| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Verse 40 of Sura 2 addresses the “Children of Israel,” beginning an extended meditation on all that Allah did for the Jews, and the ingratitude with which they repaid him. Verse 41 warns them to “part not with My revelations for a trifling price,” which the Islamic commentators generally interpret as an exhortation to put the service of Allah before the concerns of this world. Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, a renowned twentieth-century Islamic intellectual and exponent of political Islam, says in his massive Towards Understanding the Qur’an that this verse “refers to the worldly benefits for the sake of which [the Jews] were rejecting God’s directives.” However, many have speculated that this verse amounts to Muhammad’s rebuke of those who sold him material that they told him was divine revelation, but wasn’t – people who are raked over the coals again in 2:79.
Anyway, the Jews can get back into good graces with Allah by converting to Islam (v. 43). This might sail right by the English-speaking reader, since the translations exhort them to “steadfast in prayer” and to “practise regular charity” (as Abdullah Yusuf Ali has it), but in Arabic the word used here for prayer is salat (الصَّلاَة) and for charity zakat (الزَّكَاة); these refer specifically to Islamic prayer and almsgiving. Non-Muslims cannot pray salat or pay zakat. About the need for this conversion Ibn Kathir is forthright: “Allah commanded the Children of Israel to embrace Islam and to follow Muhammad.” Sayyid Qutb says that here Allah “invites the Israelites to join the Muslims in their religious practices, and to abandon their prejudices and ethnocentric tendencies.”
Starting with verse 47, says Maududi, “reference is made to the best-known episodes of Jewish history. As these episodes were known to every Jewish child, they are narrated briefly rather than in detail. The reference is intended to remind the Jews both of the favours with which the Israelites had been endowed by God and of the misdeeds with which they had responded to those favours.” These include the Israelites being rescued from Pharaoh (vv. 49-50); the golden calf episode (vv. 54-55), and the feeding of the people with manna and quails in the wilderness (v. 57, 61), culminating in the avowal that the Jews “were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing” (v. 61).
Ibn Kathir applies these words to all Jews: “This Ayah [verse] indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and that this will continue, meaning that it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly.”
It may seem jarring that immediately following this comes one of the Qur’an’s “tolerance verses,” verse 62, which seems to promise a place in Paradise to “those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians.” Muhammad Asad exults: “With a breadth of vision unparalleled in any other religious faith, the idea of ‘salvation’ is here made conditional upon three elements only: belief in God, belief in the Day of Judgment, and righteous action in life.” Not, apparently, acceptance of Islam. But he contradicts himself by adding “in this divine writ” after the words “those who have attained to faith” in his translation of verse 62 – that is, to be saved, one must believe in the Qur’an as well as the earlier revelations. And indeed, Muslim commentators are not inclined to see this as an indication of divine pluralism. The translators Ali and Pickthall, as well as Asad, all feel it necessary to add parenthetical glosses that make the passage mean that Jews and Christians (as well as Sabians, whose identity is disputed) will be saved only if they become Muslims. And according to Ibn Abbas, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 3:85: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” Qutb opines that 2:62 applied only before Muhammad brought Islam to the world, a view supported by a saying of Muhammad recorded by Tabari, in which the Prophet of Islam says that Christians who died before his coming will be saved, but those who have heard of him and yet rejected his prophetic claim will not be.
Then follows the first of the three notorious “apes and pigs” passages. Jihadists today routinely refer to Jews as apes and pigs; this idea is rooted in Qur’an 2:63-66; 5:59-60; and 7:166. The first of these depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” Traditionally in Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. Ibn Abbas says that “those who violated the sanctity of the Sabbath were turned into monkeys, then they perished without offspring.” Others, however, such as the early Islamic scholar Ibn Qutaiba, held today’s apes are the descendants of the Sabbath-breaking Jews.
This is widely used today as a metaphor for the Jews’ corruption, even unto bestial status. Muhammad himself began this when he addressed the Jews of the Qurayzah tribe, which he was about to massacre, as “you brothers of monkeys.” Today, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” The Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in Mecca, the Al-Haraam mosque, expanded on this, saying in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.” Another Saudi Sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places… is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam — which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” For more on this, see the excellent study by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Verse 67 takes up the reproaches again, with the Israelites reacting with haughty rebelliousness to Allah’s command, given through Moses, that they sacrifice a heifer (the “cow” of the sura’s title). We hear that the Jews’ hearts are hardened (v. 74) and ultimately that they are accursed of Allah (v. 89). To that curse and its implications, and other matters extending to verse 140 of sura 2, we will turn next week.
(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 18, 2007 8:56 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Perhaps we have misunderstood the jihadists after all, especially their reasons for killing.
You see, its all part of global warming.
Take for instance Darfur, according to the UN the Darfur slaughter was not the result of murderous ideologies such as islam, but rather of climate change:
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0
So really its OUR fault because of the greenhouse gases such as CO and CO2 among others.
The solution is obvious, stop breathing.
Some much for Hot Air -- there's lots of hot gas blowing from the UN these days!
But that will also end up aiding the murderers in the end.
Posted by: witness![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 18, 2007 10:01 AM
Hello Mr. Spencer,
Yesterday I got bored and went to http://sp-studio.de. There, in honor of this undertaking of blogging a mammoth of a book, I made this: http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa286/kuffarjahideen/R.jpg
Hope you like it.
Posted by: wrathofasma at June 18, 2007 10:12 AM
I have listened to Da'wa lectures on cable tv, and i've been amused and dismayed by how Koranic teachers interpret certain stories in the bible (and, apparently they don't care what's actually written in the bible -- they just make things up as they go along.) For example, the story of Adam and Eve...I listened to one imam claim that whether Adam and Eve were animals or humans is a question. (What I also find interesting -- also illuminating is that what 'concerns" imams about aspects of certain stories -- it's so peripheral, it's so trivial, I don't think they grasp the actual moral of any story...or it's actual significance (in a Judeo-Christian sense)..it's as if they focus all their attention on some marginal footnote. For example what apparently really, really concerns them is whether or not Adam and Eve were naked or clothed. Their conclusion? (again, directly contrary to the actual, written text)-- Adam and Eve were *clothed* -- not naked. And the "fruit" from the tree? -- the imam claims the name of the tree (of good and evil) is NOT known... It goes on and on...and I think it's worse then simply not knowing what's written in the actual text, it's adding and subtracting from the text -- whatever suits them. In a sense, they are not dealing with the text at all...they are making up a text as they go along, and getting confused and contradictory conclusions as a result. (Oh, also, what really angers me is to then hear someone, typically an ignorant westerner, allege that all the violence and nasty stuff of Islam comes from -- originates with -- the bible.)
Posted by: J.S. at June 18, 2007 10:38 AM
Dear Mr Spencer,
Since you are doing such a good job of intepreting the Koran for us can I ask you a question.
This does not relate to Sura 2 “The Cow” but even though this is slightly OT can you answer this?
Melanie Philips, recently ran a very good piece on her website, quoting sections of the Koran which actually praised the jews.
According to Melanie Phillips, “The interpretation of these verses, which is believed by a handful of Muslims around the world, is that no Muslim can interfere with the ingathering of the Jews to Israel since this is the word of the Almighty himself.”
Here are the relevant verses.
2:47 Children of Israel! call to mind the favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations. 2:122 O Children of Israel! call to mind the favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations.
7:137 And We made the children of Israel, who were considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We leveled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride). 17:104 And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land of promise”:
10:93 We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them.
20:80 O ye Children of Israel! We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a Covenant with you to give you the right side (the blessed side) of Mount Sinai, and We sent down to you Manna (special food) and quails.
26:59 Thus it was, but We made the Children of Israel inheritors of such things (the promised land)
45:16 We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophet hood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favored them above all other nations.
44: 32 And We have chosen them (the Children of Israel) above the ‘Alamîn (mankind, and jinns) and our choice was based on a deep knowledge.
32.23] And certainly We gave the Book to Moses, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.
[32.24] And We made of them Guiding Lights and leaders to guide by Our command as they were patient, and they were certain of Our communications.
[17:104] And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, “ scatter and live all over the world…and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land”.
From what period of Muhammed’s career do theses verses date.
The peaceful 13 year Meccan period or the later, Medina period of the Sword-verses?
Are they from the early period and there are later verses which abrogate them?
I am sure we would all like to know.
Regards
at June 18, 2007 10:41 AM
As Moses (Musa) is mentioned quite often in this sura and is revered among Muslims, this seems the place to ask this question: Why did Islam not adopt the 10 commandments?
On a Muslim website, (sorry no link) that same question was asked and the answer was that sprinkled throughout the Koran are the same strictures that the 10 commandments embody, so that in effect they did adopt them.
If this is the case, and I'm not sure it is, wouldn't it have been simpler and clearer for everyone if the Koran had spelt them out in the same form that Moses was given them?
It seems to me that insofar as Islam did adopt them, they apply only to other Muslims.
3rd commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - screaming Allahu Akbar as they attack, kill, rape etc. I can see why they wouldn't want that commandment.
6th commandment: Thou shalt not kill (murder). This would have stopped the jihads in their tracks, so again they couldn't adopt this.
8th commandment: Thou shalt not steal. No booty. Therefore unadoptable.
7th commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
They get around this by means of polygamy and unlimited use of concubines. But of course it is nothing but adultery.
I'm surprised they aren't challenged more on this. Surely a religion that claims it is 'correcting' preceding religions should have these commandments as its bedrock, or do they think the 10 commandments were corrupted as well?
Posted by: Silvester at June 18, 2007 10:50 AM
Odysseus:
I was meaning to respond to that post by Melanie Phillips, as many people asked me to, but events got away from me. Anyway, she is right that only "a handful" of Muslims believe that these verses guarantee Israel to the Jews. That's because such an interpretation contradicts other statements of the Qur'an.
The key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”
But they did turn back ignominiously, and were thus overthrown, when they rejected Muhammad. 3:67 says that Abraham was a Muslim, not a Jew or a Christian, and the Qur’an exhorts the Jews to become Muslims not only in 2:43 but elsewhere also. By refusing to do so, they have earned Allah’s curse (2:89, 9:30) and the promises given to them belong to those who have not thus turned aside — i.e., the Muslims.
Muslim exegetes generally interpret the other verses you quoted in this light.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 18, 2007 12:59 PM
Sheikh Palazzi bases his support for Israel on this verse. One of the few.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444
at June 18, 2007 1:17 PM
I got to thinking about a posters question over at Hot Air.It was one that kind of branched off from the final decision of muslims to believe that basicly all fates are known by allah.Whether they go to paradise or hell fire.
The same questions or beliefs are held by Christians,jews and in effect probably all religions.
What they said or asked was something to the form of Does God (or God does) have your name written in the book of life?
If it is written in the book of life does that mean your are destined to live in heaven,if not written there then your fate is hell?
Could it be possible that the book of life is simply what is already started in the Bible?Adam and eve begat and thier offspring begat and the begat begat.....if there were a soul around since the very begining then all who were begat are in the book of life?
There is the free will to choose we can't forget,even the top angel satan had the freedom to choose to war with God. (which is a whole enigma of it's own.)
God being an all knowing power just may know all that will occur ,who will choose and who will not.I believe one of the main lessons of the Bible would be to have faith because there will only be one time in the worlds history when the undoubtable truth will be known.
That could only lead to the question,why the need for Judgement day? Just a formality?
I know this got off topic ,probably,i usually manage to but seeing as to the endless debatable nature of such topics i rarely see how it can't.
Is God running around creating us personaly from the clay of the earth?Or is it all he needed to creat were the two ,Adam and Eve to seed the earth?Is your given name the name thats written in the Book of life or has he given us a different name written therein?
Welcome to results of the curse for the search of knowledge (The day Adam and eve were kicked out of the garden of eden)(where by the way they were naked until thier eyes were opened by thier sin),have faith and on the day all truths will be revealed.
Still an enigma? Yes. One thing is for certain and that is there is good and evil.....choose wisely.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at June 18, 2007 7:33 PM
Robert
Two queestions here about 2:40 and 2:47 (Arberry translations below)
002:040 Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, and fulfil My covenant and I shall fulfil your covenant; and have awe of Me.Reading your above explanation about 5:21, does that mean that the above verses about the 'Children of Israel' refers to the Jews? And if so, are they abrogated verses (which might be partially suggested by its use of the past tense), since they seem to mirror Jewish claims about them being God's chosen people, and definitely don't square with the references to 2:65?
002:047 Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, and that I have preferred you above all beings
Another question about 2:61 (I'm substituting God with Allah wherever it appears to keep the context obvious, otherwise leaving the original translation intact):
And when you said, 'Moses, we will not endure one sort of food; pray to thy Lord for us, that He may bring forth for us of that the earth produces - green herbs, cucumbers, corn, lentils, onions.' He said, 'Would you have in exchange what is meaner for what is better? Get you down to Egypt; you shall have there that you demanded.' And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of Allah's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of Allah and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.I confess to being ignorant about Biblical history, but which 'prophets' is 2:61 referring to? Also, reading just this verse and the verse before it, it looks like this Islamic Moses was irate at the Hebrews wanting more variety in their food, and sent them to Egypt (did that actually happen in the Biblical version - since my knowledge of that is what I saw in the movie 'The Ten Commandments).
A side question - is this the basis of the 'Inshallah' philosophy, where Muslims are supposed to be satisfied with whatever they have simply because it's the will of Allah, as illustrated in the above example?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 18, 2007 8:19 PM
Robert and Odyessus:
From what I have read in "The Cow" and in the ayats that you site, Odyessus, I think that Mohammed was simply restating WHAT the Israelites had and were promised before they rejected God. I think that he's just laying out what they were promised by God before they rejected him at Mt. Sinai as well as later. Then he (Mohammed) sticks it to them after he makes these statements - as in "Because you didn't do right, now you're going to get it!" The thing is - he knew the Old Testament very well.
Also, Robert, from all that I have read, Mohammed was supposedly illiterate, right? Either that wasn't true or he was privy to a whole lot of audio bible lessons because I have read the bible many, many times and memorized a great deal of it, and most of "The Cow" is simply catch phrases and sayings and ideas restated and twisted and phrased a different way in the Koran. Trust me, Mohammed knew his Judeo/Christian scriptures well!
Cindy
Posted by: Cinder at June 18, 2007 9:25 PM
Dear Mr Spencer,
Thank you for your reply.
Can you tell us the order in which these verses were written?
The later ones supersede the earlier, the theory of abrogation is that simple, right?
at June 19, 2007 4:05 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.)