Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 28, “The Story”

posted at 8:00 am on June 8, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

It has often been noted that while the Bible is (among many other things) a series of historical narratives, the Qur’an is a series of sermons. This is nowhere clearer than in the oft-repeated story of Moses. While the Bible’s first five books contain the story of Moses in what is in the main a continuous narrative, the Qur’an tells parts of this story in suras 2, 7, 10, 17, 20, 26, 27 and this one (and elsewhere also).

There is a great deal of repetition and overlap, but there are also unique features of most every retelling. Each one has its own homiletic point: details of Moses’ life are used to warn unbelievers or exhort believers to greater piety. As we saw last week, Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Zaid say that suras 26, 27, and 28 were revealed in that order. Maududi says that “the different parts of the Prophet Moses story as mentioned in these surahs together make up a complete story.” Still, if someone were to try to reconstruct the chronology of Moses’ life by means of the Qur’an alone, it would be very difficult.

Meanwhile, the recurring preoccupation with Moses reinforces his status as a prophet of Islam, as well as the perversity of the Jews in not recognizing the congruence of Muhammad’s message with that of Moses, and then becoming Muslims. Maududi emphasizes that, here again, the point of these retellings of Moses’ story is not to make a point about Moses, but about Muhammad: “The main theme” of this sura, he says, “is to remove the doubts and objections that were being raised against the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) and to invalidate the excuses which were being offered for not believing in him. For this purpose, first the story of the Prophet Moses has been related…by analogy with the period of revelation.”

Verses 2-43 tell Moses’ story, echoing many elements of the Biblical account, although Haman is imported from another time and place (his story is in the Book of Esther) to be Pharaoh’s assistant (v. 8). Allah tells Moses’ mother to cast him into the river “when thou hast fears about him” (v. 7). She does, the “people of Pharaoh” rescue him (v. 8), and his mother, her identity not known to the Egyptians, becomes his nursemaid (v. 13). Moses declares he will never assist those who sin (v. 17) – a declaration that modern Salafis (rigorous, “pure” Muslims) link to Muhammad’s saying recorded in the Mishkat al-Masabih, that someone who knowingly assists a tyrant is no longer a Muslim. This is their justification for opposing authoritarian rulers in Muslim countries who do not implement the fullness of Sharia (such as Mubarak and Musharraf).

Moses kills an Egyptian and Allah forgives him (vv. 15-16), but his deed becomes known (v. 19) and Moses flees to Midian (v. 22). There he agrees to work for the unnamed Jethro in exchange for his daughter’s hand in marriage (v. 27). He sees the burning bush (v. 29), encounters Allah (v. 30), and is given the miracles of the rod (v. 31) and his white hand (v. 32) to show Pharaoh. Pharaoh dismisses his preaching as “sorcery” (v. 36), just as the unbelievers will say about Muhammad (11:7, 15:15). And after Allah flings Pharaoh and his hosts into the sea (v. 40), we get to the point of the story.

That point is in verses 44-55: the fact that Muhammad knows these details of Moses’ life, when he wasn’t there to witness them, is proof that Muhammad is a prophet. Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah points out the proof of the prophethood of Muhammad, whereby he told others about matters of the past, and spoke about them as if he were hearing and seeing them for himself. But he was an illiterate man who could not read books, and he grew up among a people who knew nothing of such things.” So we see Allah reminding Muhammad that he wasn’t present at various events in Moses’ life (vv. 44-46). Yet the pagan Arabs demand that Muhammad perform miracles as Moses did, even though they don’t believe in Moses either (v. 48); “they only follow their own lusts” (v. 50). The People of the Book know that the Qur’an is true — “this was revealed,” says the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “regarding certain Jews who became Muslims, such as ‘Abd Allāh b. Salām and others, and [certain] Christians who had come from Abyssinia and Syria [who also became Muslims].”

Verses 56-75 excoriate the perversity of the unbelievers, in ignoring and denying the clear signs of Allah. Allah guides whom he will; Muhammad will not be able to bring to the truth all those he loves (v. 56) – yet another verse indicating that belief and unbelief is solely in Allah’s hands. This verses was revealed,” Ibn Kathir explains, “concerning Abu Talib, the paternal uncle of the Messenger of Allah” — and the father of Ali, the hero of the Shi’ites. Abu Talib “used to protect the Prophet, support him and stand by him. He loved the Prophet dearly, but this love was a natural love, i.e., born of kinship, not a love that was born of the fact that he was the Messenger of Allah. When he was on his deathbed, the Messenger of Allah called him to Faith and to enter Islam, but the decree overtook him and he remained a follower of disbelief, and Allah’s is the complete wisdom.”

Allah will taunt the unbelievers on the Day of Judgment, asking them where his “partners” are (vv. 62, 74-75). Verses 76-88 follow this with the story of Qarun (Korah of Numbers 16:1-40), who rebelled against Moses. Qarun trusts in his great wealth instead of worshipping Allah (v. 78). According to a hadith, Abu Hurayra, one of Muhammad’s companions, recalled Muhammad saying that only three things actually belong to the man who glories in his riches: the food he eats, the clothes he wears out, and the money he spends in the cause of Allah. “All else,” said Muhammad, “ he will leave for his heirs.” No doubt about that.

Those “whose aim is the life of this world” (v. 79) envied him, but the righteous knew better (v. 80), and sure enough, in due time Allah “caused the earth to swallow up him and his house” (v. 81). Muhammad should “never be a helper to the disbelievers” (v. 86) – “rather,” says Ibn Kathir, “separate from them, express your hostility towards them and oppose them.” For in the end, everything will perish except His Face” (v. 88) – that is, everything except Allah. This might seem to contradict the idea of the eternity of Paradise and hell, but the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs glosses it in this way: “all works that are for other than Allah’s Countenance…will not be accepted…except that which is meant for the sake of His Countenance.”

Next week: Sura 29: “Do those who practice evil think that they will get the better of Us?”

(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.)


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

Comment pages:

that someone who knowingly assists a tyrant is no longer a Muslim

LOL, Kind of a catch 22, since most-all muslims ie,assist tyrants.IMO
Love the Yul photo.

abinitioadinfinitum on June 8, 2008 at 9:13 AM

“never be a helper to the disbelievers” (v. 86) – “rather,” says Ibn Kathir, “separate from them, express your hostility towards them and oppose them.”

If we could only get our present government to understand this, like our government in the past (Jefferson, J. Adams, J.Q.Adams, ect…) understood it.

abinitioadinfinitum on June 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM

It seems their belief in Allah is that of a tyrant as well since he demands ’submission’ rather than obedience for your own good.

the recurring preoccupation with Moses reinforces his status as a prophet of Islam, as well as the perversity of the Jews in not recognizing the congruence of Muhammad’s message with that of Moses

would obviously beg the question. . .

Arabs demand that Muhammad perform miracles as Moses did

So um, they want Muslims to see Muhammad as being ‘exactly like Moses’ except for the fact that Muhammad doesn’t ever perform any miracles. His miracle is that he tells people about the Moses’ miracles from the Bible which nobody else has heard among his tribes. Like me saying that by telling people about Christ’s resurrection, that means I was resurrected too. OK, sure Mo.

If I’m going to create a new religion, it wouldn’t have anything to do with another religion. . . and it certainly wouldn’t criticize the older religion by saying that it is wrong and I am right.

Maybe I should start telling the ‘real’ story about Siddhartha. Instead of being peaceful like the Dalia Lama, you are supposed to subjugate the world by force and kill those that don’t believe it. There isn’t supposed to be any suffering. If someone is sick or suffering in the slightest, it is because of sin so you must kill them to keep the world pure – don’t cure them. It is the only way to get heaven on earth (God told me). Oh yeah, and make lots of babies so that we can have safety in numbers. Call it Islabuddah. Followers would be Islabuddhists.

Thanks again for your work Robert.

ThackerAgency on June 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Muhammad should “never be a helper to the disbelievers” (v. 86) – “rather,” says Ibn Kathir, “separate from them, express your hostility towards them and oppose them.”

And thus we see another example in the separationist instinct in Islam, cutting oneself off from all non-Muslim contact, except to fight them. I don’t want to carry the “cult” analogy too far, but Islam does share this aspect with modern cults, using separation to maintain control over its followers and develop a sense of “us vs. them.”

irishspy on June 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM

… the recurring preoccupation with Moses reinforces his status as a prophet of Islam …

Yet his followers are apes and pigs?

Tony737 on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Yet his followers are apes and pigs?
Tony737 on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM

The leaving of the ‘original’ islam came later. They weren’t swine, or sons of apes in mo’s time.

bikermailman on June 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM

There’s a great article at American Thinker this morning, on the difference between islam and the Baha’i faith. I’d heard a bit of it, but not all. Good read.

bikermailman on June 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Just in case it isn’t obvious,

“…Ali, the hero if the Shi’ites…” above should be:

“…Ali, the hero of the Shi’ites…”

I am hoping someone will be able to fix it in the piece, but until then this note will have to suffice.

Robert Spencer on June 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Tony737:

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam. His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs. The others became Muslims.

Robert Spencer on June 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM

… in this view Moses taught Islam. – R.S.

Yeah, I forgot about the revisionism, thanks Robert and Biker.

Tony737 on June 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM

There’s a great article at American Thinker this morning, on the difference between islam and the Baha’i faith. I’d heard a bit of it, but not all. Good read.

bikermailman on June 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM

That was indeed a good read.

Thanks again, Dr. Spencer!

RushBaby on June 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM

If Muhammad was living these days in a compound in the Texas desert with his tribe, he would have been burned to ashes.

Indy Conservative on June 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam.

Isn’t it more likely the story of Moses, part of the “greater narrative”, is an attempt to legitimize Muhammad?

In Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad (Pg 79), the story of Bahira is told. Bahira, though different stories shift details, is essentially a Christian monk who runs into Muhammad as a boy and immediately recognizes Muhammad as a great prophet. The story isn’t how Bahira teaches Islam, but how Christianity itself recognized Muhammad and thus imparts a sense of legitimacy.

It’s the same with stories like Ashab al-ukhdud (the massacre of tribe of al Najran), or taking Christian stories such as the Ashab al-kahf (”Companions of the Cave”): it’s about legitimizing Islam in the early centuries.

Which leads to

His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs

Doesn’t “Companions of the Trench” show there wasn’t a twist, but that Islam set itself up almost as the anti-Judeo antithesis in the struggle for the “greater narrative”?

TheEJS on June 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam. His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs. The others became Muslims.

Robert Spencer on June 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Rovert if you have ever read any of the current Palistinian re writing of religeous history they makes some curious claims.

They are trying to make the argument that the Palistinian people are the decendants of the “Phillistines” and that therefor the Israels are “Evil occupying invaders” who stole the land from the “Chosen” muslim people of God.

That is the whole basis of the Muslim claim on Israel is that twisted story that “Muslim” Philistines were there long before the Jews.

William Amos on June 8, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I don’t want to carry the “cult” analogy too far, but Islam does share this aspect with modern cults,

Islam is clearly a cult, so one doesn’t need to take the analogy too far. Muslims have already taken it as far as it can go. I like Spengler’s (the writer at Asia Times) theory that Islam is a pagan imitation of a revelatory religion. Having studied Greco-Roman paganism for many, many years, I can definitely see overlap in many of the ethical precepts of Islam and the ethics of the Greeks and Romans, especially in the way outsiders are treated. Which makes sense, because paganism was also based on tribal society. That isn’t to say that all societies and religions haven’t looked at least a little askance at outsiders, but for Islam to claim a superior ethical foundation to any other religion, yet share ethical precepts with “polytheists” such as the Greeks and Romans just shows again how deeply delusional Muslim self-perception is. So delusional, in fact, that I doubt any remedy can be found for it.

venividivici on June 9, 2008 at 12:19 AM

I like Spengler’s (the writer at Asia Times) theory that Islam is a pagan imitation of a revelatory religion.

I should mention that Spengler is not the originator of this theory. That honor goes to Franz Rosenzweig, who also was one of the few who foresaw that Islam would make a comeback when he was writing in the 1920s.

venividivici on June 9, 2008 at 12:24 AM

I am thoroughly mystified. Let me try and get this straight – on the one hand, illiterate Muhammed was completly ignorant of the legends of Moses, thus his revelations of Moses proved they were of divine origin.

Ibn Kathir:

Allah points out the proof of the prophethood of Muhammad, whereby he told others about matters of the past, and spoke about them as if he were hearing and seeing them for himself. But he was an illiterate man who could not read books, and he grew up among a people who knew nothing of such things.

Yet, according to Maududi’s introduction of Sura 28:

In the first place, the narration of a two thousand year old historical event by the Holy Prophet with such accuracy and detail, is presented as a proof of his Prophethood although he was un-lettered and the people of his city and clan knew full well that he had no access to any source of such information as they could point out.

This logic has more holes than Swiss cheese. It presupposes that Muhammed’s clan knew of the stories and Muhammed did not. If Muhammed told his fellow clansmen stories of Moses which they had been previously been ignorant of, how could this possibly be evidence of divine intervention? That would be like me reading something like the Urantia book for the first time, then being convinced of its divine origin because I knew it somehow explained otherwise unknown concepts like thought-adjusters and superuniverses correctly.

Huh?

And as Mr Spencer also suggests, how could they have asked for a Moses-like miracle from Muhammed if they had never heard of Moses? Obviously, the clansmen had to have been aware of the stories of Moses – be it from centuries old oral tradition or what have you. Sorry, Ibn Kathir – I am not buying your lame rationale.

Yet, how could Muhammed’s clansmen have heard of them, yet Muhammed been unaware? Just how disconnected and anti-social was this Muhammed character? What, was he in the cave with Gabriel so long that he lost touch with local gossip? Moududi, your explanation contradicts Ibn Kathir’s bogus explanations, but yours also makes no sense whatsoever.

I usually don’t stoop to shallow mockery, but this is some of the worst bit of religious apologetics I have ever come across. And believe me, that is saying something.

HeIsSailing on June 9, 2008 at 2:35 AM

And thus we see another example in the separationist instinct in Islam, cutting oneself off from all non-Muslim contact, except to fight them.

irishspy on June 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM

This also seems to be behind the new converts’ insistance upon covering the hair or body. Instead of the simple adherence to tradition by older female Muslims who emigrate to non-Muslim lands, the converts use the head covering or burqa as an in-your-face separatist behavior.

Connie on June 9, 2008 at 2:52 AM

The EJS:

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam.

Isn’t it more likely the story of Moses, part of the “greater narrative”, is an attempt to legitimize Muhammad?

This is not an either/or. In the traditional Muslim view, derived from the Qur’an (see 3:67, etc.), the Biblical prophets, including Moses, taught Islam. But this claim in itself arises from or is part of an attempt to legitimize Muhammad. He presented himself as a prophet in the Biblical line. So if his message differed from that of the earlier prophets, either he was a false prophet, which of course he was not going to acknowledge, or else their message had been tampered with by their wicked followers.

Robert Spencer on June 9, 2008 at 5:27 AM

Up above of course “Isn’t it more likely the story of Moses…is an attempt to legitimize Muhammad?” is the words of EJS, not of me.

Robert Spencer on June 9, 2008 at 5:42 AM

The EJS:

His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs

Doesn’t “Companions of the Trench” show there wasn’t a twist, but that Islam set itself up almost as the anti-Judeo antithesis in the struggle for the “greater narrative”?

Sure, but it was “the anti-Judeo antithesis” because it was the true message of Moses, which the Jews had twisted.

Robert Spencer on June 9, 2008 at 5:45 AM

Robert Spencer on June 9, 2008 at 5:27 AM

This is then the essence of Islam, a revisionist version of history, which would and could not hold water if Muhammad was not believed to be a prophet. Without Christ, there would not be Christianity, certainly, but Christianity does not revise history. Christ’s message was truly prophetic because his life was a model for the goodness possible in a humankind with free will. One doesn’t even have to believe in the divinity of Christ to acknowledge that.

Connie on June 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Thank you, Robert.

awake on June 9, 2008 at 12:41 PM

The American media won’t listen.

Connie on June 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.