Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 27, “The Ant”
posted at 8:00 am on June 1, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
According to Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Zaid, suras 26, 27, and 28 were revealed to Muhammad in Mecca in that order, although the subject matter of the suras themselves still does not follow any chronological order.
A brief preamble (verses 1-6) asserts that the Qur’an “makes things clear” (v. 2). Those who pray regularly and give alms are assured of Paradise (v. 3). But Allah has made the evil deeds of those who don’t believe in the afterlife seem good to them (v. 4). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains: “Truly those who do not believe in the Hereafter, We have adorned their vile deeds for them, by making such [deeds] seem sensuous so that they then deem them wholesome, and so they are bewildered, confused about why We deem these [deeds] to be vile.” They’ll be duly punished in the next life (v. 5).
Then verses 7-14 return once again to the story of Moses, which we have already seen in suras 2, 7, 10, 17, 20, and 26. This time we get a version of the story of the burning bush from Exodus 3:2ff (vv. 7-9), but no revelation of the Name of God (Exodus 3:14). Instead, the Qur’anic account fast-forwards to Exodus 4:2-6, in which Moses at God’s bidding casts down his rod and sees it become a serpent (v. 10) and puts his hand inside his cloak, whereupon it becomes leprous and is then restored – although in the Qur’an, it merely turns white, without disease (v. 12). But Pharaoh and his court reject these signs “in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof” (v. 14) – here again is a hint that people who reject Islam do so only because they are corrupt, even though they know it’s true.
Verses 15-44 turn to the story of Solomon, focusing primarily on his meeting with the Queen of Sheba. Allah gave Solomon the gift of understanding the speech of birds (v. 16). He can also understand the ants, overhearing when one ant warns the others to flee before they’re trampled by Solomon and those with him, as all the jinns, men, and birds come before him (vv. 17-19). Solomon is annoyed when he discovers that the hoopoe is not among the birds (v. 20), and vows to punish him (v. 21). However, the hoopoe comes in late with news of the Queen of Sheba, who has a magnificent kingdom (v. 23) – but she and her people are deceived by Satan and worship the sun (v. 24). The hoopoe himself is a pious Muslim (v. 26). Solomon sends the hoopoe with a letter for the Queen (v. 28), as much to test the hoopoe’s veracity as anything else (v. 27). The letter begins with the standard Islamic invocation Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim (v. 30) — In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful – and calls the Queen and her people to Islam (v. 31). The Queen consults with her advisers (v. 32) and resolves to send Solomon a gift (v. 35). Ibn Kathir explains this passage as “meaning, ‘I will send him a gift befitting for one of his status, and will wait and see what his response will be. Perhaps he will accept that and leave us alone, or he will impose a tax which we can pay him every year, so that he will not fight us and wage war against us.’”
This idea seems modeled on the jizya, the tax prescribed for the dhimmis (9:29): she seems prepared to pay a tax as a symbol of her submission to Solomon’s authority. Qatadah, one of Muhammad’s companions, marveled: “May Allah have mercy on her and be pleased with her — how wise she was as a Muslim and (before that) as an idolater! She understood how gift-giving has a good effect on people.”
But Solomon rejected the gifts (vv. 36-37), intent instead on converting the Queen to Islam. Ibn Kathir paraphrases his response to the gifts: “Are you trying to flatter me with wealth so that I will leave you alone with your Shirk [worshipping others besides Allah] and your kingdom?” He is not disposed to leave them alone, as Muslims have never been disposed to leave infidel kingdoms alone, when they had the means to confront them. Solomon asks one of his men to bring him her throne (v. 38) and gets a volunteer (v. 39). The throne received (v. 40), Solomon orders it altered slightly, to test the Queen’s powers of recognition (v. 41). She recognizes it (v. 42), which, according to Ibn Kathir, shows “the ultimate in intelligence and strong resolve.” She forsakes her other objects of worship and worships Allah alone (v. 43). Solomon devised the further test in v. 44, according to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, to get a gander at the Queen’s legs:
“It was, also, said to her, ‘Enter the palace [hallway]’ — this was a transparent white glass floor underneath which flowed sweet water that contained fish. Solomon had it made when he was told that her legs and feet resembled the shanks of a mule. And when she saw it, she supposed it to be a pool, of water, and so she bared her legs, to wade through it. Meanwhile Solomon was seated on his throne at the front part of the palace [hallway], and he saw that her legs and feet were [in fact] fair. He said, to her: ‘It is a hallway paved [smooth] with crystal’, and thereafter he called her to submit [to God]. She said, ‘My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, by worshipping other than You, and I submit with Solomon to God, the Lord of the Worlds’.
Solomon, says the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “wanted to marry her but disliked the hair on her legs. So the devils made a [depilatory] lime mixture (nūra) and she removed it therewith. He married her and had [great] love for her.”
Then comes in verses 45-53 the story of Salih (also in suras 7, 11, and 26), prophet of the people of Thamud, whom Allah destroys for their unbelief (vv. 51-52), and the story of Lot (verses 54-58 — also in suras 7, 15, and 26), who upbraids his people for their homosexuality (v. 55), and is saved with his family (except for his wife) while the city is destroyed (vv. 57-58).
Verses 59-65 detail some of the signs of Allah’s power in the natural world. But in verses 66-74 the unbelievers are still perverse, objecting to the possibility of the resurrection of the dead (v. 67), saying again that these are just “tales of the ancients” (v. 68) and asking when the resurrection will happen (v. 71). Allah tells Muhammad to tell the unbelievers to travel the earth see what has become of those who sinned (v. 69) and not to grieve over their unbelief (v. 70).
Verses 75-93 extol the Qur’an, for it explains to the Children of Israel the things they dispute about (v. 76) and is a guide for the believers (v. 77). Allah will confront the unbelievers on the Day of Judgment (v. 84), and they will be unable to answer (v. 85). Those who do good will be saved (v. 89), while those who do evil will be thrown into the Fire (v. 90).
Next week: Sura 28, “The Story”: “Everything (that exists) will perish except His own Face.”
(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.)
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
It’s always amazing to me to read your posts Robert. If Mohammed were alive today he’d be penalized for plagiarism. I suppose I can understand if the people were illiterate and had not heard the stories from the Bible that Mohammed was told during his travels as a merchant, they would find comfort in these verses. But to believe that this one man (who glorified himself above all others) knew more about what happened in Biblical times than the people who actually wrote the stories DURING the times that they happened is just absurd. Any rational comprehension would lead anyone to the same conclusion.
It is too bad that Islam is so adamant against apostates. However, if it weren’t for those rules, everyone would convert to any other religion than this one - as it is obviously a plagiarism (and a poor one at that).
It is a shame that they persecute other religions (persecution sponsored by the state governments in majority Muslim countries). They are getting more strict because as people hear the Gospel, they are accepting it (praise God!). Unfortunately like in Algeria they resort to shutting down non-Muslim churches in order to preserve Islam from people converting to Christianity because they believe in Christ.
Or in the Maldives where non-Muslims lose their citizenship. Could you imagine the outrage of CAIR if Americans began shutting down Mosques, or revoking citizenships of Muslims? It is amazing to me that the media doesn’t report these stories. . . of course it runs counter to their narrative that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and is ‘just like other religions’. All we hear about is how poorly Muslims are treated in the USA. . . never mind that we are about to elect a president who was born a Muslim.
Thanks for your work Robert. It is much appreciated, and enlightening.
ThackerAgency on June 1, 2008 at 8:50 AM
It takes an idiot to be a Muslim.
Indy Conservative on June 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Great post, Robert.
And I miss and love yul brynner. :)
bridgetown on June 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Well, there goes one of the best excuses I could ever think of for why Muslim women like wearing the burqa. I wonder if there’s a greasy hair rule. If there is, there goes the head scarf excuse.
Jaynie59 on June 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Yes, the prosecution could throw that charge on top of the child molestation and murder charges Mohammed would face were he alive today.
venividivici on June 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I’m guessing that their answer for this is that it wasn’t Mohammed who knew the ‘real story’, but Allah. Allah is supposed to have given Mo the whole Quran directly.
bikermailman on June 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM
That’s appropriate.
Pent. on June 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Slightly (very slightly) OT - I’m wondering how all readers here would interpret the following as it applies to Islam. Perhaps Robert could use it as the basis of a future piece at JW and we could comment there instead of on this thread.
Who Separates Church from State?
Connie on June 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM
There was a good documentary on the conditions of Egyptian Coptic Christians.
Pent. on June 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I was under the impression there were no assurance of Paradise in Islam except martyrdom which is a major part of the allure of being a suicide bomber. Everybody else gets judged. Am I wrong?
TheBigOldDog on June 1, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Blogging the Bible
Chimpy on June 1, 2008 at 11:43 AM
It was exciting the first 10,687 times people posted the link here but now I’m not so sure.
Shy Guy on June 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM
One of the MAJOR differences I’m seeing between the Bible and the koran is that the Bible is more or less chronological. There are re-tellings of stories, more like a book by two different historians, who tell essentially the same story, but with different viewpoints and emphases.
This to me smacks of the stupidity of islam - that mohammed has to retell things to suit his current claims and justification for power and all that.
People really need to get a grip with this.
Mommynator on June 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
… people who reject Islam do so only because they are corrupt …
Riiiiight, my way or the highway, like a spoiled brat who takes his ball and goes home.
Tony737 on June 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Solomon sends the hoopoe with a letter for the Queen
What the heck is a hoopoe? Like a satrap?
Tony737 on June 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM
You know, this is yet one more reason I’m surprised the radical left and Islam are allied. Islam doesn not approve of hairy-legged women.
see-dubya on June 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
And it wouldn’t be a Sunday at Hot Air without hearing from the moral equivalency brigade.
It’s pretty sad that liberals have to make fun of God in order for their miserable lives to have meaning. It’s also interesting to note the vast difference in approaches - Robert uses actual Koranic sources to highlight the passages and seeks to educate. “Blogging the Bible” does nothing but smugly make fun of its source material.
Chimpy, instead of reading that crap why don’t you actually try to pick up a Bible and read it. You may find it enjoyable and uplifting when you get rid of the smarmy self-congratulatory cleverness.
crazy_legs on June 1, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Lots of verses citing Allah’s vengeance on the corrupt and unbelievers…But what’s Islam’s explanation when say, a natural disaster wipes out a mosque or an Islamic city or locale that is known for it’s strict Islamic rules and traditions?
Is it really as simple an explanation as “they weren’t holy enough”?
JetBoy on June 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM
In other words: “OK, so you won’t believe. Well, I’m going to make it so you can never repent and find a better way. Then you’ll be sorry!”
Lo, and Allah is petulant, childish.
More seriously, I’m not at all familiar with the state of the Jewish faith in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. Robert, given that the stories in the Qur’an vary so much from the Old Testament, is it likely that the Jewish groups were themselves (heretical?) split-offs from mainstream Judaism? I’m wondering if he just rewrote things to suit his needs, or if we’re hearing echoes of what was then a heterodox Judaism?
irishspy on June 1, 2008 at 4:08 PM
JetBoy on June 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM:
Take a look at the reactions of “pious” imams and sheikhs to the suffering of the people of Java after the Boxing Day tsunami, and you’ll have the answer to your question.
irishspy on June 1, 2008 at 4:13 PM
The impression I got in my reading of Islamic texts and sources online is that there is pretty much no way a Muslim can die and not go to Paradise. I spent a lot of time reading pro-Islam websites that had Q&A pages where Muslims, (and non-Muslims) could write in and ask questions of the imans (or whatever they call themselves.)
The overriding theme is always “unity”. No matter what a Muslim man wants to do, he can do it as long as he wants to, and he doesn’t have look very far to justify anything he wants to do under Islam. Anything he wants to do is justified. Pride and bragging are frowned upon, not because it’s wrong, but because it makes other Muslims feel bad about themselves.
Muslims are not supposed to judge other Muslims. Only Allah can do that. The reason so many Muslims can kill so many other Muslims for things like blasphemy is that once they commit such an act, the Muslim who kills them is not the one doing the judging. Allah has already told Muslims what must be done, so the Muslim who performs the act of killing is not really responsible. He’s just doing what Allah has demanded be done. If a Muslim kills a pious Muslim, then Allah will take care of that when the victim gets to where he’s going. Muslim victims of accidental killings, or innocent Muslim victims of suicide bombers, are considered Martyrs in their own right and Allah will take care of them. That’s why Muslim terrorists don’t care who their unintended victims may be. Their victims are not their problem.
I read somewhere, and I can’t remember where it was, if it was a Hadith or just a Q&A, that a Muslim who dies from the flu will also go to Paradise. I can’t remember if the word “martyr” was used, but it was clear that any Muslim will get into Paradise as long as they defend Islam. And the highest honor any Muslim can hope to achieve in this life is to be a martyr in defense of Islam.
So they all go to Paradise. But since Islam really isn’t about this life, except for how the Muslim can serve Islam, being a martyr (suicide killer) gets you there much faster. You can skip all the dull everyday stuff you’d have to do if you live to a ripe old age and die in your sleep.
By the way, Muslims don’t actually have to give alms. The desire to give is enough to satisfy that Pillar.
Jaynie59 on June 1, 2008 at 5:46 PM
ThackerAgency:
Strictly speaking, plagiarism is taking over someone else’s actual wording as one’s own. Muhammad doesn’t do that: there is no textual dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. And Muslims would say that it’s only natural that stories would recur in the Qur’an that were in the Bible, since the Qur’an is the perfect revelation sent to correct the earlier ones that had become corrupted.
Of course, if the supreme deity is really speaking to him and using him to correct stories that had become corrupted and changed, then his versions would be more accurate than the older ones.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM
IndyConservative:
I disagree. Al-Ghazali was no idiot, and he was pious and orthodox. In modern times, whatever evil one may ascribe to someone like Khomeini, he was no idiot. People who grow up in Muslim cultures with no access to the material that you are probably taking as axiomatic in writing this sentence cannot be called idiots for not knowing what they have no way of knowing.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM
bikermailman:
Exactly.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Connie:
Very briefly, in traditional Islam there is no separation of religion from state power. Jihadists decry secular Muslim governments — Mubarak, Musharraf — for not following Islamic law and introducting the Western concept of a sacred/secular division.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM
TheBigOldDog:
The language promising Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah in Qur’an 9:111 is much stronger than the language here in 27:3. Also 27:3 is a bit vague — if you miss one prayer, are you assured? Two? Five? A week’s worth? And how much zakat must one pay? Etc. 9:111 is much clearer and more direct.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Chimpy:
You are apparently unaware of the fact, but actually the Slate series inspired this one, although my approach is a bit different. Instead of just writing about how passages hit me, as the guy at Slate did, I am showing how mainstream Muslim commentators explain them.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Mommynator:
Coincidentally, I begin sura 28 (next week’s entry) with a discussion of how the Qur’an is a series of sermons, not a series of chronological histories. Stories are brought up in order to make a homiletic point. This is different from the Bible, and interesting (I think), but it doesn’t in and of itself manifest duplicity on Muhammad’s part. There are plenty of ways in which I believe Muhammad is not the supreme exemplar of human behavior, and I don’t believe he was a prophet, but I don’t see any moral or other failing in his not telling stories of the prophets in chronological order.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Tony737:
Here’s a hoopoe for you.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:10 PM
JetBoy:
Yes. We saw this in Indonesia after the tsunami. You can always be more holy, more observant, more fervent, more devout. Always. There is always something else you can be doing.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Irishspy:
It’s almost impossible to know, since documentary evidence is so sketchy. But since no Jewish sect of any kind has ever at any time according to any known records asserted that Ezra is the Son of God (9:30), it seems likely that the Jews of Arabia were more or less orthodox, but that Muhammad understood the material he heard from them imperfectly, or changed it for his own ends, or both.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Jaynie59:
It’s a hadith. Here is one version:
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Jaynie59:
Not necessarily. But the only ones in Paradise are Muslims, certainly.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Jaynie59:
Only if they’re indigent. Those who can, must.
Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Thank you, Robert.
awake on June 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Exactly. In the American Thinker article about Jefferson and “the wall,” the author points out that people built the wall. It follows that if people built the wall, they can also tear it down, which is why educating Americans as you do about the realities of Islam is so very important.
Connie on June 1, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Fascinating series of videos. Thanks for sharing.
HeIsSailing on June 1, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Hmmmm, it seems my ‘thank you, Robert’ got lost. Anyway, thanks Robert, I didn’t get the whole ‘hoopoe is a bird’ thing, I thought it was a person’s job title or something like that.
Tony737 on June 2, 2008 at 1:21 AM
This is basically what I meant by ‘plagiarized’. He heard bits and pieces, and told people who hadn’t heard the stories and changed them to suit him.
Thanks for responding. But to me it just seems odd that a guy would say, ‘those Christians and Jews are right, but they aren’t REALLY right so you have to believe my version of their beliefs or we’ll kill you or subdue you.’
No other religion bases itself on other religions. You could say that Christianity is an extension of Judaism. But neither is necessarily exclusive. Jews who believe in Jesus are Christians. . . but both Jews and Christians believe that a Messiah is coming. Christians just believe He’s coming BACK.
Imagine if someone made up a religion based on Hindu or Buddhist principals, said they were the ‘most knowledgeable’ as deemed by God himself. And then they said that their version was more accurate than the Hindus or Buddhists. Either believe my way or we’ll kill you for believing their way.
It’s just so odd to me that the entire religion is basically a paraphrase of Jewish and Christian stories with a twist to suit Mohammed. Any comparison of the two religions make it obvious. Unfortunately they don’t allow the Gospel in Muslim areas - and they kill apostates. Muslims love God, they want to love God. I am certain they would respond to the Gospel if they heard it without fear of retribution from their community.
ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM
BTW, Israel’s birdbrain president, Shimon Peres, just declared the hoopoe Israel’s national bird. (As the article correctly points out, “peres” is the biblical Hebrew name for vulture).
Shy Guy on June 2, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Bahai. In many ways, it’s conceptually like Islam without the nastiness and ugliness.
Shy Guy on June 2, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Odd that Muhammad would choose a hoopoe as a muslim. After all, hoopoes peck through and reingest feces, including their own.
chsw
chsw on June 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM
ThackerAgency:
Yes, Islam is a replacement theology par excellence. Islam is the true form of Judaism and of Christianity. This is unparalleled in religious history, as far as I know. Some point to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism, but that is much different. Christianity shares Scriptures with Judaism; it understands them differently, but does not say that the Jews have corrupted them and does not offer uncorrupted versions. Also, while there has been a Christian replacement theology that sees the Jews as cast off and the Church as the new Israel, this has never been the unanimous view and is almost universally rejected today. After all, St. Paul says in the New Testament that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29, if I recall correctly) — specifically in reference to the Jews being God’s chosen people. So the proper Christian attitude toward Jews is one of charity, respect, openness, and gratitude.
Robert Spencer on June 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Terrific post and thread.
RushBaby on June 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM
no hairy legs, lol
now we know why they are always after the little boys
pseudonominus on June 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Thank you Robert. Very enlightening. I recommend your books to my friends who are open to discussing Islam and don’t understand it.
4shoes on June 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM