Two disturbing reports preserved in al-Ṭabarī’s History
Some early Islamic literature contains traditions concerning the Black Stone of Mecca and the alleged origin of female circumcision. These reports deserve careful examination. At the same time, intellectual honesty requires an important qualification: a narrative preserved by a Muslim historian is not necessarily a doctrine accepted by every Muslim, nor is every transmitted report an authentic saying of Muhammad.
The following two accounts appear in The History of al-Ṭabarī, one of the most important chronicles produced in the medieval Sunni world.
1. Did menstruating women turn the Black Stone black?
The Black Stone, embedded in the eastern corner of the Kaaba, was venerated in Arabia before Islam and continues to be touched or kissed by Muslim pilgrims. Islamic tradition attempts to place the Stone within a history beginning with Adam and Abraham.
Al-Ṭabarī preserves a report attributed through Mujāhid to ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās. According to this account, the Stone was originally a white jewel brought from Paradise by Adam:
“Indeed, I was told by ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas that it was a white jewel that Adam took out of Paradise and used to wipe his tears, for after he left Paradise, his tears did not stop for two thousand years.”
When asked why the jewel became black, Mujāhid reportedly answered:
“Menstruating women were touching it in the Jahiliyyah.”
The Jāhiliyyah is the Islamic term for the pre-Islamic “age of ignorance.” Thus, this particular report attributes the Stone’s blackening to contact with menstruating women during pagan Arabia—not necessarily to every menstruating woman who ever touched it.
Source: al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, Vol. 1, General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), p. 303.
This is not the only Islamic explanation
Other Islamic traditions offer a different explanation. A report attributed to Muhammad says that the Stone came down from Paradise whiter than milk and was blackened by the sins of the children of Adam (Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, no. 877).
Consequently, it would be inaccurate to say that Sunni Islam universally teaches that menstruating women turned the Stone black. The narrower and defensible claim is this:
A report preserved by the Sunni historian al-Ṭabarī attributes the Black Stone’s color to its having been touched by menstruating women in pre-Islamic Arabia.
The distinction is important because al-Ṭabarī’s chronicle contains numerous reports transmitted with chains of authorities, including divergent and sometimes contradictory accounts. Their inclusion does not by itself establish universal Sunni acceptance.
Do Muslims worship the Black Stone?
Muslims ordinarily deny that the Stone is a god or possesses divine power. A famous report says that the caliph ʿUmar declared that the Stone could neither harm nor benefit him and that he kissed it only because he had seen Muhammad do so (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, no. 1597).
Nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, the ritual veneration of a physical object inherited from the pre-Islamic sanctuary raises legitimate historical and theological questions. The Christian must distinguish between accurately describing Muslim intentions and evaluating the objective religious history and meaning of the practice.
The Bible warns against confusing created things with the Creator:
“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And they worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed for all eternity. Amen.”
—Romans 1:25, CPDV
2. Did Sarah invent female circumcision by mutilating Hagar?
An even more disturbing account appears in the second volume of al-Ṭabarī’s history. The narrative claims that Sarah permitted Abraham to have intercourse with Hagar, after which Hagar bore Ishmael. Sarah subsequently became jealous and repeatedly expelled and recalled Hagar.
According to the report, Sarah swore that she would cut something from Hagar:
“I shall cut off her nose, I shall cut off her ear—but no, that would deform her. I will circumcise her instead.”
The account then states:
“So she did that, and Hagar took a piece of cloth to wipe the blood away. For that reason women have been circumcised and have taken pieces of cloth down to today.”
Source: al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, Vol. 2, Prophets and Patriarchs, trans. William M. Brinner (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 72.
The translator’s accompanying note appropriately calls this a “strange tradition” and suggests that it may reflect the antiquity of female circumcision among some Arab peoples—a practice predating Islam—rather than establish an actual event in the life of Sarah and Hagar.
Once again, this is not found in the Qur’an, nor is it part of the biblical account. It is a report preserved in later Islamic historiography.
What does the Bible actually say?
Genesis records that Sarah treated Hagar harshly after Hagar conceived Ishmael:
“And Sarai said to Abram: You deal unjustly with me. I gave my handmaid into your bosom, and she, seeing that she had conceived, despises me. May the Lord judge between me and you. And Abram responded to her, ‘Behold, your handmaid is in your hand. Treat her as it pleases you.’ And so, when Sarai afflicted her, she took flight.”
—Genesis 16:5–6, CPDV
Genesis later recounts the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael after the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:9–21). Nowhere, however, does Scripture say that Sarah circumcised or sexually mutilated Hagar.
Biblical circumcision was the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and was commanded for males:
“An infant of eight days will be circumcised among you, every male in your generations.”
—Genesis 17:12, CPDV
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that circumcision signified Abraham’s faith and obedience, the spiritual removal of disordered desire, and the distinction of the covenant people. It also prefigured Christ and the spiritual reality fulfilled in Him [Commentary on Romans §4:346–348]. Nothing in this biblical or Christian understanding provides support for female genital mutilation.
The Catholic judgment on female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation is not morally equivalent to legitimate medical treatment. It intentionally damages healthy organs, inflicts severe pain, and can produce lasting physical and psychological harm.
The Catechism teaches:
“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”
—Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2297
The Church therefore rejects female genital mutilation as a grave violation of bodily integrity and human dignity. No appeal to custom, tribal identity, sexual control, or an alleged act of an ancient matriarch can make such mutilation morally good.
Moreover, even if an ancient person had committed such an act, its antiquity would not justify its imitation. Scripture frequently records human sins without approving them. Description is not endorsement.
Conclusion
These traditions should be presented precisely:
- Al-Ṭabarī preserves a report that the Black Stone was once a white jewel from Paradise and became black because menstruating women touched it during pre-Islamic times.
- Other Islamic sources give a different explanation, attributing its blackening to human sins generally.
- Al-Ṭabarī also preserves a report claiming that Sarah circumcised Hagar in jealous retaliation and that this became the origin of female circumcision.
- Neither story belongs to the biblical account, and the second is explicitly characterized by al-Ṭabarī’s modern translator as a “strange tradition.”
- The Catholic Church unequivocally rejects nontherapeutic genital mutilation as contrary to the moral law and the dignity of the human person.
These accounts reveal the complexity—and sometimes the troubling character—of the traditions gathered by early Islamic historians.
Truth does not require distortion; it requires precision.
Leave a Reply