on prophets

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while may remember that last Ramadan I decided to try and read a juz' of the Qur'an every day (my posts about it are here, here, and here). In the end I only managed to get part of the way through, because of how time-consuming it was. I knew that I certainly wouldn't have time this year, so I decided on a smaller Ramadan project, to compare the story of Yusuf/Joseph in the Qur'an and the Bible – of course prompted by watching Yusuf Al Siddiq.

I was going to outline the differences in the texts here, but decided that if you're really interested you can just read the two accounts yourselves. (I'll even give you the links, both in English: Genesis 37-50, and Surat Yusuf 12: 4-102.) The variations in the "plot" were fascinating, but I found myself thinking about something more difficult to pin down: the nature and representation of prophets.

…

I learnt a lot from Yusuf Al Siddiq. (Besides how infuriating music endlessly played over dialogue can be.) For example, there was a highly dramatic scene where Zuleikha, Potiphar's wife, schemed to prove her innocence after having attempted to seduce Yusuf; she invited a group of women to the palace, gave them each an orange and a knife, and then requested Yusuf to enter the room. The women were so overwhelmed by his beauty that they couldn't take their eyes off him and cut their hands, making blood drip everywhere. (Apparently the Prophet Muhammad once said that Yusuf possessed half of all beauty given to mankind.) Only later did I discover that this is based on a verse in the Qur'an:

When she heard their malicious talk, she prepared a banquet and sent for them, giving each of them a knife. She said to Joseph, 'Come out and show yourself to them!' and when the women saw him, they were stunned by his beauty, and cut their hands, exclaiming, 'Great God! He cannot be mortal! He must be a precious angel!'

(Translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem.)

And on more than one occasion I suspected the screenwriters to be taking liberties with history only to find that, while they might have been making connections for their own purposes, there was generally a historical fact on which they were basing their story. For example, they made Yusuf a favoured advisor of Amenhotep IV, who takes the name Akhenaton when he decides to reject polytheism. I discovered that Akhenaton (husband of Nefertiti, father of Tutankhamun) did indeed become a monotheist – but whether he was the king mentioned in the Qur'anic sura is another matter. (In his novel Joseph and His Brothers, based on the Genesis story, Thomas Mann also makes the pharaoh Akhenaton.)

…

In his excellent book Islam, Fazlur Rahman describes the "general doctrine of infallibility, embracing all the Prophets, which is based on the consideration that a human who is a recipient of divine revelation cannot be expected to err grossly, especially in moral matters" (though he points out that the Prophet Muhammad's infallibility is broader than that of other prophets).

Roland E. Miller offers a slightly more nuanced perspective in Muslim Friends:

A prophet should have a noble character and be pious, faithful, and truthful. In later Islam it has been taught that a prophet is preserved from sinning, at least from serious sins. In the Qur'an itself the prophets are portrayed as fully human beings, with many of the normal problems of ordinary people. There are many examples of prophets praying for forgiveness. [...] The overall Muslim view is that the prophets of God were guarded from serious moral failure that would make them unfit vehicles for God's Word. As to lesser errors there is disagreement. Most Muslims, however, are not willing to accept that prophets are sinful except in the mildest sense.

The concept of infallibility – ismah – is even stronger within Shi'i thought. This dates back to a particular theologian, according to the book Roman Catholics and Shi'i Muslims:

Shi'is since the time of Shaykh Mufid have held that the prophets and Imams, after their vocation, were immune to sin.

And this is what Al Shaykh Al Mufid wrote:

All apostles of God were inerrant concerning wrong deeds prior to prophethood and after it, and all misdemeanours which the doer may take lightly. And Muhammad is a prophet who did not infringe upon the command of Allah, the Most High, from his birth until his death. He did not sin either on purpose or through forgetfulness.

(From Awa'il al-maqalat by Muhammad ibn al-Nu'man al-Mufid, quoted in History of Islamic Philosophy.)

This helped me understand the way that Yusuf and his father Yacoub (Jacob) are portrayed in Yusuf Al Siddiq (which was of course made in Iran). They are shown as morally exemplary men, who are entirely aware of and embrace their prophethood. Nevertheless, a prophet can clearly have children who have less admirable morals; Yacoub's other sons were hardly great role models. (But that may be getting into the sphere of predestination, which can make a person's head explode.)

It struck me that the same figures regarded as infallible in the Islamic tradition do not seem to be presented that way in the Bible. In the biblical story, Jacob doesn't come across as a particularly moral person; he cheats his brother of his birthright, obtains his father's blessing by fraud, and runs away from his father-in-law. And yet this does not conflict with his standing as chosen by God. The introduction to the Pentateuch in the New Jerusalem Bible says:

Firmly rooted in the nomadic culture of the ancient Near East, Israel was a primitive people, whose customs and morality may seem barbaric by some modern standards. Secure in the championship of Yahweh, they learnt gradually his nature and his purpose for the people he had chosen as his own.

I have been trying in vain to recall specific examples of how biblical prophets have been portrayed in films, to compare with Yusuf Al Siddiq. (Time to watch The Ten Commandments again.) From my reading of the biblical stories I have the impression of men who are a mouthpiece for God when required to be, learning and leading through difficult circumstances, rather than being there as teachers, infallible and ideal, for others to emulate. And according to this Wikipedia entry, in Christian teaching the prophets indeed are not infallible:

Prophets are recognised to still be human and fallible, they may make wrong decisions, have incorrect personal beliefs or opinions, or sin from time to time. Their hearing of revelation does not remove all their humanity or perfect them, nor do they always want to deliver the messages they have heard.

I've tried to find out about the Jewish perception of the nature of prophecy, but have come across a range of opinions, including that it is a hereditary faculty. In fact I'm not sure that anything I've quoted above is an absolute position within Christianity or Islam either, there being so many schools of thought within both. I'm really just throwing out my half-formed ideas because I'd like to know more. If anyone can suggest further reading on this topic, please do...