English translation of the article "The Koran and Iyakov Sarugsky: Imaginary hypertextuality"

This is a repeat post, as the previous post was impossible to read due to the lack of paragraphs, now I have corrected the errors and am ready to publish it again.

In his book Creation and Contemplation: The Cosmology of The Qur'an and Its Late Antique Background Islamic scholar Julien Desharnais analyzes Verse 16:79 about birds in the sky and finds parallels with the texts of the Syrian Christian poet and theologian Jacob Sarugsky (d. 521). The author comes to the conclusion about an almost verbatim textual dependence, arguing that this is the closest case of quoting the Christian source in the Quran. Here are his key arguments:

The third mention of this image appears in the Homily on the Chariot that Ezekiel saw, where it is said that Remza gives everything its stability and proclaims:

Look! They are suspended and stand like a bird that is suspended in the air in the absence of anything on which it rests, except for remz.

Here, Jacob's formulation is so close, both linguistically and thematically, to the Quranic passage quoted above that one can read both fragments synoptically.

Indeed, it can be argued that both texts not only share a common cosmological typology, but also represent an example of hypertextuality. Indeed, Q 16:79 not only conveys the same idea as Jacob using the same vocabulary, but when both fragments are broken down into semantic units (see the table), we observe that almost every unit of the Arabic text finds its counterpart in Syriac. Apart from the fact that the Qur'an uses the example of a bird as a witness to God's maintenance of the universe, whereas Jacob more specifically attributes this function to God's remission, the correspondence is almost exact.

Both texts have a number of common linguistic elements. They both begin by addressing the audience ('a-lam yaraw/hā), drawing attention to the bird (al-ṭayr/paāraḥtā), or more precisely, to the bird's soaring in the sky (musakkhkharātin fī jawwi l-samā'i/d-ṭalyā b-a'ar). Finally, both passages emphasize that logically there is nothing else that would allow a bird to remain in the sky (mā yumsiku-hunna/w-lā it meḍḍem d-laweh teškan) except God, or, in the case of Jacob, the divine remza ('illā llāhu/ellā remzā). From a syntactic point of view, both verses are based on the same grammatical structure — a negative sentence with a restrictive subordinate clause: la it... ellā and mā ... 'illā.

Without losing sight of the significant differences that exist between the two passages, which are key to a correct explanation of the reason for this correspondence, it can nevertheless be established that the connection between the two fragments remains at the thematic, sequential and linguistic levels. The Quran has never been so close to quoting a Christian text...

Apart from the possible connection with the Saruga corpus here, which can neither be proved nor refuted, we see that the Qur'an constructs a doctrine of continuous creation based on metaphors and images rooted in Scripture [1].

Apart from the possible connection with the Saruga corpus here, which can neither be proved nor refuted, we see that the Qur'an constructs a doctrine of continuous creation based on metaphors and images rooted in Scripture [1].

And to understand what the Quran says, refer to the interlinear translation of the verse 16:79: أَلَمْ يَرَوْا إِلَى الطَّيْرِ مُسَخَّرَاتٍ جَوِّ فِي السَّمَاءِ مَا يُمْسِكُهُنَّ إِلَّا اللَّهُ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ

(Didn't they see the subordinate birds in the air of the sky? They are not restrained (by anyone) except Allah. Indeed, there are signs in this for a people who believe.)

The key problem is that the author loses sight of the fact that the two texts talk about fundamentally different things. And although he acknowledges the existence of "significant differences existing between both passages ...", however, he prefers not to delve into their analysis, probably because this could destroy his entire argument, because the two texts speak about completely different objects. The Qur'an 16:79 describes real birds flying in the sky, which is a direct reference to a natural phenomenon as a sign from God. We see something completely different in Jacob Sarugsky: the bird here is not an object of description, but a metaphor to explain the structure of the cosmos.

This is clearly evidenced by the key phrase "like a bird" (ayk parahta), which is an explicit comparison. The table shows that "they [the firmament and the earth] are suspended and stand like a bird." This is a cosmological allegory, where the image of a soaring bird illustrates the suspension of the universe in space. Therefore, the similarity here is superficial. One text talks about a bird as a bird, the other — about heaven and earth, which look like a bird. This means that we are not talking about hypertextuality, when one text is derived from another, but about two independent texts that use the same image (a bird in the air) to illustrate different realities: real birds in one case and a cosmological device in the other.

Trying to smooth out the obvious difference between the Quranic speech about real birds and the cosmological allegory of Jacob, the author argues that verse 16:79 also has a cosmological character. He's writing: "Although the cosmological character of these verses could be questioned at first glance, the two passages in which they occur leave little doubt about this. Q 16:79 is immediately preceded by a sentence concerning "the mysteries of heaven and earth" (Q 16:77), whereas Q 67:19 follows immediately after several apocalyptic warnings (Q 67:16-17). Moreover, the idea of "keeping the birds aloft" is conveyed in both verses by the verb 'amsaka/yumsiku, which is exactly the verb used in the above-mentioned passages, where it was said that God prevents the sky from falling to the earth by holding it firmly (Q 22:65, 35:41)" [2].

However, this attempt to make Ayat 16:79 cosmological is untenable for several reasons.

However, this attempt to make Ayat 16:79 cosmological is untenable for several reasons.

First of all, even if we agree with the cosmological interpretation of the verse, this does not eliminate the fundamental difference in any way.: Verse 16:79 speaks of real birds, whereas Jacob uses the bird as a metaphor for the universe. Similarities in subject matter do not negate differences in the object of the description.

Secondly, the very attempt to "cosmologize" this verse contradicts the definition of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the large—scale properties of the universe as a whole: its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate [3]. The verse that tells about the observed natural phenomenon — the flight of birds — is not cosmological by definition. This is not a discussion about the structure of the universe, but an indication of a specific sign of divine power.

Thirdly, the use of the verb 'amsaka/yumsiku (يُمْسِكُ/أَمْسَكَ) does not make the text in the cosmological. The author points out that this verb is used in verses with cosmological content (Q 22:65, 35:41), where it refers to holding the sky. However, the same verb is widely used in the Quran in completely different contexts.:

No one can withhold the mercy that Allah reveals to people. And what He withholds, no one can send down after Him" (Surah 35:2) — about the retention of grace.

It is obvious that the verses quoted with the verb 'amsaka/yumsiku are not cosmological in nature. By itself, the presence of this verb does not give the text a cosmological meaning — it all depends on the content of a particular verse. The verb simply means "to hold, to hold," and its meaning is determined by the context

Fourth, the context of verses 16:79 and 67:19 does not support a cosmological interpretation. Consider Verse 16:79 in its immediate environment:

To Allah belongs the unseen in the heavens and on earth. The coming of the [Doomsday] Hour is like the blink of an eye or even closer. Indeed, Allah is All-powerful. (77) Allah brought you out of your mothers' wombs knowing nothing. He has endowed you with hearing, sight, and a heart—perhaps you will be grateful. (78) Did they not see the birds obediently flying in the sky? No one holds them back except Allah. Indeed, there are signs in this for a people who believe." (79) (Surah 16:77-79)

Ayat 77 speaks about the secret knowledge of Allah, including the time of the Day of Judgment. Verse 78 recalls the creation of man and the gift of his senses. Ayat 79 points to birds as another sign. This is an enumeration of various manifestations of divine power, and not a cosmological discussion about the structure of the universe. Birds here stand alongside human abilities as observable evidence of God's authority.

The picture is similar with the context of verse 67:19.:

Are you sure that the One in heaven won't make the earth swallow you up? After all, then she will hesitate. (16) Are you sure that the One Who is in heaven will not send a hurricane with stones upon you? You will soon find out what My warning is! (17) Those who lived before them considered it a lie. What was My chastisement! (18) Did they not see the birds above them, stretching out and folding their wings? No one holds them back except the Most Merciful. Indeed, He sees all things." (19) (Surah 67:16-19)

The preceding verses are threats to non—believers: an earthquake and a hurricane as manifestations of divine wrath. The sky is mentioned here only as the place above which the Lord is, and not as an element of the cosmological structure of the universe. Verse 19 about birds serves as a contrast: if Allah is able to send destructive forces, then He also keeps birds in flight, demonstrating His constant concern for creation. This is a polemical exhortation, not a cosmological narrative.

Thus, the author's attempt to present the verses about birds as cosmological texts similar to Jacob's homilies on the structure of the universe is not confirmed either in the content of the verses themselves, nor in their context, nor in the semantics of the verb used.

It is also important to note the difference in the context and function of these texts. Ayat 16:79 is part of a list of divine signs addressed to non-believers as a call to recognize the oneness of Allah through observable natural phenomena. Imam al-Tabari writes in the interpretation of this verse:: "Verily, there are signs in this for people who believe" — meaning that in the submission of birds to Allah and in the fact that He gave them the opportunity to fly in the airspace of the sky, there are signs and proofs that there is no deity except Allah, Who has no partner, and that idols and idols they have no share in divinity" [4]

This is a typical method of rhetorical exhortation in the Quran. The text of James Sarugsky, on the contrary, is a sermon for a Christian audience explaining the idea of divine providence through cosmological allegory. The difference in genre, audience, and purpose of the texts makes the idea of direct borrowing even less plausible

In addition, the author does not offer a convincing explanation of the transmission mechanism: how could specialized sixth-century Syrian homilies intended for a Christian audience have become available to the author of the Quran in the seventh century, based on the opinion of Orientalists that they were the Prophet? The lack of justification for the transmission route makes the thesis of direct

It is noteworthy that the author himself mentions a parallel from the Gospel of Matthew (10:29): "not one of them [birds] will fall to the ground without the will of your Father." This confirms that the image of birds as an illustration of divine providence is common to the biblical tradition, and not unique to James of Sarug. Nevertheless, the author insists on a direct connection with the narrowly focused Syrian homilies, ignoring a simpler explanation — a common religious heritage

The author further states that "both texts have a number of common linguistic elements. They both start by addressing the audience." This statement is technically true, but misleading. Yes, both texts appeal to the audience, but they do it in fundamentally different ways. The Qur'an uses the negative rhetorical question 'a-lam yaraw ("Don't they see?") — an interrogative form with a negative, the rhetorical function of which is to reproach and encourage reflection.

In Jacob, we see the imperative ha ("Look!"), an imperative mood for direct instruction and attracting attention. The difference between a negative question and an imperative is not a stylistic nuance, but a qualitative grammatical and rhetorical difference. The author, speaking only about "addressing the audience," ignores this fundamental difference.

The author emphasizes that "from a syntactic point of view, both verses are built on the same grammatical structure — a negative sentence with a restrictive subordinate clause: lat... ellā and mā ... 'illā». However, this similarity is not an argument in favor of textual dependence. The construction of "nothing... except" is a standard grammatical structure for expressing exclusivity in Semitic languages. —

a universal way of saying "only X, and nothing else". When two authors writing in related Semitic languages seek to express the same thought — "nothing but God, ..." they naturally resort to this common grammatical formula. Its presence in both texts is explained not by borrowing, but by logical necessity and a common linguistic heritage. This construction is already widely represented in the Tanakh.

In Deuteronomy we find, "There is none other but Him" (ein 'od milvado, Deut 4:35). In the First book of Samuel says: "there is No one Holy like the Lord; there is no one besides You" (אֵין־קָדוֹשׁ כַּיהֹוָה כִּי אֵין בִּלְתֶּךָ, ein kadosh ka-Adonai ki ein biltekha, 1 Sam 2:2). The Prophet Isaiah uses this formula many times.: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me" (אֵין עוֹד זוּלָתִי אֵין אֱלֹהִים, ein 'od zulati ein elohim, Isaiah 45:5-6, 21-22, 46:9). In Hosea we read: "And you shall know no other god besides Me, and there is no savior besides Me" (u-moshia' 'ayin bilti, Os 13:4).

All these examples demonstrate that the negative construction with a restrictive particle is a standard way of expressing divine exclusivity in the Hebrew Bible, from which the Syriac Christian tradition is inherited, and which is present in Islamic texts.

A critical flaw in the author's methodology also lies in ignoring the general theological context. Jacob Sarugsky is a Christian theologian, and Islam and Christianity share fundamental ideas about God as Creator and Almighty. Common to both traditions is the idea of the constant dependence of creation on God, which can be illustrated by various images: cosmological allegories, as in Jacob, or an indication of natural phenomena — a sign, as in the Quran.

Using the image of "suspension" to illustrate divine authority does not require direct borrowing — both texts independently use an intuitive image to illustrate God's authority over creation, applied to different objects of description.

There is a hidden premise behind the author's argument: the Quran must borrow from Christian sources, and the task is only to find a specific source. This approach ignores the Qur'an's ability to independently develop theological themes, while the use of natural phenomena as omens is a characteristic feature of its own Quranic rhetoric. Such a methodology, which persistently seeks a Christian prototype for the Quranic image, excludes the originality of the text in advance, which is a methodological error.

Finally, the author mentions the difference, but does not analyze it: the Quran directly names God as an active force (illa llahu), while Jacob expresses himself through the theological symbol remza (ella remz), which means "sign", "symbol", "divine power" [5]. The difference between the direct naming of God and the indirect reference through a symbolic concept reflects different ways of theological expression, which contradicts the idea of direct textual borrowing.

Thus, the similarity between the texts turns out to be illusory upon closer examination. The Quran describes real birds, and Jacob describes a cosmological structure using a bird for comparison. The Qur'an begins with a negative question, and Jacob begins with an imperative. The general syntactic construction is standard for Semitic languages and is already widely represented in the Tanakh.

The author's attempt to give ayat 16:79 a cosmological character in order to bring it closer to the text of Jacob does not stand up to criticism: the verb 'amsaka/yumsiku is used in the Quran in a variety of non-cosmological contexts, and the surrounding verses demonstrate a typical enumeration of divine signs (ayat) for the Quran, rather than cosmological reasoning. The difference in genre (polemical exhortation vs. the homiletic sermon), the audience, and the function of the texts make the idea of direct borrowing even less plausible. In addition, the author does not explain the mechanism of transmission of specialized Syrian homilies of the sixth century to the "author" of the Quran in the seventh century, which makes his thesis speculative.

The author systematically ignores these fundamental differences, passing off common theological concepts and imagery inherent in close traditions as textual borrowing. The claim that the Quran "has never been so close to quoting a Christian text" does not stand up to criticism and is based on a methodologically flawed analysis.