This is a review article of Gog and Magog in Early Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall. By Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt. Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 22. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pp. xx + 271. $147; and Mapping Frontiers across Medieval Islam: Geography, Translation and the ‘Abbāsid Empire. By Travis Zadeh. Library of Middle East History, vol. 27. London: i. B. tauris, 2011. Pp. xiv + 316. £59.50, $99.

This article seeks to reconsider the meaning of the phrase al-shayṭān al-rajīm. It surveys the controversy surrounding the meaning of rajīm in this context and argues two points: first, that by the time the phrase was employed in the Qurʾan its original meaning had been forgotten, and second, that the original meaning of the term was related to Satan’s role as a heavenly accuser.

This article aims to contextualize a short Qurʾānic passage – Q 30:2‒5 – with reference to Jewish and Christian materials that have not hitherto been deployed for this purpose. The article builds on the findings of recent scholarship, which reads this passage eschatologically rather than historically, and argues that there are, in fact, two texts that require contextualization: 1) The Qurʾānic verses themselves (which refer only to the fate of “the Romans”); and 2) The early exegetical traditions on these verses (...) (which often add “the Persians” to the eschatological drama). Furthermore, it is argued that the Biblical book of Daniel, and its interpretation in late antiquity, contributed both to the verses themselves and to their exegesis. (shrink)

This article seeks to contribute to our understanding of a short Qurʾānic passage, Q 85:4‒10, which concerns the fate of the enigmatic Aṣḥāb al-Ukhdūd. It is argued that the ‘eschatological’ and ‘historical’ readings of this passage, which have generally been taken to be mutually exclusive options for its interpretation, are both indispensable for a full contextualization of the verses in question. Furthermore, regarding the historical reading of the passage, it is argued that the verses refer to the events recorded in (...) Daniel 3, rather than to the Martyrs of Najrān episode that most exegetes (and many modern scholars) opt for. Finally, a new etymology for the word Ukhdūd is proposed. (shrink)