Who or What does Muhammad Defend in Nisa 4:153-167?

From the context of Nisa 4:157f. it is clear that these verses were spoken in the context of a confrontation between Muhammad with some Jews (see Nisa 4:153-167).1 According to Nisa 4:153, the Jews doubt the trustworthiness of Muhammad's message and demand the sending down of a book from heaven as proof of its accuracy: 'The people of the Scripture [Jews; Muhammad Musin Khan] ask you to bring down upon them a Book from the heaven' as confirmation (Nisa 4:153). In his defence, Muhammad criticises the Jews because they, as a people, had repeatedly failed to accept God's messengers and signs at various times in the past and because they had even killed some of the messengers (prophets) (4:154-155).2 Moses and, to an even greater extent, Jesus play an exceptional role in Muhammad's criticism. The conclusion of the criticism is that the unbelieving Jews would be held accountable for their unbelief: in this world by encounering hardship (4:160) and in the hereafter by 'woeful punishment' (4:161).

The Jews' questioning was directed at Muhammad and his revelation. To the reader's great astonishment, Muhammad hardly puts forward any arguments in his own defence against the Jews' strong demands (see Nisa 4:166 3 and 170 4) - even when the extended passage, Nisa 4:153-177, is looked at, there is no real self-defence on Muhammad's part. It is not that Muhammad simply overlooks the criticism; on the contrary, his accusations against the behaviour of the Jews towards other prophets are vehement. What is less clear is the extent to which his response serves his own cause. So the question arises, who or what is Muhammad actually defending with his criticism of the Jews in Nisa 4:153-167? What is the logic of his argument?

It has been suggested that Muhammad was rejected by the Jews in the same sense that Moses and Jesus were. The Jews, in line with their forefathers, are once again turning against a prophet sent by God. According to this view, Muhammad's logic therefore is to show that his rejection is nothing new under the sun. Just as the Jews had already rejected Moses, the prophets after him and finally Jesus, they were now behaving in the same way towards Muhammad. In support of this view, it can be said that Muhammad has been included into the succession of prophets (Nisa 4:163) and that those who respond favourably to his message and that of all previous prophets are promised great rewards (Nisa 4:162). Kaltner, in a further attempt at explanation, specifies that Muhammad criticises the Jews for their rejection of God's authority and their inflated understanding of their own importance, that is, for their arrogance and pride towards God, which regularly manifests itself at the appearance of a new messenger of God.5 This argument applies not only to Muhammad and can thus be rejected in a more general way.

Although these attempts at explanation somehow capture the tone of the criticism, they cannot really explain the prominent role of Moses and, above all, the place given to Jesus. In this respect, the statement that even Muhammad is not yet familiar with the message of all the prophets sent before him is surprising: 'And (there are some) Messengers whom We have mentioned to you before and (some) Messengers We have not mentioned them to you, and Allâh spoke (to you as He spoke) to Moses in explicit words at great length.’ (Nisa 4:164). However, this limited knowledge can hardly be used as a reason for the prominent treatment of Moses and Jesus.

Oakes rightly observes that the mention of Mary and Jesus could be perceived as disturbing in the context of the Israelites' treatment of Moses.6 Oakes' explanation that this is related to a confusion between Moses' sister and the mother of Jesus in the Qur'an (Meryem 19:27-28) is less convincing.

In the criticism of the Jews (Nisa 4:153-167), Jesus occupies such a unique position that his mention cannot be explained 'by chance', based on a mere association with Moses and his family. The statement, 'Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus; [Muhammad Asad] and on the Day of Judgment he [Jesus] will be a witness against them;-' (Nisa 4:159), sets Jesus so clearly apart from all the other prophets mentioned in the text and from Muhammad himself that another explanation must be sought for his mention.

Due to the situation - Muhammad defends his role as a prophet - from the point of view of logic, one would expect that Muhammad above all was to claim from the Jews agreement and faith in his own revelation - received from God - as the basis for acceptance in the Last Judgement, - unless Muhammad's message to the Jews was about Jesus and his importance for them. Instead, the Qur'an demands such faith in relation to Muhammad's predecessor, Jesus. We ask ourselves, why do the earlier prophets still play such a prominent role after Muhammad had proclaimed God's latest revelation? Although the Jews rejected not only Jesus, but also Moses and Muhammad, and even killed various other prophets, nowhere in the text are they called upon to accept these messengers of God with the same urgency as is the case with Jesus. Only faith in Jesus as God's messenger is emphasised as an absolute necessity for the Last Judgement. It is Jesus, of all people, who will testify against the owners of the book on Judgement Day, not Muhammad - who is defending himself here - and not other prophets, who had been killed.

In my view, Oakes points to a possible way of how to explain the prominent role that Jesus plays in Muhammad's defence speech. He observes that a very similar criticism of the Jews as in Nisa 4:153-156 is already found in the Gospels (Jesus in Luke 11:37-52 and Matthew 23:13-36; Stephen in Acts 7:51-53, etc.). Somehow surprisede himeslef, Oakes lines up the extensive correspondence between Nisa 4:153-161 and Acts 7:38; 41; 51-53. In a table, he compares the main criticisms levelled against the Jews by Muhammad and Stephen:7

Nisa 4	Acts 7
v. 153: ‘… Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs (baiyinaat) had come to them; even so we forgave them; ...’	41+42: 'That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made. But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. …'
v. 153: ‘… and [Allah] gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.’	vv. 35-37: 'This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out of Egypt and performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the wilderness. “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’’
v. 154: ‘And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant.’	v. 38: 'He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.' v. 53: 'you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it. ...'
v. 155: ‘(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; ...’	v. 53: 'you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it. ...'
v. 155: ‘… that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; ...’	v. 52: 'Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One [Jesus] ...'
v. 155: ‘… and their saying, `Our hearts are uncircumcised (and so cannot hear).´ Nay, (the truth however is) Allâh has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief so that they believe but a little.’ (Abdul Mannan Omar)	v. 51: 'You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!'
v. 157: ‘That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";-’	v. 52: '… They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One [i.e. Jesus]. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—'
And in addition to Oakes, the following topic also fits into the scheme:
v. 158: 'Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-'	v.55-56: 'But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”'

Oakes thus observes that many of the statements in Nisa 4:153-157a did not first appear in the Qur'an, but were already made by Stephen.

The parallels between Nisa 4:153-162 and Acts 7 are not limited to the statements of the two men. Their external situation is also similar. Both are rejected by Jews because of their concept of God and both react not with an actual self-defence, but with a condemnation of their Jewish accusers on the basis of a selected historical review of their handling of God's revelations. Both chose the same focal points: Moses, other prophets and Jesus. However, the accusation against Stephen was much more severe than the demand for divine authentication of Muhammad's revelation. The accusation against Stephen was: spreading blasphemous words 'against Moses and against God' (Acts 7:11-14). According to the accusers, Stephen had claimed that Jesus was questioning the Jewish law and the temple, the most holy things in Jewish eyes. Stephen's line of argument, starting with Moses and the law revealed through him, continuing with unspecified prophets and unbelieving Jews, and finally climaxing in Jesus the Messiah, is strucured logically. It is Stephen's intention to explain how the Messiah is connected to Moses and how the coming of the Messiah changes the role of the Law and the Temple. In short, Stephen is trying to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah predicted by the Torah: Moses has already announced him: '... a prophet like me the Lord your God will raise up for you from among your brethren' (Acts 7:37). The necessity for the coming of such a prophet lies in the failure of the Jews to keep the Sinai Covenant mediated by Moses. The prophets killed by Jews who followed in the footsteps of Moses 'predicted the coming of the Righteous One' (7:52), that is, the Messiah. But when the Messiah himself finally came, Jews turned out to be also his betrayers and murderers (7:52). But now, of all things, the Jews use the law transgressed by their ancestors as an argument against the Messiah's follower, Stephen, and thus against the Messiah himself. As the representative of this Messiah, Stephen does not accept their accusations but now in turn condemns his accusers: they have betrayed and killed the Messiah chosen by God (Acts 7:52). In a final vision immediately before his death by stoning, Stephen sees God himself as judge of his Jewish accusers. Jesus, described here as the Son of Man, takes an active role in the execution of the judgement8: ‘'But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”' (Acts 7:55-56).

In his speech, Stephen is not defending himself, but rather Jesus' claim to be the Messiah announced by the prophets and confirmed by God. In his own defence, Stephen presents no other arguments than that he is merely the messenger of this Messiah.9 It is therefore hardly surprising that he is condemned to death by stoning by the Jews, who reject Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.

Could it be that Muhammad in Nisa 4:153-163 follows a similar line of argument as Stephen in Acts 7? Might he be not so much interested in justifying himself as in explaining the place of Jesus in God's history of revelation? After all, according to Nisa 4:159, as with Stephen (Acts 7:55-56), Jesus will also be involved in the divine judgement against Muhammad's accusers. Only Jesus, not Moses, not Muhammad or any other prophet, will actively stand up for his message in the final judgement. As with Stephen, for Jesus after his departure from the earth an exalted position with God is also emphasised: 'Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-' (Nisa 4:158). Again, for no other prophet mentioned in the passages a similarly exalted position is claimed. It seems as if Muhammad, just like Stephen, is not really defending himself in Nisa 4:153-167, but rather justifying his own message and role as a prophet by legitimising Jesus - and his role in God's history of revelation. Could it be that Muhammad, just like Stephen, sees himself as 'Jesus' "prophet" with a small "p"'10? In any case, this conclusion would explain why the belief in Jesus' role as God's messenger (Nisa 4:159) occupies such a prominent position in Muhammad's argumentation.

These observations raise the question of how Muhammad's understanding of Jesus differs so fundamentally from that of the Jews'. What exactly do the Jews need so urgently to belief regarding Jesus that even after the coming of Muhammad they still have to give a retrospective account of their reaction to that aspect of Jesus' ministry in the final judgement? To what extent does Jesus' role in God's history of revelation justify Muhammad's message? We will now attempt to answer these and similar questions by turning to a closer examination of Nisa 4:157-159.

---

1 The following statments show that Muhammad's interlocutors in Nisa 4:153-167 were of Jewish background: 'People of the Scriptures', they already knew Moses, worshipped the calf (4:153); recipients of the 10 commandments at Sinai, knew the Sabbath law (a special mention is made of the Sabbath commandment (4:154)); broke the Sinai covenant (stated in the Tora), killed the prophets (4: 155) that were sent to them; accused Mary of bearing a child out of wedlock (4:156); claimed to have killed and crucified the Messiah (4:157); belonged to Judaism (4:160); but despite accepting a divine prohibition against it, still violate this law by lending money at interest (4:161).

2 The context of Nisa 4:157-159 ‘has as its main objective the general edification of its audience on matters pertaining to the nature of kufr. In this case, the Jews are being singled out as an example and are being condemned for various transgressions: idol worship (4:153); breaking their covenant, disbelieving revelation, slaying prophets, for saying OUR HEARTS ARE HARDENED (4:155); general disbelief/kufr and defaming or insulting Mary (4:156); FOR THEIR SAYING, W E KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS, SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD (4:157); general wrongdoing/ẓulm, hindering others from GOD' S WAY [sabīl allāh] (4:160); taking usury, and DEVOURING PEOPLES’ WEALTH [aklihim amwāl al-nās] BY FALSE PRETENSES (4:161)’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 37).

3 ‘But Allah beareth witness that what He hath sent unto thee He hath sent from His (own) knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is Allah for a witness.’ (Nisa 4:166)

4 ‘O Mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from Allah: believe in him: It is best for you. But if ye reject Faith, to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.’ (Nisa 4:170)

5 ‘Each of these actions is a denial of Allah’s authority over them and an attempt to give themselves an inflated sense of importance. The mention of Jesus’ death and their role in it comes immediately after this section as yet another example of their pride and arrogance in usurping Allah’s place.’ (Kaltner, John. Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to the Qur'an for Bible Readers (Connections) (S.278). Liturgical Press. Kindle-Version).

6 ‘It could be argued that the introduction of Mary and Jesus into a narrative about Moses is intrusive, because most of what the Quran says about Jesus and Mary is in Suras 3 and 19. however these characters actually fit into the context of this narrative nicely. There is a natural connection between Moses and Mary because Sura 19 identifies Mary as Aaron's sister (Q. 19.28) and it identifies Aaron as Moses' brother (Q. 10.53 & 7.150), so it is inferred that Mary is Moses' sister. The connection between Mary and her son Jesus is even more straightforward; Jesus is called the 'son of Mary' 23 times in the Quran (Q. 2.87. 253; 3.45; 4.157, 171; 5.17 (twice), 46, 72. 75, 78. 110. 112, 114.116: 9.31; 19.34: 23.50: 33.7: 43,57: 57.27: 61.6, I4).’ (R. Oakes, ‘Toward a contextual, inter-textual and linguistic translation of the hapax legomenon term shubbiha lahum that is found in Sūrat al-Nisā’ 4 āya 157’ in Qur'anic Narratives and the Challenges of Translation, pp. 146-168, Jordan 2014, p. 155).

7 According to Oakes , 2014, p. 155, adapted by me, shows the exact parallels between Nisa 4:152-162 and Acts 7: ‘These five transgressions so closely parallel each other that those who are familiar with the Scriptures that preceded the Qur’an recognize that some of the Quranic statements in unit 2 [Nisa 4:153-157a] did not appear first in the Qur'an, but that almost half of them had been first uttered by Stephen. The statement that the Jews had killed the Messiah was initially a Christian accusation against the Jews, rather than a boast by the Jews. ... Stephen accused the Jews of actually murdering Jesus, [who was] standing at the right hand of God’ (Acts 7:55) (R. Oakes, ‘Toward a contextual, inter-textual and linguistic translation of the hapax legomenon term shubbiha lahum that is found in Sūrat al-Nisā’ 4 āya 157’ in Qur'anic Narratives and the Challenges of Translation, pp. 146-168, Jordan 2014, p. 155)

8 Here Stephen uses an image from Daniel 7, where the kingdoms of the world are judged by God and the Son of Man is appointed as God's representative ruler. Peterson recognises in Stephen's justification before the High Council (Acts 7) a 'prophetic rib formula known from the Torah.‘… v. 56 records Stephen’s recognition of both God and Jesus as presiding over the court case. Stephen declares that he sees … “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” .... Rudolf Pesch correctly identifies the scene as one of judgment within a court setting. He draws a direct connection between Acts 7:55–56 and Isa 3:13 where YHWH stands in judgment of Israel.’ (Brian Peterson, 'STEPHEN’S SPEECH AS A MODIFIED PROPHETIC RÎګ FORMULA', in JETS 57/2 (2014) 351–69, p. 367 in https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/57/57-2/JETS_57-2_351-69_Peterson.pdf (visited: 22/11/2022)).

9 ‘... Stephen reveals the central focus of his indictment. Yes, the people had rejected Joseph and Moses, but more pointedly, they rejected Moses’ promised “Prophet”—Jesus—and now they were rejecting Stephen, Jesus’ “prophet” with a small “p” (cf. also Luke 13:34).’ (Brian Peterson, 'STEPHEN’S SPEECH AS A MODIFIED PROPHETIC RÎګ FORMULA' in JETS 57/2 (2014) 351–69, p. 363 in https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/57/57-2/JETS_57-2_351-69_Peterson.pdf (visited: 27/11/2023)).

10 see Brian Peterson, 'STEPHEN’S SPEECH AS A MODIFIED PROPHETIC RÎګ FORMULA' in JETS 57/2 (2014) 351–69, p. 363 in https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/57/57-2/JETS_57-2_351-69_Peterson.pdf (visited: 27/11/2023).