Islamic Doctrines in Samaritan Theology

The number of researchers in the field of Samaritanism is by no means large, and indeed the serious study of this important religious sect is fairly recent. Before the beginning of the twentieth century a few Semitists and students of comparative religion had written of the history, literature and religious practices of the Samaritans, but little more than sketchily. Material for such research was scanty and there was a paucity of available sources.

Today the situation is much improved and hundreds of manuscripts of Samaritan chronicles, genealogies, liturgies, Bible commentaries and other works, found in various museums and libraries, have become known. As a result, it is now possible to estimate the development of one of the world's oldest surviving religious groups if not the world's oldest by far. However, no serious study of outside influences on their philosophic and religious beliefs has been presented. A few students have penned uncritical and unjustified references to Samaritan obligation to Jewish sources (e.g. the biblical Psalms) and to the writings of the apocryphal period. Some Samaritanists have felt inclined to regard Samartianism as a possible source for the early development of Christian thought and of the later Islamic thought as well.

The present writer has come to a different point of view after considering the religious and doctrinal development of the Samaritan religion itself. He has come to the conclusion that Samaritans, even if they represent the oldest continuously surviving sect in the world, have consciously or unconsciously derived inspiration for the development of their thought from Christian and Islamic sources. If any borrowing has taken place from orthodox, normative Judaism, it is extremely difficult to discover reliable evidence of it.

The reasons for the above claim of Samaritan dependence on other religions can only be truly appreciated after a glance at their historical situation.

The Samaritans, first appearing in history as a distinctive group having their own traditions, beliefs and practices, in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra (their origins beings obviously much older), have lived under the shadow of their sacred mountain, Mount Gerizim in Palestine, now in Jordan, for no less that 2,400 years and perhaps over 3,000. They have maintained their hostility to the Jews throughout that long period; they have lived under the domination of Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, and Arabs, to mention only the chief of their rulers after the Assyrians, and through it all have emerged as claimants of the title 'the True Israel,' the meticulous and unswerving practisers of the ancient Hebrew religious laws of Moses, the only celebrants now and for centuries past of the Hebrew Passover and of the pilgrimages of the Patriarchs, and as the only 'Hebrew' sect with a living priesthood.

They had their periods of literary, theological, and liturgical revival chiefly in the fourth, eleventh, fourteenth and, to some degree, the eighteenth centuries. When literature flourished among their overlords there was usually peace, and they themselves were enabled, or at any rate permitted, to pursue a course of cultural and philosophical development. Especially was this true under the aegis of Islam. When Arabic literature reached great heights of expression, the Samaritans too achieved advancement in literary production and philosophical and theological concepts. Though there were times of severe persecution and cultural and religious repression under the overlords above—mentioned, and under the Christians and Jews in earlier times, they survived as a people and continued to develop their ideas about God, about the world and about life.

The present writer holds that the Samaritans were the recipients, rather than the bestowers, of new ideas. He has reached this conclusion after following various paths. The chief and most searching factor in deciding thus has been a comparative study of the Samaritan fourth-century A.D. Defter with the later and fuller expression of Samaritan theology. The Defter is the Samaritan Book of Common Prayer, composed of ancient collects and prayers for various occasions in the religious calendar. It contains chiefly fourth-century compositions, themselves based on the ideas of Samaritanism of possibly the third century B.C., as far as one can determine at this stage. The whole Defter, in its modern form, contains in addition a number of liturgical compositions which can be dated to priests living between the fourth and fourteenth centuries. The later liturgical material is mostly of fourteenth-century authorship. It is here that we find, for the first time, clear exposition of the Samaritanism of the late medieval and modern worlds.

The fourteenth-century material is strongly colored by Islamic and Christian ideas; the fourth-century material is almost entirely devoid of these. It is on this fact that the present writer has mainly based his claims in this paper. There are possible signs of the influence of the New Testament Johannine writings and of the Epistle to the Hebrews; this influence will be discussed elsewhere. In the earlier material there are no signs of any distinctively Islamic theological concepts! Thus we have the earliest Samaritan doctrine free of Islamic teaching and the mature fourteenth-century doctrine considerably colored by it. Why this should be so will be seen below. Indeed the very rubrics of the Defter include only one Arabic musical expression (no doubt of medieval origin), while the seventeenth-century and later manuscripts of the liturgies contain scores, if not hundreds, of such technical words and expressions in Arabic.

Our judgment is that the internal evidence speaks for itself. The period between the fourth and fourteenth centuries was the period of gradual development within Samaritanism, development which included the incorporation of many Christian and Islamic theological concepts. Our concern here is with the influences of Islamic teaching on Samaritan thought as the present writer has perceived them.

It is no part of our purpose to give a wholesale comparison of Islam and Samaritanism, nor to include the points of agreement found also in normative Judaism and Christianity. We are concerned solely with those matters of faith and belief that are peculiar to both or receive their greatest emphasis in both, such as is not found elsewhere. No claim to an achievement of an exhaustive comparison is made here. Much more could be written on the more speculative aspects of Islamic and Samaritan theology. Our concern is with the more important, broad ideas of faith and belief that illustrate Samaritan assimilation from Islam in the early Middle Ages.

Quotations from Samaritan sources are the writer's own; the original text is quoted in the form C.p. ... (for A. E. Cowley: The Samaritan Liturgy, (2 Vols.), Oxford, 1909).

Before dealing with the larger questions of creed and of various doctrines, let us observe a number of smaller matters that contribute somewhat to our general picture of the Samaritans living under the protection of Islam.

I hope to show elsewhere how the Samaritans adopted the Arabic language as their own native tongue, when they did so and how they used it for literary and liturgical purposes. Their liturgical rubrics more and more came to include technical Arabic terms, and the traditional and venerated Hebrew and Aramaic more and more faded into disuse as far as these purposes were concerned. Bible commentaries and histories came to be written almost entirely in Arabic, and composition in Hebrew and Aramaic came to be confined to hymns and prayers and other liturgical forms. Benedictions on their Patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being the chief) and on Joseph and Moses and other personages from the Torah (Taurat), as well as some of their own most revered and renowned High-priests, were put in the form of Muslim benedictions. No other sect of Judaism could have gone as far as this. Terms like in sha' allah and allah a'lam came to be standard literary expressions in many works, some of which begin with the familar bismillah al—rahman al-rahim. This was not just a matter of adopting the social expressions of the overlord; the whole of Samaritan literature became more and more permeated with Muslim expressions of religious thought and piety.

Perhaps more significant still is the question of family names. The great Samaritan Levitical family, of such ancient lineage, the provider of so many great priests, well illustrates an interesting trend toward Muslim ways and customs. Up to the death of the Priest Zedaqah in 1060 A.H., family names had been confined to the traditional Hebrew names found in the Hebrew Bible. One side of the family began then to adopt Muslim names such as Ghazal, Salih, 'Abdallah Abu Sarur, Sa'd and Ibrahim (instead of the Hebrew form Abraham). All this is not to say that they did not possess biblical names also, which in fact some authors and scribes preferred to use, but it was by these non-biblical or Muslim names that they were usually best known. At about the same time the great Danfi and Marhibi families adopted the same practice. We must not imagine, however, that something happened in the sixteenth century of our era to change the Samaritan way of life or their attitude towards the Muslims. We can be sure that a religious sect, so conservative in many respects, took a very long time to put its tendencies into practice. As we shall see shortly, the fourteenth century affords a veritable flood of Islamic thoughts and doctrines wrapped up within Samaritanism's own version of Judaism. Whatever led to the adoption or assimilation of so much that belongs to Islam, by the sixteenth century even family names became Muslim ones.

It is hardly likely that the Samaritans, occupants of the same ancestral territory for so very long, "out—Judaizers of the Judaists," a people who did not marry outside of their own family groups, would go so far as to adopt the language and family names of their conquerors if they had not developed more than mere tolerance towards them. Much more could be said along sociological lines to show that the Samaritans came to regard the Arabs as more than a people to be endured. We do not know what precise historical events, if any, contributed to this great change in attitude. It is more than likely that the process took place over many centuries. It is, furthermore, quite within the realms of possibility that hostility towards the Jews did much to drive the Samaritans towards Islam (and Christianity). They had only the five books of the Torah, while the Jews possessed many other sacred books besides. There was thus not the scope for development in religious thinking that there was in normative Judaism. While the Jews had their large Book of Psalms for use in worship, the Samaritans had to compose their own. It may not then be surprising to find the Samaritans turning to the pious among their conquerors for new expressions of praise and devotion.

We may now turn to some of the central themes within Islam that have been incorporated into Samaritanism, bearing in mind the fact that the Samaritans ever claimed to be the True Israel and the only true exponents and proponents of the teaching of God revealed through their prophet Moses.

Muhammad did not regard Islam as beginning ultimately in himself, nor did the Samaritans consider Moses to be the inaugurator of their faith. As Muhammad looked to Abraham as true originator of Islam, so the Samaritan theologian of the early centuries saw in Abraham the great ancestor of their religion. Muhammad was the last of the prophets, the seal (Surah xxxiii: 40) of the prophets or apostles; so to the Samaritan was Moses, but the beginning was the great progenitor Abraham (first great possessor of the true light of Adam in the new era brought in with Noah after the Flood). All life began with the activity of the Word of God in creation and his amr (the divine fiat in Samaritanism); the true revelation to man of God's will (Samaritan and Islamic ridwan) was through Abraham, finally sealed in the Prophet.

While Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a common monotheism, Islam has by no means been least in promoting an uncompromising belief in the Oneness and Unity of God (tauhid). No trinitarianism came within Islam to cause endless theological speculation and dispute. Judaism and Christianity express monotheism in no uncertain terms, beyond doubt, but Islam has developed so many ways of proclaiming this central tenet of its creed. Samaritanism is no less vociferous in proclaiming the same. How often the Samaritan liturgist repeats the phrase "There is only one God: there is no god but God!" How often he cries la ilaha illa allah: la sharik lahu. How often he acclaims God as Allah wahadahu. Any Samaritan could readily recite, in his own way, the words of Surah xxviii: 88!

In Samaritanism there is a strong tendency towards the doctrine of naskh or abrogation (cf. Surah ii: 256). God cannot be limited in any way; He is absolute and quite beyond man's control, even when repentant man is supplicating Him.

Thou art with the generations and their successions.
They do not change Thee, but Thou changest them (C.p. 256).

To the Samaritan no petition to God can change God's will; His mercies can be supplicated, but the believers are "dependent on Thy mercies" (C.p. 493). Even the heartfelt petitions for forgiveness can only be expressed bi-'amal Musa, or "by the merit of the Righteous Three, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"; such petitions (and others like "by the merit of Moses and Joseph") are to be placed side by side with the appeals to God's promises to the patriarchs. Man cannot achieve merit by his own works. God's favours come about solely as a result of God's will. This could hardly be more Islamic! it is hardly likely to have come from Christianity or normative Judaism.

Return to God is almost the only reason for earthly existence for the Samaritan thinker; the word for "return" is the same (in its Aramaic form) as in Arabic (thwb). Throughout the Samaritan theological writings we find such expressions as "Be reconciled to (i.e. return to) God"; "to God is our return"; "from God we flee to God." Such emphasis upon restoration to God and return to His favour far exceeds that of Judaism or Christianity and is to be compared only with the Islamic emphasis. Yet the believer will sin and incur the wrath of God! The Muslim can say with the Samaritan:

O our God, we flee from Thine anger to Thy loving-Kindness (C.p. 493).

Mention has been made of man's works being no criterion for forgiveness. In Samaritanism it is belief first and foremost that makes a man right with God. Good works have their rightful place, but a secondary one, perhaps, rather, a consequential one. In both religions one who believes in God and His Prophet will do good works, for good works result from right belief. Belief is paramount, belief in God and in his servant or apostle Moses. This is the supreme prerogative to the Samaritan for acceptance into the community of God.

It is here that we see the significance of the Samaritan's prayer for Moses. The tasliya was developed in Samaritanism in the fourteenth century, as far as we can discover, and it was not borrowed from any religion other than Islam. Judaism finds no place for prayer for Moses, nor Christianity for prayer for Jesus, but the Samaritan regard and veneration for Moses can well be paralleled in Islam. It was a supererogatory prayer and one of merit.

There has been much speculation within Islam about the form of God, but in Samaritanism there has been at no time any alteration from or modification of the expression of belief

He has no beginning and no end, nor is he like any other form.
Indeed He is not like anything, nor is any thing like Him (C. passim).

In both faiths God has substance (a'yan), but there is no bound to be put to it, for the substance is a unity and has no equal. The Samaritans would agree with Abu 'l—Muntaha that "God, having neither species nor genus, can have no equal."1

Before turning to the Samaritan development of the idea of the Word of God, let us observe that kabbalistic and mystical Samaritanism developed a system of names of God, the pronouncing of and meditation upon which were an act of merit. The principle of "ninety-nine names of God" is found in the Samaritan SHEM HAMITPARESH2.

To the Samaritans, Moses was the Logos or Word of God (cf. Surah vii: 141). At creation it was God's Word (later identified as the pre-existent Moses) that spoke:

Thou didst without a hand make the heavens and their heavens,
Thou didst create with a word all the host of them (C.pp. 257, 492).

The Word was an eternal attribute of the essence (wujud) of God. In the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Samaritan didactic writings much is written of the Word of God. It is possible to derive this doctrine from the New Testament Johannine literature and it is also possible to find its source in the theological debates of Islam. We may turn to the ninth-century Abu Muhammad 'Abdallah b. Sa'id al-Qattan (i.e. Ibn Kullab) for the development of this doctrine within traditional theological circles, but Samaritanism in the ninth century had not developed a belief in "the Word that was in the beginning with God, without which was nothing made that was made" (cf. John 1). Al-Isfara'ini (eleventh century A.D.) stated that the word (al—kalam) was eternal. This matches the less fully expressed Samaritan belief in the preexistent Word. These theological considerations undoubtedly affected Samaritan thinking in those centuries preceding the great, and perhaps sudden, blooming forth of Samaritanism in the fourteenth century. The chief difference on this Point is that in Samaritanism Moses was finally identified by some as the Word, but no official acceptance was ever accorded to this.

Muhammad to the Muslims and Moses to the Samaritans had the chief function of messenger, or receiver of the law and command of God, of proclaiming God's will and exhorting His people to repentance. Here is a typical Samaritan expression which will remind Muslims forcibly of their own Prophet:

He ... sent to them Moses, the choicest of the faithful, with the perfect law.
And taught them the way by which they may be upright. (C. passim)

The stress on these aspects of the apostle's function is undoubtedly much greater in fourteenth-century Samaritanism than at any time in normative Judaism, and must be a development adopted or assimilated from Islamic theology. God expressed himself by His Word (inherent in His essence and having no independent existence!), but that Word had to be proclaimed to sinful and unbelieving mankind. The prophet was the conveyor of that Word and that was his greatest function.

In both religious systems there has always been antipathy and even hostility to any tendency to deify the Prophet. In both he was servant, messenger, prophet, but never divine. The emphasis on the manhood and apostleship of Moses is so great that it might well have been that tendencies did exist in Samaritanism to deify him. Although a prayer for the prophet was a righteous act, it was meritorious subject only to the will of God. To attribute divinity (no matter how remotely or obtrusively) to the prophet was to contravene the doctrine of abrogation and to set limits to the Oneness and Unity of God. Islamic attempts from time to time to ascribe human characteristics to God never succeeded, nor did they in Samaritanism. Both faiths avoided the pitfall of humanizing God and deifying His apostle.

The doctrine of creation is closely similar in both faiths. God, absolute creator by an act of His own will and that alone, created the heavens and the earth for a purpose and by a means concealed within Himself and beyond the reasoning of man. There is no promise in either religion of knowing the purpose of God, nor is it deemed right. The Samaritan theologian says:

(His works) and words are not based on any source - nothing whatsoever - no hands, no measure, no rule (C.p. 272).

Muslim and Samaritan theologians have set out their metaphysical exercises (such as, e.g., describing the nature of the seven heavens), but these did not enter within the court of orthodox theology. Both faiths have much to say about the natural creation revealing the glory and majesty of God. The power and wisdom of God (names of God also in Samaritanism) are revealed in nature. A. S. Tritton3 quotes al-Zamakhshari on this, showing that there is a natural religion as well as a revelatory one, but in Samaritanism revelation through the natural order is merged with revelation through belief, good works and meditation. This is a merging of one revelation with another, not revelation with inspiration as in Christianity.

From the works that Thou hast made those who have knowledge know that Thou art their God (C.p. 492).

There is an unseen world also, and in both religions it is clearly held that this lies within the provenance of God alone. In both, mystics and mystical sects have arisen claiming possession of an inner knowledge of the mysteries of God and the unseen world, but here again orthodoxy has veered off from committing itself to more than the belief that a righteous believer may, by the study of God's Book and by long contemplation and meditation, achieve a certain inner inspiration. For example, the Samaritan can say:

There is an abundance for wise and understanding men in what is hidden (C.p. 272).

But that it is revelation as distinct from inspiration has never been an acceptable claim. Only God knows! So speak orthodox Islam and Samaritanism, after resisting many attempts to mysticize their faith and alienate it from ordinary life.

The reward for right belief is Paradise. The Samaritan would share his Muslim brother's view when he says:

He who repents of his sins — Paradise is his — into it he will pass (C.p. 489).

The Samaritans never developed a belief in a sensual paradise, although some theologians believed in a physical paradise. They developed two lines of thought about the hereafter. One school of theologians believed in a mystical reunion with God, which meant to them in fact a state of peace and tranquility (as in Buddhism); the other believed in a paradise on earth wherein material prosperity was the keynote, along with the victory of God over the unbelievers and freedom from persecutors. (The Samaritan stress on peace can be understood in terms of their living through so many fearful persecutions). Where the two religions do agree, as against the silence of official Christianity and Judaism, is in the idea that the believer will enter the Garden (to the Samaritans the Garden of Eden, which God planted as Paradise at the first), and the unbeliever will enter the Fire. Judaism has no doctrine of Hell, nor has official Protestant Christianity a systematic doctrine of punishment through eternal burning, though non-official Christian sources may accept such a view. In both Islam and Samaritanism the emphasis, as distinct from that of other religions, is on the unbelief that leads to hell. It is noteworthy that at least one of the two schools of Samaritan theology believed in a physical reward for living this physical life unsustained and unblemished (forgiveness in both having wiped away — root kfr — all stains and blemish for the believer). Islam must have been the source of the Samaritan variant from normative Judaism.

Both have much to say about the Last Day, the day when the earth suffers a cataclysm, when the graves open, when the dead are resurrected and join the living before the Judge of all mankind. Samaritanism presents the same kind of picture as we find in the Qur'an (for example, in Surah lxxxii); to it the Last Day is the prelude to the Day of Judgment and Recompense.

We may observe similar lines of thought about the greatest event in the Islamic and Samaritan calendars. The Great Fast, Ramadan for the Muslim, the Day of Atonement for the Samaritan, is a source of blessing to the believer if faithfully performed. For both faiths the gate of God's mercy (the root rhm is the keynote in both) is open. Quotations, to illustrate the thinking common to both, are from a small Shi'a manual of Ramadan Prayers (Mukhtasar Ad'iyat Ramadan) published in the Lebanon in 1930 and translated by Professor K. Cragg4, and from my own translation of the Samaritan Festival.5

(Islam) O God, this is the month of Ramadan in which Thou hast sent down the Qur'an as a guidance to men.

(Samaritanism) O Power (cf. Islamic term to describe God) who sent Moses our Prophet with the Law... this is the Day of Atonement.

The blessing of the Great Fast for both religions consists mainly in a glorious future beyond this life. In both the accent is ever on the promised reward following the true observance of the Fast. Islam has no doctrine of atonement and has no place for the idea of the merit of others being efficacious to atone for sin. Yet, righteous acts on the part of the believer have atoning value, and the root kfr in the intensive form in both Arabic and Samaritan implies a covering-over of sin. A meritorious act such as the prescribed Fast conceals sin; in this sense atonement is found in Islam, but there is no allusion to a national atonement effected by certain priestly and lay acts of expiation or sacrifice. The Tasliya itself, so frequent during the Fast, has that kind of atoning value, because it is considered primarily as an act of worship, but still it is subject to the will of God.

The worshippers during the Fast stand, as it were, before God.

(Islam) O my God, the petitioners stand before Thy gate.

(Samaritanism) O my God, the petitioners stand before Thy gate.

(Islam) This is the month of coming back unto Thee, of repentance, forgiveness and mercy.6

(Samaritanism) Return, O Lord, to Thy servants who stand before Thee during the Fast — standing at the gate of Thy mercy.

The relationship between the worshipper and God is expressed many times in the Ramadan Prayers and in the Samaritan Festival that it is scarcely worthwhile to set out parallel quotations. Both have it that the petitioner seeks refuge with God, that the petitioner's return is to God, and both Samaritan and Muslim petitioners desire that God should return to them (or "be reconciled to them"). Both confess that it is their disobedience in particular that has to be forgiven, and the same Semitic root (Arabic 'sy, Samaritan 'zy.) is used. The chief of sins is apostasy, turning away from God, which results from disbelief. As prerequisites of forgiveness (after return to belief) fasting and acts of penitence are the chief essentials. Samaritan and Muslim alike stress these.

It is interesting to observe that the Muslim prayers take account of the dead in the opening words of the Ramadan prayer for daytime, said after the prayer of the Prophet.

O God, bring happiness to those in the tombs.

Prayers for the dead believers head a list of needy people for whom prayer should always be said. There is perhaps greater emphasis on intercession in Islam than in Samaritanism, and it is probably true to say that Samaritanism is more self-concerned than Islam. This may be understood as a natural outcome of over 2,000 years of repression and severe persecution. The sense of brotherhood and its concomitant intercession is ever a supreme feature of Islam; this Samaritanism has not assimilated, and indeed the Samaritan prayer tends to be restricted always to prayer for the Samaritan people.

It is to be noted that Muslim and Samaritan do not pray for the dead unbeliever. Once an unbeliever has entered Hell, there is no possibility of release, no matter what petitions on their behalf are offered by the living. God's will is immutable and no prayer for the unbeliever, living or dead, can have efficacy. Here are some attributive expressions from the Ramadan prayers that are exactly as found in the Samaritan prayers.

God, most merciful of the merciful (from the Hebrew Bible).
God the Hearer (of Prayer).
God the unpartnered, having no peer, no helper to aid Him.
Creation reveals Him.
His gate is open (to the repentant).
He slays and makes alive (from the Hebrew Bible).
He is the living One (as in the Hebrew Bible).

These, and many more parallel expressions in Islam, are found over and over again in the Samaritan liturgies. They are not found expressed so frequently (some of them never), so repetitiously in Judaism or Christianity.

Attributes of God's mercy and the praise due to Him often come together in both faiths. The concluding quotation from Professor Cragg's translation of the Ramadan prayers, so typical of the Samaritan fourteenth-century hymns, forms a fitting conclusion to a study of the Great Fast:

O God, I begin my adoration with the praise of Thee —
I am truly persuaded that Thou art the most merciful
in all that relates to pardon and forgiveness.7

Samaritanism matches these sentiments as follows:

At the beginning of every speech let us exalt the name of our Lord! (C.p. 668)
O Compassionate and merciful God, who is more compassionate and merciful than Thou? (C.p. 672)

From all that has been written above, one might be led to think that Samaritanism is a variant form of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. A similar paper could be written to show how substantial are the Christian contributions to Samaritan theology. Our purpose has been to show beyond doubt that Islam has contributed a very great deal to Samaritanism and that Samaritanism, despite its very different origin, history, background and ambitions, and despite its hostility in many respects to Islam, has seen fit to assimilate or incorporate so much of the best of Islamic beliefs. Coming from a people who are more strict in the carrying out of the laws of the Torah than the Jews, who believe most sincerely that they alone of all peoples are chosen by God and that no true prophet has ever existed but Moses, the acceptance of so much that belongs to Islam is indeed a compliment to Islam. We conclude with a typical Samaritan expression of belief which reveals Samaritanism's great debt to Islam:

O God, God of all the world, God who is Lord both below and on high,
God, One without any like Him;
God alone, God unique, God creator, God abiding (qa'um),
God encompassing by His wisdom,
God who, in His favour (ridwan) brings restoration (root thwb) (C.p. 652).


University of Leeds


1Commentary on al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Hyderahad 1321 A.H. p. 14, quoted in The Muslim Creed by A. J. Wensinck, 1932, p. 210.

2 See A. S. Tritton; Muslim Theology, 1947, p. 186.

3 Ibid., p. 9.

4 In Muslim World, Vol. XLVII, No. 3, July 1957, pp. 210-23.

5 Doctoral Dissertation in the University of Leeds.

6 K. Cragg, op. cit. pp. 215, 222.

7 Ibid., p. 211.

The Muslim World, Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 279-290, October 1960.

Answering Islam Home Page