Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult of Mecca

Medieval Academy of America

Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult at MeccaAuthor(s): Bernard SeptimusReviewed work(s):Source: Speculum, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 517-533Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847740 .Accessed: 10/12/2011 18:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSpeculum.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847740?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

SPECULUM 56,3 (1981)

Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult at Mecca

By Bernard Septimus

Petrus Alfonsi, a Spanish Jew who converted to Christianity in the first years of the twelfth century, became an influential anti-Jewish polemicist and an

important transmitter of Arabic science and literary themes to Latin

Europe.* He also gave the medieval West some of its most accurate knowl-

edge of Islam.1 But not all of Alfonsi's information on Islam is of uniform

quality. In an intriguing passage on the origin of the Meccan cult, Alfonsi reveals to his readers the following secret history:

The two sons of Lot, Ammon and Moab, honored that house [the Ka'ba], and two idols were worshiped there by the same - one made of white and the other of black stone. The name of the one which was of black stone is Mercurius; the name of the other is Chamos. The one which is of black stone was built in honor of Saturn, the other, of white, in honor of Mars.2

He goes on to describe the way in which these idols and their cult were

preserved at the Ka'ba even after the rise of Islam. Alfonsi's report heaps problem upon problem. First, why should anyone associate the Meccan cult with Ammon and Moab? Then, even granting these biblical figures such an unexpected role, why would either of them name an idol Mercury? ("Chamos" is easily enough associated with either Ammon or Moab.)3 And

finally, why should no less an astronomer than Petrus Alfonsi think that an idol named Mercury was dedicated to the cult of Saturn? This paper will

argue that Alfonsi's remarks become more comprehensible in the light of his Hispano-Jewish background. It will attempt to reconstruct a Hispano-Jewish tradition on the origins of the Muslim cult at Mecca and to show that that tradition helps to explain important elements of Alfonsi's polemical account.

* This paper profited from the comments of Professors Franz Rosenthal, James Kugel, and

John Boswell, none of whom bears any responsibility for its speculative excesses. 1 See E. Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain, 2 (Philadelphia, 1979), 273 ff., 358 f.; A. L.

Williams, AdversLs Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 233-40; D. Metlitzki, The Matter of the Araby in Medieval England (New Haven, 1977), pp. 18-26, 95-106, 202 f., 210 f.; N. Daniel, Islam and the West (Edinburgh, 1962), passim. Alfonsi's lifetime has been estimated recently by A. Cutler as 1076-1140; see F. Rosenthal, "Literature," The Legacy of Islam, ed. J. Schacht and C. Bosworth

(Oxford, 1974), p. 343, n. 2. Alfonsi's discussion of Islam occurs in the fifth chapter of his

anti-Jewish polemic, Dialogius Petri cognomento Alphonsi, ex Judaeo Christiani, et Moysi Judaei, in PL 157:597-606.

2 PL 157:602D; see Daniel, Islam and the West, pp. 217 f., 311 f. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own.

3See, e.g., Numbers 21.29, Judges 11.24.

517

518 Petrus Alfonsi on Mecca

The suggestion that Alfonsi's polemic should be viewed within the context of a Hispano-Jewish tradition was first made some thiry-five years ago by Henri Gregoire. According to Gregoire, Petrus Alfonsi's remarks reflect a

long-standing attempt on the part of Jewish polemicists to link Islam with

idolatry. He conjectured that in attributing the idolatry of the Ka'ba to Ammon and Moab, Alfonsi had in mind the passage in 1 Kings 11.57 in which Solomon introduces the cults of Sidonian, Moabite, and Ammonite deities into Jerusalem. Alfonsi's use of "Mercurius," according to Gregoire, is consistent with Jewish tradition, which applies the Hebrew equivalent, "Mer-

qulis," to all types of pagan worship.4 While not impossible, the particulars of this reconstruction seem tenuous.

If Alfonsi was really thinking of 1 Kings 11.5-7, what happened to the Sidonians? Moreover, of all the multitude of references to idolatry in classical

Jewish literature, why should it be Solomon's worship of Moabite and Am- monite gods that merits association with the pre-Islamic cult of the Ka'ba? And though Merqulis may on rare occasions be used as a generic term for

idolatry in classical rabbinic literature, this usage does not seem to be carried over into the Middle Ages. Important medieval talmudists could even be unaware of it. Besides, Mercurius is paired in Alfonsi's report with Chamos, which is never, to my knowledge, a generic term for idolatry.5

It is with regard to Chamos (Kemosh) that Gregoire made his most solid point, noting that it is described by the roughly contemporary Tobiah b. Eliezer as a black stone in the form of a woman.6 Although Alfonsi had identified Chamos with the white stone, and although Tobiah's views cannot so simply be identified with those of "les docteurs juifs," the source is of interest. It is, in context, clearly referring to the Muslim cult at Mecca. Tobiah b. Eliezer lived in the Byzantine Empire, possibly in Bulgaria.7 The claim that Kemosh is shaped like a woman probably stems from Byzantine identification of the Black Stone with Aphrodite.8 Tobiah was not terribly

4 H. Gregoire, "Des dieux Cahu Baraton, Tervagant... et de maints autres dieux non moins extravagants," Annuaire de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves 7 (1939-1944), 464-6; idem,

"L'etymologie de Tervagant," in Melanges offerts a Gustave Cohen (Paris, 1950), pp. 71 f. See also Daniel, Islam and the West, pp. 12, 214 f., 311 f.

' See S. Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries,"Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946), 44; idem, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, 1 (New York, 1955), 103. Gregoire's interpretation was put forth in the context of an attempt to connect some of the strange names of the Muslim "idols" in the Song of Roland with translations and transformations of the idols in 1 Kings 11.5-7. Whatever the validity of these derivations, Petrus Alfonsi cannot, if I am correct, provide any evidence for an association of 1 Kings 11.5-7 with Islam.

6 Gregoire, "Les dieux Cahu, Baraton, Tervagant," p. 465, quoting M. Steinschneider, Polemzsche und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache (Leipzig, 1877), pp. 312 f. For the

passage in question see Tobiah b. Eliezer, Midrash Lekah Tob (Vilna, 1884), 2:250 and the comments of S. Buber in his introduction to the first volume, 1:18-22.

7 See Buber (above, n. 6). 8 See A. Khoury, Polemique byzantine contre l'Islam (Leiden, 1972), pp. 60-2, 162 f., 240-2,

275-9. For other sources that repeat Tobiah's statement, see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1956), 6:122, n. 715. I do not understand Ginzberg's statement that "these authorities regard Chemos as the Moabite Ka'bah."

Petrus Alfonsi on Mecca

well informed on Islam: he seems to think that Mecca is the name of the idolatrous stone! But he does demonstrate the existence, at least somewhere, of a Jewish identification of the Meccan cult with Kemosh.

Further progress in placing Alfonsi's account in the context of the

Hispano-Jewish tradition requires careful examination of the sources of that tradition. Although no relevant eleventh-century sources survive, some comments by twelfth-century figures are useful. It is also helpful to consider

writings by Jews elsewhere in the Arabic world that may have been available in Spain.

A word, first, about the general drift of these sources. None of them condemns Islam simply as an idolatrous religion or regards Allah as an "alien god." The issue of idolatry is invariably restricted to the status of

pagan remnants in the Meccan cult. In legal sources, this question comes up in connection with the Talmudic prohibition against deriving benefit from wine handled by idolators. Maimonides reports a'consensus on this issue: "[As to] any gentile who is not an idolator, like the Ishmaelites - their wine is

prohibited from drinking but permitted for benefit. And thus did all the ge'onim rule."9 Despite this apparent claim to unanimity, there did exist an opposing view that ascribed to Muslims the legal status of idolators.10 But because they argued on the grounds that pagan, pre-Islamic worship was preserved in Mecca, the proponents of this view were forced to maintain that "the Ishmaelite today is an idol worshiper although he is unaware that he worships." This concession proves fatal, for a "worshiper" who is unaware that he is worshiping is hardly a worshiper at all.1t

9Mishneh Torah, Ma'akalot Asurot 11.7. 10 See, e.g., the geonic responsum quoted in Abraham b. Isaac, Sefer ha-Eshkol, ed. H. Albeck, 2

(Jerusalem, 1938), 77 f.; see also Menahem ha-Meiri, Bet ha-Behirah, Abodah Zarah, ed. A. Sofer (Jerusalem, 1964), p. 214. There is rich documentation on the issue of "Ishmaelite wine" in Albeck's notes to his edition of Sefer ha-Eshkol, 2:74, 77 f. On the question of how to reconcile the testimony of Maimonides with the geonic source asserting that Muslims are idolators, see Albeck, pp. 77, n. 8, and 78, n. 7; cf. A. Schwarz, "Das Verhaltnis Maimuni's zu den Gaonen," in Moses Ben Maimon, ed. J. Guttmann (Leipzig, 1914), 1:362. In Hiddushe ha-Ramban, Abodah

Zarah, ed. M. Hershler (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 237 (to 57a), Nahmanides attributes the permission to profit from "Ishmaelite wine" to "some geonim," perhaps with the intention of correcting Maimonides' report.

Dispute over idolatry in Islam figures very briefly in Maimonides' early Epistle on Forced

Conversion, a defense of Jews who formally accepted Islam during the twelfth-century Almohade

persecutions in Spain and North Africa. The epistle rebuts a certain anonymous advocate of

martyrdom. Maimonides lists among the latter's irrelevancies "that the Ishmaelites have idols in Mecca and elsewhere - as if his questioner had asked him whether or not to make the

pilgrimage to Mecca" (Moses b. Maimon, Iggerot, ed. J. Kafih Jerusalem, 1972], p. 112). It may well be that Maimonides chose to brush aside the relevance of this issue so summarily for rhetorical reasons; see H. Soloveitchik, "Maimonides' Iggeret ha-Shemad: Law and Rhetoric," Joseph H. Lookstezn Jubilee Volume (forthcoming). For my purposes it suffices to note that here, too, the discussion of idolatry is focused only on pre-Islamic pagan remnants in Mecca and its environs.

1 See the responsum of Maimonides below, pp. 522-24. See further the contemporary Abraham ha-Yarhi, Sefer ha-Manhig, ed. Y. Raphael (Jerusalem, 1978), 1:194, and the testimony

519


In exegetical and polemical sources, discussion of the relationship between Islam and idolatry is similarly circumscribed. This is clear even in the

passage from Judah Halevi's Kuzari, adduced by Gregoire, in which the "wood and stone" of Deut. 28.36 are associated with Christianity and Islam. Halevi reproaches

their turning in prayer (istiqbalihim) toward places which were [formerly conse-

crated] to idols in regions where their masses happened to live . . besides their

retaining the ceremonies of the ancient cults, their pilgrimage days (ayydm hajjihd), and their rites of sacrifice. And they have destroyed only the [idolatrous] images which were there - those they erased, but not their customs. So that I could almost say that what God said, "thou shalt serve there other gods, wood and stone,"

. . is an allusion to those who exalt the wood [Cross] and those who exalt the

[Black] Stone.12

Halevi can "almost say" this; but not quite; for, as he concedes, "their faith is only in God." Petrus Alfonsi, who concedes that Islam is monotheistic but

reproaches it for preserving remnants of pre-Islamic paganism, fits well the

general trend of the Hispano-Jewish tradition.

Although Halevi includes Christianity in his concluding polemical in-

terpretation of Deut. 28.36, his terminology and the particular pagan practices that he mentions make it clear that he has been describing, in very general terms, the religious history of Mecca. In his accuracy, Halevi con- trasts sharply with Alfonsi. Whereas Halevi alludes to historical fact, that kernel of fact seems heavily overlaid with fancy in Alfonsi. But there are other Hispano-Jewish texts that can be helpful in explaining these fanciful particulars. Alfonsi's reference to Mercury is easiest to explain. The association of the Meccan cult with Merqulis - not in a generic sense but in its usual, specific sense - is widespread in the Hispano-Jewish tradition. This association probably resulted from the details about Mercury that talmudic sources, and particularly the Babylonian Talmud, happen to preserve. The statue of Mercury is never described, but there is prominent description and discussion of the trilithon.13 Moreover, the most prominently mentioned mode of worship is "casting a stone to Merqulis," which was taken to be a kind of ritual lapidation.14 Medieval Arabic-speaking Jews thus knew from

on Spanish practice, ibid., 2:660. Maimonides' view seems to be accepted without opposition by succeeding authorities; see, e.g., Tur and Shulh?na Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, no. 124.

12Judah ha-Levi, Kitdb al-Radd wu'l-Dalil fi 'I-Dinl al-Dhalil (The Kluzar), ed. D. Baneth (Jerusalem, 1977), 4.11, p. 162. For two possible understandings of Halevi's exegesis of Deut. 28.36, see Maimonides, Iggeret Teman, ed. A. S. Halkin (New York, 1952), p. 32, and Simon b. Zemah Duran, Qeshet u-Magen (Leghorn, 1750), p. 25b.

13 The Babylonian Talmud seems to identify Merqulis completely with the trilithon; see Abodah Zarah 50a; see too Rashi, Sanhedrm 60b, s.v. merqulzs; R. Hananel in Osar ha-Geonim, Baba Mesia, ed. B. M. Lewin (Jerusalem, n.d.), 3:38. For the various forms of Merqulis see W. A. L. Elmslie, The Mzshnah on Idolatry (Cambridge, 1911), pp. 62, 74.

14 See, e.g., Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.6: "ha-zoreq eben le-merqulis." The reference is to the custom of wayfarers to render homage to Mercury by contributing a stone to form a cairn

Petrus Alfonsi on Mecca 521

talmudic literature of an object of pagan worship called Merqulis, which consisted of sacred stones and was worshiped by lapidation. They also knew that sacred stones and a lapidation rite of pagan origin were central to the cult at Mecca.15 It was natural therefore to associate that lapidation rite with

Merqulis. A scholar as critical as Abraham ibn Ezra took this association

seriously. It even became possible to completely identify the Mishnaic Mer-

qulis with the (presumably pre-Islamic) Meccan cult. In light of this association it is no wonder that Petrus Alfonsi put Mercurius in the Ka'ba.16

Having just named his black stone Mercury, Alfonsi immediately says that it was in honor of Saturn. The tendency to connect all idolatry with astral

beside the statue; see Elmslie, Mishnah on Idolatry, p. 62, and already R. Benjamin Mussafia, Musaf he-'Aruk in 'Aruk ha-Shalem, ed. A. Kohut (Tel Aviv, 1970), 5:262. But in the Babylonian Talmud this is taken to be a kind of stoning; see Sanhedrin 61a, 64a; and this is, of course, the

prevailing medieval understanding. i' See M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, "Radjm," Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden, 1965), pp.

464-6; A. J. Wensinck and J. Jomier, "Hadjdj," Encylopaedia of Islam, new ed. (Leiden, 1960-), 3:31-8; idem, "Ka'ba," ibid., 4:317-22. The lapidation ceremony, strictly speaking, takes place outside of Mecca, in Mina.

16 For identification of the Meccan cult with Merqulis see Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary to Danwel 11.30; Ibn Ezra's Short Commentary on Daniel, ed. H. J. Mathews, in Miscellany of Hebrew Literature, ed. A. Lowy, 2 (London, 1887), p. 11 (Heb. sect.); and the responsum of Maimonides

quoted below, pp. 522-24. See also Asher b. Yehiel, Responsa (New York, 1954), 5:2. Writing about 1200, R. Meir Abulafia of Toledo explains "casting a stone to Merqulis" as follows: "There are three stones in a city named Mecca, one alongside the other and one on top of them; and they are called Merqulis; and its [mode of] worship is throwing stones ..." (Hiddushe ha-Ramah al Maseket Sanhedrin [New York, 1958], 60b, p. 114). Here the Mishnaic Merqulis is described as a trilithon and identified with the pre-Islamic cult still present in Mecca. It is unclear how Abulafia understood the instances of Merqulis in Palestine. See, e.g., Berakot 57b; 'Abodah Zarah 50a. Simon Duran (Qeshet u-Magen, p. 25b) seems to have read the above-quoted passage from Halevi in light of the Merqulis tradition and thus takes "the stone" referred to by Halevi to be, not the Black Stone, but "the lapidation stone at their pilgrimage." Note too the centrality of

lapidation, explicitly associated with Merqulis, in the interesting legend about why Maimonides left Spain told by Joseph Sambari, Dibre Yosef, in Medieval Jewish Chronicles, ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1887), 1:117. As an aside it may be noted that the Meccan lapidation is associated with the contribution of a stone to Mercury's cairn by J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (Berlin, 1897), p. 111. But unlike that of his medieval predecessors (of whom he was doubtless unaware) Wellhausen's perspective seems purely comparative.

I have, of course, been assuming that Alfonsi, or his source, could correctly identify Merqulis with Mercurius. This identification was not common knowledge among European Talmudists. See, e.g., Tosafot, Sanhedrin 64a, s.v. marqulis; Tosafot, Abodah Zarah 50b, s.v. abne. See also the

interesting reconstruction of Ha-Meiri, Bet ha-Behirah, 'Abodah Zarah, p. 184. But these authors did not, like Alfonsi, have access to Latin sources and might never have heard of the worship of Mercurius. When such information was available, the identification could be readily made. See, e.g., the Hebrew-Italian glossary published as an appendix to Un glossariofilosofico ebraico-italiano del XIII secolo, ed. G. Sermoneta (Rome, 1969), p. 462; and Elijah Levita, Sefer ha-Tishbi (Grodno, 1805), s.v. merqulis, p. 38. This identification would have been even more obvious to a Latin scholar in Alfonsi's Spain since precisely the sort of dissimilation that turned Mercurius into Merculis is evident in the Spanish mwercoles. The similarity is noted by M. Griinbaum, Gesammelte

Aufsdtze zur Sprach- und Sagenkunde (Berlin, 1901), pp. 224 f. (this reference was called to my attention by Prof. Moshe Sokolow).


worship is familiar from Jewish and Arabic sources,17 and the connection of the Ka'ba, in particular, with Saturn is mentioned by Arabic historians.18 But how could Alfonsi possibly associate a stone he has just named Mercury with Saturn? Had the name Mercury been borrowed from the astral realm, this

discrepancy would be inexplicable. But apparently Alfonsi derived the names of his idolatrous stones from Jewish sources and then sought to link these idols with astral worship. Mercury was, for him, the proper name of the black stone itself, drawn from the realm of popular Jewish polemic against Islam.19

But why should Alfonsi want to connect Mercury with Ammon and Moab? Alfonsi's confusion seems undeniable on this score. But even confusion has its source, and there is a responsum of Maimonides that allows for conjecture on the source of Alfonsi's confusion. Maimonides was asked by R. Obadiah, a proselyte, to decide between his view, that Muslims are not idolators, and the heatedly expressed contention of his teacher that they are idolators and that the Meccan lapidation ceremony constitutes worship of Merqulis.20 Since Maimonides' response is of some interest and his words, as always, are measured, it may be useful to quote the relevant portion in full:

The Ishmaelites are not at all idolators; [idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts; and they attribute to God a proper unity, a unity concerning which there is no doubt (dofi).21 And because they lie about us and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolators.22 The Torah has testified concerning them: "Whose mouth speaks lies and whose oath is falsehood" [Ps. 144.8], and it has testified concerning us: "The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth" [Zephaniah 3.13].23 And should anyone

17 See, e.g., D. Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg, 1856), 1:182 f. Chwolsohn's claim that the medieval Arabic identification is already evident in Talmudic literature seems questionable. But it is certainly present in medieval Jewish authors, most notably Maimonides. See, e.g., Mishneh Torah, 'Abodah Zarah 1.1-2; and Guide of the Perplexed 3.29. There are interesting points of contact between Maimonides' account of the origins of idolatry and Mas'udi, Les prairies d'or, trans. and ed. C. Barbier de Meynard, 4 (Paris, 1865), 42-4, as was noticed already by Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 1:209, n. 2.

18 See Mas'udi, Les prairies d'or, 4:44; Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 2:383, 516, 673 f. 19 This explanation renders Alfonsi's identification at best explicable; it remains exceedingly

strange that he should not have sensed some contradiction in identifying an idol named Mercury with Saturn.

20 Obadiah was probably a convert from Islam, living in Palestine; see Teshubot ha-Rambam, ed. J. Blau and A. Freiman (Jerusalem, 1961), 3:44 f. As the question to Maimonides indicates, identification of the Meccan cult with Merqulis was not confined to the Spanish tradition. Maimonides himself, though living in Egypt, regarded himself as representative of the His- pano-Jewish intellectual tradition, and justifiably so.

21 I translate dofi as "doubt," in conformity with Maimonides' own usage in Mishneh Torah, Yesode ha-Torah 8.1-2; Qiddush ha-Hodesh 17.24; and Teshubot ha-Rambam, ed. Blau and Freiman, 2:715. Cf. H. Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, 2 (Cambridge, 1977), 445.

22 The charge to which Maimonides refers occurs in Qur'an 9.30; see H. Z. Hirschberg, "Ezra-in Islam," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), 6:1106 f.

23 For the use here of Ps. 144.8, cf. S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2 (Berkeley, 1971),


say that the house that they honor [the Ka'ba] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship, then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven. And our rabbis of blessed memory have already made clear in [tractate] Sanhedrin that if a person bowed down to a house of idolatry while under the impression that it was a synagogue, then his heart was surrendered to Heaven [and so he is not culpable].24 Likewise the Ishmaelites today - idolatry has been severed from the mouths of all of them [including] women and children. Their error and foolishness is in other

things which cannot be put in writing because of the renegades and wicked among Israel [i.e., apostates].25 But as regards the unity of God they have no error at all.

Now it is true that the Ishmaelites formerly had three kinds of idolatry in those

places - Pe'or, Merqulis, and Kemosh. And they themselves concede these things today and call them names in Arabic. The [mode of] worship of Pe'or is that one bare oneself before him or lower one's head and raise one's secret parts toward

him, the way the Ishmaelites bow down today during their prayer. And the [mode of] worship of Merqulis is lapidation.26 And the [mode of] worship of Kemosh is

leaving the hair uncut and uncovered (be-peri'at ha-rosh) and not wearing seamed

clothing.27 All of these things are explicit and known among us from before the rise of the religion of the Ishmaelites. But the Ishmaelites today say: "The reason that we leave our hair uncut and uncovered and do not wear seamed clothing is in

order to humble ourselves before God and to remember how a man will rise from his grave [on Judgment Day].28 And the reason that we throw stones is [that] we are throwing them at Satan in order to confuse him." And others from among

275. For its juxtaposition to Zeph. 3.13, see Mishnah 'im Perush R. Moshe b. Maimon, ed. J. Qapah, 2 (Jerusalem, 1963), 195 (to Pesahim 8.6). This juxtaposition was derived by combining Yerushalmi Pesahim 8.6, 36a, with Babli Pesahim 91a.

24 See Sanhedrin 61b. Maimonides is disposing here, with finesse, of the argument that "the Ishmaelite today" can be "an idol worshiper although he is unaware that he worships"; see above.

25 "posh'e ve-rish'e yisrael." For poshe'a as an apostate see Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2:300. For fear of denunciation inhibiting polemical writing against Islam generally, see Simon

Duran, Qeshet u-Magen, p. 25b, and with regard to Maimonides himself, see his Iggeret Teman, ed. Halkin, pp. 106 f. and n. 159.

26 "regimat abanim." Rabbinic sources use mostly forms of zaraq for the stone throwing at

Merqulis (although the Aramaic, le-mirgemeh, does occur in Sanhedrin 66a; cf. Hullin 133a). Moreover the noun form regimah is rare in rabbinic Hebrew. It may therefore have been used as an equivalent to the Arabic rajm, the term for the stone throwing during the hajj; see, e.g., Gaudefroy-Demombynes, "Radjm," pp. 464-6. Note that the eleventh-century North African, R. Hananel (above, n. 13), already uses "regimat abanim" to describe the worship of Mercury, possibly reflecting an early association of Mercury with the Meccan cult.

27 "peri'at ha-rosh" could mean leaving the hair either uncovered or uncut. Since both

practices are in force during the Meccan pilgrimage, I assume that Maimonides meant to refer, economically, to both. Note, however, that Duran (Qeshet u-Magen 19b), in restating this tradition, uses the phrase "geluy ha-rosh" (with uncovered head). Uncovered and uncut hair as well as seamless clothing are characteristic of the state of ihrdm (consecration) assumed on the Meccan pilgrimage; see A.J. Wensinck and J. Jomier, "Ihram," Encylopaedia of Islam, 3:1052 f. It is apparently this state that Maimonides associates with Kemosh.

28 The source of this explanation may be Al-Ghazzali; see H. Lazarus-Yafeh, "Ha-

Problematiqah ha-Datit shel ha-'Aliyah le-Regel be-Islam," Dibre ha-Aqademiyah ha-Yisraelit le- Mada'zm, 5 (1976), 240. Cf. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, trans. F. Rosenthal (Princeton, 1967), 2:367.


their clever men give as a reason: "there were idols there and we stone the place of the idols, as if to say that we do not believe in the idols that were there and by way of abusing them we stone them." And others say: "It is a custom."29 The long and short of it is that even though at their root these things were established for

idolatry, not a man in the world throws these stones or bows down to that place or does any of the rites for the sake of idolatry - neither verbally nor mentally, their heart is rather surrendered (masur) to Heaven.30

Besides arguing the case for Islamic monotheism with exceptional strength and clarity, Maimonides presents an interesting theory on the threefold nature of pre-Islamic paganism. In addition to Merqulis, he includes Pe'or and Kemosh among the pre-Islamic cults that continue to leave their mark on Muslim worship. Although no earlier source for this theory survives, we

may hypothesize that Maimonides did not create it out of whole cloth, but that it rather reflects an older tradition. And it is in light of such a tradition that Alfonsi's curious confusion begins to make some sense. For Pe'or is

associated, in the Bible, with Moab, and Kemosh is connected with both Moab and Ammon. There existed, then, a tradition on the Islamic cult that could bring Ammon and Moab together with Mercury.31 Alfonsi may have

garbled some version of this tradition, omitting Pe'or and linking Mercury with Ammon and Moab.32

But Alfonsi not only conflates and confuses the tradition, he alters its fundamental tendency. It is not simply a matter of idolatries known from

Jewish sources being worshiped in pre-Islamic Arabia and partially preserved under Islam. These idolatries are rather claimed to have been founded at the Ka'ba by the biblical Ammon and Moab themselves. Alfonsi

29 Cf. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, "Radjm," p. 466. 30 Teshubot ha-Rambam, ed. Blau and Freiman, 2:725-7. The final expression in this passage,

"libbam masur la-shamayyim," appears also above, in Maimonides' quote from Sanhedrin 61b: "libbo masur la-shamayyim." But the Talmudic text lacks the word masur (surrendered). It is

probably Maimonides' addition, perhaps intended to suggest the notion of islam (submission to God); cf. Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, p. 266, n. 56.

31 Note too the possible use of Ammon and Moab as symbols for Islam in liturgical poetry; see Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, p. 294. The two occur together in a

poem of Judah Halevi: "The Hagarite, Moabite, and Ammonite boast against me of prophecy" (Ha-Shzrah ha-Ibrit be-Sefarad ube-Provence, ed. H. Schirmann Jerusalem, 1961], 1:482). Cf. Psalm 83.7. Possibly Halevi had in mind distinct Muslim groups. A contemporary Christian source mentions both "Agarenes" and "Moabites," the latter referring to the Almoravids, according to N. Daniel, The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe (London, 1975), pp. 85, 94. But Halevi himself uses "Philistines" for the Almoravids (Ha-Shirah ha-Ibrit, ed. Schirmann, 1:479).

32 It is possible, though not overwhelmingly probable, that in mentioning Kemosh while

omitting Pe'or Alfonsi was influenced by Jerome's comment to Is. 15.2: "In Nabo erat Chamos idolum consecratum, quod alio nomine vocatur Beelphegor" (quoted by Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 2:165). It is intriguing that the city of Nebo is associated in Arabic sources with the idol Nebo, which in turn is identified as 'Utarid-Mercury; see ibid., pp. 164 f. But whether this link between Mercury, Pe'or, and Kemosh exists anywhere outside the pages of Chwolsohn's treatise, and, more to the point, whether it has anything to do with the tradition that influenced Alfonsi and Maimonides, I tend to doubt.


seems intent upon setting up a pagan pedigree for the Ka'ba that will oppose the Qur'an on its own terms. The Qur'an claims that a monotheistic cult was established at the Ka'ba by Abraham and Ishmael.33 No, counters Alfonsi, it was an idolatrous cult established by the (disgracefully begotten) sons of Lot. This biblical pedigree would seem to be Alfonsi's innovation or perhaps that of a lost source used by him.

In the tradition as formulated by Maimonides, the polemical impulse has not so thoroughly overwhelmed the historical. His account represents an

attempt to correlate Arabic sources on pre-Islamic Meccan cults with the varieties of talmudic paganism. We have seen how this tendency produced an association of the Meccan cult with Mercury. The link with Pe'or, whose

worshipers, according to Palestinian rabbinic sources, bared themselves in the idol's presence, may have been suggested by the report that in pre- Islamic times circuit of the Ka'ba was made in a state of nakedness.34 A remnant of this pre-Islamic practice was then found by putting an uncom-

plimentary interpretation on the posture assumed by Muslims in prayer.35

33 See Wensinck and Jomier, "Ka'ba," pp. 318-20. 34 See H. Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidre Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1959), 4:449. This is the interpreta-

tion followed by Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Abodat Kokabim 3.2; Guide of the Perplexed 3.45. Cf. Meir Abulafia, Hiddushe ha-Ramah 'al Maseket Sanhedrin 60b, p. 114. For the pre-Islamic practice, see Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, pp. 110, 248.

35 Elaboration on this theme appears in a work by R. Seth b. Jefet ("the physician") written in

Aleppo, in the second half of the thirteenth century: "I think it appropriate to write here

[about] why we do not kneel, bow or fall on our faces in prayer but rather bend a bit during our

prayer [the 'amidah] and [then] lean on our left side and supplicate. Know that they [the rabbis] of blessed memory kept themselves and us far from [the practices of] idolators. For some of them perform the worship of Pe'or. [They do this] in two fashions: one, by [the worshiper] leaning forward on his spinal vertebrae and raising his legs so that his secret parts remain facing the idol .... Another of them kneels, places his head on the ground and his bottom up facing the idol. And because of this our rabbis of blessed memory said: 'the goyyim are worshippers of

idolatry in purity.' They therefore set as the limit of bending - till one's head faces his heart. And so ought one to do" (quoted by N. Wieder, Hashpa'ot Islamiyot 'al ha-Pulhan ha-Yehudi

[Oxford, 1947], p. 64). Seth b. Jefet associates two prayer postures with Pe'or. The first, corresponding to the Muslim ruku', is the one described by Maimonides. The second, corre-

sponding to the sujud, appears in the slightly variant version of Maimonides' tradition in Duran, Qeshet u-Magen, p. 19b; cf. above, n. 27. For these postures see, e.g., M. Gaudefroy- Demombynes, Muslim Institutions (London, 1950), pp. 73 f. Apparently the Pe'or theme served not only anti-Muslim polemic but also an internal polemic against Jewish adoption of Muslim

prayer postures; see on this controversy Wieder, Hashpa'ot, pp. 47-64. Whether this was behind the Pe'or theme from the beginning or was only a later, secondary use is difficult to say. Particularly striking is Seth's final quotation from "our rabbis of blessed memory." They are

clearly not the talmudic rabbis. What we do find in the Talmud is the statement that "Israelites

living outside the Land of Israel are worshipers of idolatry in purity" - i.e., though innocent of

outright idolatry they cannot help but be tainted by idolatrous associations; see 'Abodah Zarah 8a. The remarkable transformation from "Israelites" to goyyim begins to make sense if we assume that goyyzm here is being used in the peculiar sense - familiar from genizah documents - of Muslims (see Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2:278), and that the rabbis in question represent the consensus of earlier medieval authorities, like Maimonides, whose attitude toward Islamic

worship is summed up in the pithy saying quoted by Seth b. Jefet.


Worship in the ihram state, which Maimonides associates with Kemosh, was known to have been practiced among pre-Islamic Arabs; but the rabbinic source connecting seamless clothing and uncut hair with Kemosh is un- known to me and may be lost.36

There seems to be some further kinship between Maimondes' tradition and Alfonsi's account of the peculiar way in which the cultic practices of Ammon and Moab were preserved at Mecca:

Twice a year their devotees [i.e., of Mercurius/Saturn and Chamos/Mars] went up to

worship them: to Mars when the sun enters the first degree of Aries, because Aries is the offering [time] of Mars, in whose disjunction, as was the custom, stones were thrown; to Saturn when the sun enters the first degree of Libra, because Libra is the offering [time] of Saturn. They would sacrifice then in the nude and with shorn heads.... The Arabs worshiped idols with Ammon and Moab. Muhammad, coming long after, was unable to remove the original custom, but as if in a somewhat changed fashion permitted making the circuit of the house [the Ka'ba] covered with unsewn garments. But in order not to appear to command sacrificing to idols, he built the image of Saturn into the wall in the corner of the house [so that] its face should not be visible; only its rear is located on the outside. The other idol, that is, the one of Mars, because it was sculpted on all sides was below the

ground and he [Muhammad] put a stone on top of it. He,commanded the people who gathered there to kiss these stones and, humbled and with shorn heads, to throw stones backwards through the legs, that humbling themselves they bare [themselves] behind, which is a sign of the original law.37

There is significant overlap in the pagan practices enumerated here by Alfonsi and those found in Maimonides. Both stress stoning and seamless

clothing. Where Maimonides mentions uncut hair, Alfonsi mentions a

cropped head; but the two are related since the hair is often cut preparatory to assuming the ihram state.38 These similarities strengthen the suspicion that Alfonsi was influenced by some version of the tradition preserved by Maimonides.39 According to Alfonsi, the Meccan lapidation is done backwards through the legs.40 Maimonides does not mention this detail. And, in

fact, no such practice is known from Muslim sources.41 But the same notion does crop up in a talmudic commentary composed about 1200 by Meir Abulafia of Toledo (who also mentions the shaved head).42 It seems likely, therefore, that in this instance, too, Alfonsi was drawing on a popular

36 See F. Buhl, "Manat," Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 325. Some classical source for Maimonides' description of Kemosh worship is indicated by his claim that "all of these things are explicit and known among us from before the rise of the religion of the Ishmaelites."

37 PL 157:602D-3B. 38 See Wensinck and Jomier, "Ihram," 1053. 39 But, in linking lapidation to Chamos/Mars and ihrdm to Mercurius/Saturn, Alfonsi seems

again somewhat confused. 40 See besides the passage quoted above, PL 157:598A. 41 That Alfonsi was mistaken on this score is noted by Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 218. 42 Hiddushe ha-Ramah 'al Maseket Sanhedrin 60b, p. 114.


Hispano-Jewish tradition. But what purpose could such a tradition possibly have served? We may conjecture that it originally represented an attempt to link the Meccan cult to Pe'or and Merqulis at the same time. For in throwing backwards through the legs, one perforce assumes, toward the object of

lapidation, precisely the posture described by Maimonides as characteristic of Pe'or worship. The idea of backwards lapidation and its origin may then have stuck although its association with Pe'or was forgotten.

Alfonsi stresses the report - which, we have hypothesized, originally gave rise to the Pe'or tradition - that circuit of the Ka'ba was, in the pagan period, done in the nude. In fact, in the not very luminous conclusion to the

passage quoted above, Alfonsi seems quite explicitly to link backward lapidation with a Pe'or-like ritual baring. This would explain the strange fact that Alfonsi stresses backwards lapidation as a pagan remnant in the Muslim cult but says nothing whatever about the lapidation being backwards when he describes the cult of the pagan period itself! In Alfonsi's account, lapidation and ritual baring were originally performed in two separate seasons. Only when, under Islam, remnants of these two cults were consolidated in a single yearly pilgrimage43 could lapidation and ritual baring be combined by throw-

ing stones backwards through the legs. Another practice viewed by Alfonsi as a pagan remnant but not mentioned in his description of the pagan cult itself is seamless clothing. Alfonsi, if I understand him correctly, sees unsewn clothes as a kind of compromise with the old custom of no clothes at all.

Apparently, then, although Alfonsi names only Mercury and Kemosh, there remain, in his account, traces of the tradition linking the Meccan cult with Pe'or.44

An important aspect of Alfonsi's account, not - to my knowledge mentioned in Jewish sources, is his further identification of the Meccan deities with the two unlucky planets, Saturn and Mars. Saturn, we recall, is

explicitly associated with the Ka'ba in Arabic sources. The link with Mars is harder to explain. It may be that here Alfonsi was building on his Jewish sources. Having associated the Meccan cult with Kemosh, on the basis of the

Hispano-Jewish tradition, he could then have gone on, on the basis of patristic sources, to link Kemosh with Mars and Aries.45

43 Alfonsi's assumption that the pre-Islamic calendar had a solar year and that the Islamic hajj consolidated practices from different pre-Islamic solar festivals is probably based on Arabic sources; see Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, pp. 94 ff.

44 Abulafia (above, n. 42), having identified the Merqulis of Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.6 with the Meccan cult, wonders why the Mishnah mentions only lapidation as its mode of worship but

neglects to mention that the throwing of stones must be done backwards through the thighs and that it must be preceded by shaving the head and beard. Given Abulafia's assumptions, the

question makes sense. But why did he view precisely lapidation, its being done backwards, and

shaving as the essence of the pre-Islamic cult? If we are correct, these three were originally associated with Merqulis, Pe'or, and Kemosh. Abulafia's enumeration may have originated in this Hispano-Jewish tradition although Abulafia himself seems aware only of a link with

Merqulis. 45 See Jerome's translation of Eusebius's Onomasticon, in Onomastica Sacra, ed. Faul Lagarde


Maimonides indicates that the three idolatries - Merqulis, Pe'or, and Kemosh - are well known to Muslims by their Arabic names. What Arabic names did he have in mind? The only well-known triad of pre-Islamic deities is that of "the daughters of Allah," al-'Uzza, al-Lat, and Manat.46 It is not clear why they should be identified with Merqulis, Pe'or, and Kemosh. The only apparent connection is that of Kemosh with Manat, which was worshiped in the ihram state.47 Still, it is likely that Maimondes was, in fact, alluding to the "daughters of Allah," for the notion that the "daughters of Allah" had left their mark on the Muslim cult in Mecca figures quite explicitly in earlier Eastern interpretation of the eleventh chapter of Daniel.

Both Rabbanites and Karaites take the "king" mentioned in Daniel 11.36, who will "do according to his will," to be Muhammad and then apply the remainder of the chapter to the course of Islamic history.48 The tenth- century Karaite Daniel al-Qumisi, in his commentary on Daniel 11.37-38, combines acknowledgment of Islam's monotheism with reproach for its retention of pagan remnants in a manner reminiscent of later Spanish sources:

And concerning the gods of his fathers [v. 37], i.e., the idols which his fathers had

worshiped, he shall not regard them, but only the one and only God.... But the God of fortresses (eloah ma'uzzim) [v. 38] - some say that this means al-Lat and al-'Uzza, since before [Muhammad's] advent the inhabitants of the provinces around Mecca used to worship the god of fortresses, i.e., the local god of their provinces,fortresses meaning the same thing as provinces - he shall honor in his seat, since he left [him] there unharmed, as it is said that the people of the environs of Mecca came to him and made a covenant with him that he should not destroy the local god offortresses but should leave him in his seat.49

The tradition about al-Lat and al-'Uzza in this passage is probably based on the famous "satanic verses" that were for a time part of the Qur'an: "Have ye considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? These are the swans exalted whose intercession is to be hoped for." Accord-

(Gottingen, 1887), pp. 121 (s.v. Arnon), 133 (s.v. Arihel), 168 f. (s.v. Moab), which could have

suggested a link between Moab, Aries, Mars worship, and the Arabs; see too p. 124 (s.v. Ammon) and the reference, in this context, to the founding role of the sons of Lot. Cf. M. D. Cassuto, "Kemosh," Encylopaedia Biblica (Hebrew), 4 (Jerusalem, 1962), 188.

46 See Buhl's articles on "Al-Lat," "Manat," and "Al-'Uzza" in Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, pp. 287, 325, 617; F. Winnett, "The Daughters of Allah," The Moslem World 30 (1940), 113-30.

47 See above, n. 36. 48 See Saadya Gaon, Emunot ve-De'ot, ed. J. Qapah (Jerusalem, 1970), 7.2, p. 223. Cf. Abraham

ibn Ezra, Commentary on Daniel 11.30; and Abraham bar Hiyya, Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed. A. Poznanski (Berlin, 1924), pp. 98 f. Abraham ibn Daud's reference to Muhammad as "king of the Arabs" (Sefer ha-Qabbalah, ed. and trans. G. Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967], p. 45) thus has its source in Jewish exegesis; see also Bar Hiyya, Megillat ha-Megalleh, p. 96. Cohen's conjecture (Sefer ha-Qabbalah, p. 126) that Ibn Daud used a Mozarabic source is thus unnecessary.

49 For this text see J. Mann, "Early Karaite Bible Commentary," Jewish Quarterly Review 12 (1922), 520 f., 525. The translation is taken from the Karaite Anthology, ed. L. Nemoy (New Haven, 1952), p. 40.


ing to a tradition preserved by Tabari, Muhammad recited these verses when offered an alliance by the Meccan nobility on the condition that he accept its goddesses.50 Al-Qumisi's polemical version neglects to mention that this concession was later renounced - implying that the cult of al-Lat and al-'Uzza is still preserved in Mecca. The omission of Manat is not too surprising since al-Lat and al-'Uzza were considered the more important deities and are often mentioned alone.51 Al-Qumisi seems no longer aware of the gender of these deities and moreover treats al-Lat and al-'Uzza as one god.

A Karaite would not, of course, share the Rabbinite interest in finding talmudic equivalents for pre-Islamic deities. Karaite polemical tradition, therefore, preserves the original Arabic names. But in the commentary on Daniel by Abraham ibn Ezra, this same tradition appears as follows: "The

people of Mecca did not accept [Muhammad's] authority until he swore to them that he would not remove the cult of Merqulis."52 Here we have a clear instance of substitution of the rabbinic Merqulis for the original Arabic names. Maimonides' tradition supplies, beside Merqulis, two additional deities, thus establishing an exact correspondence with the three "daughters of Allah."53

In another early Karaite commentary, two idolatrous stones named al-Lat and al-'Uzza are said to be preserved in Mecca.54 This version is particularly interesting because of its points of contact with the account of Petrus Alfonsi. Not only does it focus on two rather than three deities but, as in Alfonsi, these two deities are idolatrous stones. Alfonsi locates his stones at the Ka'ba

50 See W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford, 1960), pp. 101-3. "I See Buhl, "Al-'Uzza," p. 617.

2 Commentary on Daniel 11.30. 53 Since lapidation as Mercury worship and ritual baring as Pe'or worship appear in talmudic

sources, their association with the Meccan cult is almost certainly of Rabbanite origin. But the Kemosh theme (whose talmudic roots are not apparent) may well have been in use among early Karaites since Karaite exegesis regularly associates Islam with Moab. See, e.g., S. Skoss, ed., David b. Abraham Al-Fasi, Kitdb Jdmi' al-Alfdz, 1 (New Haven, 1936), xxxix; Yefet b. 'Ali, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. and trans. D. S. Margoliouth (Oxford, 1889), p. 143 (Arabic), p. 79 (English); and S. Pinsker, Liqute Qadmoniyot (Vienna, 1860), pp. 158 f. Yefet takes the destruction of the Moabite sanctuary prophesied in Is. 16.12 to refer to the contemporary destruction of the Ka'ba by the Carmathians. See Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (New York, 1959), pp. 88 f., n. 7; and N. Wieder, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites," Between East and West, ed. A. Altmann (London, 1958), 99-105. Some related source (dimly understood) might have been behind the very similar sounding interpretation given to Num. 21.29 by Tobiah b. Eliezer (above, n. 6; cf. Buber, ibid.). Note that Tobiah was familiar with Karaite literature; see Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, p. 240. Reference to Kemosh as god of the Muslims appears in a fourteenth-century Spanish Hebrew source quoted in F. Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien, 1 (Berlin, 1929), 316.

54 Quoted by Steinschneider (Polemische und apologetische Literatur, p. 312) from the twelfth-

century Karaite, Jacob b. Reuben, who is in turn quoting an earlier unnamed Karaite authority. The "daughters of Allah" were, in fact, associated with sacred stones; see Wellhausen, Reste arabzschen Heidentums, pp. 25, 29, 38 f. I wonder whether the contention that there is a trilithon in Mecca (see above, n. 16) was not originally facilitated by reports about these stones.


identifying one of them with the Black Stone. Still another Karaite commen- tator seems to point in this direction.55 Alfonsi was probably familiar with Karaite sources, and it is possible that they, too, influenced his account.56

The Black Stone figures prominently in Hispano-Jewish polemic. Halevi and Ibn Ezra allude to it. And the popular tradition, reported by Maimon- ides, that there is an idol in the Ka'ba doubtless refers to it too.57 Alfonsi

implies that the Black Stone was set backwards in the wall of the Ka'ba to obscure idolatrous carving on its face. Reference to idolatrous carving on the Black Stone appears also in Jewish sources. The Talmudic dictionary of Nathan b. Yehiel of Rome (1101) contains the following entry:

NShR - in the first chapter of [tractate] 'Abodah Zarah [1 b] .. . [we read]:

"Nishrayya which is in Arabia." A gaon explained: "There is in Arabia a house; and it is a house of idolatry. And there is a stone in it; and it is engraved; and they bow down to it."58

Steinschneider long ago suggested that the gaon was alluding to the Black Stone and the Ka'ba, and there is little doubt that this suggestion is correct.59

" See Yefet b. 'Ali, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 127, 131 (Arabic), pp. 67, 70 (English); see above, n. 31. Margoliouth translates the waw in "al-Lat wa'l-'Uzza" as "or"; but in light of the other Karaite sources, the usual "and" seems indicated.

56 See E. Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain, 2:273. Alfonsi does not mention "the daughters of Allah" explicitly. But the "satanic verses" are mentioned by the thirteenth-century Spaniard San Pedro Pascual, who has important points of contact with Alfonsi. San Pedro, however, was aware that Muhammad's praise of "the daughters of Allah" was retracted; see Daniel, Islam and the West, pp. 42, 218, 311.

Al-Lat is named in the near contemporary anti-Muslim polemic of Marc of Toledo, which may have points of contact with Alfonsi; see M. T. d'Alverny and G. Vajda, "Marc de Tolede, Traducteur d'Ibn Tumart," Al-Andalus 16 (1951), 120-3. D'Alverny and Vajda think that the idols of "iron and stone" to which Marc of Toledo refers are "slightly different replicas" of the two stones in Alfonsi. The reference to iron, they suggest, reflects legends of an idol suspended in the air by invisible magnets. Note, however, that Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed 3.29) describes the

temples of the Sabians as containing "images made of cast metal and stone"; see Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 2:461 and n. 49. Maimonides, like his Arabic contemporaries, took the Sabians as his model for idolatry; see ibid., 1:182 f. It may be, then, that Marc was simply using a stock

description of idolatry and not necessarily conflating Alfonsi's two stones with the hidden magnet legend.

57 See the passages from Halevi and Maimonides above and Ibn Ezra's Commentary to Daniel 11.30. See further Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur, pp. 311-3; and Ibn Kammuna's Examination of the Three Faiths, ed. and trans. M. Perlmann (Berkeley, 1971), p. 148.

'8 See 'Aruk ha-Shalem, ed. Kohut, 5:395. '9 Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetzsche Literatur, p. 312. The gaon in question is probably

not Hai (d. 1038), as suggested by Steinschneider. He is possibly Nahshon b. Zadok (c. 871); see I. N. Epstein, "Die Rechtsgutachten der Geonim," Jahrbuch der jiidisch-literarischen Gesellschaft 9 (1911), 240, n. 2. This source provides another example of the tendency to correlate Talmudic idolatries with the Meccan cult. The actual Talmudic Nishrayya (or Nishra) is probably the

Himyarite Nasr, mentioned in the Qur'an (71.23). The true location of this deity was known in medieval Arabic sources; see, e.g., Hisham ibn al-Kalbi, The Book of Idols, trans. N. Faris (Prince- ton, 1952), pp. 10, 50. It is nevertheless difficult to assume (as does Kohut) that the gaon had the

Himyarite deity in mind. Steinschneider's interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the Tal-


An obscure remark in the Pentateuch commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra confirms the existence, among Spanish Jews, of a tradition about a carved stone in the Ka'ba. On Leviticus 26.1, "nor shall you place a maskit stone in your land to bow down upon it," the ever enigmatic Ibn Ezra comments:

Maskit - . Its sense is - a figured stone. You shall not place in your land - This is the manner of the idolatry of Merqulis.60

Since Ibn Ezra elsewhere identifies the Black Stone with Merqulis, it seems

likely that he is alluding to the tradition, used by Alfonsi, that there is idolatrous carving on the Black Stone.61

mudic report on Nishra is used to argue the idolatrous status of the Ishmaelites by the authorities

quoted in Sefer ha-Eshkol and Bet ha-Behirah (above, n. 10). The gaon's use of the present tense would seem also to associate him with the argument that the Meccan cult, even under Islam, remains formally idolatrous. (This is the solution to the problem raised by Albeck, Sefer ha-Eshkol, 2:78, n. 3.) The gaon's use of bayit (house) probably reflects both the talmudic description of Nishra as a "house of idolatry" and the standard use of bayt for the Ka'ba (e.g., Qur'an 2.15). Alfonsi too refers to the Ka'ba as a domus. Compare the gaon's formulation with the language of Maimonides' discussion above. The claim of the gaon that "they bow down to it," alluding to the Muslim practice of bowing during prayer toward Mecca (and more precisely toward the Ka'ba), is also addressed in Maimonides' responsum.

60Perush ha-Torah, ed. A. Weiser (Jerusalem, 1976). 61 An alternative understanding of Ibn Ezra's comment is to view it as based on the Palestin-

ian Talmud, 'Abodah Zarah 4.1, 43d, where Lev. 26.1 is taken as a prohibition against bowing to a trilithon; see on this source G. Blidstein, "Prostration and Mosaics in Talmudic Law," Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 2 (1974), 24. But allusion to an unusual passage in the Palestinian Talmud would be out of character for Ibn Ezra. Moreover, the passage in question seems to take maskit as referring to the specific configuration of the trilithon, not to a figured stone as in Ibn Ezra. It is more likely, therefore, that Ibn Ezra, as in his Daniel Commentary, means by Merqulis the Black Stone. One other possibility cannot be excluded entirely. According to Alfonsi, the mysterious white stone was carved on all sides and was located below the ground (so that Muhammad could cover it up with another, plain stone). Since Ibn Ezra attaches his comment on the idolatry of Merqulis to the biblical phrase, "you shall not put in your land (be-arsekem)," he might be taking be-arsekem to mean, literally, in the ground, and alluding to the tradition behind Alfonsi's second stone. But it seems unwise to press this interpretation. What, if

any, reality lies behind Alfonsi's white stone is unclear. It has, with some plausibility, been identified with a sacred white stone that is built into the southern corner of the Ka'ba. See

Gregoire, "Les Dieux Cahu, Baraton, Tervagant," p. 467; and d'Alverny and Vajda, "Marc de Tolede," p. 121. Cf. Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 374, n. 59. But why should its idolatrous

carving be reported less concealable than that of the Black Stone? And what about the report of its underground hideout? If the thought of yet another ingredient in Alfonsi's account is tolerable, it may be noted that the image of Hubal, the pre-Islamic god of the Ka'ba, stood above a dried-out well inside the Ka'ba. Some Arabic sources think Hubal of Moabite origin. See Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 75; "Hubal," Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 140; and Wensinck and Jomier, "Ka'ba," 321 f. See also the report of Yefet b. 'Ali of a male image in the Ka'ba (Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 70 [Eng.], p. 131 [Arabic]).

The notion that the Black Stone is figured appears also in Byzantine polemic, but there the

figure is always specifically identified with Aphrodite (see above, n. 8). A strange association of Islam with Venus does occur in Alfonsi's discussion of Muslim ablutions preparatory to prayer. See PL 157:602B; and Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 371, n. 37. But the usual association of the Meccan cult with Venus is conspicuously absent in Alfonsi; see Daniel, ibid., pp. 217 f. Alfonsi's


Alfonsi and Ibn Ezra, in claiming that ancient idols actually remain in the Ka'ba, and, willy-nilly, still receive their original forms of worship, represent the more severe segment of Hispano-Jewish opinion on the Meccan cult.

Judah Halevi, despite his polemical allusion to the Black Stone, cannot have considered it an idol, for he quite explicitly states that the ancient idols were obliterated. Maimonides too distances himself from the claim that there is an idol in the Ka'ba, arguing only that, even if true, it would be irrelevant. If

anything, Maimonides finds the pagan past of the Meccan cult less reproach- ful than even Halevi. One reason for this tolerance may be Maimonides'

theory that even biblical law could, for pedagogical reasons, transform rather than eradicate modes of worship originally pagan.62 Of course biblical law, for Maimonides, retains only the most general of institutions in common with pagan worship (temples, altars, sacrifices) while seeking to eradicate

entirely all specifically pagan practices. Thus, in Maimonides' use of the tradition on Merqulis, Pe'or, and Kemosh there undoubtedly remains some

polemical intent.63 But, reflecting his approach to the history of religions as well as his general tendency to stress the primacy of inner intention,

report of unspecified figuring on an idolatrous stone thus more likely reflects his native Jewish tradition.

Perhaps yet another point of contact with Ibn Ezra is Alfonsi's erroneous description of the

pilgrimage to Mecca as an annual duty. See PL 157:598A, 602C; Daniel, Islam and the West, pp. 218 and 374, n. 59. (There is an annual pilgrimage but participation in it is not an annual duty of the individual Muslim.) This is a strange error for someone who grew up among Muslims (see PL 157:597B), but the same notion appears in the commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra to Genesis 16.14. Ibn Ezra identifies be'er la-hay ro'i with Zamzam, the sacred well of Mecca, and

interprets its Hebrew name to mean "the well of him who will be alive next year . . . For every year the Ishmaelites would make the pilgrimage [hayu hogegim] to this well." The assumption here is that whoever is alive will be at next year's pilgrimage, just as he is at this year's pilgrimage. Ibn Ezra's cautious use of the past tense, however, may reflect a realization that an annual duty of pilgrimage is not presently in force. Ibn Era's account of the origin of Zamzam is similar to that found in Muslim legends, but differs in that the latter associate Zamzam with the well that saved Ishmael in Genesis 21.19; see, e.g., H. Z. Hirschberg, "Ishmael-in Islam," Encyclopaeda Judaica, 9:82. There is however a tradition that identifies the wells of Genesis 16.14 and 21.19; see Bereshit Rabba, ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Jerusalem, 1965), 2:571 and notes.

62 See Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 3.32, and the study of A. Funkenstein, "Gesetz und Geschichte: Zur historisierenden Hermeneutik bei Moses Maimonides und Thomas von Aquin," Vzator 1 (1970), 147-78. Maimonides would also seem to have given sympathetic study to Muslim writings that struggle to come to grips with the problem of pagan remnants in the hajj; see H. Lazarus-Yafeh (above, n. 28), pp. 242 f.

63 It is interesting that in Guide 3.45 Maimonides stresses how widespread worship of Pe'or was and the measures taken by the Law to eliminate any trace of its mode of worship from the

Temple. Interesting also, in this context, is Maimonides' use of peri'at ha-rosh in describing the

worship of Kemosh (cf. above, n. 27); for a priest who is peru'a rosh (in the sense of having uncut hair) is prohibited from entering beyond the Temple altar. See Mishneh Torah, Bz'at ha-Miqdash 1.8-10. Although not explicitly associated with idolatry in Guzde 3.45, the condition of the peru'a rosh is described by Maimonides as sha'ath (dishevelment), a condition associated with zhrdm

among pre-Islamic pilgrims and Muhammad as well; see Wensinck and Jomier, "Ihram," pp. 1052 f.


Maimonides' use of that tradition is not only more coherent but also more charitable than Alfonsi's.64

It would appear, in conclusion, that Petrus Alfonsi's treatment of the Meccan cult was influenced by Jewish sources. His acknowledgment of Is- lam's basic monotheism coupled with reproach for its retention of pagan cultic practices is the dominant approach in the Hispano-Jewish tradition. But the particulars of his polemic, too, seem to have been influenced by Jewish traditions, sometimes unattested in earlier sources.65 Some of this material is barely recognizable in the midst of Alfonsi's conflation and confusion. Nevertheless, examination of his account against the background of the

Hispano-Jewish tradition sheds some light on that amazing amalgam of fact and fancy about the Meccan cult that Alfonsi presented to Latin Europe. Of course Alfonsi's chapter on Islam discusses a good deal more than the Meccan cult. The possible relationship of the rest of his polemic to the

Hispano-Jewish tradition remains a subject for further study.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

64 Alfonsi maintains the literary form of his Dialogus, that of a discussion between Moses, his former Jewish self, and Peter, his new Christian self, even in the chapter on Islam. As Dorothee Metlitzki (The Matter of the Araby in Medieval England, p. 203) has pointed out, Moses is

considerably more appreciative of Islam than is Peter. Perhaps this reflects Alfonsi's awareness of the relative tolerance of informed Hispano-Jewish opinion on Islam. But it is hard to take Moses and Peter too seriously as consistent representatives of specifically Jewish and Christian

points of view on Islam. After all, it is Peter who reveals to the "uninformed" Moses the secret

history of Ka'ba - a history that, as we have seen, draws heavily on Jewish traditions. 65 For another example of a Jewish tradition that appears in Alfonsi before its appearance in

surviving Hebrew sources, see G. Cohen, "The Story of the Four Captives," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 29 (1960-61), 79 f. On the other hand, Alfonsi's confusions and, in particular, his apparent failure to see the connection between Mercury and lapidation (see above, n. 39) are in line with the impression of Ch. Merchavia (Ha-Talmud be-Re'i ha-Nasrut Jerusalem, 1970], pp. 122 f.) that Alfonsi did not have a strong, firsthand knowledge of rabbinic sources.

Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult of Mecca

Documents

Transcript of Petrus Alfonsi on the Cult of Mecca