Divination by arrows in the Hebrew Bible and pre-Islamic Arabia

Divination was a widespread practice in the ancient Near East. Different methods were used: covering stones, sticks, and marked objects, etc. Among its various forms, the use of arrows as decision-making instruments is particularly striking. This blog examines references to arrow-based divination in the Hebrew Bible alongside evidence from pre-Islamic Arabia, where such practices are more fully attested. By placing these traditions in dialogue, it explores both their shared cultural background and their differing theological responses to divination.

In Ezekiel 21:21, the Babylonian king is described using a striking method of divination using arrows:

For the king of Babylon will stop at the fork in the road, at the junction of the two roads, to seek an omen: He will cast lots with arrows, he will consult his idols, he will examine the liver.

This passage illustrates that divination by arrows was part of a broader ancient Near Eastern religious culture, including Babylon. The king's actions—casting lots, consulting teraphim (household gods), and examining animal livers—highlight a ritual commonly used to seek the divine will before making crucial decisions, such as going to war.

The Hebrew Bible includes examples in which casting lots are portrayed neutrally or even positively. For instance, the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:30; Num 27:21) and the use of lots to divide land (Josh 14) suggest that, in certain situations, seeking guidance through specific rituals was acceptable. Importantly, although the Hebrew Bible documents these practices, its stance toward them is not uniform. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 explicitly prohibits various forms of divination. Rather than signalling a simple rejection, Deuteronomy reflects a theological shift toward privileging prophetic revelation and divinely regulated forms of inquiry over other ritual techniques. This tension sets the stage for examining a similar practice in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Polytheism and divination in pre-Islamic Arabia

Pre-Islamic Arabia was marked by rich religious diversity and an overwhelmingly polytheistic worldview. Tribes across the Arabian Peninsula worshipped many deities, each associated with specific domains of life, such as fertility, rain, war, and protection.

The Arab historian and lexicographer Hishām ibn al-Kalbī (8^th-9^th century CE) compiled an extensive record of these deities in his Kitāb al-Āṣnām ("The Book of Idols"). This Book of Idols is a concise dictionary of pre-Islamic gods in Arabia and may be compared it to the "Dictionary of Deities and Demons", a book well-known amongst Biblical scholars and theologians. While Hishām does not explicitly claim there were 365 gods, his comprehensive listing of idols—some housed in the Kaʿbah—suggests a culture in which it felt as if there was a god for every day of the year. Later sources, perhaps engaging in symbolic numerology, popularised the notion of 365 deities.

Temples and shrines dedicated to these gods were scattered throughout the Arabian Peninsula. People visited them to offer sacrifices, seek forgiveness, and, most significantly, consult the gods for guidance through various divinatory rituals. These sacred interactions shaped daily life, from agriculture and trade to marriages and warfare.

The role of diviners and lot casters in Arabia

At the heart of these ritual systems were diviners, known as kāhins—a term conceivably related to the Hebrew kōhēn (priest)—and lot-casters, who served as intermediaries between humans and the gods. Their services were sought for personal and communal decisions, such as whether to embark on a journey, approve a marriage, or prepare for war.

One widespread form of divination involved shooting arrows, a practice known as al-azlām. Typically, three arrows were used: one marked "God wants you to do it," another "God does not will it," and the third was left blank. The arrow that was picked showed what decision to make. These arrows were often kept at temples and cast by religious specialists, thereby highlighting the ritual's holy nature.

This practice was not merely superstition; it reflected a worldview in which fate was predictable and could be read through signs. Decisions were not made in isolation but embedded in society's sacred, communal fabric. Even tribal leaders would defer to diviners' verdicts in moments of great importance, illustrating the high status of religious practitioners in pre-Islamic culture.

Terminology and parallels

The language used in divination provides valuable insight into the shared heritage of Semitic cultures. Consider the Arabic word saʿd (سَعْد), meaning good fortune, and naḥs (نَحْس), meaning misfortune. The term naḥs is closely related to the Hebrew naḥash (נַחֵשׁ), which refers to divination, particularly the practice of seeking prophecies from diviners.

This linguistic similarity likely reflects a shared Semitic background. The Arabic root n-ḥ-s and the Hebrew n-ḥ-sh revolve around interpreting signs and discerning hidden truths. Similarly, the Arabic root q-s-m—from which istaqsamū (استقسموا, "they seek division/fate") is derived—is directly related to the Hebrew qesem (קֶסֶם), a term also denoting divination in Deuteronomy 18:10–14.

These lexical parallels reinforce a shared linguistic heritage and point to related historical and cultural backgrounds across Semitic societies. While the practices may differ in form, the conceptual frameworks—and the words used—often stem from common roots. These linguistic traces help scholars reconstruct possible interwoven religious landscapes of the ancient Near East.

For example, in both traditions the diviners' role is similar. Seeking divine guidance through divination was of great cultural significance, illustrating the reliance on supernatural signs for making important decisions. Moreover, both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran denounce such practices in several passages when related to foreign gods, emphasizing that decisions should be based on a direct relationship with God rather than on divination. We see this rejection in more detail, in the next section.

Biblical rejection of divination

Although the Hebrew Bible documents the presence of divination in surrounding cultures and occasionally in Israel’s own history, its stance toward these practices is inconsistent, as mentioned earlier. In numerous contexts, divination is explicitly rejected, particularly when individuals seek hidden knowledge through ritual means associated with foreign deities. This prohibition is most clearly articulated in Deuteronomy 18:10–12, which condemns those who practice divination, sorcery, interpret omens, engage in witchcraft, or cast spells, and concludes that such acts are detestable to YHWH. This position reflects a broader theological principle: legitimate divine guidance comes through prophetic revelation, not through divination rituals.

At the same time, certain practices—especially the casting of lots—appear in early Israelite traditions, such as the division of land in Joshua 18 and consultation in Numbers 27:21. These instances, however, are presented as regulated and dependent on divine sanction, rather than as independent techniques. Within the dominant biblical framework, authority rests with prophets who speak on behalf of YHWH, not with diviners who rely on ritualized signs.

Collectively, these texts indicate a theological development in which earlier or shared practices are reinterpreted and more precisely delineated. While passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–12 and Leviticus 19:26, 31 prohibit various forms of divination, other texts present limited and regulated uses of lot-casting. This tension reinforces central themes of obedience, covenantal faithfulness, and reliance on authorized forms of revelation, thereby contributing to a distinctive conception of religious practice in ancient Israel.

Qurʾānic condemnation of divination

Islam came as a reformative movement against polytheistic religions in Arabia. The Qurʾān, therefore, explicitly addresses and prohibits illegitimate practices of divination such as throwing arrows in decision-making. In Sūra al-Māʾidah (5:3), it states:

"And [prohibited is] that you seek decisions through divining arrows—that is grave disobedience."
wa-an tastaqsimū bil-azlām dhālikum fisq (وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ)

The verb tastaqsimū comes from the root q-s-m, emphasizing the attempt to discern one's portion or fate through demonic ritual. It refers to using rituals—like drawing arrows—to guess what will happen. The Qur'an does not only reject the practice itself but also the idea behind it: that people can control or know God's plan by using divinatory methods.

Classical commentators such as al-Zamakhsharī, al-Ṭabarī, and Ibn ʿAbbās confirm that this practice was widely used in pre-Islamic Arabia. People consulted arrows for decisions large and small—from business deals to marriages and tribal warfare. The Qurʾānic condemnation, therefore, serves both a theological and social function: it challenges the authority of a class of religious intermediaries and reorients divine guidance around scripture and prophecy.

Conclusion: shared practices, diverging theologies

The practice of casting lots—whether through arrows, dice, or other objects—offers a window into the religious mindsets of ancient Semitic cultures. From Babylon to Arabia, such practices expressed a deep human longing to know the unknowable, to decode the will of the divine in moments of crisis.

However, the textual traditions of both the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾān demonstrate a transition away from ritualistic and divinatory culture toward a relationship with God grounded in revelation, ethical conduct, and conscious submission.

This theological divergence—though built on a shared history of beliefs and practices—marks a profound reimagining of divine-human interaction. Studying these similar practices might enrich our understanding of ancient religion and can reveal how spiritual traditions adapt and transform over time.

As modern readers, we are reminded that, while divination tools may seem foreign or outdated, the desire for guidance in times of uncertainty has been and still is universal. What changes across time and tradition is the means by which that guidance is sought and the kind of God to whom one returns.