| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sura 2, Al-Baqara (“The Cow”), like almost all of the chapters of the Qur’an, takes its title from something recounted within it – in this case, the story of Moses relaying Allah’s command to the Israelites that they sacrifice a cow (2:67-73). It is the longest sura of the Qur’an – 286 verses – and begins the Qur’an’s general (but not absolute) pattern of running from the longest to the shortest chapters, with the exception of the Fatiha, which has pride of place as the first sura because of its centrality in Islam. Surat Al-Baqara, “The Cow,” was revealed to Muhammad at Medina – that is, during the second part of his prophetic career, which began in Mecca in 610. In 622 Muhammad and the fledgling Muslim community moved to Medina, where for the first time Muhammad became a political and military leader. Islamic theologians generally regard Medinan suras as taking precedence over Meccan ones wherever there is a disagreement, in accord with verse 106 of this chapter of the Qur’an, in which Allah speaks about abrogating verses and replacing them with better ones. (This interpretation of verse 106, however, is not universally accepted. Some say it refers to the abrogation of nothing in the Qur’an, but only of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. More on that when the time comes.)
Sura 2 contains a great deal of important material for Muslims, and is held in high regard. The medieval Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (whose commentary is still read and respected by Muslims) conveys in an earthy way that recitation of this sura distresses Satan, recounting that one of Muhammad’s early followers, Ibn Mas’ud, remarked that Satan “departs the house where Surat Al-Baqarah is being recited, and as he leaves, he passes gas.” Without Ibn Mas’ud’s poor taste, Muhammad himself says: “Satan runs away from the house in which Surah Baqara is recited.”
The chapter begins with three Arabic letters: alif, lam, and mim. Many chapters of the Qur’an begin with three Arabic letters in this way, which has given rise to a considerable amount of mystical speculation as to what they might mean. But the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, another classic Qur’anic commentary, succinctly sums up the prevailing view: “God knows best what He means by these [letters].”
The verse immediately following those letters contains a key Islamic doctrine: “This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt.” The Qur’an is not to be questioned or judged by any standard outside itself; rather, it is the standard by which all other things are to be judged. That, of course, is not significantly different from the way many other religions regard their Holy Writ. But there has been no development in Islam of the historical and textual criticism that have transformed the ways Jews and Christians understand their scriptures today. The Qur’an is a book never to be doubted, never to be questioned: when one Islamic scholar, Suliman Bashear, taught his students at An-Najah National University in Nablus that the Qur’an and Islam were the products of historical development rather than being delivered in perfect form to Muhammad, his students threw him out of the window of his classroom.
2:1-29 is an extended disquisition on the perversity of those who reject belief in Allah, and sounds several themes that will recur many times. The Qur’an, we’re told, is guidance to those who believe in what was revealed to Muhammad as well as in “that which was revealed before” him (v. 4). This involves the Qur’an’s oft-stated assumption that it is the confirmation of the Torah and the Gospel, which teach the same message Muhammad is receiving in the Qur’anic revelations (see 5:44-48). When the Torah and Gospel were found not to agree with the Qur’an, the charge arose that Jews and Christians had corrupted their Scriptures — which is mainstream Islamic belief today. Muhammad Asad states it positively: “the religion of the Qur’an can be properly understood only against the background of the great monotheistic faiths which preceded it, and which, according to Muslim belief, culminate and achieve their final formulation in the faith of Islam.”
Another theme is Allah’s absolute control over everything, even the choices of individual souls to believe in him or reject him: “As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)” (vv. 6-7). The Qadaris of early Islamic history held that mankind had free will, and was thus capable of choosing to do good or evil. Their opponents maintained that Allah determined everything. While both sides had abundant Qur’anic citations to support their views, eventually Muslim authorities condemned Qadarism as a heresy, as it restricted Allah’s absolute sovereignty over all things. Thus those who reject faith do so because Allah wills it, as per these verses, not because they have free choice. Says Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] indicate that whomever Allah has written to be miserable, they shall never find anyone to guide them to happiness, and whomever Allah directs to misguidance, he shall never find anyone to guide him.” (A good brief overview of the Qadari controversy can be found in the renowned Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher’s Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law.)
Then comes the condemnation of hypocrites and false believers, who frequently bedeviled Muhammad during his career as a prophet (vv. 13-20). And finally there is the assertion of the sublimity of the Qur’an, such that doubters are challenged to produce a sura like it if they refuse to believe its divine provenance (v. 23). This is a challenge many have taken up, but of course it is the kind of challenge that can never be successfully met in the eyes of those who issue it – “they could not produce the like thereof” (17:88).
2:25 introduces the famous gardens of Paradise, wherein the believers shall reside — about which more later.
2:30-39 tells the story of Adam and Eve, in a manner suggesting that the hearers of the recitation are already familiar with the story. Allah tells the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam (v. 34), a command that appears to depend upon the Biblical notion of mankind’s having been created in the image of God, although that idea does not appear here. According to Ibn Kathir, “Allah stated the virtue of Adam above the angels, because He taught Adam, rather than them, the names of everything.” Satan refuses to prostrate himself, thereby becoming an unbeliever (v. 34), and tempts Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit. Allah promises revelations to guide mankind, warning them that those who ignore these revelations will be punished with hellfire.
Then the sura turns in verses 40-75 to the Children of Israel, who play such an important role in the Qur’an — and, not coincidentally, in the modern Islamic consciousness — that we will devote next week’s Qur’an blog to them.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Posted by Robert at June 11, 2007 6:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Why can't I get Bart Simpson out of my head?
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 11, 2007 8:27 AM
Although not directly related to the cow chapter, could you answer these questions?
Previously posted by 'rational'.
[-]
Robert, or Any other scholars out there. Can anyone answer the following points?
I've never quite understood how Muslims explain away the abrogated verses in the Koran.
If the Koran is an eternal book, always present in heaven with Allah, did it always have contradictory suras. Did it always have nice guy verses in the first part, and reverse itself in the second part?
Secondly, when this eternal book was transmitted to Moses and Jesus -- whose followers subsequently corrupted it, did it include verses about Moses when Moses received it, and did it include verses about Jesus when Jesus received it?
In other words, did both these men read about themselves upon receiving the Koran? If the Koran is eternal and unchanging, it seems to me they would have had to. They would have also have had to read about Mohammad and and all the events relating to his life, including the abrogated verses, and including Allah's attitude towards Christians and Jews.
Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the Koran was supposed to have been transmitted to the earlier Prophets, and was later corrupted.
If the old and new testaments were transmitted seperatly, were they also supposed to have been eternal and unchanging revelations from Allah, or is the Koran the ony holy book that has the distinction of being eternal?
As I've already said, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the earlier Prophets were supposed to have received first editions of the Koran, and Mohammad was supposed to have received the last edition -- but always the same book.
Can anyone enlighten me on the above points? I'd really like to know how Muslim theologians would answer these questions.
Thanks in advance.
Added question by BORG: "And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions.
Posted by: rational at May 19, 2007 2:06 AM
[-]
Thanks for all you do Robert.
Posted by: Borg at June 11, 2007 12:45 PM
Would that cow mentioned in the Sira 2 by any chance be the "holy Cow!" of colloquialism fame?
Posted by: pythagoras at June 11, 2007 1:19 PM
Robert
I have a question. We all know that nashq - the principle of abrogation - allows Medinan verses to trump Meccan ones. But are there any principles by which oft repeated verses (or similar sounding ones) carry a lot more weight than those less repeated?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 11, 2007 3:02 PM
Robert,
I know you probably feel you receive plenty of death threats, but would you consider producing "The Meaning of the Noble Qur'an: A Study Edition for Infidels", replete with study notes, history, maps, etc. (gold leaf with thumb tabs, of course). Maybe organize it chronologically as well. I'd buy several of them for gifts.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 11, 2007 3:40 PM
Borg:
If the Koran is an eternal book, always present in heaven with Allah, did it always have contradictory suras. Did it always have nice guy verses in the first part, and reverse itself in the second part?
Yes, the abrogated verses were applicable for a particular time only.
Secondly, when this eternal book was transmitted to Moses and Jesus -- whose followers subsequently corrupted it, did it include verses about Moses when Moses received it, and did it include verses about Jesus when Jesus received it?
They didn't get the Qur'an. They got, respectively, the Torah and Gospel, which both taught the oneness of Allah and the future coming of Muhammad, but they were not the Qur'an.
In other words, did both these men read about themselves upon receiving the Koran? If the Koran is eternal and unchanging, it seems to me they would have had to. They would have also have had to read about Mohammad and and all the events relating to his life, including the abrogated verses, and including Allah's attitude towards Christians and Jews.
See above.
Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the Koran was supposed to have been transmitted to the earlier Prophets, and was later corrupted.
Yes, they all received books with a message that was identical to that of the Qur'an, but these books were not the Qur'an.
If the old and new testaments were transmitted seperatly, were they also supposed to have been eternal and unchanging revelations from Allah, or is the Koran the ony holy book that has the distinction of being eternal?
The OT and NT as we have them today are considered to be corrupted versions of the Torah and Gospel given to Moses and Jesus. And no, only the Qur'an is eternal.
Added question by BORG: "And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions.
In the Muslim view, all of the questions were foreordained by Allah in order to allow for transmission of the answers.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 11, 2007 6:59 PM
Pythagoras:
Would that cow mentioned in the Sira 2 by any chance be the "holy Cow!" of colloquialism fame?
I suspect the "holy cow" is of Hindu origin!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 11, 2007 7:15 PM
Infidel Pride:
I have a question. We all know that nashq - the principle of abrogation - allows Medinan verses to trump Meccan ones. But are there any principles by which oft repeated verses (or similar sounding ones) carry a lot more weight than those less repeated?
In Hadith, repetition is considered a sign of reliability, as the tradition has multiple attestation. In Qur'an, oft-repeated material does have a certain importance just by dint of the repetition.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 11, 2007 7:18 PM
Concerned Citizen,
I'd be happy to publish a Qur'an commentary, if I can find a publisher who is interested, and if said publisher doesn't mind that much of the material will have already been serialized online.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 11, 2007 7:20 PM
So EVERYTHING is explainable, it is the truth so therefore it must have an explaination, no matter.
The one question I have posted many times..
If Allah wants everyone to follow islam why would he 'put a seal' on the hearts of infidels so they can't know the truth? Just to have someone to punish?
Thank you for answering these questions.
at June 11, 2007 10:50 PM
Seconding Concerned Citizen's request for eventual publication of Robert's Meaning of the Noble Qur'an: A Study Edition for Infidels.
It could be marked Imprimatur by ...Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Patrick Sookhdeo, Daniel Scot, Lamin Sanneh and a slew of other significant Apostates, as being a true and accurate representation and intelligent critique of what it was that they used to believe before they fought their way free.
It could be dedicated to the Tears of Jihad - those millions of non-Muslims who have been either murdered or enslaved and abused, and all those apostates and 'blasphemers' who have been killed for thoughtcrime. One might even include Allah's or Mohammed's other victims: all those wretched Muslimahs who have been killed because of Islam's teachings and the utter contempt for women that it fosters in every society it has devoured.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 11, 2007 11:22 PM
Robert
Thanks for the response. One more question that I forgot to ask in general - (verses 1-39 weren't particularly of interest, but I'm going to have my questions ready for verses 190-193 whenever you get to it.)
That question is - while we know that Meccan Surahs get trumped by Medinan Surahs, how does it work when the conflict is within the same surah, but between different Ayats? Like for instance, 2:193, which calls for 'all religion to be for Allah' vs 2:256, which is that famous 'no compulsion in religion' verse? I recognize that this may be a bad illustration of what I'm trying to demonstrate, but the question stands - how do contradictory verses in the same chapter get resolved?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 12, 2007 1:47 AM
Pythogoras
Holy cow is a colloquialism that started with the Brits in India, and their exposure to the phenomenon of cows in some places being worshipped. Linguistically, there is no equivalent of this phrase in Hindi, Sanskrit, Bengali or any other Indian languages that I know of that literally translates into 'Holy Cow'.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 12, 2007 1:58 AM
Borg:
If Allah wants everyone to follow islam why would he 'put a seal' on the hearts of infidels so they can't know the truth? Just to have someone to punish?
You are asking a question about the mind of Allah; the answer would generally be that he has his reasons, and they are beyond us, or, more mundanely, that unbelievers exist as a challenge for believers.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 12, 2007 6:03 AM
Infidel Pride:
That question is - while we know that Meccan Surahs get trumped by Medinan Surahs, how does it work when the conflict is within the same surah, but between different Ayats? Like for instance, 2:193, which calls for 'all religion to be for Allah' vs 2:256, which is that famous 'no compulsion in religion' verse? I recognize that this may be a bad illustration of what I'm trying to demonstrate, but the question stands - how do contradictory verses in the same chapter get resolved?
There are many and various interpretations of 2:193 and 2:256, and how they go together. I'll be getting to them. But meanwhile, your larger question: there is no problem about this in principle. Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's first biographer, even contends that 8:66 abrogates 8:65 -- in other words, that the abrogation comes in practically the same breath.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 12, 2007 6:06 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)