Press.
"Comparative Studies in Bible and Qur'an: A Fresh Look at Genesis 22 in Light of Surah 37." Brinner Festschrift (forthcoming).
114
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Ginzberg, Louis 1968
Goitein, S. D. 1934-35
Goldziher, Ignaz 1902
Guillaume, Alfred 1955
Hayward, Robert 1981
Hecht, Richard 1982
Horowitz, H., and Y. Rabin
1972
Hanbali, Mujlr al-Din 'Abd al-Rahmän b. Muhammad al-
1973
Ibn al-Athir 1867-77
Ibn Bäbawayh, Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. 'All b. al-Huysayn
1970
1971
Ibn Hishäm n.d.
Ibn Kathlr, 'Imäd al-Din Isma' 'II n.d.
1982
Legends of the Jews. Trans, by Henrietta Szold. Philadelphia: lewish Publication Society.
"Isrmliyyät." Tarbiz6: 89-101 and 510-522.
"Melanges ludeo-Arabes IX: Isra'iliyyat." Revue Des Etudes Juives 44: 63-66.
The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
"The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac." Journal of Semitic Studies 32: 127-50.
"Studies on Sacrifice, 1970-1980." Religious Studies Review 8:253-259.
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. Jerusalem: Wahrman.
Al-Uns al-Jalil biTa'rikh al-Quds wal-KhaUl 2 vols. Amman: Maktabat al-Muhtasab.
Al-Kämilfil-Ta'rikh. 5 vols. Ed. by Tornberg as Ibn -el-Athiri Chronocon quod Perfectissimum Inscribitur. Leiden: Brill.
' Uyün Akhbär al-Ridä\ Najaf: Al-Haydariyya.
Al-Khisal. Najaf: al-Haydariyya.
Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya libn Hisham. Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa al-'Arabiyya.
Tafsir al-Qur'an al-'Azim. 4 vols. Cairo:' Isa al-Babi al-Halabl.
Qisas al-Anbiya\ [A separate printing of the first volumes of his 12 volume history, Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya] 2 parts in 1 volume. Beirut: Al-Maktaba al-Islamiyya.
Firestone: Merit, Mimesis, and Martyrdom
115
Kaddushin, Max 1972
Kohlberg, Etan 1979
1983
Levenson, Jon D.
1993
Majlisi, Mulla Muhammad Bäqir al-1956-7
Manns, Frederic 1995
Mas'udI, 'All b. al-Husayn al-
1965
Milbank, John
1966
Momen, Moojan 1985
Montgomery, James 1969
Newby, Gordon 1979
Peters, F. E. 1994
Qumml, Abul-Hasan 'All b. Ibrahim b.
Hashim al-Babawayhl al-1966
Rentz, G. 1979
The Rabbinic Mind. New York: Bloch.
"The Term Muhaddath in Twelver ShI'ism." Studia Orientalia Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicata, 34-47. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
"The Evolution of the Shl'a." Jerusalem Quarterly 27: 109-126.
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bihar al-Anwar. Tehran: n.p.
"The Binding of Isaac in Jewish Liturgy." In The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monothestic Religions, 59-67. Ed. by Frederic Manns. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.
Muruj al-Dhahab waMa'adin al-Jawahir. Beirut, n.p.
"Stories of Sacrifice." Modern Theology 12: 27-56.
An Introduction to ShiH Islam. Oxford: George Ronald.
Arabia and the Bible. With Prolegomenon by Gus W. Van Beek. New York: Ktav.
"Tafsir Isrä'iliyät." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47: 685-697.
The Hajj. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tafsir al-Qummi. 2 vols. Najaf: n.p.
"Djazirat al-'Arab." In The Encyclopaedia of Islam [new ed.], vol. 1, 543-547. Ed. by H. A. R. Gibb, J. H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht. Leiden: Brill.
116
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Rubin, Uri
1979
Sefer HaYashar
1980
Strenski, Ivan 1996
Swetnam, James
1981
Tabari. Muhammad b. Jarir al-1969
1984
Tabarsi, Radi al-Dm Abü'Alial-Fadlb. al-Hasan al-n.d.
Tha'labI, Ahmad b. Muhammad al-1965
Vajda, G. 1978
Vermes, Geza 1973
1996
Wensinck, A. J.
1982
Yäqüt, Shihäb al-Dln b. 'Abdallah n.d.
Zamakhshari, Mahmud b. 'Umar al-1966
"Prophets and Progenitors in the Early Shi'a Tradition." Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1:41-65.
Tel Aviv: Alter-Bergman.
"Between Theory and Speciality: Sacrifice in the 90s." Religious Studies Review 22.1: 10-20.
Jesus and Isaac. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
Ta'rlkh al-Rusul wal-Mulük. Ed. by M. J. DeGoeje as Annates. Leiden: Brill.
Jam? al-Bayan can Ta'wtlAy al-Qur'an. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.
Majmrf al-Bayänf i1 Ulüm al-Qur'än. 30 parts in 6 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Maktaba.
'Arä'is al-Majälis. Cairo: Mustafa al-Bäbl al-Halabl.
"Isrä'iliyyät." In The Encyclopaedia of Islam [new ed.] vol. 4,211-212. Ed. by E. ven Donzel, B. Lewis, and Ch. Pellat. Leiden: Brill. EI2.
"Redemption and Genesis XXII—the Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus." In Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. 193-227. Leiden: Brill.
"New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from 4Q225." Journal of Jewish Studies 47.1: 141-146.
Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. Trans, and ed. by W. H. Behn, 2d ed. Berlin: Adiyok.
Mtfjam al-Buldän. Beirut: Dar al-Kitäb al-'Ilmiyya.
Al-Kashshafcan HaqaHq al-Tanzil. 4 vols. Cairo: Mustafa al-Bäbi al-Halabi.