Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 16, “The Bee”
posted at 8:00 am on February 17, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sura 16, “The Bee,” is another in the string of late Meccan suras that began with sura 10. Its title comes from v. 68, which tells us that Allah taught the bee to do what bees do.
Verses 1-19 emphasize that Allah has created all things, and provides for all of humanity’s needs, and that all created beings bear witness to him. Ibn Kathir says that the “ways that turn aside” from the Straight Path of Islam (v. 9) are “various opinions and whims, such as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism.” The Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs concurs, saying: “it is Allah Who guides to monotheism, and some of the religions are crooked and unjust such as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. And if Allah had willed, He would have guided you all to His religion.” So once again, belief or unbelief is up to Allah, not to the individual.
Verses 20-42 highlight the perversity of the unbelievers, and their impending judgment by Allah. The objects of their worship are themselves created (v. 20), and they scoff that Muhammad’s revelations amount only to “tales of the ancients” (v. 24). That is, they suggest that Muhammad wasn’t receiving the words of Allah from Gabriel and transmitting them to the people, but only relating old stories: “they say,” according to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, [that] these [revelations] are, ‘fables, lies, of the ancients’, in order to lead people astray.” On Judgment Day these people will not only bear the weight of their own sins, but “also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled” (v. 25). They will be condemned to hell (v. 29), while the righteous will dwell in the bountiful gardens of Paradise (v. 32).
The unbelievers will complain that “if Allah had so willed,” they and their forefathers never would have worshipped anyone but Allah (v. 35) – a reasonable complaint, in light of the Qur’an’s repeated statements about Allah leading people astray and having the ability to make everyone believers if he had desired (see 10:99-100). But here this excuse is rejected, since Allah has sent messengers to every people, telling them to worship Allah alone (v. 36). Ibn Kathir tries to mitigate the harshness of the idea that if Allah had willed, all mankind would believe, by explaining that Allah doesn’t actually want anyone to disbelieve, and sends them messengers so that they won’t do so, but simply allows them to if they so choose: “The legislative will of Allah is clear and cannot be taken as an excuse by them, because He had forbidden them to do that upon the tongue of His Messengers, but by His universal will (i.e., by which He allows things to occur even though they do not please Him) He allowed them to do that as it was decreed for them. So there is no argument in that for them. Allah created Hell and its people both the Shayatin (devils) and disbelievers, but He does not like His servants to disbelieve.” Allah does not guide those whom “He leaves to stray” (v. 37) — that is, Ibn Kathir continues, “the one whom He has caused to go astray, so who can guide him apart from Allah? No one.” For Allah accomplishes everything he intends to do (v. 40), and “nothing,” says Ibn Kathir, “can stop Him or oppose Him.”
Meanwhile, “those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah” will be rewarded in both this world and the next (v. 41). They are, according to the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, the Muslims who fled Mecca with Muhammad and settled in Medina; Ibn Kathir, however, identifies them as the Muslims who earlier fled to Abyssinia to escape the persecution of the pagan Quraysh.
Verses 43-96 repeat many of these themes: Allah will judge those who plot against the Muslims (vv. 45-47; 84-89); created things bear witness to him (v. 48-50; 64-69; 79-82); Allah is the only god (v. 51); Satan is the patron of those who reject Allah’s messengers (v. 63); Muhammad’s duty is only to warn people of the impending judgment (v. 82). The polytheists even dare to say that Allah has daughters, while they themselves have sons (v. 57). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains that “to Him they assign daughters, to whom they are averse, when [in any case] He is [exalted] beyond having offspring, while to themselves they assign sons, of their own choosing, so that the best is theirs exclusively.” Allah’s sovereignty over all is reaffirmed in v. 93, which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn glosses as: “For if God had willed, He could have made you one community, people of a single religion, but He leads astray whom He will and guides whom He will, and you will surely be questioned, on the Day of Resurrection, a questioning of rebuke, about what you used to do, so that you might be requited for it.”
Verses 97-128 defend Muhammad and the Qur’an against some of the charges of the unbelievers, and call all people again to accept Muhammad’s message, which is the message of Abraham (v. 123), and worship Allah alone. Allah laments that whenever he abrogates a verse of his revelation and replaces it with another, the unbelievers accuse Muhammad of making it all up (v. 101). But actually Muhammad’s revelations come from the Holy Spirit (v. 102) – that is, Gabriel. The unbelievers claim that Muhammad is learning the contents of the Qur’an from a man and then passing them off as divine revelation, but the one they have in mind is a foreigner, while the Qur’an is in pure Arabic (v. 103). Ibn Kathir grants that “maybe the Messenger of Allah used to sit with him sometimes and talk to him a little, but he was a foreigner who did not know much Arabic, only enough simple phrases to answer questions when he had to.” Who was this mysterious foreigner whom the Qur’an is so anxious to diminish in importance? Some suggest Muhammad’s wife’s uncle Waraqa, who first identified him as a prophet, and who used to, according to Islamic tradition, “write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.” Or it may have been one of Muhammad’s early companions, Salman the Persian: the Arabic word translated here as “foreign” is Ajami, which also means Persian.
Then in v. 106, in a notable departure from the Christian concept of martyrdom, Allah allows Muslims to deny their faith when under “compulsion,” as long one’s heart remains “firm in Faith.” Ibn Kathir explains: “This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin [unbelievers] because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality, at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger.” This is another foundation for the idea of religious deception in Islam, which we saw in discussing 3:28.
The sura ends with a brief discussion of food laws, and instructions to Muhammad to “invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching” (v. 125).
Next week: Sura 17, “The Night Journey”: Why Islam claims Jerusalem as one of its holy cities.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, 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.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Maybe one Sunday .. we could “Blog the Bible” and not this False Religion..with its False Prophet. I know that it may sound like an “Extreme” Idea to some Conservatives, but Isn’t Gods’ Word what they claim to be following?
LibsREvilDoers on February 17, 2008 at 8:29 AM
LibsREvilDoers:
Actually, this series was inspired by Slate’s “Blogging the Bible” series.
I don’t see why anyone would think “Blogging the Bible” would be “extreme,” or would think it shouldn’t be done.
However, I am not going to do it. I am going to finish this series, which will almost certainly take another year or so, unless I am voted off the island first.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
TheBigOldDog on February 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I vote you stay. I am printing out this weeks lesson to read later today. Please do not stop!
dentalque on February 17, 2008 at 8:47 AM
LibsREvilDoers
Regarding your reference to “this False Religion”:
I am not a believer in Islam, but my belief and the truth and falsehood of Islam is not the point of this “Blogging the Qur’an” series.
The point of it is to understand more fully those who have vowed to destroy us by studying the book they point to as their supreme guide in life.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 8:54 AM
dentalque:
Thank you. I only say things like this because I am aware that long stretches of the Qur’an are, to put it delicately, rather tedious. But I ask all readers’ patience: there is some very interesting material coming up soon, in suras 17, 18, and 19.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 8:55 AM
You won’t be the one voted off the island Robert. As you know, this series has been invaluable in educating me and many others here on the true nature of Islam. You have to just ignore the newly registered reactionaries who find no value in true understanding of one’s enemies. They think blind hatred is enough. I’m at a loss to tell you when that became a Judeo-Christian value however. It’s easy to see however than it can be considered an Islamic value.
TheBigOldDog on February 17, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Indoctrination is achieved through repetition. It’s clear why it says the same things over and over like, Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger. He has no partners (like Jesus). All the other religions are evil and corrupt, etc., etc. Imagine getting these messages every day from birth. Sooner or later they become unquestionable truths.
TheBigOldDog on February 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I second that.
This was brought up on an early BtQ post, and someone mentioned a teaching method involving physical actions as part of the repetition to reinforce the memory. This is evident in Islamic prayer with the ritual washing, prostrations, etc.
flipflop on February 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Maybe one Sunday .. we could “Blog the Bible” and not this False Religion..with its False Prophet. I know that it may sound like an “Extreme” Idea to some Conservatives, but Isn’t Gods’ Word what they claim to be following?
LibsREvilDoers on February 17, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Dude,
This series is informative and instructive to the motivations of those who would do us harm, and those who explicitly and implicitly support them. In other words, know thy enemy. After reading a few of these by Mr. Spencer, I am beginning to see why there is so little opposition in the Muslim world, even when they kill each other. It’s “baked in” to their religion and way of life and cannot be separated out without destroying the rest. These moderates can’t argue effectively against the extremists, because they have no compelling argument to not perform Jihad. and All they have to do is silence the moderates. That’s unfortunately easy, it’s in the Koran.
JeffWeimer on February 17, 2008 at 9:41 AM
1. Allah is all-powerful.
2. Allah is all good.
3. Evil exists in the world.
You can square any two of those statements, but not all three. (Paraphrasing something I read not long ago.)
flipflop on February 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Well Stated. That is exactly why we need to read the entire thing.
dentalque on February 17, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Is there a place, like archives, where we can go back and see these writings and past posts from the beginning. I’d like to go back and see some of your posts from a few weeks ago if I want to.
Ceroth on February 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM
“… unless I am voted off the island first.” - Robert
That ain’t gonna happen, sir. I don’t remember who said it first a few weeks ago, but I’ll repeat it: Don’t t ink that because you don’t get a lot of comments, that you don’t get a lot of hits, people are indeed reading your work. To which I added: Your series is so informative that you don’t leave much out for asking questions.
Keep up the great work Robert, it’s priceless!
Tony737 on February 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Here you go (it’s linked above).
flipflop on February 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Robert can explain this a lot better, but what you read probably came from a Christian basher who took a common criticism of the God of the Bible and just substituted the the word “Allah”. In fact, if you’ve been following this series, Robert already has explained why they are perfectly compatible under Islam.
It’s a common tactic of Islam defenders, and liberals who have an inherent hatred of Christianity, to take any negative about Islam and simply replace any reference to Allah with God, Muslim with Christian, and Islam with Christianity.
Number 2 is interesting, though, as applied to the God of Islam. While Muslims constantly refer to Allah as “compassionate”, their definition of compassionate is about the same as their definition of who is “innocent”.
Jaynie59 on February 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Kind of like “Bush lied, people died” :D
Cowboy is a compliment on February 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Aw man, those Zoroastrians are always getting a raw deal!
LEAVE FREDDIE MERCURY ALONE!!!1!
Hannibal Smith on February 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
blogging the Bible… You are aware I assume that there are thousands of Biblical commentaries from every degree of belief and unbelief? They are easily available. koran commentaries from the critical side, not so much. Robert is doing an invaluable service
billhedrick on February 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Vote you off the island, Robert? From where I sit, you ARE the island–an island of clear vision in a sea of obfuscation on a subject of vital importance to the future of this country and the entire world. Thanks for letting US visit ‘the island’. Please, continue your superb work, and please let us continue to visit.
EyeSurgeon on February 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
From Hilali-Khan’s translation
Robert
I read the above verse as stating that only unbelievers i.e. non-Muslims are liars, and while one may see it as yet another Qur’anic rant against Infidels, it also seems to be the basis of the Shariah law that pegs the evidence of Infidels in Shariah courts as a fraction of the evidence of Muslims, when not eliminating it altogether.
Is my assumption here correct? I know there are parts of the sunnah that would butress this verse vis a vis Shariah law re: Infidel witnesses, but is this the basis for that, or is it just another rant from the Qur’an?
infidelpride on February 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Mr. Spencer keep up the great work on informing us fellow infidels on the tenets of Islam. One of my favorite Co-Pilots sayings was “know your opponent.” I have made it a point to learn as much as I can since 9/11.
KC-135A on February 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Finally, something I’m in agreement with.
But I’ll defer to James 1:13 on this ‘allah leads astray’ nonsense -
That speaks volumes in the difference between the persuasion of Christianity and the coercion of islam.
Thank you, R.S., for another good lesson.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Since I haven’t had a “guided” reading of the Qur’an in over 25 years, this is wonderful for me and I hope that plenty of people are reading and promoting this series. I had to read it in school back in Cairo and our teacher was surprisingly careful to stay neutral enough that I could form my own opinions but this study is reminding me why I reached the conclusions that I did.
I’ve cited these readings several times now in arguments I’ve gotten into. It really helps to be able to quote “respected scholars” when challenged. The deception inherent in modern presentations of this book requires a strong background to refute it.
TBinSTL on February 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM
So he created everything, but hates pigs and dogs? Why then, were they created? For what purpose, according to muslims?
And I agree with everyone else Mr Spencer, you will never be voted off the island.
CrimsonFisted on February 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Don’t even say that. This is the boring one–where lying under interrogation and false conversions are permitted? Can’t wait to see the “exciting” ones!
And I think the theodicy is interesting. I’ve always wondered where evil and disobedience comes from in Islam.
see-dubya on February 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Where does one register for such a vote?
DMeNTe on February 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Robert, I am having a very hard time posting here. I am told I have to log-in, when I click log-in I am taken to wordpress editing page.
I can post on all other HA posts and your archived posts.
I got here by clicking time????
Anyone else having trouble or know what is happening?
Lets see if this posts this time.
allrsn on February 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Ahh it is working now.
allrsn on February 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Today at church, the lyric to one of the songs we sang said (in part):
For You I sing, I dance — I rejoice in this divine romance
Lift my heart and my hands — to show my love, to show my love . . .
_
I cannot imagine any muslim directing such thoughts to their diety.
_
My God fills my life and fills my heart and causes me to want to live for Him.
Their diety essentially scares the crap out of them and they seek to please it by dying for it.
least1 on February 17, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Jaynie59 says:
Jaynie, trying to reconcile the problem of evil and suffering in the presence of an all-good and all-powerful God is hardly Christian bashing. It is a very serious, and very disturbing dilemna that many of the greatest Christian minds have wrestled with. As a Christian, I took the problem very seriously. Please don’t brush such paradoxes off as mere ‘Christian bashing’.
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM
flipflop:
This looks to me like a restatement of the problem of evil which is used as an argument against Christianity. The answer to it in Christianity is very different, but the Islamic answer is that you need not square all three, because #2 is a blasphemous reduction of the sovereignty of Allah. Allah does what he pleases, and is not to be questioned, or reduced to human categories. So #1 and #3 are certainly true, and #2 is commonly assumed, but absolutely not with the understanding that most Christian and post-Christian Westerners have of what that means.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Infidelpride:
Oh, absolutely.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I mean, yes, your assumption here is correct.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
CrimsonFisted:
Why, to test you, of course.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM
v41-42:
Mr Spencer, based on passages like this, and the obvious hairsplitting that Ibn Kathir does trying to reconcile the Islamic version of freewill and predestination, can we fairly say that v41-42 is a crude example of salvation by grace? By speaking of grace of Allah, I am referring to Allah’s arbitrary nature of salvation. Is there any difference between Allah arbitrarily selecting whom he wills to be saved to Paradise, and Allah saving by grace?
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Robert Spencer:
Fascinating. If I remember correctly, Augustine also recognized that, philosophically speaking, an all-knowing, all-powerful God simply cannot be reduced to being described in terms such as ‘good’ or even ‘loving’. Such a God must be self-sufficient, non-reactive, and never changing. Actually, in my lousy opinion, it seems to me that Islam is more consistant on this point than contemporary protestant Christianity.
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
HeIsSailing:
Well, yes, there does seem to be a difference, if I understand your question correctly (which I’m not sure I do), because in Islam one only enters Paradise if one’s good works must outweigh one’s evil ones. So presumably those whom Allah wills to guide are also those who do good deeds.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I don’t know about Augustine, but Aquinas and others in the Western Christian tradition have affirmed that what we can say positively about God is very little, and that what we don’t know is far more than what we do know.
Is Islam more consistent on this point than contemporary Protestant Christianity? I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to in regard to contemporary Protestant Christianity, but I don’t think the Christian and the Muslim views of God’s sovereignty, power, and goodness are remotely comparable. Christianity squares the circle of God’s goodness with the existence of evil by means of the Cross of Christ; Islam by means of the all-powerful and unstoppable will of Allah.
Robert Spencer on February 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Even the excuses have excuses. Not believing isn’t our fault either, Allah ordering our destruction after determining we wouldn’t believe to begin with.
I’m guessing that understanding the arbitrary hypocrisy could be offensive to Islam also?
Speakup on February 17, 2008 at 5:34 PM
v97:
Mr Spencer, I guess I see your point. But can it not also be said, as protestants do trying to reconcile the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James, that Allah wills whom he will save, and those whom he wills salvation show their Faith by their works of righteousness? Do any Islamic theolgians or thinkers solve these obvious paradoxes in their Scriptures in this way?
I am bringing this stuff, not to trick Christians or debate them on the finer points of their beliefs of salvation, but because as I read the Quran, I see many of the same problems, the same paradoxes and dilemnas in the Islamic faith as I do in the Christian faith. Christians have various ways of dealing with these paradoxes, depending on their brand of orthodoxy, and I can’t help thinking that Islamic theologians must be drawn to the same ultimate conclusions when trying to solve these same problems.
What can I say, I don’t believe a word of it, but it interests me nonetheless.
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Robert Spencer:
Well, I have to be careful with qualifying which type of Christianity, but I can only speak of what I know about. It seems to me that many forms of popular Christianity today place more emphasis on relationship and friendship with God, and less on God’s sovereign nature. And in this way, I think the more consistant view is to not assign human attributes such as ‘good’ to a sovereign God. Not that I totally agree with that, not completely - but it just seems more… more consistant with who I view God to be.
Again, I have no intention of winning people over to my views. This is just my opinion and how I see things working in this world.
on this, we agree.
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Robert Spencer:
I just finished Sura 16. Wow. I can be captivated by some normally pretty dry stuff, but I have to confess, this one was rough to get through while paying attention.
Looking forward to 17. Thanks again, Mr Spencer.
HeIsSailing on February 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Yes, please keep on with this series. Blogging the Koran is a big enough project, and one where a lot of people can profit from your expertise.
I have read through the Koran in English twice, though I won’t claim to have truly studied it. At first, I thought that would give me some knowledge of Islam, and I suppose it’s a fair beginning. But to really understand Islam, you have to go beyond the Koran into all the hadith, and I greatly appreciate your doing that.
For instance, the first time I read the Koran, I noticed there were parts of it that condemned Christianity, and parts that praised Christianity. But the Muslim understanding of the Koran permits one part to “abrogate” or contradict the other part. Obviously, the parts praising the Jews and Christians as the “people of the Book” are abrogated by other parts of the Koran. I think people really need a guide to which parts of the Koran are abrogated, myself included.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I have never had an reliable answer for that question. Thank you.
CrimsonFisted on February 17, 2008 at 8:45 PM
The Mahometans, as a lot of Christians, believe that God created man ex nihilo. What a sick joke! If you’re almighty and desire to create vessels of happiness, then you either create them so out of nothing into a state of perfection and felicity, or you create them from something preexistent to a state of happiness, even if through trials and pain. (I think this latter, by the way, is Shakespeare’s theology.) But to create something out of nothing into a vessel of eternal and immutable wrath? That wouldn’t be a good god, and God is good.
And free will doesn’t figure here, because to form a creation (as the Mahometans say) or to beget a child (as we Christians, in our Pater Noster say) that you know will choose the way of unhappiness, doesn’t make any sense if you’re talking about creatio ex nihilo. Only if you have a god who is, as it were, “baking a batch” of preexistent material, where at least some of the spirits will be eternally felicitate.
Tzetzes on February 17, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Coercive will vs permissive will. Okay next comparison.
TBinSTL on February 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM
Great, we don’t need “blogging the bible”, everyone here has access to it…this, what you are doing, I cannot achieve without you.
Thanks
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Although, blogging the Bible from either the Greek (Original N.T. / Septuagint) or Hebrew (pre Masoretic) would be really cool. Or, you could use the KJV/NKJV with the commentary from guys like Athanasius, Anthony, John of Damascus, John Chrysostom, etc. Or, heck. Do a full monty and do it a section at a time with everyone’s commentaries - from Ignatius of Antioch all the way to Lewis/Tomberg.
When most people think blogging the Bible they think reading from the NIV and looking at what James Dobson and Billy Graham say. (Okay, hopefully not that lame.)
Also, I would like to see a compilation/study of the Apocrypha and commentaries on them. I’ve seen some good commentaries but the books are usually quite thick (and my time limited.)
The reason for using the Greek is because in my study of it I’ve found some unusual subtleties in the meaning of the words. An instance of this is the beginning of the Gospel of St. John: (NIV)
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’
The Greek is more closely translated
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with and towards God, and God was the Word.’
I’ll have to look again at the Greek, but the word we translate as ‘with’ is NOT simply with. It is a word we do not have in English that is a directional with.
I’d like to do some blogging of it myself, but that will have to wait a few years.
RiverCocytus on February 19, 2008 at 11:28 AM
God used Words to create…He spoke & IT WAS….then the WORD becameFlesh ‘& set up HIS tent in the middle of our campsite’. ‘Through HIM all things were made’…by the power of the spoken word…hence the spiritual reality of repeated prayer such as the the Rosary……& the anti-prayer of allah. WORDS have meaning & the power to create….& the power to remember.
Mr. Spencer, exposing the doctrine of the father of all lies by examining the words is an art form. I salute you & remain a committed fan.
as for allah not caring for pigs….
Allah fears!&hates pigs because Jesus cast out ‘a legion’ of demons into them & they promptly commit suicide by jumping off of the cliff. Outside of Mary & Joseph, the first to recognize the Messiah were the demons….even saying…’Son of God, what have You to do w/ us??!’
lobosan5 on February 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Thanks for another great post Robert. No matter how dry it gets there always seems to be a nugget to be taken back from the dark corridors of each sura.
I am beginning to think that my way of thinking and the way a muslim thinks are incompatible. Things that I take as basic truth make no sense in Islam - almost as if duality is part of who they are. I remember reading about how for the western mind it is irrational that something can be both completely honest and completely dishonest - that you can’t be 200% would be one way of saying it. Muslims don’t seem to have an issue with that. Is duality built into the Quran , or into muslim life? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
blankminde on February 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Robert,
Heads up
” Connie:
re: Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada
“Moreover, both Tariq Ramadan and Ziauddin Sardar have launched websites for an exegesis of the Holy Quran verse by verse.
February 18, 2008 3:08 PM”
So has Robert Spencer, who is more truthful in his analysis.
Blogging the Qur’an
http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php
February 20, 2008 2:44 PM”
Connie on February 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM