Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 17, “The Night Journey,” verses 2-111
posted at 8:00 am on March 2, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Muhammad was especially proud of sura 17, which goes by the titles “The Night Journey” and “The Tribe of Israel.” Of suras 17, 18, and 19 he said: “They are among the earliest and most beautiful Surahs and they are my treasure.” And according to his favorite wife, Aisha, he “used to recite Bani Isra’il [sura 17] and Az-Zumar [sura 39] every night.”
After the cryptic allusion to the Night Journey in verse 1, it continues (verses 2-8) with a warning to the Jews. Allah previously warned them that twice they “would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance” (v. 4). Ibn Kathir elaborates: “Allah tells us that He made a declaration to the Children of Israel in the Scripture, meaning that He had already told them in the Book which He revealed to them, that they would cause mischief on the earth twice, and would become tyrants and extremely arrogant, meaning they would become shameless oppressors of people.” The crime of “mischief on the earth,” fasaad fi al-ardh, is punishable according to 5:33 by crucifixion, or the amputation of hands and feet on opposite sides.
Who were the servants of Allah “given to terrible warfare” who entered the homes of the Jews? Ibn Kathir doesn’t trust accounts from Jewish sources, apparently including Jewish Scriptures: “some of them are fabricated, concocted by their heretics, and others may be true, but we have no need of them, praise be to Allah. What Allah has told us in His Book (the Qur’an) is sufficient and we have no need of what is in the other books that came before. Neither Allah nor His Messenger required us to refer to them.” For the Jews’ disobedience to Allah “their humiliation and subjugation was a befitting punishment.”
Then verses 9-21 repeat warnings of the impending judgment. No one can bear another’s burdens (v. 15) – although 29:13 says that the unbelievers will “bear their own burdens, and burdens along with their own.” Allah always sends messengers to a disobedient people before he destroys it (v. 16), and warns Muslims that those who long for the transitory things of this life will be given them, but will be punished in hell (v. 18).
Verses 22-39 enunciate a moral code, the “wisdom wherewith thy Lord hath inspired thee” – that is, Muhammad (v. 39). Muslims should:
1. Worship Allah alone (v. 22);
2. Be kind to their parents (v. 23);
3. Provide for their relatives, the needy, and travelers, and not be wasteful (v. 26);
4. Not kill their children for fear of poverty (v. 31);
5. Not commit adultery (v. 32);
6. Not “take life — which Allah has made sacred — except for just cause,” and to make restitution for wrongful death (v. 33 – see the discussion here of 2:178);
7. Not seize the wealth of orphans (v. 34);
8. “Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight” (v. 35);
9. “Pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge” (v. 36);
10. Not “walk on the earth with insolence” (v. 37).
Verses 40-71 once again excoriate the unbelievers for their perversity. The unbelievers “utter a most dreadful saying” in claiming that Allah has daughters, while they have sons (v. 40). The Qur’an reveals the truth, but only makes them resist it even more (v. 41). All creation reveals Allah’s glory (v. 44). Allah prevents the unbelievers from understanding the Qur’an (v. 46), and they accuse Muhammad of being “bewitched” (v. 47). They deny that Allah can restore the dead to life (vv. 49-52, cf. 98-99), yet their idols have no power (vv. 56, 67). All populations will be destroyed utterly or at least punished (v. 58), but Allah doesn’t send a miracle to confirm Muhammad’s message because others rejected miracles in the past (v. 59). The refusal of Satan to bow down to Adam is retold in vv. 61-65 – see the discussion of 7:11-25. The unbelievers should be mindful that Allah might bring a natural disaster upon them (vv. 68-69).
The unbelievers even tried to tempt Muhammad away from the truth (verses 72-77). There are varying accounts of what form this temptation took. The Ruhul Ma’ani says that the pagan Quraysh asked Muhammad to replace the verses announcing Allah’s punishment with verses about his mercy, and vice versa – which would make the verses of mercy much more plentiful. But Allah kept Muhammad from being thus beguiled.
Verses 78-100 reiterate many of the same themes, returning most often to the wonders of the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an is “a healing and a mercy to those who believe,” while “to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss” (v. 82). The “whole of mankind and Jinns,” working together, couldn’t produce anything like it (v. 88). Yet still men are ungrateful (v. 89) and demand a miracle, which they will not get (vv. 90-96). No one can guide one whom Allah leaves straying (v. 97).
Verses 101-111 begin by returning to the story of Moses with Pharaoh, recounting that Allah gave Moses “nine clear signs,” but Pharaoh remained obstinate and denied Moses’ claims in language reminiscent of the Quraysh’s dismissal of Muhammad in v. 47 (v. 101). Allah gives the children of Israel the land (v. 104) – that is, Jordan and Palestine, according to the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs. There are several prominent “moderate” Muslims who have made much of this, telling Jewish groups that the Qur’an guarantees Jews the land of Israel without getting around to telling them also that the Qur’an also says Jews are accursed for rejecting Muhammad (2:89) and that the Muslims are the true children of Abraham (3:67-68) and thus the true inheritors of this promise.
The sura concludes with more praise of the Qur’an, which has brought the truth, such that the pious receive it with grateful humility (vv. 105-109). Then comes Allah’s instruction to Muhammad to say, “Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman [the Compassionate]: by whatever name ye call upon Him, for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names” (v. 110). Apparently, the Meccans thought that Al-Rahman, the middle term of the Islamic invocation Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim, “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,” was a deity distinct from Allah, and Muhammad is to tell them that they are but two different names for the same being. According to Ibn Kathir, “one of the idolators heard the Prophet saying when he was prostrating: ‘O Most Gracious, O Most Merciful.’ The idolator said, he claims to pray to One, but he is praying to two! Then Allah revealed this Ayah [verse, or sign].” Several historians have noted that Al-Rahman was the name of a pagan god in pre-Islamic Arabia, and was also used frequently by Jews and Christians — suggesting that Muhammad was trying to bring together several conceptions of the divine in order to unite the peoples of Arabia under Islam. There is even a hint of this in the Qur’an, when the unbelievers exclaim: “Has he made the gods (all) into one Allah? Truly this is a wonderful thing!” (38:5).
Next week: Sura 18, “The Cave” – one of the strangest and most influential of all the chapters of the Qur’an.
(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
Regards from Darwood al Harb.
Shy Guy on March 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Great post Robert. I hope we will be able to see you in a new Jihad Watch soon.
Zorro on March 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Put a hajib on that witch! Or cut her hands and feet off. Or crucify her. “Mischief on the earth” must be dealt with. Geeez.
But follow that moral code (Verses 22-39)….or not.
And remember, No one can guide one whom Allah leaves straying (v. 97). Inshallah.
Al-Rahman (not noodles) - “Has he made the gods (all) into one Allah? Truly this is a wonderful thing!” (38:5). This is not shirk. This is not shirk. This is not….
My head is spinning from the cognitive dissonance.
Thanks R.S., for another good entry into this insanity.
locomotivebreath1901 on March 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Wow. We are in big trouble.
hunter on March 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM
“No one can bear another’s burdens”
Yeah? Tell that to Jesus.
Tony737 on March 2, 2008 at 11:36 AM
This post has me bothered and bewildered.
andycanuck on March 2, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Verses 22-39 sounds very “Ten Commandments”-like…and the repetitive “The Koran is the truth” meme is constantly repeated.
So, I’m not sure if this is to infer that “other gods” were all brought together as one Allah…or that simply the believers in other gods are to be brought to the one Allah. Or perhaps it’s both.
JetBoy on March 2, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Me too. Christian fundamentalists take the Bible as truth, and there are on the face contradictory or difficult items.
For instance in Luke 2:14 an angel announced the birth of Christ and a multitude of heavenly host rejoined “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”
This phrase has been represented as a herald for world peace, which obviously never happened. Further Christ declared there would be no peace for those who followed Him and brother would be set against brother.
This is not a problem to the fundamentalist Christian because the peace declared is taken to mean a declaration of peace between man and God.
But reconciling the Koran is hard, aside from the language problem there is the rough justice, the materialism in the form of booty rewards, the hatred of people.
I remember a story about Ronald Reagan whom I admired, that he never spoke against people, only systems. It was an ‘evil empire’, not an ‘evil leader’. There was a recognition that man was redeemable inherent in Reagan, and it made Reagan likable. I can’t find Muhammed likable with all the limb chopping bizarre minutae.
The unforgiving nature of this book sets a course of destruction as a solution.
I cannot think of a worse basis for a moral structure
entagor on March 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Again with the commandment to ‘not commit adultery’. So how therefore can the Koran go on to justify 4 wives?
And who is the arbitrator who decides whether or not a killing is ‘justified’? These ‘commandments’ are pretty nuanced.
ThackerAgency on March 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Ibn Kuthar says:
If what Allah has told in the Koran is sufficient, then why are there any need for hadiths of the following sort:
I love those hadiths, for they show that Jews and Christians serve a useful purpose to Muslims — we mean that they do not have to take ultimate responsibility for their own evil actions, so long as we are there at the Judgement to be their scapegoats.
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM
ThackerAgency:
Four wives ain’t adultery in Islam. It’s allowed according to Qur’an 4:3. Now five wives, that would be adultery. Or having a tryst with someone who wasn’t a wife at all. That would be adultery. But four wives? Not adultery.
Robert Spencer on March 2, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Would it? Is it punishable by death?
In the Torah, the word for adultery is “nih-oof”. The 7th Commandment is “lo tin-af” - “do not commit adultery. According to Jewish halacha, the capital crime of nih-oof, adultery, is only in cases where the woman is married.
The term adultery in modern English usage has long ago simply referred to an extra-marital affair, whether the woman is married or not. Is that the defintion in Islam? I thought it was closer to the Torah’s original meaning.
Shy Guy on March 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM
THAT would make more sense to me. I have always wondered if ‘do not commit adultery’ actually meant what we think it means today. I never thought it did because so many prophets had multiple wives.
Does the man commit adultery too if the woman is married, or just the woman? In that case a man can never commit adultery. Interesting stuff.
So Robert, I guess that is where the Shia version of the ‘temporary marriage’ came in so that they wouldn’t stone all those Muslim sinners who wanted to get their groove on.
You know, the religion wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for their whole ‘death to everyone who isn’t like us’ mentality. The whole ‘we believe in the Bible, but only Mohommed’s interpretation of the Bible because everyone else lied about it’ is just ridiculous. It’s amazing how much Mohammed steals from Christianity and Judaism and then tries to manipulate through his own interpretations of the teachings. Mohammed was a con artist of the first degree.
ThackerAgency on March 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM
In Jewish law, both have, unless the married woman was coerced by the man, in which case he has committed adultery, not she.
If the man was unaware that the woman was married, she has committed adultery, he hasn’t.
Plagiarist.
Shy Guy on March 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Shy Guy:
Given the allowance for four wives, the parameters of the law are the same as in Judaism and Christianity: sexual activity with someone you’re not married to is adultery. If you have one wife or two or three or four, if you’re not married to the one you’re with, you’re in trouble.
Adultery is indeed punishable by death according to Sharia, but this is only enforced today in Sharia states, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Right. Otherwise it’s fornication — if the two aren’t married at all. That is punishable in Sharia by lashing.
Extra-marital, yes. Not non-marital.
Robert Spencer on March 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM
ThackerAgency:
Muhammad allowed for temporary marriage. The Sunnis say he later canceled this permission. The Shia say he didn’t. In any case, yes, it provides for an easy veneer of piety over the culture, since no one has extramarital sex. They just get married first, for an hour or two.
Robert Spencer on March 2, 2008 at 5:15 PM
I read about this in one of your books and thought it was laughable. Morality in Islam seems very slippery to me with the definitions in constant flux. Or were the terms only fluctuating while Muhammed was alive and it is more set now that he is no longer getting revelations?
TX Mom on March 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM
TX Mom:
Exactly so. It isn’t fluctuating at all now. It is very, very set.
Robert Spencer on March 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM
By Robert Spencer
I don’t know about Muhammad, but Liz Montgomery sure did bewitch me as a teen boy in the 60’s & 70’s. :)
jimbo2008 on March 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM
I assume you know that Dar al Harb in Arabic translates: World at War
jimbo2008 on March 2, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Actually I will expand upon this: To the fundamentalist Muslim, there is only 2 conditions in the world: Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb which literally translates: Land or World of Islam (that part of the world controlled by Islam) or Land or World of War (that part of the world not controlled by Islam). There is NO PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IN FUNDAMENTAL ISLAM. They are at war with ALL infidels.
jimbo2008 on March 2, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Yes, Jimbo, I know. Even in modern Hebrew, “dar” means “to dwell” and “charb” comes from “cherev” or “chorav”, meaning a “sword” or “destruction/desolation” respectively.
My initial reference to “Darwood” was a play on the name “Derwood”, the derogatory nickname given in Bewitched by Darrin Steven’s mother-in-law, Endora, whenever referring to him.
Shy Guy on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Doctor Bombay should try his tuning fork at the Kabaa.
Feedie on March 3, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Was this (or is this) a big problem for muslims? I don’t want to be poor, so I’ll kill the kids?
Are you saying it’s wrong to take candy from babies? Thank goodness for the sweet, peace-loving jihadis showing us the way.
I may just have to read the Koran’s words next time, before I flush them away.
Squiggy on March 3, 2008 at 6:13 AM
I am with Squiggy on these two commandments. The cultural backdrop is so foriegn to me that I will never fully understand them:
v31:
Imagine living as a Beduoin or nomad c700AD. Birth control exists only in the crudest of forms and abortion is outlawed by your religion. You are hopefully responsible in having only one wife to care for, but your religion allows you up to four. Where does a desert herdsman get the means to feed and clothe the inevitable numerous children that proceed from his loins?? Were there people so poor that they faced the choice of either killing their infants now, or allowing them to slowly die of starvation? The commandment of v31 (or any commandment for that matter) would not exist if this were not already being done by the local population. Conditions must have been truly horrific back in that time.
v34 is the one that really stumps me:
Huh? The wealth of the orphan is an oxymoron. The nearest I can make out is possibly not to take orphans as personal slaves…. but that is just a guess.
HeIsSailing on March 3, 2008 at 6:30 AM
Could the wealth of the orphan also mean a youngster who has inherited some money from deceased parents? Ah yes, that makes better sense.
HeIsSailing on March 3, 2008 at 6:34 AM
Kool. nice post :)
jimbo2008 on March 3, 2008 at 7:14 AM
HeIsSailing:
Yes. As you’ll see in a couple of weeks, Sura 18 has as a minor character a couple of young men whose inheritance is threatened until they receive some unlikely help from an Islamic holy man.
Robert Spencer on March 3, 2008 at 7:55 AM
Whoops. That is, “…Sura 18 has as minor characters…”
Robert Spencer on March 3, 2008 at 7:56 AM
entagor -
Actually, most Bible scholars agree that the phrase “good will toward men”, from the early-17th-century King James Version of the Bible, is a mistranslation. A more accurate translation would be “peace to men of good will”, or even “peace to men on whom his [i.e., God's] favor rests”, which is what most modern translations have for that verse.
Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion of the Qur’an, of course.
rmunn on March 3, 2008 at 11:32 AM
There seems to be a blurry spot between faith and ignorance for Ibn Kathir, but that could just be symptomatic of Islam.
Thanks for the continuing education Robert.
blankminde on March 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Nice commandment there, keep it dark.
Keeps the bar set pretty low I’d say.
Robert, was this possibly put in to make sure that his followers did not question Muhammad’s ways, or prevent them from learning about other religions?
Boot Hill on March 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM
This is the Moslem version of having their cake and eating it too. They declare that they accept Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others as prophets, thereby allowing them to claim the moral authority of those prophets for Islam. Then they completely disregard every other prophet but theirs.
And what is a prophet, if not someone with a message from God? So if you acknowledge someone as a prophet of God, but ignore that prophet’s message, then you don’t really acknowledge him as a prophet at all.
In truth, then, Mohammed is not just the greatest of all prophets to Muslims: he is the only prophet.
Of course, if you were to point this out to a Muslim, he would also tell you that the Bible is corrupt anyway. So again, they are able to claim they believe the Bible is a holy book from God, while ignoring it completely.
tom on March 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM
But you can still have sex with your slave girls even those who are already married, not so?
Ref: Qur’an 23:5-7
Annar on March 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Annar:
Yes, and that wouldn’t be adultery either — but they have to be your slave girls.
Robert Spencer on March 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
“Pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge” (v. 36);
A ha! I knew the Koran suggested remaining totally ignorant.
kirkill on March 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Except that there is indeed an ayat which directs the Muslim to the other Holy Books for further instruction. I don’t have the reference handy. Do you know if offhand, Robert?
TexasDan on March 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Yeah, Texas Dan, it’s 10:94-95. Specifically, it directs Muhammad to ask the People of the Book if he is in doubt about what is being revealed to him in the Qur’an. But of course the Jewish and Christian Scriptures do not agree with the Qur’an, leading to the charge that they have been corrupted.
Robert Spencer on March 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Great post Robert…The more people that can open their eyes and see what a con job the religion of peace really is the better.
What is most astonishing to me, after 9-11 thrust Islam into our daily lives, is how utterly insecure the religion is as a whole. It’s obvious that Muslims have very little faith in their religion. The text you point out only confirms in my mind that ol’ Mo and his ilk knew what he was doing in perpetrating the biggest lie on humanity in world history.
“Believe what we say or we’ll kill you” I think sums it up…
Jeff_Boeing on March 4, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Thanks for the insight
Lucky are those who know these languages. I never have considered any comparisons between arabic and hebrew. Are there a lot of commonalities in the roots of these languages?
One more comment: almost every time I try to login via Bloggin the Qur’an, I get a 404 error. I have learned that I must go to another (non-Spencer) thread to get in. Sometimes I have to sign in a second time, sometimes the comments window will pop up in the other thread. It is only Blogging the Qur’an that gives this problem. Once logged in there is no problem. I used to think the thread was closed to comments
entagor on March 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I encounter a lot of Arabic words with roots in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Shy Guy on March 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM