Queen of Shebas Conversion-libre

Mir, MusLansir. "The Queen of Shebats Conversionin Q. 21:44: A Problem Examined." Journal ofQur'anic Studies IX, no. II (2OO7); 43-56:-

The Queen of Sheba's Conversion in Q. 27:44:A Problem Examined

Mustansir Mir

YouNcsrowx Srere UxlvpRstrY

In a thought-provoking paper presented at a conference in London in 2003, Oliver

Leaman raised the problem of the all-too-sudden conversion of the Queen of Sheba as

mentioned in Q. 27:44. The aya reads:r

It was said to her, 'Enter the palace.' When she saw it, she took it to be

cleep water and uncovered her shanks- He [Solomon] said, 'It is a

castle smoothed over with crystal!' She said, 'My Lord, I have

wronged mysetf. I submit, along with Solomon, to God, the Lord of the

universe!'

The situation can be described as follows: During her visit to Solomon's palace, the

Queen of Sheba is asked to step into a pavilion with a glass floor. Mistaking the floor

for water, she pulls up her skirt, baring her legs. When Solomon tells her what the

pavilion is made of, the queen forsakes her idolatrous religion by announcing her

submission to the God of Solomon, 'the Lord of the universe'' According to Leaman,

the queen's conversion to Solomon's religion is a little too abrupt and makes one

wonder whether it is justified by the occasion. For the queen was tricked by the

architectural design of the palace and it is hard to believe that one so tricked would be

persuaded on the spot to renounce one's own faith and embrace another. Leaman's

suggested solution to the problem was that the queen, probably analogising from her

mistake of regarding the glass for water, concluded that she was mistaken, too, in

regarding idolatry as the right religion.

Leaman deserves credit for pointing out that Q. 27:44 presents a potential exegetical

problem - one that few Muslim exegetes, classical or modern, seem to have noticed

and identified in such clear terms.2 Taking a line of interpretation different from

Leaman's, this paper argues that Q. 27:44reptesents not a moment of illumination'

leading to sudden conversion on the queen's part but a logical culmination of a

process of change of heart the queen had been undergoing long before her visit to

Solomon's palace. The paper is divided into four sections. The first section

summarises the conversion passage in Sura 2l; the second section discusses, with

reference to the argument of this paper, the conversion of Pharaoh's magicians in

Sura 20; the third section compares the Qur'anic account of the Queen of Sheba with

44 Journal of Qur'anic Studies

the Biblical: the final section offers brief remarks about the Qur'anic mode of

reasoning, an ancillary issue which the queen's conversion Seems to raise.

The Queen's Conversion in Context

The relevant passage in the sura (ayas 2344) being too long to be quoted in its

entirety, I will summarise it, quoting ayas in part oI in full as necessary. The passage

makes the following points sequentially:

1) The hoopoe, having returned from the land of Sheba, arrives in Solomon's

presence3 and reports that it has seen a sun-worshipping peopie that are ruled by a

powerful queen who possesses a great throne, and that Satan, by making their

actions alluring to them, has kept the people from discovering the Right Path -namely, that they may not prostrate themselves before the God Who brings forth

what is hidden in the heavens and the earth and knows what you hide and what

you proclaim (Q. 21 :23-5),

2) Solomon dispatches the hoopoe with a letter, commanding it to drop the letter by

the rulers of Saba" and then observe their reaction (Q.27:28);

3) The Queen, on picking up the letter, tells her courtiers that she has received an

esteemed letter which reads: In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the

Very Merciful. Do not rise up against me, but come to me in submission. On being

asked to give their counsel, the courtiers express their resolve to fight Solomon ifnecessary but leave the final decision to the queen. Observing that kings devastate

the land they enter, humiliating its nobles, the Queen decides to send Solomon a

gift in order to see how he would respond (Q.27:29-35);

4) Refusing to accept the gift, Solomon tells the queen's emissary of his intention to

invade the queen's country with an irresistible army that will drive her people out

of their land (Q. 2l:36--7);

5) To fulfill Solomon's wish, a jinn offers to fetch the queen's throne before you can

rise from your seat, but one possessed of knowledge of the Book says that he can

bring the throne before he [Solomon] can blink his eyes. On finding the throne

placed next to him, Solomon offers gratitude to God for His blessings upon him

(Q.27:3840);

6) Solomon has the shape of the throne altered. When the queen visits him, he asks her

if her throne is like the one in Solomon's presence. 'It does look like l/', she replies,

adding, 'And we had been given knowledge before this, and we were in submission' -

The Qur'an comments that the queen hadbeenprevented - that is, from submitting

to Solomon - by her idolatry, and that she had been an unbeliever (Q.27:41-3);

7) Asked to entef the castle, the queen, taking the floor to be deep water, pulls up her

skirt, exposing her legs. Realising her mistake, she declares that she submits, along

with Solomon, to the Lord of the universe (Q. 27:aD-

The Queen of Sheba's Conversion rn Q' 27:44 45

If we read ayas 23-44 as telling a connected story - albeit one that covers a long span

of time-wewillseethat aya44,whichspeaksof thequeen'sconversion'represents

the story's climax. Consider the following:

First, the queen, upon receiving Solomon's letter, announces to her courtiers that'an

esteemed letter has been dropped in to me' (Q. 27:29). The adjective describing the

letter is kartm,which, signifying esteem and honour, sums up the queen's favourable

judgement of the letter and, one presumes, of the writer of the letter as well' The

queen's description of the letter to the courtiers seems to be calculated to influence

their opinion PreemPtivelY.

Second, when the courtiers tell her that they are willing and able to fight against

Solomon, the queen dissuacles them from taking the path of war. Adopting a

conciliatory approach instead, she decides to send a present to Solomon with a view to

finding out how he would respond. She evidently has respect for Solomon's power

and is afraid of antagonising him.

Third, the queen seems to have learnt - through report or investigation or both - a

good deal about Solomon and is very impressed with what she has learnt. The second

hatf of Q.27:42, which consists of a remark by her, when read together with the

following aya, adivine comment, supplies a crucial piece of information: 'And vve had

been given knowledge before this, and we were in submission'. What she worshipped

other than God had held her back; indeed, she had belonged to an unbelieving

people.

There is, here, a strong suggestion that, from what she knew about Solomon, the

queen was in'awe of him - so much so that, while she had inwardly acknowledged

the supremacy of Solomon not only in terms of military might but also in terms of

religious belief, the force or pressure of her nation's idolatrous tradition had kept her

from actually converting to that faith.a In all probability, then, her experience at the

glass castle, rather than causing her embarrassment, added to her already

considerably high estimation of a king who combined in himself, so to speak, the

best of both worlds - a king whose personality and works evidenced the existence of

an ideal synthesis of the mundane and the spiritual. Here is a king, she must have

thought, who has built a marvelous piece of architecture but who, in his humility'

attributes all his achievements to God.s It is highly unlikely that her experience at the

castle made her feel duped and humiliated; it is much more probable that it removed

the last obstacie in her way to conversion, serving as the last straw that broke

the camel's - her tradition's -back, decisively tilting her in favor of Solomon's

faith.6

Supporting evidence for the thesis just put forward is found not only in the conversion

passage in Sura 2J,blt elsewhere in the Qur'an as well'


Immediately preceding the glass castle incident in Sura 27 tsthe incident involving the

changing of the outward form of the queen's throne. Solomon commands his servants:

'Change the form of her throne for her, that we may see whether she is led in the right

direction or whether she remains one of those who would not be so led' (Q.27:4I).

The reason given by Solomon for the test is, in the Arabic original: nanTur alahtadt

am takunu mina'lladhtna la yahtaduna. The key verb here is ihtadA, 'to be rightly

guided', and an understanding of the full import of its use in this aya is crucial to a

proper interpretation of the Qur'anic narrative. It would be a trivialisation of the entire

story - and especially of the character of Solomon, whom the Qur'an presents not

only as a mighty king, but also as a prophet - if the word is taken to mean that

Solomon is playing a practical joke and is curious to flnd out whether the Queen of

Sheba would recognise her throne in its changed form. On the contrary, it would make

eminently good sense to interpret the word to mean that Solomon wants to find out

whether the throne in its changed form does or does not lead the queen to see the truth

of the faith to which he himself subscribes. Three points need to be noted:

1) The periphrastic construction used by Solomon to give the reason for the test -nanzLff a-tahtadl am takilnu mina'lladhTna la yahtaduna - will, upon close reading,

be seen to signify, flrst, the impofiance Solomon attaches to the test; second,

Solomon's expectation that the queen will make the right choice; and, third,

Solomon's anticipatory regret over the queen's wrong decision should she happen to

make such a choice.T

2) The use of the verb ihtada rn Q. 27:41 resonates with the use of the same word in

Q.27:24, in which the hoopoe reports to Solomon about the people of Saba" in the

following words: 'I found her and her people prostrating themselves before the sun, to

the neglect of God; and Satan has made their actions alluring to them, and has, in this

way, kept themfrom the Path, and so they are not rightly guided' . The Arabic original

for and so they are not rightly guided rs fa-hum la yahtaduna; the people of Saba" are

here said to have failed to reach the correct path (al-sabtl). In this aya, it is the

Sabaeans' worship of the sun that is called their lack of ihtida' , and this lack of ihttda'

is, in the next two ayas, contrasted with worship of the One God, this monotheistic

worship constituting true ihtida', or the correct path. Here is how Ibn Janr al-Taban

explains the individual phrases making tp Q.27:24:8

And Satan had made their actions rtlluring to them (wa-gyyana

lahumu'l-Shaytanu a'malahum): It lthe hoopoe] says: 'Ibhs presented

to them in a favorable light their worship of the sun and their

prostration before it to the disregard of God, endearing this act to them.

And he has kept them from the Path (fa-saddahum 'ani'l-sabll).' It

says: 'And so, by glamorising that act to them, he fSatan] has kept

them from following the straight path - namely, the religion of God

The Queen of Sheba's Conversion in Q.27:44

with which He sent his prophets.' The meaning is: and so he has kept

them from the path of truth. And so they were not rightly guided (fa'hum la yahtaduna). It says: 'and so, with Satan having glamorised to

them what he did glamorise - namely, their prostration before the sun,

to the disregard of God, and their disbelief in Him - they are not

guided to the path of truth and do not tread it but are caught up in

misguidance, and so are in a dither.'

It is reasonable to assume that, having already learnt about the Sabaeans' lack of

guidance, Solomon should, upon using the verb ihtada in the latter part of the passage,

be thinking of the same guidance that is defined by al-Taban as knowledge and

practice of monotheism as contrasted with idolatry.

3) Both Solomon and the queen try, on more than one occasion, to size each other

up: Solomon does so, initially, by sending her a letter that is to be delivered by the

hoopoe and, subsequently, by sending a message through the queen's emissary; the

queen does so, initially, by sending gifts to Solomon and, subsequently, by visiting him

in person. The Qur'anic context of the entire interaction between the queen and

Solomon is religious. The tone of that context is determined by Solomon's pithy letter,

which begins with the basmala,In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Very

MercifuI (Q. 27:30), and ends with do not defy me, but come to me in subtnission

(Q.27:3I). The Arabic for 'come to me in submission' is wa-"tr,1ni muslimtn, which

means, according to al-Taban, 'aqbilu ilayya mudh'intn li'Uah bi'l-wahdaniyya

wa'l-ta'a' ('come to me having made submission to God, accepting His oneness and

obeying Him').e In other words, the queen is being asked to submit to God and, as a

token of that submission, to submit to Solomon. Solomon's second message, in which

he threatens the people of Saba' with military action, can only be understood as

expressing his intention to enforce the submission that he demands in the letter -namely, that the queen abandon idolatry in favor of monotheism and accept Solomon's

authority. As for the queen, she first sends Solomon a gift with the express intention

of 'determining what response the emissaries bring back' (fa-naziratun bi-ma

yarji'u'l-mursalun, Q. 21:35). What does she wish to determine? Given the fact that

Solomon wants the queen to accept the oneness of God and Solomon's authority, itwould be natural for her to seek to probe Solomon's motives; she would like to know

whether, like most kings, he is interested in plundering and looting other lands or

whether he stands for higher principles. Solomon's letter must have intrigued her

greatly. According to the exegesis provided by Wahb ibn Munabbih, the queen says to

her courtiers:10

I have received a letter the like of which I have never received from

any king previously. If the man is a prophet, then we do not possess the

power or ability to match him; and if the man is a king set upon

41


aggrandisement, then he is not mightier than we and is not better-

equipped than we.

When the courtiers tell her that they are prepared to fight against Solomon ifnecessary, the queen dissuades them from the thought by saying, 'Kings, when they

enter a city, lay it in ruins and humiliate its nobles, and this is what they [Solomon

and his troopsl, too, will do' (Q.27:34).rr She would rather try to find out his real

intentions by sending him a gift. 'So', al-Taban writes, 'she prepared gifts, those that

are offered to kings and that kings are enamoured of'.12 He explains:l3

It is related that she said, '1 am going to send him [a gift]' lQ' 2l:351,

so that she might assess him and learn about him by means of it,

whether he is a king or a prophet. And she said, 'If he is a prophet, he

will not accept the gift and will not be pleased with us except that we

should follow him, accepting his religion; and if he is a king, he will

accept the gift and go his waY.'

Having rejected the queen's gift, Solomon sends word to her that he would invade her

country unless, it is implied, she makes submission, in the twin senses noted above

(Q.21:37).Theverynextayareads: He said,'Nobles,whichone of youwillbringher

throne to me before they come to me in submission?'His question suggests that,

having noted the course of events since the delivery of his letter to the queen,

Solomon is now fairly sure that the Sabaeans will submit to him, and he expresses this

confi.dence by stating to his courtiers that 'they' - the Sabaean ruling elite - will

indeed come to him in submission. In order to drive home the point in no uncertain

terms, Solomon decides to have the queen's throne brought over, and he does so, in

al-Taban's considered view, 'so that he may assert it to her as a manifest proof of his

prophethood and apprise her, by means of it, of God's might and His great glory'.ra

When the queen realises her mistake of regarding the floor of the glass castle as water,

she exclaims,'I have wronged myself; I submit, along with Solomon, to God, the Lord

of the universe' (Q. 27:44). What does the expression, 'to wrong oneself,' here mean?

It would be logical to interpret the flrst part of the statement - t have wronged myself

(innt zalamtu nafst) - in light of the second - I submit, along with Solomon, to God,

the Lorcl of the universe - and conclude that the queen's 'wrong' consisted in

withholding belief in the God of Solomon.r5

We said above that the context of the narrative about Solomon and the queen in Sura

27 is reygtous. Further evidence for this is furnished by the Qur'anic portrayal of

Solomon's character. According to Q. 27:38--40, when Solomon expresses his desire

to have the queen's throne brought to him and a member of the cotrt who possessed

knowledge of the Book offers to bring it before you can blink your eyes, Solomon, on

seeing the throne placed before him, expresses gratitude to God: This is of the bounty


of my Lord, that He may put me to the test, whether I am grateful or whether

I am ungratefi.il; he who is gratefiil is grateful to his own good; and he who is

ungrateful - my Lord is Self-sfficient, Possessor of Glory. These two ayas tell us

something important about Solomon: a recipient of special blessings of God, he is

conscious of the imperative to offer gratitude to God, from whom all blessings

proceed; worldly glory and power has not turned Solomon's head.16

Q. 34:13, which talks about Solomon in a different but not unrelated context, makes a

similar point (the pronoun 'they' at the start of the aya refers to the jinn, whom,

according to Q. 34:12-13 (see also Q. 38:37-8), God had subjected into Solomon's

service). Q. 34:13 reads: they used to make for him anything he wished - prayer-

houses, statues, bowls as large as water-pools, and cooking pots firmly held in place.

Practice gratitude, pro7eny of David; and only a few, from among my selvants, are

the gratefitl ones!

This text highlights three qua'lities of Solomon: devotion to God, love of art, and

magnanimity. To explain: Solomon had the jinn build (i) sanctuaries,tT 1ii) statues,l8

and (iii) large bowls and cooking pots to feed people. The three qualities seem to be

interrelated: Solomon's devotion to God was not exclusive of an interest in what

would be called pleasures of the world, pursuit of art constituting one such pleasure;

in fact, going by Biblical evidence, Solomon's art was strongly religious in

character, so that art was one of the manifestations of his devotional spirit. And

neither Solomon's religious orientation nor his aesthetic sensibility caused him to

become wrapped up in himself. He neither led a life of cloistered piety nor lost

himself in the pursuit of pleasure; rather, he showed his concem for the welfare of

his people by ensuring that the blessings he had received from God flowed out to

them, and one way in which he showed this concern was by feeding people - for

which purpose he had the jinn make large bowls and cooking pots. The cooking pots

were 'firmly secured in the ground' (rastyat), that is, they were permanent fixtures,

signifying that he always kept an open house or a table laid for any and all. In sum,

Solomon had, in his life and in his conduct, achieved a balanced view of the

relationship between this world (at-dunya) and the next (at-akhira).re The second

part of Q.34:13 furnishes an insight into the unifying link between Solomon's

concern for al-dunya and his concern for al-akhira: it was his attitude of gratefulness

towards God that kept him on an even keel, and this gratitude is what the Israelites

are exhorted to emulate: practice gratitude, progeny of David, that is, be like

David's son, Solomon, who was a model figure as far as offering gratitude to God is

concemed.2o q. :8:30 speaks of Solomon as being awwab,'one who turns to God',

and the ayas that follow immediately provide two instances of this turning to God:

on one occasion, he blamed himself for holding love of khayr, or wealth, dearer than

God (Q. 38:32), and, on another, he was put to the test by God and turned to God

(Q. 38:34).2'

49


We can now see the several relationships.between Q.27:44 and other Qur'anic ayas.

First, both Q. 27:44 (with its mention of the glass castle) and Q. 34:13 (with its

mention of statues) are evidence of Solomon's love of art and architecture. Second,

the queen's formal declaration of faith, aslamtu ma'a Sulaymana li'llAhi

rabbi'l-'alamtn ('I submit, along with Solomon, to the Lord of the universe') in

Q. 21:44 would seem to be the logical outcome of her confession in aya 42, wa-kunna

muslimtn, ('and we were in submission') (the construction kunna muslimrn signifles

that the inward change had occurred some time ago and that she had been a 'subrnitter'

for quite some time). The key to Solomon's chatacter, however, is provided in the

Qur'an by his traits of devotion to God and service to humanity. In light of all this,

when the Queen of Sheba says, in Q.27:44,'l submit, along with Solomon, to God,

the Lord of the universe' , she obviously takes Solomon to be her model. The Arabic

for 'I submit' in this aya (aslamta), is a formal declaration of faith, as the words '/o

Gocl, the Lord of the tmiverse' signify. The occurrence of two words from the same

root (muslimtn rn aya42 and aslamtu in aya 44), thus, represent a logical development:

the queen had, for some time, been inwardly convinced of the truth of Solomon's faith

(Q. 27:42), and the incident at the glass castle caused her to take the final step of

announcing - formally and publicly - her conversion (Q.27:44)'22

2. A Comparative Note on Pharaoh's Magicians

'The Qur'an explains itself is a well-known dictum of Qur'anic exegesis.2'

Invoking this principle, scholars elucidate, for example, a story (such as the story

of Adam, Abraham, or Moses) told briefly in one part of the Qur'an by means of a

more detailed presentation of the same story elsewhere in the Qur'an. But the principle

may be extended to apply - to continue with our example - to two or more stories

which, though unrelated, can be subsumed under one conceptual rubric. In the Qur'an,

the Queen of Sheba's conversion bears some notable resemblances to the conversion

of Pharaoh's magicians to the faith of Moses as repofted in Sura 20. The resemblances

establish a certain structural similarity between the two incidents, and, insofar as they

do so, the incident involving the magicians can be cited in support of the argument of

this paper. The following points are worthy of note:

First, when they see Moses' staff gobbling up their serpents - or rather the illusion

they had created of the selpents (Q. 20:66) - the magicians fall prostrate on the

ground. The verb denoting the prostration is in the passive voice, ulqiya, which

suggests both involuntariness and instantaneity: the magicians were so overwhelmed

by the sight that they could not control their reaction; it was as if some external force,

which they found irresistible, made them prostrate themselves. Something similar

happens in the case of the Queen of Sheba. She, too, is so overwhelmed by what she

observes at the glass palace that she can no longer resist expressing what, until now,

she has kept to herself.


Second; equally in the case of the queen and in that of Pharaoh's magicians, the

conversion, though apparently involuntary and instantaneous, is preceded by an

inward change that has already occurred and, equally in the case of the queen and in

that of the magicians, a certain psychological moment converts that inward change

into a public proclamation. The details of the change in the case of the queen were

noted above.In the story of the magicians in Sura 20,there occurs a crucial phrase. In

their defiant response to Pharaoh's threat of persecution, the magicians tell Pharaoh

that they will seek God's forgiveness for their sins and - the crucial phrase - for your

forcing ws to perform magic (wa-ma akrahtana 'alayhi mina'l-sihr, Q. 20:73).

To bring out in full the implications of the magicians' complete statement in the sura

(ayas 70 andTl-3): even before engaging in a competition with Moses, the magicians

had sensed that they were not facing just another magician; that the source of Moses'

'skill' was different than the source of their own skill; that, in view of this recognition,

they were reluctant to compete with Moses; and that they had been forced to compete

with him at Pharaoh's behest, who, as the word akrahtana unmistakably indicates,

had threatened them with unpleasant consequences if they were to refuse to obey his

orders to perform magic to defeat Moses.2a

Third, the Queen of Sheba, on announcing her conversion, exclaims, 'I submit, along

with Solomon, to God, the Lord of the universe!' The magicians, too, while

announcing their conversion, exclaim, using words similar to the queen's'. 'We believe

in the Lord of Aaron and Moses!' (Q. 20:70). Besides using similar expressions, both

the queen and the magicians, while recognising the 'skill', respectively, of Solomon

and Moses, pass beyond the two flgures, affirming their faith in God; they seem to

have sensed that the source of the 'skill' of their counteryarts - Solomon in the case of

the queen, Moses in the case of the magicians - is not those counterparts themselves

but a higher power, God - the 'Lord of Solomon' in the queen's words and the 'Lord

of Aaron and Moses' in the magicians' words - to whom both the queen and the

magicians submit.25 Thus, the story of the conversion of Pharaoh's magicians can be

seen as providing a parallel, in respect both of structure and of theme, to the story of

the Queen of Sheba's conversion. One can say that the two stories are brought

together and seen from a single perspective in the Qur'an.

3. The Biblical Account

Scholars often refer to the Bible in explicating the Qur'an, but this reference is usually

made respecting the content of the two scriptures. The style, structure, and language of

the two scriptures also can make for fruitful comparison. Q. 46:9 clearly says that

Muhammad's prophetic message is not anomalous or unexampled: Say, 'I am not a

peculiar one among the prophets' (bid'an mina'l-rusul). If, in terms of content, the

Qur'an does not feel threatened by its identity or similarity to the Bible, then, in

stylistic or other terms, too, it should not feel threatened by such identity or similarity.

51


Notwithstanding some major differences bedween the Qur'anic and Biblical accounts

of the story of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon,26 a significant similarity exists

between the two accounts, and this similarity furnishes another - indirect, yet

notable - piece of evidence supporting the interpretation of Q.27:44 here presented.

1 Kings l0:1-13 naffates the queen's visit to Solomon (2 Chronicles9:l-12 is almost

identical). According to the passage, the queen, upon witnessing the luxuries available

to Solomon, was struck with amazement, so that 'there was no more spirit in her'

(verse 5). Butin the Biblical account, too, the amazement has a'history'to it. The

passage in 1 Kings makes it clear that, even before her visit to Solomon, the queen had

heard about the famous Solomon:

So she said to the king, 'The report was true that I heard in my own

land of your accomplishments and of your wisdom, but I did not

believe the reports until I came and my own eyes saw it. Not even half

of the greatness of your wisdom had been told to me; you far surpass

the reports that I had heard' (1 Kings 9:6J).

This passage is not about the queen's credence or lack of credence in the reports she

had received, for, if she had completely distrusted the reporls, she would not have

entertained the idea of paying a visit to Solomon. In other words, the reports about

Solomon that had reached the queen were both impressive enough and intriguing

enough to motivate her to make the visit. The import of Q. 27:42, 'And we had been

given knowtedge before this, and we were in submission', is very similar. ln both the

Bible and the Qur'an, the queen speaks of her prior knowledge about Solomon,2T and,

in both, she speaks of him in favourable terms. Thus, neither in the Biblical nor in the

Qur'anic account is the queen's public acknowledgment of Solomon's accomplish-

ments the result of a sudden illumination but that of a realisation that has grown over

time, culminating in the acknowledgment she makes in the end'28

4. Concluding Comment

I said at the beginning that the problem raised by Leaman bears some relation to that of

the Qur'anic mode of reasoning. Within the confines of the present discussion, Leaman's

explanation of the queen's conversion would make the Qur'anic mode of reasoning

analogical: the queen converts because she realises, on the analogy of her mistake of

taking the glass floor for water, that she is mistaken in worshipping anyone or anything

other than God. In terms of the historical discourse of Islamic philosophy, such

reasoning, being 'rhetoncal' (khitabi) in character, would befit scripture, which aims at

persuading the masses, who are seen as incapable of following higher types of reasoning.

On the view taken in this paper, the queen's conversion would make the Qur'anic mode

of reasoning here logical - not in the sense that the conversion constitutes an instance

of the so-called 'demonstrative' (burhant) reasoning, but in the sense that, possessing as


it does internal coherence, the Qur'anic naprative moves in a certain, determinate

direction, producing the queen's conversion as a 'necessary' outcome of the course

of events. In order to appreciate the logical nature of this outcome, the conversion verse

of Sura 27 mtst be seen as integrally related to the larger passage in which it occurs.

NOTES

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the translation of the Qur'anic ayas cited in this paper is my own.

2 Jacob Lassner in Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culttre m

Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,

1993) anticipates Leaman. Referring to the queen's lifting of her skirt, Lassner asks: 'But what

is the point of this and what does it all have to do with the major theme of the story, her

renunciation of unbelief? And what is it that ultimately forces her to realize that further

resistance is futile? She seemingly remains proud until the very last moment. Can the

architectural oddity of the glass court be a reason for the great queen to bend to the will of a

foreign ruler and his God? The text begs for an explanation' (p. 43). But Leaman, besides

finding design rather than oddity in the palace's architecture, considers that design to be

significant enough to make it the basis of an explanation of the queen's conversion.

3 According to ayas 20-2, Solomon, upon examining his forces, notes the absence of the

hoopoe, a member of his bird force. He declares that the hoopoe will be severely punished

unless it justifies its absence. The hoopoe arrives soon thereafter.

4 Amrn Alrsan Islahl, Tadabbur-i Qur"an (9 vols, Lahore: Faran Foundation, 2000), vol. 5,

pp. 605-6.

5 Islahi, Taclabbur-i Qur'an, vol. 5, pp.606-7.

6 Ab['l-"Ala" al-Mawd[di's summary of the queen's thinking process, covering a long span oftime, is gernane to the argument presented in this paper and deserves to be quoted in full. He

writes in his Urdu Qur'anic commentary (my translation): 'This [Solomon's remark, in aya 44,that the queen had stepped into a crystal castlel was the final thing that opened the queen's eyes.

The first thing was Solomon's letter, which, departing from the practice of common kings, opened

with the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Very Mercful. The second thing was hisspurning of her valuable gifts, which indicated to her that this king was of a different type. Thethird thing was the statement made by the queen's embassy, which apprised her of Solomon'spious life, of his wisdom, and of the invitation to truth he stood for. This is what induced her to set

out in person to meet him, and this is what she alluded to in the following statement of hers: andwehad been given knowledge before this, and we were in submissiorz. The fourth thing was the

instantaneous arrival of that grand throne from Ma'rib to Jerusalem, from which the queen leamtthat he was backed by God's might. And the final thing, now, was her recognition that this man,

who possessed all these resources of luxury and dwelled in such a magnificent palace, was so

completely free of arrogance, was so deeply God-fearing and virtuous, ever so often bowed hishead before God in gratitude, and lived a life so markedly different from the life of those who have

set their hearts on life in this world. This was what compelled her to exclaim what she is reportedto have said next [her public announcement of her submission to God]' (AbD'l-"Ala' al-Mawd0di,TffiIm al-QtLr'an (6 vols, Lahore: Idarah-i Tarjumanu'l-Qur'an, 1972), vol.3, p. 580).

7 Solomon's expectation and 'anticipatory regret' are both brought into relief upon contrastingthis test, which is signaled by atahtadl am takuntt mina'lladhma la yahtaduna, wirh his test ofthe hoopoe in aya27 , which is signaled by sananluru a-sadaqta am kttnta mina'l-kadhibtn ('wewill see whether you have told the truth or yvhether you are one of those who tell lles'). In the

latter case, the antonymical contrast between truth ar,.d lie indicates that, in Solomon's eyes,

only one of the two otherwise equally strong possibilities is allowed, whereas in the former

53

J- Journal of Qur'anic Studies

case, the contrast between guidance and ab;ence-of-guidance shows the centrality of gtLidance

as reference point.

8 AbJa"far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Taban, Jami' al-bayan f tafstr al-Qur'an (30 parts in 12

vols, Egypt: Maktabat Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Awladihi,I40l/1954), vol. 19, pp.92-3.

9 al-Taban, Jami' al-bayan, vol. 19, p. 96.

10 al-Taban, Jami' al-bayan, vol. 19, pp.97-8.

11 On reading this aya, I get the impression that the queen, while convinced of Solomon's

moral superiority, uses the then popular view about kings' conduct toward vanquished nations

in order to dissuade her chieftains from flghting. She refers to this view since her personal

conviction would not have carried much weight with them.

12 al-Taban-, Jami' al-bayan, vol. 19, p. 98.

13 al-Taban-, Jami' al-bayan, vol. L9, p.91 .

14 al-Taban, Jami' al-bayan, vol. 19, p. 101.

15 al-Zamakhshan glosses zalamtu nafsl as turtdu bi-kufrihd: the queen means that she

committed a wrong insofar as she disbelieved (Mahm[d ibn'Umar al-Zamakhshan, al-Kashshaf 'an haqa'iq al-tanztl wa-'uyt1n al-cLclawtl (4 vols, Cairo and Beirut: Dar al-Ma"rifa,n.d.), vol. 3, p. 145). Al-Qurtubi observes that the queen wronged herself bi'l-shirk alladhtkanat 'alaylt I 'by means of her practice of polytheism' (Abn 'Abd Allah al-Qurtubi, al-Janti' li-ahkam al-Qur'an (30 vols in 20, Cairo: Dar al-Katib al-'Arabi, 138111961), vol. 13, p. 213).Itmay be noted that Q. 31:13 calls polytheism'great lttlm' .

16 Solomon's gratefulness to God is emphasised in Sura 27 (see ayas 15, 19 and 40).

Montgomery Watt conectly notes that, in the Qur'anic story of the Queen of Sheba and

Solomon, 'there is a parallel between the wealth of Solomon and that of the queen . . . pointfing]the contrast between Solomon's gratitude to God for all his favours, together withhis acknowledgement of him as God, and the queen's failure to acknowledge God' (see

W. Montgomery Watt, 'The Queen of Sheba in Islamic Tradition' in James B. Pritchard (ed.),

Solomon and ShebcL (London: Phaidon, 1914), p. 94.

17 Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-FayrizabadT, aL-Qamus al-Muhtt (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1415/

1995), explains mahanb as 'mahartb Bant Isra'Tl'. masajiduhum allatl kanu yajlistlna fiha,Ll-r-b' . The word may also be interpreted in the literal sense of 'arches'. See Islahi, Tadabbur-i

Qur'an, vol.6, p.303.

18 Several verses in the Biblical books of 1 Krngs 6 andl give details of these statues.

19 This discussion is adapted fromlslahl, TadabbtLr-i Qur'an, vol. 6, pp.303-5.

20 Q. 93:11 concludes with the injunction, wa-ammd bi-ni'mati rabbika fa-haddith (As for the

blessings of your Lord, do mention them). The theme of tahdlth bi-ni'mat Allah ('mentioning

the blessings of God') occurs in several hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad, who said that a

man's appearance and lifestyle should reflect God's blessings upon him. For instance, once a

person came to him in tattered clothes. On finding out that the man was quite well-off, the

Prophet remarked, 'idhd atdka Allah malan fa'l-yura athanLhu "alayka' ('When God gives you

wealth, its effect should be seen upon your person'). See al-Qurtubt, al-Jami', vol.20, pp. 102-3. Solomon, who is spoken of approvingly in the Qur'an, was acting quite in accordance withthe pnnciple of tahdtth bi-ni"mat Allah, which pnnciple would be regarded in Islam as one ofperennial validity and relevance.

21 A detailed discussion of the two situations referred to here will take us too far afield; for ourpurposes, it is sufficient to note that, in each situation, Solomon tumed toward God.

22 If the aboveexplanationof theQur'anicnarrativeaboutSolomonandtheQueenof Shebais

correct and the end of the narrative is seen as losically connected to its start. then the 'plot' of


the narrative would appear to have both coherence 4nd continuity. In his book, Lassner, withoutoffenng much explanation olvvarrant, calls the Qur'anic narrative 'highly disjointed' (Lassner,

Demonizing the Queen of Sheba, p. 45; also p. 36). He also finds aspects of the narrativepuzzling, though a careful review of the Qur'anic material might eliminate some of theptzzlement:

(i) The hoopoe's report, that it has observed a land ruled by a rich queen, is glossed byLassner with this note: 'The reward of this material splendor would seem anomalous withher religious beliefs and practices' (p. 31).Neither in this passage, nor anywhere else inthe Qur'an, is material prosperity said to be consequent Llpon subscription to certain typesof religious beliefs or practices. In fact, time and again, the Qur'an - whether it isspeaking of the Quraysh of Mulrammad's time or of other affluent but defiant nations ofthe past - says that individuals and nations may possess wealth and yet be misguided, orthat they may be poor and yet be on the right path, the thrust of the Qur'anic statementson this subject being that possession of wealth by one is no proof that one has wonGod's favour.

(ii) When 'the one possessed of knowledge of the Book' in Q.27:40 fetches the queen'sthrone in less time than it takes one to blink one's eyes, Solomon, in Lassner'stranslation, 'gives thanks to God in a rather ptzzling statement, "This is the grace of myLord in order to test me. Shall I give thanks or be ungrateful? Indeed my Lord is rich andgenerous"' (p 38) Here, curiously, Lassner disjoins a-ashkuru ant-al{uru from thepreceding li-yabluwanl, translating each as an independent sentence, whereas the entirephrase is to be taken together, a-ashktrnL am-akftru being in the accusative Io li-yabluwanl since it has been used as tamyu (specification); See Ab[ Hayyan, al-Bahr al-ntuhtt (10 vols, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1412/1992), vol. 8, p.241. For two otherexplanations of the accusative, see Mahmud al-AlDsi, Ruh al-ma'anr (30 vols in 15,BeirtLt: Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-"Arabi, 1390?/1970?), vol. 19, p. 206. Al-Qurtubi'sexplanation of the phrase as 'li-yakhtabirant a-ashkr,Lnt ni'matahu am akfuruha' (vol. 13,

p. 206) is typical of classical and modem exegesis on this point. The understanding ofQur'anic translators is no different. George Sale, whose translation first appeared in 1134,renders the phrase as that he may ntake trial of me, whether I will be grateful, or whetherI will be ungrateftLl (George Sale, The Koran: Translated into English from the OriginalArtrbic, 'tvith ExpLanatory Notes from the Most Approved Commentarles (London, NewYork: Frederick Warne and Co., n.d.)). The translations by J.M. Rodwell, M. MarmadukePickthall, A.J. Arberry, Muhammad Asad, Majid Fakhry, Savary, Kasimirski, Jean

Grosjean, Jacque Berque (the last four in French), Max Henning and Rudi Paret (both inGerman) interpret the phrase in question similarly. Lassner's rendition is, to use his ownwords, 'rather puzzling' .

23 In Arabic 'al-Qur'an yufassiru bcL'cluhu ba'dan'.

24 See Islahl, Tadabbur-i Qur'an, vol. 6, pp, 65-8.

25 The situations of the Queen of Sheba and the magicians may admit of another comparison.The two figures with whom the queen and the magicians happen to be dealing with - Solomonand Moses, respectively - are both prophet-statesmen in the Qur'an. The Queen of Sheba and

the magicians represent, in their own right, power and authority, the queen directly - since she

is the ruler of Saba' - and the magicians indirectly - since they are the instruments ofPharaoh's power. But though she is the ruler, the queen depends on her courtiers in the exerciseof her power (Q.27:32). In a sense, then, her'direct' authority becomes indirect. As for themagicians, their support is crucial to Pharaoh, as is evidenced by Q. 20:57-64, in whichPharaoh, staking his all on the ability of the magicians in his retinue, boasts to Moses that he,

Pharaoh, will confront him with magic skill very similar to that displayed by Moses (ayas

56-1), and in which, with ominous irony, he announces on the day of competition: wa-qad

55

56 Jourral of Qur'anic Studies

aflaha'l-yatvma mcmi'sta'ta (and whoever gets the upper hand today will have truly succeeded,

e. 20:64) - the use of the particl e qad wtlh the verb aflaha lends decisiveness to the statement.

Because Pharaoh depends so heavily on the magicians for his success, the magicians' power,

though indirect, in a sense becomes direct.

26 For example, the Bible does not mention the queen's conversion.

27 Some exegetes and scholars ask as to who utters this part of aya 42 ('and we had been given

knowleclge before this'). Al-Zamakhshari prefers the view that it is spoken by Solomon, and

then offers a less-than-satisfactory explanation (al-Zamakhshalr, al-KashshAf, vol' 3, p' 144; see

also Watt, 'The Queen of Sheba', p.94: 'it is not stated by whom ... the latter part of 42 [is]

spoken'). But this latter part of the verse is a seamless continuation of the former, which is

spoken by the queen and with which it is joined by the conjunctive waw.The point I wish to

emphasise here, though, is that the Biblical evidence of the queen's 'prior knowledge' provides

not inconsiderable support for interpreting the latter part of Q. 21 :42 as having been spoken by

the queen.

28 The Qur'anic account, with its explicit mention of God inQ.27:44, would appear to be

much more 'religious' than the Biblical. But the Biblical account is not completely without a

religious element. I Kings 10:9 has the queen say to Solomon, 'Blessed be the Lord your God,

who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel. Because the Lord loved Israel

forever, he has made you king to execute justice and righteousness.' Likewise in 2 Chronicles

9:8:, 'Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king

for the Lord your God ...'.

DOI: I 0.33661E1 465359 I 08000053

Queen of Shebas Conversion-libre

Documents