Creating the world in six, er, eight days
According to Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Sura 41 was revealed to Muhammad after ‘Utba bin Rabi’a, a chieftan of the pagan Quraysh, offered Muhammad a series of proposals to “which if he accepts in part, we will give him whatever he wants, and he will leave us in peace.”
‘Utba approached Muhammad and reminded that he was of the Quraysh tribe (although they had rejected his prophetic claim). “If what you want is money, we will gather for you of our property so that you may be the richest of us; if you want honor, we will make you our chief so that no one can decide anything apart from you; if you want sovereignty, we will make you king, and if this ghost which comes to you, which you see, is such that you cannot get rid of him, we will find a physician for you, and exhaust our means in getting you cured, for often a familiar spirit gets possession of a man until he can be cured of it.”
Muhammad replied by reciting verses 1-37 of this sura. Then, Ibn Ishaq recounts, “when ‘Utba returned to his companions they noticed that his expression had completely altered, and they asked him what had happened. He said that he had heard words such as he had never heard before, which were neither poetry, spells, nor witchcraft. ‘Take my advice and do as I do, leave this man entirely alone for, by God, the words which I have heard will be blazed abroad. If (other) Arabs kill him, others will have rid you of him; if he gets the better of the Arabs, his sovereignty will be your sovereignty, his power your power, and you will be prosperous through him.’”
The other Quraysh chiefs were scornful, saying “He has bewitched you with his tongue.” But ‘Utba stood his ground, saying only: “You have my opinion, you must do what you think fit.”
What so impressed ‘Utba was another repetition of many frequently-repeated themes of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is clear and in Arabic (v. 3) -- which has given rise to the idea that the Qur’an cannot be translated, but is essentially in Arabic, and only its meaning can be rendered in other languages. It gives good news and warning, which most do not heed (vv. 4-5). Allah tells Muhammad to tell the unbelievers that he is just an ordinary man and that Allah is one, and they should not associate other gods with him (v. 6). One sign of his presence and power is that Allah created the universe in eight days (vv. 9-12) – contradicting 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59, in which he created it in six days.
Allah destroyed the people of ‘Ad (vv. 15-16) and the disbelievers from among the Thamud (vv. 17-18). Then Allah describes some of the torments of the unbelievers in hell, where even their skins will reproach the unbelievers for their rejection of Islam (vv. 19-25). The unbelievers try to drown out the recitation of the Qur’an (v. 26), but they’ll get their punishment in hell (vv. 27-28). The unbelievers in hell will ask Allah to show them who misled them, so they can torment them further (v. 29). The angels, meanwhile, protect the believers (vv. 30-32). Goodness and evil cannot be equal (v. 34); the unbelievers should not prostrate themselves before the sun and moon, but before Allah (v. 37).
Then verses 38-54 conclude the sura by excoriating the unbelievers for rejecting Islam. They are arrogant (v. 38), and are known to Allah (vv. 40-41). The Qur’an is a book of exalted power, containing no falsehood (vv. 41-42) and containing the same message as previous revelations (v. 43) – which, as we have seen, leads to the mainstream Muslim idea that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, because they do not contain the same message as the Qur’an, have been corrupted. If the Qur’an had been revealed in a language other than Arabic, the unbelievers would have complained about that (v. 44). Allah gave Moses “the Book” (the Torah), but disputes arose about it; “had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, their differences would have been settled between them” (v. 45). Ibn Kathir says that this means that if Allah had not decreed to “delay the Reckoning until the Day of Resurrection,” then “the punishment would have been hastened for them. But they have an appointed time, beyond which they will find no escape.”
On that day the idols the unbelievers invoke will leave them in the lurch (v. 48). When Allah makes a man prosper, he forgets that he will one day die and be judged (v. 50).
Then Sura 42 repeats that Muhammad is inspired, as were the earlier prophets (v. 3). The Qur’an is sent in Arabic to warn the Mother of Towns (that is, Mecca, so called “because it is nobler than all other lands,” says Ibn Kathir) of the judgment day, of which there is no doubt (v. 7). If Allah had willed, he could have made mankind a single people, but to some he chooses to extend mercy, while wrongdoers will have no one to help them (v. 8). Ibn Kathir sees this as more evidence of absolute determinism: Allah could have made human beings “either all following guidance or all following misguidance, but He made them all different, and He guides whomsoever He wills to the truth and He sends astray whomsoever He wills.” V. 44 affirms this again.
Allah will judge all disputes (v. 10) -- the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains: “And whatever you may differ, with disbelievers, in, of religion or otherwise, the verdict therein belongs, it will return, to God, on the Day of Resurrection.” Muhammad’s religion is the same as that of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (v. 13), but their followers “became divided only after Knowledge reached them, through selfish envy as between themselves” (v. 14) – buttressing the Islamic idea that the prophets of Judaism and Jesus must have taught Islam, and their message was corrupted by their followers. Muhammad is to call the people to Islam and to “judge justly” between them (v. 15). But those who argue about Allah after acknowledging him will be punished (v. 16) – an attitude which can, of course, be a hindrance to asking questions about the faith. Verses 17-29 continue in this vein, promising Paradise to believers and hell to unbelievers.
Then v. 30 declares that “whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought” – that is, says Ibn Kathir, “because of sins that you have committed in the past.” This leads to the notion that the path to good fortune in this world is more fervent adherence to Allah’s laws – as we see playing out these days in Pakistan and all over the Islamic world.
Verses 31-39 expound upon Allah’s power and the certainty of his judgment. Then v. 40 says that an equal injury should be inflicted in retaliation for an injury – but Allah will reward those who forgive. However, taking revenge is not sinful (v. 41). Then the sura concludes by reaffirming that the unbelievers will be punished (v. 45) and will have no protector on the Day of Judgment (v. 46) and that Muhammad is inspired (vv. 51-52).
(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.)
buttressing the Islamic idea that the prophets of Judaism and Jesus must have taught Islam, and their message was corrupted by their followers.
Robert, my understanding is the Qur'an itself never makes the claim the Bible is corrupted. That claim is something his followers cam up with hundreds of years after his death when the contradictions between the Bible and Qur'an became widely known. Is my understanding correct?
Wow...even Muhammad's own tribe wanted to be rid of him. But why would they go to such lengths, offering him anything he wanted?
Interesting again, that the scourges of hell await the unbelievers, but yet Allah created some specifically to be put in hell for his amusement.
I just can't make sense of that.
Thought people might enjoy this brief info on the above William Blake etching:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/William_Blake/17.R.htm
Concerning this:
"the Islamic idea that the prophets of Judaism and Jesus must have taught Islam"
Can I laugh, or what? You've got to be kidding! There was no Islam until circa 622 AD!
And this:
"Muhammad’s religion is the same as that of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus"
No it isn't! A 5-year-old child could compare and contrast and figure that out. Again, no Islam until bad old Mo, about 620 AD.
TheBigOldDog:
The Qur'an presupposes that the true text of the Bible is available in Muhammad's day: see 2:40-42, 126, 136, and 285; 3:3, 71, and 93; 4:47 and 136; 5:47-51, 69, and 71-72; 6:91; 10:37 and 94; 21:7; 29:45-46; 35:31; and 46:11.
However, it also says that the "transgressors" -- who are clearly Jews from the context, since it is talking about Moses etc. -- "changed the word from that which had been given them" (2:59).
Also: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby" (2:79).
"And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!" (3:187)
This goes for Christians as well as Jews:
"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." (5:13-14)
On those verses rests the Islamic idea that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, as well as the assertions that the earlier prophets were Muslim (3:67, etc.).
By the way, in case anyone doesn't know, "jihadwatch" is I, Robert Spencer, author of this thrilling and world-renowned series.
"By the way, in case anyone doesn't know, "jihadwatch" is I, Robert Spencer, author of this thrilling and world-renowned series."
Thrilling and world-renowned for sure, my cousins in Australia are following this series.
Another enlightening episode, thanks.
Good morning.
Thanks again for continuing this good series.
Several things for you, R.S.:
My guess is, since there's a lack of specific condemnation and violent retribution toward the Jews, this is a meccan sura?
Also, "One sign of his presence and power is that Allah created the universe in eight days (vv. 9-12) – contradicting 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59, in which he created it in six days."
Could it be that '6' and '8' were simply translated or copied wrong? Or would that be an admission of imperfection?
And finally, "This leads to the notion that the path to good fortune in this world is more fervent adherence to Allah’s laws..."
Doesn't this contradict the teaching that "whomever Allah leads astray has no hope from himself or anyone else?" Stacked deck n all... Sounds like no-win.
Thanks again!
Darcy: Thank you for the link. Very interesting. I loved the quote, and I wonder (and I am asking this respectfully, not contentiously) what my Christian friends think of Blake's quote:
To God - - If you have form'd a circle to go into,
Go into it yourself, and see how you would do.
I suppose they would say Jesus went into the circle.
Still, the existential paradox .....
All people are born Muslims. Some people are created for the Fire. (cognitive dissonance, big time!)
What kind of god "leads astray whom he will"? Is that "Merciful"?
I was reading the Yusuf Ali version of the above suras, and I must have missed something, because that version says "Allah" created the world in TWO days.
How can there be so many people so stupid, so irrational, that they believe this crap?
Thanks Mr. Spencer.
A couple of questions:
This is a really dumb question because I think you just covered this a few weeks ago and pointing out contradictions is pointless, but I gotta ask it anyway:
"The angels, meanwhile, protect the believers (vv. 30-32)"
I thought there were no angels in Islam. Or am I confusing angels with saints?
Who are the three people that the MSA site uses for the translations?
Jaynie59
There are hordes of Angels in Islam. (pbuh) claimed that he received the Qur'an via The Angel Gabriel (Jibreel).
Angels fought with the Muslims during their victorious battles.
Their are also Genies, talking birds and ants and a flying horse, but no saints.
How can there be so many people so stupid, so irrational, that they believe this crap?
Coercion. This is a Religion of Fear.
It has no spiritual dimension, and the fundamental moral code appears to be this:
Do not commit evil, except in the Cause of Allah.
Yes, there are tons of angels and other unseen stuff that you are requested to believe in. That comes very early in sura 2.
I'm working on an essay showing how sura 2 (which, illogically, is the first real sura) starts out by demanding that you discard rationality.
Ugly stuff. Give me Christianity any day, please...
If the Qur’an had been revealed in a language other than Arabic, the unbelievers would have complained about that
How then do Islamic scholars deal with all the foreign loan words in the Qur'an? Ibn Warraq cites a scholar who identified 275 words (including "Koran") that come from languages other than Arabic.
locomotivebreath1901:
Hi. Good to see you and others here.
Yes, it is. Apologies for not noting that.
It certainly would be, and it is unlikely anyway, since if you look at the text of this sura, you'll see that it doesn't say "8 days." It says he did one task in two days, another in four, and a third in two more. That adds up to eight.
Those who stray do so because Allah leads them astray. But those whom Allah guides to the truth, if they are fervent, will be rewarded in this world.
RS
JetBoy:
Good to see you here.
Me either.
RS
Darcy:
The mainstream Islamic understanding is that all the prophets taught Islam, and their messages were corrupted by their followers to create what we know of as Judaism and Christianity.
RS
Abscedere:
Good to see you here.
I have never been able to think so. This is one of the things that kept me from ever converting when I was in my first flush of enthusiasm about these things in the early 1980s.
Yes, quite right. It's the universe in six or 8 days. I apologize for being imprecise.
If you grow up in an environment in which it is taken very, very seriously, and dissenting voices are shunned and silenced, it is hard to avoid believing in it.
RS
Jaynie59:
There are lots of angels in Islam. Muhammad is supposed to have received the Qur'an through the angel Gabriel. There are saints also, although opinions differ sharply over whether it is licit to pray at their tombs.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose translation dates from the 1930s and is one of the most popular English translations of the Qur'an. Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, an English convert to Islam whose translation is more accurate than Ali's and dates from around the same time. And M. Shakir's, which is vastly inferior to the other two, although it is in more modern English.
Henrik:
Yes.
RS
Anthony:
They generally ignore them, as they ignore many inconvenient people and things.
RS
Zorro:
Thanks. I'm still smarting, and I appreciate it.
RS
Then v. 30 declares that “whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought” – that is, says Ibn Kathir, “because of sins that you have committed in the past.”
This sounds suspiciously like the Hindu concept of karma. Karma, good or bad, has been around forever.
Far longer than Islam. Good karma is better than bad karma, but no karma is best.
And the 8 day question? Allah created the world in six, but he spent an additional two days in Las Vegas resting up...
Robert,
I was going to query this on your sura 27 blog but never got round to it.
Its concerning the alleged authorship of the Qur'an.
Surah 27:91
"For me, I have been commanded to serve the
Lord of this city,"
Now this is from Yusuf Ali's version of the Qur'an, and normally when a difficulty like this appears Yusuf is very cheeky and puts the interpolation "(say)" in front of the verse to try to hide the mistake. On this verse he does not and there is no indication that the verse has suddenly switched speakers.
My Question is- Who is the "lord of the city" that Allah has been commanded to serve?
Who is commanding Allah to serve the Lord of Mecca.
Who is the 'Lord of this city'?
Who is Allah's boss?
Surah 6;114, Robert, I think has a similar problem, Yusuf is very naughty here, he adds 'say' but not in brackets, in an apparent attempt to deceive, as if it's in the original Arabic, which it is not!
Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? "
He even gives it inverted commas!
The command for (pbuh) to "say" these verses is not there in the Quraysh dialect of Arabic.
Muhammad....I mean 'Allah' seems to be a bit confused, no?
Sorry its OT for this surah.
dhimmiwit:
Yes, there are several times in the Qur'an, and you have found some of them, where Muhammad appears to be speaking -- defying the received idea that Allah is the sole speaker in the Qur'an. Ali does try to paper over them by adding "Say," but it isn't in the Arabic.
RS
Robert,
I regard this 'authorship' issue as critical in the struggle to discredit the Qur'an, therefore I was mildly surprised when nobody seemed slightly interested in making even a tiny issue of it, where the opportunity arose.
For me, proving that the Qur'an was authored by Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, Muhammad, Lucifer.....anyone bar Allah is essential.
Robert, your work is much appreciated in my part of the sinking ship that is Dar Al Harb (soon to be Dar AL Islam UK)
Dhimmiwit.
From the discussion:
"Muhammad replied by reciting verses 1-37 of this sura. Then, Ibn Ishaq recounts, “when ‘Utba returned to his companions they noticed that his expression had completely altered, and they asked him what had happened. He said that he had heard words such as he had never heard before, which were neither poetry, spells, nor witchcraft...".
Funnily enough, the words of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, if approached by a Muslim who has begun to question Islam, seem on occasion to be at least as powerful as this, if not more so. Here, out of the horse's mouth, is the account of one such 'deprogramming moment', from 'Mark Gabriel' [a nom de plume: he chose 'Mark' to honor St Mark, founder of the Egyptian church], author of "Islam and Terrorism".
He had memorised the Qur'an by age 12; he was teaching at Al-Azhar and was smart enough to notice a lot of the mind-numbing contradictions and dualities that people joining Mr Spencer's Qur'an class have also noticed; and foolish enough to express those doubts out loud, which earned him some gruelling sessions in the dungeons of the Secret Police, under suspicion of Apostasy. Anyway: after that he spent a year as a secret atheist/ unhappy 'seeker' wondering who might in fact be god (no more job at Al-Azhar, of course). And *then* someone gave him the Bible:
"I took the book home and opened it at random. My eyes fell on Matthew 5: 38:
'You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'
'My whole body began trembling. I had studied the Qur'an my whole life - not once did I find words as inspiring as this. I had come face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ.
'I lost all track of time. It felt as if I were sitting on a cloud above a hill, and in front of me was the greatest teacher in the universe, telling me about the secrets of heaven and the heart of God.
'I could easily compare the Bible to what I had learned from my years of studying the Qur'an, and there was no doubt in my mind that I was finally encountering the true God. I was still reading in the early hours of the next day, and by dawn I gave my heart to Jesus."
Any Egyptian Copts reading this may rejoice in the fact that it was an Egyptian Christian pharmacist - from whose shop Mr 'Gabriel' had been buying headache medicine - who gave him the scriptures which completed his liberation from Islam that had begun when he allowed himself to question the Quranic contradictions.
All of Islam is set up to keep Muslims from coming into contact, at all costs, with alternative ideas, not just the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and - just in case they do come across such texts - to make sure their minds are locked tight. Unfortunately for Mohammed and 'allah', Yeshua of Nazareth seems to have an uncanny habit of walking straight through locked doors.
I don't think this black stone in Mecca, who some consider stupid, would author a book like this. No other stones have been credited for book authorship, and I believe it's a fallacy that this stone is.
Probably Mo just wanted to shift responsibility for the content away from himself. Partly because the writing quality is so poor, partly because the primary function of the content, in his time, was to justify his, ahem, interesting lifestyle.
It just occurred to me--I meant to say "ayat", rather than suras (as one sura a week is what this Qur'an blog covers.) Oh, well...
Robert,
Thanks for your feedback on my questions. :)
The mainstream Islamic understanding is that all the prophets taught Islam, and their messages were corrupted by their followers to create what we know of as Judaism and Christianity.
RS
Posted by: jihadwatch at August 31, 2008 1:31 PM
Which is the biggest bunch of hooey ever. Invented to make johnny-come-lately Mohammedans feel good about themselves. Total fiction. Obviously. My God, are Mohammedans the Brainwashed Billion.
There was no Islam until circa 620 AD. Period.
However, taking revenge is not sinful (v. 41).
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion from the text. No translations that I know of use the word "revenge" but rather speak of "help" or "defend". I'm sure that an interpretation relying on the earlier "eye for an eye" echo could draw that conclusion but it's not frankly stated in the text. I do think you are going slightly beyond the brief of a scholarly and impartial guide to the Koran (if that or something like it is indeed your intended brief).
That slight criticism aside, thank you for continuing this excellent blog on the Koran. It is much appreciated.
Arizona:
Ibn Kathir, the most common and mainstream commentator on the Qur'an among Muslims today, translates the verse as "And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them." Then he says that this means that "there is no sin on him for taking revenge against the one who wronged him."
See it here:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=42&tid=47290
I am writing a scholarly and impartial guide to the Qur'an as Muslims understand it, and my statement on that verse reflects Ibn Kathir's understanding.
RS
Mr. Spencer:
You wrote, "The Qur'an presupposes that the true text of the Bible is available in Muhammad's day: see 2:40-42, 126, 136, and 285; 3:3, 71, and 93; 4:47 and 136; 5:47-51, 69, and 71-72; 6:91; 10:37 and 94; 21:7; 29:45-46; 35:31; and 46:11."
Then it must be that the Jews and the Christians (each saying the other has no leg to stand on) colluded together on the changes to the Old Testament. Presumably the Jews wouldn't care what changes the Christians made to the New Testament.
Pardon me for being profoundly skeptical.
Robert,
Thank you for that clarification. Following your suggestion, I found a translation by, among others, ibn Kathir which does indeed use the word "revenge". It is here: 42. Ash-Shûra
I understood that the Tafsir you linked to was only an interpretation, not a translation. Though I do understand that Muslims see all translations as interpretations only.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
First, thank you very much for your excellent work.
I have four questions about verse 42:14.
1. It says that followers of earlier phophets "became divided only after Knowledge reached them, through selfish envy as between themselves". How exactly would envy cause believers to create doctrinal rifts between themselves? Is it so that each subgroup could claim they have a better version of the religion than the other ones? What are the Islamic thoughts on this?
2. Is this another instance of the general idea that many (most? all?) kaffirs refuse to follow Islam out of bad faith, for pragmatic reasons, or material gain? As you explained in a previous answer, we also find this idea e.g. in 2:79 and 3:187.
3. About this accusation, how exactly are those dishonest kaffirs supposed to gain materially from denying Islam? Is there a general principle at work, or does it stem from a few incidents? For example, I remember vaguely an instance in the Quran or Hadith where some people deny Islam in order to curry favor with a foreign leader (was it a Byzantine emperor? Please correct me.)
This accusation would make more sense nowadays, when it's clear that the infidel West is materially superior to the Islamic world. But in the days of the Quran, it mustn't have been that obvious.
4. The accusation is especially puzzling given the numerous verses linking earthly, material success with faith in Allah, and all the promises of booty and rewards to believers. Have Islamic scholars tried to explain this apparent contradiction?
Your series is both fascinating and invaluable, whether hosted at Hot Air or JW. Keep up the good work!
Martin:
The divisions came about, according to Islamic thinkers, through the sinfulness of the followers of these prophets. Hence Ibn Kathir says that "their opposition to the truth arose after it had come to them and proof had been established against them. Nothing made them resist in this manner except their transgression and stubbornness."
Yes, it certainly is.
Yes, that was a delegation of Christians from Najran (in southern Arabia) who are supposed to have agreed not to admit that Muhammad was a prophet, even though they knew he was, because to do so would mean the end of their funding from the Byzantine Emperor. There are several early Islamic stories like this, and they all tend to suggest that the unbelievers refuse to believe because it will put them at a material disadvantage for some reason.
There is no necessary connection between rejection of Islam and material gain, but the recurrence of such stories in the Islamic sources has ended up making this idea, in the minds of many Muslims, a general principle. Thus Muslim spokesmen, even CAIR officials on radio shows, have accused me of only doing this for the money, as if it is some lucrative thing to oppose jihad (that is hardly the case) -- yet John Esposito, with his $24 million from Prince Alwaleed, never comes in for the same kind of criticism.
In the days of the Meccan suras, the Muslims were a small band. Islam had been rejected by the powerful Quraysh. So the situation was in that regard similar to that of today.
Not to my knowledge, except by recourse to diatribes against the machinations of the Zionists (and see in that connection sura 5:82). I have marveled more than once at Qutb's ability to affirm that strict adherence to Islam would bring material gain while simultaneously affirming that Muslims were poor because of the wickedness of unbelievers. Of course, he would have resolved the contradiction by saying that so many features of Islamic life in his day were actually non-Islamic, and if those features were eliminated or Islamized, prosperity would ensue.
Thank you.
RS
Arizona:
From a Muslim perspective, all translations are interpretations. Once the Qur'an is not in Arabic, it is no longer the Qur'an. But that is a pietistic statement. In reality, the meaning of the Qur'an can be accurately conveyed in any language, just as any book can be translated from one language to another. There will be some slippage, but not so much as to obscure the meaning altogether.
Ibn Kathir's tafsir in English repeats the verses and then explains what they mean. The verses when repeated are translated by Islamic scholars, and their translation is not necessarily any less accurate than any other Qur'an translation in English. What's more, as I showed you, Ibn Kathir explained that the verse meant what I said it meant.
RS
From my point of view, as I work with translations on a daily basis:
You can write rubbish, you can edit rubbish, you can proofread rubbish. But you can't translate rubbish.
The challenge of translating something that poorly written is daunting. How can you be sure you got the translation right when you're not even sure the original makes sense?
Compounding that, of course, is that Islamists want to make sure that us Kaffirs have no authority over what's in their book. When they keep telling us "Only we know, because we read it in Arabic", they're merely trying to deflect criticism, not basing themselves on reason or fact. That can be discounted.
I usually use The Noble Quraan, published by the Islamic University of Medina. Sounds pious, right? I tell you that's a nice, direct translation of all those excuses ol' Mo made for himself to justify his wicked life.
Reading the life story of Muhammad is advisable. Al-Tabari volumes 6 through 9 is what you want.
Thank you for the enlightening answers!
"Interesting again, that the scourges of hell await the unbelievers, but yet Allah created some specifically to be put in hell for his amusement.
I just can't make sense of that."
I guess everybody has forgotten the Protestant Reformation and Predestination and Calvinism and all that stuff.
"it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned"
-- Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, Quoted in Boettner, Reformed Doctrines, p. 15.
"eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death."
-- Calvin, Institutes, Book III, Chapter XXI, section 5.
Robert, thanks again.
This is all true, however some Muslims I've encountered would reject Ibn Kathir's interpretation and the Saudi/Wahhabi Koran translation that I linked to. In their view, Ibn Kathir is entitled to his opinion but "revenge" is not the correct direct translation of the original Arabic. I don't know Arabic so I have no answer to that.
Arizona:
Revenge is a perfectly legitimate translation. But don't take my word for it. The fact that they are snowing you should be clear from these other Qur'an verses counseling revenge:
"If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him" -- 2:194
"And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" -- 4:75
Etc.
RS
Thanks for continuing your series here, Mr. Spencer. Enlightening as always.
Robert, thank you for your continued patience.
Don't you mean that it's a perfectly legitimate interpretation? Sorry for seeming pedantic here, but what is the Arabic word or expression used in the Koran and what is its literal translation? I haven't a clue myself as I can't even read the Arabic script provided, for example, at the sacred texts site. A good Arab-English dictionary would come in handy but even then there would be transliteration issues.
The examples you gave didn't sound like revenge to me. The first sounded like gloves are off once treaty conditions are violated and the second sounded like straight-forward self-defense. Both are pieces of advice that any sane nation would do well to heed (and I fervently wish, every day, that Israel would do just that and stop being tied to Christian-influenced ways of dealing with a vicious enemy).
Arizona:
42:41 begins with
ولمن انتصر
I would translate انتصر as "gained victory" or "became victorious" -- that is, in the passage in question, over those who treated one unjustly.
Is that revenge? Looks like it to me. Your opinion may differ. If you believe, however, that Islam forbids taking revenge, you may want to consult this site hosted by a mosque in Tucson, where they host Dr. Rashid Khalifa's Qur'an word search.
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/index/qindex_abc.html
Khalifa was a heretic, to be sure, but not because he thought that Islam taught the legitimacy of revenge. He invokes these passages under "Avenging": 16:126; 17:33; 22:60; and ... 42:41.
Maybe he wasn't scholarly or impartial either.
RS
Robert, thank you for those Arabic words and the further clarification.
I checked the Arabic words via the google translation service and they do refer to "victorious" and "those who triumphed". I also looked up the "omnibus of ten Qur’an translations" that you provide a link to. Only the Saudi/Wahhabi Hilali/Khan translation uses "revenge" as we've already established. The most common other words used are "help" and "defend" (by 6 of the translators including Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Arberry). Two others (Rodwell and Sale) use "avenge" while Khalifa goes for "stand up for their rights".
Most dictionaries will define "avenge" using "revenge" and vice versa. However, there are subtle differences in meaning which favour "avenge" as a positive action in the interests of justice and give "revenge" a somewhat hateful, petty and vindictive tone. Below are three resources that basically come to that conclusion. So I can see why, for clarity's sake, the better translators have gone for "help" and "defend" and I must assume that they understand the Arabic better than you do (or google does).
In your blog, you paraphrased v.41 using the phrase "taking revenge". That is not impartial, Robert. It strikes me as a biased selection of the most objectionable translation or interpretation. I think this detracts from an otherwise excellent coverage of the Qur'an.
---- On "revenge" and "avenge" -----------------------
from englishforums.com
from etymonline.com
from urbandictionary.com
Arizona:
After I have shown you Ibn Kathir and Khalidi, as well as supporting Qur'an passages, to defend my view, you give me dictionary definitions and charges of impartiality. I am beginning to suspect that you know a bit about bias yourself.
RS
Arizona:
Perhaps I should add, in case you are unaware, that Ibn Kathir and Khalidi come from opposite ends of the modern Islamic spectrum: one is championed by the Saudis, who have republished his tafsir (which is centuries old) in a handsome multivolume edition, and the other was a modern scholar whose heterodox views ultimately got him murdered by Salafis (in Phoenix, Arizona).
For them to agree on the meaning of this passage indicates that the way I represented it is the way it is understood by a broad spectrum of Muslims -- one could say "right to left," although those terms aren't quite exact in this case.
RS
Robert,
I'm simply saying that "revenge" - the word used by the "right" - has a different and a negative connotation to "avenge" - the word accepted by the "left". When you paraphrase the Koran you should not be introducing any interpretation, whether your own or that of any others. You should be staying as close as possible to authoritative translations. The only translation that supports your use of the word "revenge" is the infamous Saudi/Wahhabi translation that is repudiated by many Muslims living and wanting to thrive in the West.
I've discussed this thread with others and my attention has been drawn to your further bias in using words like "should" and "retaliation" in the paraphrase of the previous verse. That verse simply says that an evil-doer deserves a proportionate punishment. It's a statement of justice, not a prescription for retaliation. It is then clear that God wants the offended party to forgive and reconcile rather than continue with the evil-doing. Once that strategy has failed, then it is permissible to overcome or triumph over the evil-doer in the interests of self-defense. This is the clear and plain reading of the Koran itself, not any overlaid interpretation.
Arizona:
Actually, in Islamic law it is both. One may, but may opt not to, demand equal proportion for an injury. There is nothing biased, and nothing inaccurate, about what I wrote.
RS
Also, Arizona,
Apparently those who were advising you about my "bias" neglected to note that I added on v. 40 "but Allah will reward those who forgive."
You are clearly seeing what you want to see. Carry on. But you know, no one is forcing you to read this thing, even if you are the last one who is.
RS
Arizona:
One more thing:
That is patently false. In the first place, your attempt to make some large distinction between "avenge" and "revenge" is belied by your own sources, which acknowledge that they are synonyms and frequently used interchangeably.
I showed you Khalifa's word index. Khalifa was no Wahhabi.
But in any case, are you actually trying to make the case that Islam forbids avenging oneself or taking revenge (to make use of those synonyms)? If so, be aware that there are several mountains of evidence to the contrary that I am ready to adduce if you want to argue the point.
I believe your reference to "many Muslims living and wanting to thrive in the West" reveals the subtext here -- but I have never denied the existence of peaceful Muslims. The teachings of Islam, however, are another thing, and they are demonstrable, and I am ready to demonstrate them.
RS
Ari
For openers, from Reliance of the Traveller, 'Umdat al-Salik, a Shafi'i (not Wahhabi) manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy:
03.1. Retaliation is obligatory...when there is an intentional injury against life and limb.
One commentator adds that it is obligatory only when those entitled wish to take it -- in full accord with 42:40-41 as I represented it above.
More to come, if you choose to continue this.
RS
Thank you Mr. Spencer for continuing this series. Arizona is not the last one reading this. I was away for the weekend (Climbing Mt. Marcy) and had no internet service there. Just coming up to speed now.
Robert,
You were paraphrasing the Koran, not Islamic law. The paraphrase should have respected the authoritative translations. Then, as you often do, it would be fine to talk of common legal opinions deriving from the Koran. In my view and that of others, you paraphrased on the basis of the most negative legalistic opinions we know of.
No, we read all ten translations from the omnibus over and over again to get things clear. Sure, you mention a reward from Allah but you fail to mention that Allah does not want the evil-doing. You make it sound like forgiveness is a mere selfish seeking out for reward while failing to heed Allah's very definite disapproval of ongoing evil-doing.
Those sources do acknowledge that, yes. And so did I in my post:
However, in every case, they go on to clarify the differences, the most succinct of the statements being:
Translators choose certain words with care, knowing of these similarities and differences. I accept their authority on this matter: that "help" and "defend" are best, "avenge" is acceptable, but "revenge" is not.
Khalifa clearly bases his word index on one of the two translations that use "avenge" and they are both fine translations in their way. Only the Hilali/Khan translation is despicable. I've met the odd witless Muslim who wouldn't know the difference but most Muslims I've met are like most non-Muslims I've met: they have a few brain cells between the ears and they can see the Hilali/Khan translation for what it is.
I am only talking about the Koran itself and indeed only about those two verses of the Koran. Those mountains exist elsewhere and are not relevant to the matter in hand, that is, the biased paraphrasing of the Koran that is evident in this blog post.
Robert, I have read many of your writings and at least three of your books. I have a fairly good idea of your position on Muslims as people and Islam as a belief system. That does not alter my view that you have paraphrased these two key verses in a biased and unfavourable light.
I don't doubt that you could find many such orthodox Islamic opinions. However, they are not authoritative translators of the Koran from its ancient Arabic into reasonably modern English. On that task I trust an Arberry or a Pickthall and grudgingly accept Yusuf Ali (to keep the occasional Muslim friend onside). The "avenge" of Sale and Rodwell sounds a little out-dated and the "revenge" of Hilali/Khan clearly lies in the extreme camp.
So the question is, Robert: why go for such a word when the better translators don't use it?
I'm happy to continue to discuss and hopefully clarify this matter.
Arizona:
Who are you, and who are these "others" whose authority you keep invoking, and what is your agenda and theirs? Since we are talking about biases, my asking about your own biases, and that of the "others" is a legitimate question, no?
As for the paraphrase I made, I stand by it. Your assertion that it was based on "the most negative legalistic opinions" ignores the import of the translations you prefer, which do not use the word "revenge" but speak substantively of exactly that. You are drawing a distinction between the translations that don't use the word and the translations that do as if the ones that don't use it actually reject the concept of revenge, which they do not.
You are seeing things here. I said that Allah will "reward those who forgive," and now this means that I "fail to mention that Allah does not want the evil-doing"? This is preposterous. Do you actually think that I believe that the Qur'an says that Allah rewards those who forgive, but doesn't want them to forgive? If he didn't want them to forgive, why does he reward them for doing so? Your argument is nonsensical.
And finally, your "'avenge' is respectable, 'revenge' is not" is mere hair-splitting. Avenging, or revenging, is the substance of the passage, as is clear from the commentaries. Check them all; I have. If you wish to make some charge against me on this point, do as you wish, but you'll forgive me if I believe the distinctions you're making to be minute or nonexistent, and the import you're attaching to them disproportionate in the extreme.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert,
I fail to see the relevance of these questions as I am not the one purporting to present a scholarly and unbiased exposition on the Qur'an. If you think me biased, pinpoint the actual bias as I have done for you. However, for the sake of forgiveness and reconciliation (as required by Allah at 42:40 and by Jesus in heaps of places), I will say that my own agenda is to discover more about Islam, to understand God better through this particular manifestation of God's will and to come to know myself and others better as a consequence.
You're welcome to stand by it and I also stand by my criticism of it. We could agree to disagree and leave it at that. However, until that is the case, I will respond to this by saying that I simply read the translations as saying what they clearly said. I believe you need to interpret or make (perhaps valid, perhaps invalid) deductions from what is clearly said in order to arrive at a strong word like "revenge". I consider it perfectly proper to assume that a translator that fails to use the word "revenge" is implying that that particular word is not appropriate in the context.
Clearly one pair of translators (Hilali and Khan) feel free to add in interpretations derived from eminent Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir and Al-Bukhari. For example, their version of Al-Fâtihah is quite disgusting to many Muslims as it inserts "(such as the Jews)" and "(such as the Christians)" as if they were actually there in the text, which they are not. Yet you feel free to borrow their interpretations when constructing a paraphrase, thereby copying them in their error. You lose credibility in doing so, though not enough to prevent me from continuing to read your Qur'an blog.
It is a fact that you failed to mention that Allah does not want the evil-doing. In the context of these key verses and of the issue of revenge or retaliation, it is very important that Allah's wishes in this regard be clearly stated. The Koran does so and is right to do so. When read together the reward for forgiveness (which is in heaven and amounts to our saying that virtue is its own reward) and the disapproval of further evil-doing are a clear indication that Allah does not want the retaliation mind-set to continue. He wants the "revenge" mentality to stop. These two ideas - of forgiveness and disapproving further evil-doing - are a summing up of the Christian teaching on conflict resolution. Verse 42:41 then transcends that teaching, adding that it's fine to overcome and control a person who is actually harming or clearly intending to harm you.
In simple everyday terms: if someone hits you, he loses the right to complain at being hit back (42:40a); if you can resolve your differences amicably with no further hitting then this is an excellent thing (42:40b); and if this doesn't work, then it's fine to overcome the offender and render him harmless (42:41) perhaps by calling in the police or by enlisting the aid of people nearby or simply by running as fast as you can. This, to me, is sane. Turn the other cheek as Jesus advises but if this doesn't work take firm assertive action to protect yourself. This is not revenge by any understanding (except in the deluded minds of the ignorant like Ibn Kathir and his ilk).
No, Robert, it is not hair-splitting. If it were a petty thing, you would have backed off a long time ago and simply said: "OK, if it makes you happy I'll change it to 'avenge' which means the same thing anyway". No, Robert, you chose the word "revenge" because you wanted that word, because you wanted to introduce Hilali/Khan's and Ibn Kathir's idiocy into the Koran however illegitimately so as to paint a distasteful picture of its message. You've distorted the original and this is neither scholarly nor unbiased.
It's a pity because I believe you can do better than that. You could start by behaving more truly like a Christian.
Regards
Arizona
Arizona:
I stand by everything I've said: there is no essential difference between "avenge" and "revenge"; your claim that I am saying that Allah rewards those who forgive but doesn't want them to do it is absurd; and your own biases are showing more and more.
You can call it "Ibn Kathir's idiocy" all you wish, but unfortunately Ibn Kathir's tafsir is quite popular among Muslims, right up there with the two Jalals. Your claiming that I am biased by citing it won't change that.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert,
I believe we are agreeing to disagree and end the discussion there. Thank you for a stimulating exchange.
Regards
Arizona