al-Aʿlā 87:19

Ṣuḥufi Ibrāhīma wa Mūsā "The scriptures of Abraham and Moses."

This verse is the appositive substitute for the expression al-ṣuḥufi'l-ūlā in the preceding verse: it determines what had been left indeterminate. "The earlier scriptures" was said, and then which ones they are was stated.

This is a technique often seen in the Qurʾān: the general first, then the specification. It had been seen in Sūrat al-Qāriʿa as well — hāwiya was said, and then it was named by saying nārun ḥāmiya.

The choice of these two names is not accidental, and it has to do with those addressed.

Abraham. Mecca's claim to religious legitimacy rested on him. The belief that the Kaʿba was built by Abraham was the foundation of Quraysh's position, and the Qurʾān accepts this link — it is treated at length in Sūrat al-Baqara (2/124-129). The verse, that is, sends the addressee to the source he himself claims.

Moses. The prophet known in the region and having a book in his hand. The idea of revelation was already familiar by way of "the People of the Book".

The two names together cover two different addressees: the Meccans who carry a claim of descent, and the communities that possess a book.

The same two names come side by side once more in the Qurʾān, and there the order is reversed:

"Or has he not been told of what is in the scriptures of Moses, and of Abraham, who fulfilled?" (al-Najm 53/36-37)

In al-Aʿlā: Abraham, then Moses. In al-Najm: Moses, then Abraham.

I say nothing certain about the reason for this difference. The verse-ending may be a factor — since all the verses of al-Aʿlā end in -ā, Mūsā has to come last. The verse-ending of al-Najm, however, is different.

But this may be recorded: the order in al-Aʿlā is historical (Abraham first, then Moses), while the order in al-Najm goes by familiarity. Both carry a logic.

There is something that must be said about this verse.

Today we have to hand no text known as "the scriptures of Abraham". The Qurʾān does not give the name of a book; it says "scriptures". Various apocryphal texts have been referred to by this name throughout history, but their relation to what is meant in the verse cannot be established, and I make no such matching.

What the verse says is not a claim about a document but a claim about continuity: what is being said is not new.

This verse must be read together with the fourth verse of Sūrat al-Baqara.

In the section on al-Baqara 2/4 this was recorded: "As a condition of faith not only 'what has been sent down to you' but also 'what was sent down before you' is counted… The text presents itself not as a new religion but as the last link of a chain that had been interrupted."

The two verses set up the same chain from two different directions:

al-Baqara lays down a duty; al-Aʿlā states the fact on which that duty rests. If belief in the earlier revelations is asked for, the reason is that this revelation says the same thing as they do.

And the form of the claim in al-Aʿlā is striking: the text defends itself by saying that it is not new. This is not a usual defence — one would expect a text that claims to bring something new. The Qurʾān does the reverse.

The reason for this lies in the Qurʾān's own claim: what is brought is not a novelty but a reminder. Indeed the command in the ninth verse of the sūra was exactly this: fa-dhakkir — remind.

The sūra opened with a command and closed with a statement of source.

This is the second closing of the circle. The first was between 1 and 15 (the tasbīḥ of the name / the dhikr of the name). The second is this: in the ninth verse "remind" had been said; the nineteenth verse says where the thing recalled comes from. A reminder can only be given for something that has been said before.