| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sura 11, “Hud,” dates (like sura 10) from late in the Meccan period, the first part of Muhammad’s prophetic career. Its name comes from verses 50-60, which tell the story of the prophet Hud, who was according to Islamic tradition sent to the ‘Ad people of Arabia around 2400 BC. Sura 11 repeats in stronger terms the warnings of sura 10 concerning Allah’s judgment. That, according to a hadith, caused Muhammad anxiety. Once one of his leading followers, Abu Bakr, said to him, “O Messenger of Allah, verily your hair has turned gray.” Muhammad replied that Sura 11, along with suras 56, 77, 78, and 81, all of which deal with judgment day, “have turned my hair gray.”
This hair-graying sura begins (verses 1-24) with a recapitulation of many themes touched on in sura 10, including the wisdom of the Qur’an itself (v. 1). Mujahid, Qatadah, and Ibn Jarir, among others, explained this verse as meaning that the Qur’an is “perfect in its wording, detailed in its meaning. Thus, it is complete in its form and its meaning.” For, says Ibn Kathir, “this Qur’an descended, perfect and detailed, with the purpose of Allah’s worship alone, without any partners.” The Qur’an is also inimitable: the challenge to produce a sura like it is repeated in v. 13. Stressed: the necessity to worship only Allah (v. 2) and the dependence of all creatures upon him (v. 6); the worthlessness of idols (v. 14); the deceptive glamour of this life (v. 15); the dreadful punishment (vv. 16, 22) that awaits those who “invent a lie against Allah” (v. 18), and the delightful gardens that await the blessed (v. 23).
Verse 5 contains a strange statement: “At the very moment when they cover themselves with their clothing, Allah knows that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim.” What would covering themselves with clothing have to do with Allah knowing them? Well, it appears that some people wore clothes to conceal themselves from Allah, particularly during intimate moments: Ibn Abbas explains that “there were people who used to be shy to remove their clothes while answering the call of nature in an open space and thus be naked exposed to the sky. They were also ashamed of having sexual relations with their women due to fear of being exposed towards the sky. Thus, this was revealed concerning them.”
Then follow the stories of various prophets, all revolving around their rejection by perverse and obstinate unbelievers. Verses 25-49 tell the story of Noah and the ark, with a significant difference from the Biblical story. In Genesis 6-9, Noah has nothing to do with the unbelievers at all; God tells him, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Genesis 6:13), and tells him to build the ark, but he doesn’t tell him to go warn the people about the flood. But in the Qur’an, Noah comes to his people with a “clear warning” (v. 25) that they should “serve none but Allah” (v. 26). So the corruption and violence of which the people are guilty in the Biblical account in the Qur’an become simply idolatry, or more precisely, shirk, the association of partners with Allah.
Of course, Muhammad came to his people with a clear warning (14:52) that they should serve none but Allah (3:64), and so in this account Noah is kind of a proto-Muhammad, preaching a message identical to his. And that is, indeed, how Islam views all the Biblical prophets. They, like Muhammad, taught Islam – it was their followers who corrupted their teachings to create modern Judaism and Christianity. Even the reception Noah receives resembles how the pagan Quraysh received Muhammad. The unbelievers tell him he is just a man and charge him and his followers with lying (v. 27), and even claim he is forging the messages he claims are from Allah (v. 35). Noah counters by saying that it won’t matter what he says to them if Allah has determined to lead them astray (v. 34). This, of course, almost exactly replicates Muhammad’s experience: Allah tells him to tell the unbelievers that he is just a man (18:110); they charge him with lying (42:24) and with forging the Qur’an (v. 13); and of course Muhammad also teaches that if Allah wills to lead someone astray, no one can guide him (7:186).
Noah is, then, essentially a stand-in for Muhammad. Indirectly emphasized are the identity of the messages of all the prophets, and the obstinacy of the unbelievers before the manifest truth of Allah. One of those unbelievers is Noah’s son, who declines to enter the ark and instead says, “I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water” (v. 43). His son dies in flood, and Noah reminds Allah of his promise to save his family (which came in v. 40): “O my Lord! Surely my son is of my family!” (v. 45). But Allah tells him, “O Noah! He is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous” (v. 46). Belief and unbelief in Islam supersede even family ties. Ibn Kathir explains: “Thus, for his son, it had already been decreed that he would be drowned due to his disbelief and his opposition to his father.”
The story of Hud (verses 50-60) follows a roughly similar pattern. He tells the people of ‘Ad to repent (v. 52), but they complain that he has brought them no clear sign (v. 53), and are destroyed – although Hud and his people are saved (v. 58). Verses 61-68 repeat the same pattern in telling the story of Salih, who was sent sometime after Noah’s time to the Thamud people, who lived in northern Arabia. Allah gives them a sign of his power: the “she-camel of Allah is a symbol to you” (v. 64) – which according to some traditions emerged miraculously from a mountain. The Thamud are told not to harm it, but they do anyway (v. 65) and are destroyed (v. 67), except for Salih and the believers (v. 66).
Verses 69-83 retell the Biblical story of Abraham, Sarah and Lot, culminating in the destruction of an unnamed Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 82) with a strong hint of an unnamed crime of sodomy (v. 79). Verses 83-95 tell the story of Shu’aib, prophet to the Midianites, in language very similar, and with an identical outcome, to the story of Hud.
Then verses 96-123 recapitulate many themes of the entire sura, with passing reference to Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 96-98). Both those who reject Allah and those who accept him will face a fearsome judgment, leading to hellfire for the unbelievers and Paradise for the believers (vv. 103-108). Allah gave Moses the Torah, but there are disputes about it (v. 110), which Allah would have already settled except that he has decided to “delay His chastisement from your nation,” according to the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs. The believers should pray and be steadfast (vv. 114-115), for all this is Allah’s will: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people: but they will not cease to dispute” (v. 118). Yet believers must trust in him (v. 123).
Next week: Sura 12, “Joseph”: signs and symbols for seekers after truth.
(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 January 14, 2008 5:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I've been reading these blogs for a while, and I have yet to see much in the way of what one would call ethics, outside of belief in Allah: Believe in Allah, attain earthly pleasures in paradise, or go to hell.
Perhaps there's more. Does anyone know the details of zakat, or charity? I know that's been used to fund terror organizations, as though helping the needy must go hand in hand with Islam, spread by any means. It's all a kind of circular system: Believe, give to further belief, kill to further belief, and so on.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 14, 2008 6:51 AM
“For, says Ibn Kathir: this Qur’an descended, perfect and detailed, with the purpose of Allah’s worship alone, without any partners.”
The Qur'an is all they need, and Muslims will destroy any alternative sliver of a link to another cultural heritage.
"The Iranian government is in the final stages of constructing a dam in the country's south that will submerge the archaeological sites of Pasargad and Persopolis – the ancient capital of the Persian Empire. The site, which is considered exceptional in terms of its archaeological wealth and historical importance, houses the tomb of the Persian King Cyrus.
The ayatollah regime in Iran is endeavoring to sever the link between the Persian people and its historic heritage through measures including the destruction of archaeological sites that are significant to this heritage."
http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=2794&MenuID=726&ThreadID=1014017
Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at January 14, 2008 7:10 AM
The she-camel of Allah? That's a wonderfully evocative (and hilarious) phrase - and one that I think I'm going to have to try to use at every opportunity.
Posted by: Ben at January 14, 2008 7:12 AM
"... the worthlessness of idols..."
...yep , like a black rock....
at January 14, 2008 7:18 AM
"...They, like Muhammad, taught Islam – it was their followers who corrupted their teachings to create modern Judaism and Christianity....."
....and the Jews and Christians have been inventing and improving things for the betterment of the lives of their followers ever since....
....need proof?....check out the lifestyles of Muslims in Muslim controlled lands to those of Non Muslims in Non Muslim controlled lands....big difference...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 14, 2008 7:22 AM
Robert--
I've always been curious about this category of Islamic prophets. I've read that Shu'aib is identified with the biblical Jethro, but as for the others, prepare to be bombarded with questions in 3... 2...
Is there any surviving non-Islamic or pre-Islamic literature that fills in the gaps on who Hud and Salih were, if they were legend, if they would have been well known figures to Muhammad's contemporaries, and, of course, if they existed?
As for the people they were alleged to have preached to, what were they practicing at the time of Muhammad? Did they have any history of monotheism that would have been handy to fold into the narrative of prophets that supposedly led up to Muhammad?
Thanks-- I owe thee a Carlsberg.
- Marisol
Posted by: MarisolJW at January 14, 2008 9:59 AM
I was expecting a little more about Paul Newman.
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2008 10:56 AM
exsgtbrown
exactly. Western nations are what they are today because of Christian foundations. Saudia Arabia the richest and most islamic nation of all would utterly collapse if it wasnt for a) oil they have and b) foreign wokers, know how and technology poured into that country to prop it up.
Left to their own devices islamic nations ban learning (history note: MUSLIMS burned down the library of Alexandria not Christians, Jew, or buddhists..)
at January 14, 2008 11:19 AM
Qur’an is also inimitable: the challenge to produce a sura like it is repeated in v. 13. Stressed: the necessity to worship only Allah (v. 2) and the dependence of all creatures upon him (v. 6); the worthlessness of idols (v. 14); the deceptive glamour of this life (v. 15); the dreadful punishment (vv. 16, 22) that awaits those who “invent a lie against Allah” (v. 18), and the delightful gardens that await the blessed (v. 23).
What's wrong with this statement? Nothing except
vv, 16/22, and V 18. Allah was doing pretty good until we got to those...A spiritual wet blanket thrown over the party. Of course 'wet blanket, jihad is only for Allah. The Ayatollah was right, there is no fun in Islam. Allah's 'wet blanket' ruins it every time...No wonder Muslims spend so much time being personally miserable...
at January 14, 2008 11:21 AM
After going through quite a few of your blogs and using the site that has several translations of the Koran, my opinion is that the Koran is perfect. It's a perfect piece of crap. I mean, the writing is awful. I guess in Arabic there is some kind of chanting, poetic quality that we miss in translation, but using all that flowery, insipid poetry to cover a vile point of view adds up to one perfect pile of crap. No amount of perfume will make that pile smell good.
Posted by: tjhawk at January 14, 2008 11:34 AM
... I guess in Arabic there is some kind of chanting, poetic quality that we miss in translation...
Posted by: tjhawk
I don't think there are any hidden meanings revealed by reciting the Quran in Arabic. If there are such hidden meanings, no one has told us what they are.
Chanting the Quran is a sonic. It is like any other repetitive mantra, including Hail Mary's.
The Hindu 'Om Madme Padmi Hum', and 'Om', are different mantras than the Quran, and have different meanings, because they are invoking different gods. What is the same is the 'vibrating', certain brain centers to produce an effect.
You know, the 'vibes' that we keep hearing about.
It would seem that the mantra's of the East and the 'Hail Mary's' of the west, have a tendency to produce tranquility and then peace, where the chanting of the Quran produces a tendency toward
supremacist attitude, and violence.
It would actually be better for muslims to not read the Quran in Arabic...When they do, they run the risk of infection from Allahs virus...
at January 14, 2008 12:10 PM
It would actually be better for muslims to not read the Quran in Arabic...When they do, they run the risk of infection from Allahs virus...
On second thought I should revise that statement. It would be better if muslims did not read the Quran at all...
Posted by: duh_swami at January 14, 2008 12:51 PM
Robert-
I've been chewing gum in class and not paying attention for awhile and not reading the Blog on the Quran. It's a great read. Really. In fact, I read and tape record the lessons and then later listen to them as I do other things (I'm from the Yogi Berra School: "Repetition is the mother of learning"). It's terrific. Really.
Posted by: Frank at January 14, 2008 2:39 PM
THE OPENING, CHAPTER NO. 001
With the Name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer
001.001 In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
001.002 Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
001.003 Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
001.004 Master of the Day of Judgment.
001.005 Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
001.006 Show us the straight way,
001.007 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose
(portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
"The final two verses of the Fatiha asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians".-commentary-paragraph 4....
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/03/blogging-the-quran-sura-1-the-opening/
------------------
The Qu'ran is sick stuff.
at January 14, 2008 5:46 PM
"But unfortunately, this interpretation is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology. The printing of the interpretation in parenthetical glosses into a translation would be unlikely to affect Muslim attitudes, since the Arabic text is always and everywhere normative in any case, and since so many mainstream commentaries contain the idea that the Jews and Christians are being criticized here. Seventeen times a day, by the pious".
http://www.oneummah.net/quran/01.htm
It's a very sick "religion". Islam is sick. Very sick.
Posted by: Frank at January 14, 2008 5:57 PM
"and tells him to build the ark, but he doesn’t tell him to go warn the people about the flood."
Wonderful series - thank you very much! In this matter of Noah though, according to 2 Pet 2.5 Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness" so that in the Christian tradition, if not the Jewish, Noah may reasonably be understood to have preached the need for a right relationship with God (which is the best way to understand the term 'righteous' or 'righteousness') to the people at the time of the Flood.
OTOH the example of Noah's life may have been the only 'preaching' he engaged in - I've found a useful definition of what godliness is: "a godly life is one that, without God, makes no sense". Certainly he lived like this.
Of course, as you explain, Islam delights in taking over the 'best' aspects of other faiths for their own use and pragmatically embellishing them where necessary.
A very small point though. Thank you again for this unique & informative series.
Posted by: Liam1304 at January 14, 2008 6:26 PM
When do we get this in book form? I want a hard copy ASAP.
Posted by: former liberal WF at January 14, 2008 6:34 PM
@ MarisolJW
While not suggesting that the Wiki is reliable in all cases, it does come up with some suggestions:
Hud possibly being the biblical Eber (he of tower of Babel fame), or even Hammurabi himself. The latter would be interesting as stories around him claimed that he received the code from the god Shamash (the sun god), which goes to show that the tradition of claiming to have a received a set of laws or sets of instructions from gods and angels is as old as the history of mankind.
Posted by: Kuma No Kami at January 14, 2008 7:15 PM
"Muhammad also teaches that if Allah wills to lead someone astray, no one can guide him (7:186)."
See, this is the kind of thing in the Qur'an that makes no sense at all. What kind of diety would lead people astray? Is that not the purest example of wickedness that could be found?
On the one hand, it's not very kind to the people upon whom this "divine" practical joke falls. On the other, there's poor ole "Muhd", trying (if we suspend our disbelief for a moment) to save people who cannot be saved.
What an evil being the Mohammedan illah is!
Isn't it Satan's job to lead people "astray"?
Posted by: Abscedere at January 14, 2008 11:32 PM
Abscedere writes:
"What kind of deity would lead people astray? Is that not the purest example of wickedness that could be found?"
Interestingly, Catholic theologians recently suggested (I believe their advice has not yet been adopted) that the last verse of the Lord's Prayer be changed so that it no longer reads 'and lead us not into temptation'. Evidently they also had some problems with a deity that leads its creatures astray...
at January 15, 2008 4:42 PM
martyrmaker
that particular verse can also be translated 'do not bring us to hard testing' - the Greek word translated 'temptation' or 'testing' is peirasmos, and its primary meaning has overtones of an ordeal, hard test or trying of something.
It's about being subjected to trials - perhaps like being asked to walk through fire, or run a marathon.
We are probably meant to think of something similar to the suffering which Job underwent, when his temporal blessings were destroyed (Satan, the 'Adversary' or 'Accuser', had claimed Job's faith and love for God were due to mere 'cupboard love'; God insisted that this was not the case).
The Book of Job is a key development in Biblical theology - it illustrates a decoupling of temporal suffering from the strict 'be good/get rewarded here and now', 'be naughty/get punished here and now' calculus, and the recognition that there can be such a thing as undeserved or 'innocent' suffering; that the suffering of a righteous person may be a test, not a punishment.
The petition 'do not bring us to hard testing' is an acknowledgement of our human weakness. We openly express our fear that, if tested to the limit like Job was, we may fail.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 15, 2008 8:41 PM
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.)