Adoption of Byzantine and Sasanian Political Terms: Anachronistic Language in a Supposedly Timeless Revelation
📖 Qur’anic Claim:
"The king [al-malik] said, 'Indeed, I have seen [in a dream] seven fat cows being eaten by seven that were lean...'"
— Qur’an 12:43
The Qur’an repeatedly uses political terms like “malik” (king) and “sultan” (authority) to describe rulers and governance structures in ancient contexts—such as in the story of Joseph in Egypt, or narratives about Moses, Pharaoh, and other biblical figures.
🏛️ Historical Problem:
This political vocabulary does not reflect the terminology or governmental systems of the ancient Near East (e.g., Egypt during Joseph’s time or Mesopotamia during Abraham’s era), but rather aligns with late antique Byzantine and Sasanian imperial language common in 7th-century Arabia.
⚠️ Key Issues:
-
"Malik" and Bureaucracy:
-
The term “malik” (king) and its bureaucratic context matches the monarchical titles used in late antique Arabic, Sasanian Persian, and Byzantine Aramaic usage—not pharaonic Egypt.
-
In ancient Egypt, rulers were called “Pharaoh”, not “king,” and there’s no historical record of a “malik” title or similar administrative structure like that described in Surah 12 (e.g., court advisers interpreting dreams).
-
-
Terminology of Empire, Not Antiquity:
-
Words such as “sultan” (power/authority) and “hukum” (judgment/ruling) belong to the administrative and judicial lexicon of late antiquity, not the patriarchal, tribal, or priestly structures of early biblical societies.
-
The Qur’an also uses “diwan” (register) and other terms that clearly reflect Byzantine or Persian administrative systems, rather than Bronze or Iron Age governance.
-
-
Historical Joseph vs. Qur’anic Joseph:
-
In Genesis, Joseph served under a Pharaoh, and the political system was centered on priesthoods and dynastic rule.
-
In the Qur’an, Joseph’s setting is anachronistically monarchic and bureaucratic, mirroring the court structures of Muhammad’s own time.
-
🧩 Source of the Misfit:
The Qur’anic political terminology reflects a 7th-century Arabized environment, heavily influenced by:
-
Sasanian Persian bureaucracy (through Yemen and Iraq),
-
Byzantine imperial structures (via the Ghassanids and Roman provinces),
-
and Aramaic or Syriac Christian lexicon circulating through oral traditions and trade routes.
These influences were contemporary to Muhammad—but not to the ancient biblical settings the Qur’an is attempting to describe.
🕌 Islamic Explanation:
Apologists argue that the Qur’an uses Arabic terms understandable to its immediate audience to communicate ancient concepts. However, this defense fails because:
-
The Qur’an claims historical accuracy, not metaphor or adaptation (e.g., Qur’an 12:3 claims it's recounting "the best of stories").
-
The use of anachronistic political terms misleads the reader about the structure and titles of ancient civilizations, which supposedly came from an omniscient source.
If God were truly conveying accurate ancient history, contextually appropriate terms or descriptions of political systems should have been used—not language rooted in the imperial culture of Muhammad’s day.
📚 Linguistic Anachronism as Historical Fingerprint:
This mismatch reveals that:
-
The Qur’an was shaped in a specific socio-political context, namely post-Byzantine, late antique Arabia.
-
It retrojected that political language and structure onto ancient narratives where they don’t belong.
-
This is consistent with other anachronistic features (e.g., calling Jesus’ mother the “sister of Aaron”, or referencing Samaritans in Moses’ time).
🔚 Conclusion: Not a Window into the Past—But a Mirror of the Present
The Qur’an’s use of Byzantine and Persian political terminology betrays its human origins. Instead of accurately representing the political landscapes of biblical times, it repackages those stories in the language of Muhammad’s own world. This linguistic anachronism undermines the Qur’an’s claim to be a timeless and historically precise revelation.
No comments:
Post a Comment