Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 32, “The Prostration”
posted at 7:50 am on June 29, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sura 32, “The Prostration,” dates from the middle of the Meccan period, and repeats many familiar preoccupations we have seen in other chapters of the Qur’an. Maududi says that “the main theme of the Surah is to remove the doubts of the people concerning Tauhid [the absolute oneness of Allah], the Hereafter and the Prophethood, and to invite them to all these three realities.”
The attentive reader of this Blogging the Qur’an series, particularly over the last few weeks, may have noticed that these themes — removing doubts of the people concerning the unity of Allah, the Day of Judgment, and Muhammad’s status as a prophet — are concerns of many, many other passages of the Qur’an outside of this chapter, and so sura 32 essentially stands as a kind of recapitulation and review of many things we have seen thus far. Repetition, of course, is a pedagogical tool, particularly in an oral culture.
And so we hear again in it that the Qur’an is true beyond doubt and Muhammad has not forged it (vv. 1-2); and that Allah created everything in six days and no one will protect or intercede for anyone else on the Day of Judgment (v. 4); and that Allah knows everything (v. 6); and that human beings were created from clay (v. 7); and that the unbelievers deny the resurrection of the dead (v. 10); and that Allah will taunt the unbelievers on the Day of Judgment and when he casts them into hell, telling them to “taste the penalty” of their evildoing (vv. 14, 20); and that those who believe pray and give alms (vv. 15-16) and will receive a reward (v. 17). (Incidentally, when Muslims hear v. 15’s reference to prostration, and other verses of the Qur’an that refer to prostration, they themselves are supposed to make a prostration; some editions of the Qur’an come with a sign in the margins by each prostration verse, so that the reader can be prepared for what is coming.)
In connection with all this, an early Muslim, Mu’adh bin Jabal, once asked Muhammad: “O Prophet of Allah, tell me of a deed that will grant me admittance to Paradise and keep me away from Hell.”
Muhammad replied: “You have asked about something great, and it is easy for the one for whom Allah makes it easy. Worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him, establish regular prayer, pay Zakah, fast Ramadan and perform pilgrimage to the House.” Then he asked Mu’adh: “Shall I not tell you of the greatest of all things and its pillars and pinnacle?” When Mu’adh replied in the affirmative, Muhammad said: “The greatest of all things is Islam, its pillars are the prayers and its pinnacle is Jihad for the sake of Allah.” And he told Mu’adh that all that depends on restraining one’s tongue.
The unbelievers are not equal to the believers (v. 18) – for indeed, the believers are the “best of people” (3:110) while the unbelievers are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6).
We see something new in the statement that everything Allah created is good (v. 7). This appears to contradict the idea that Allah created many jinns and men for hell (7:179 and v. 13 of this sura). However, the Imam Malik says that this only means that “he created everything well and in a goodly fashion,” not that everything he created is itself good. In v. 13 is also repeated the assertion that Allah would have guided all human beings to the truth if he had so desired – indicating here again that Allah does not, unlike the God of the Bible, will “that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Timothy 2:3).
The unbelievers will be punished in this life as well as the next (v. 21). This is an idea that has implications for the political aspect of Islam – since the dhimmis, that is, the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) in the Islamic state are to offer “willing submission” to the Muslims and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29), it becomes the responsibility of the Islamic state to make sure that that happens, so that they taste the penalty for their unbelief not just in the next life but in this one also. Ibn `Abbas and many others have explained the idea of v. 21 in this way: “The near torment means diseases and problems in this world, and the things that happen to its people as a test from Allah to His servants so that they will repent to Him.” These tests are in part to be instituted by the Islamic state, imposing second-class status and institutionalized discrimination upon the dhimmis in order to move them to repentance and conversion. For there is no worse sinner than one who ignores Allah’s signs (v. 22) — which, as we have seen, include the verses of the Qur’an.
More familiar themes follow: Allah reminds Muhammad that he gave a book to Moses (v. 23), although we are not here given yet another recapitulation of the whole story of Moses or any significant portion of it. However, as it was in earlier retellings of incidents in Moses’ career (as we have seen on more than one occasion), Maududi says that the point here is about Muhammad again: “Then it is said: ‘This is not the first and novel event of its kind that a Book has been sent down upon a man from God. Before this the Book had been sent upon Moses also, which you all know. There is nothing strange in this at which you should marvel. Be assured that this Book has come down from God, and note it well that the same will happen now as has already happened in the time of Moses. Leadership now will be bestowed only on those who will accept this Divine Book. Those who reject it shall be doomed to failure.’”
Pickthall translates the next clause of v. 23 as “so be not ye in doubt of his receiving it,” but the Tafsir al-Jalalayn and others have it as “do not be in doubt concerning the encounter with him,” and consider it to refer to Muhammad’s Night Journey to Paradise, during which he met Moses and other prophets. Allah appointed leaders for the Children of Israel (v. 24), and on Judgment Day will judge between their squabbling factions (v. 25). Don’t they realize the lesson in the people Allah has previously destroyed (v. 26)? Don’t they see the signs in the things of nature (v. 27)? Yet they scoff, asking when the Day will be (v. 28). Allah tells Muhammad to tell them that it won’t do any good to become a believer on that Day (v. 29).
Next week: Sura 33, “The Confederates,” about Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis – no wait, it’s actually about several key battles in the early history of Muhammad’s Medina period, and even includes Allah’s orders to Muhammad to marry his former daughter-in-law. That incident, which is touched upon only obliquely in sura 33, is one of the most notorious incidents in Muhammad’s entire tumultuous prophetic career, and a hot topic of discussion ever since among both Islamic apologists and their opponents.
(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
Wow. If one believes in the bible as truth, then it’s easy to say that Qur’an is the work of Satan.
bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Dr. Spencer, as a Christian I’ve been taught that the Bible is the only Holy Book that offers prophecy. Indeed a large percentage of the Bible is prophecy.
Is there any prophecy offered in the Qur’an and if so what has it’s track record been for accuracy?
Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM
The more I read these weekly posts, the more I am led to believe the Quran is the most circular, convoluted, mind-numbing thing I’ve ever encountered.
wccawa on June 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Allah will actually revel in the pain of the damned…I assume there are no passages in the Koran that say Allah will feel remorse for creating those to go to hell? Or pity?
JetBoy on June 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM
And yet those sinners sin only because it is Allah’s will. The believer must have to engage in some incredible mental gymnastics to avoid the logical traps in his faith.
irishspy on June 29, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Yeah, I just can’t understand that. Without self-determination and free will, it makes no sense.
JetBoy on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Islam means submission to the will of Allah. So by definition you do not have free will because Allah has not given it to you.
Whatever Allah says, goes.
dentalque on June 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Maxx:
Here you go. We just covered that last week. The Qur’an’s most celebrated prophecy is in sura 30.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Are there “Trinitarian muslims” and “Oneness muslims” like there are in Christianity?
SouthernGent on June 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM
JetBoy:
You assume correctly. After all, v. 13, quoted on the main page (”If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’”) and its cognate verse 7:179 actually have Allah saying he could have saved everyone if he had wanted to do so, but instead he will “fill Hell” with damned souls. As I have pointed out before, this is utterly opposed to the Biblical view that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 12:59 PM
JetBoy:
The Qadariyya, the party that upheld the freedom of the will, was deemed heretical early in Islamic history.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Southern Gent:
There are no Trinitarian Muslims. The Trinity is anathema to Islamic thought about the oneness of Allah, although the Qur’an appears to get it wrong. In sura 5:116 of the Qur’an, Allah asks Jesus, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?” Jesus responds no, of course he didn’t. But this seems to assume that the Christian Trinity is Allah, Jesus, and Mary. The notion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, does not appear in the Qur’an, but is considered by Muslims to be condemned by the Qur’an when it says to the Christians: “Say not “Three” - Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One Allah” (4:171).
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 1:05 PM
So Allah got some minor historical details wrong. Fussy! Fussy!
Shy Guy on June 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM
‘Submission’ can mean one chooses to submit. Here’s a meaning from Webster’s:
2: the condition of being submissive, humble, or compliant.
I was reading more of I Timothy 2 and found this:
11″ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness,
with self-control.”
Now gee, where have I read something like this before? Oh yeah, the Koran! But at least the Koran blames both Adam and Eve for original sin.
You guys are looking like utter fools to the rest of the world.
barry norris on June 29, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Ahh, so there were early Muslims who believed in free will. Very interesting, will check that out. Thank you!
JetBoy on June 29, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Barry Norris:
Your post is apples and oranges. The Qur’an and orthodox Islam teach that human beings do not have free will and that God damns those whom he pleases. The Christian tradition generally has upheld free will and rejects the idea that God condemns people arbitrarily.
This question has nothing whatsoever to do with the view of women in the New Testament, but in any case your idea that the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, blames only Eve for original sin is plainly contradicted by Genesis in the Old Testament and Paul’s Letter to the Romans in the New (”in Adam all die” is in chapter six).
This is not a Bible blog, or a Compare-the-Qur’an-and-the-Bible blog, but I am not unwilling to do so as long as it is done accurately.
I fail to see how reporting accurately on the contents of the Qur’an and how it has been understood by mainstream Muslim commentators, and on the teachings of traditional Islamic theology on free will, makes me or anyone else look like an “utter fool to the rest of the world.”
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM
The greatest prophecy from the Koran involves a christian victory, a tad ironic?
koolbrease on June 29, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Yes, most Christians believe in free will but some, like Presbyterians, do not based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. And Evangelical Christians believe that if a person doesn’t accept Jesus as the son of God, he/she is going to hell. Objectively speaking, is this just or is it just as bad as God arbitrarily condemning people?
It is not my idea, it’s in 1 TIMOTHY 2!!! Did you not read the passage?
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The Bible contradicting itself?!? No way!
It’s the spin. For instance your use of 1 Timothy 2:3 to contrast Islam and Christianity’s belief in free will makes the New Testament look good, that is until someone decides to show the rest of that passage and then the New Testament doesn’t look so good.
And you provide very little commentary by Islamic scholars on the issue of free will (at least in this blog entry). Here’s what I found just with google:
Islam Online-free will
” Man can be regarded as higher than the angels from the perspective that he has free will and can choose to do right or wrong; he can choose to worship and obey Allah.”
Also read the links at the bottom to see more on the Koran and free will.
I wish more Muslims would blog on hotair to give us non-believers a better understanding of the Koran rather than the interpretation of someone with an axe to grind.
That man can have nothing but what he strives for;
Surah 53 Verse 39
barry norris on June 29, 2008 at 5:48 PM
You fail to see it because you believe in your own religion. None of you see how foolish you look when you try to compare religions to determine a “winner”. Which is really what you’re doing.
It’s an exercise in futility that none of you can see because you are trying to compare something you think is true with something you don’t think is true.
None of it is true, but you can’t understand that because you believe your version of it to be true.
When two Christians argue about the different sects of Christianity they are like two Superman fans arguing about two different editions of the same comic book.
When Christians argue with Muslims, or criticize Islam, you’re like Superman fans arguing about Batman.
OK, Superman beats Batman. When it comes to Islam vs Christianity I’ll vote for the Christians any day of the week.
But not because you’re right and Muslims are wrong. But because the worst Christian is a hell of a lot less dangerous than the best Muslim.
And it doesn’t take reading and understanding either text to figure that out. All you have to do is read the news.
Jaynie59 on June 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Mr. Spencer,
This morning I tried to post to this thread soon after it appeared.
The major reason was to apologize for the double post that was meant for another last week.
Certainly there is no need to respond to this feeble attempt to rectify that egregious error.
I’m sorry.
jerrytbg on June 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM
There are some instances where comparisons come up between Islam and other religions, but I don’t see this as the main gist of what’s being done in this series as a whole, although I do see three types of comparisons being made between Islam and other religions, primarily Judeo-Christianity (yes, I’m aware that Judaism and Christianity don’t share everything in common, but they share many things and especially in comparison to Islam. There are really only two Abrahamic religions as far as I’m concerned, so I’ll lump them together for my purposes.)
The first type of comparisons refer to theological constructs that, for what it’s worth, do paint a very different picture of the Supreme Being in Islam and Judeo-Christian traditions. In Islam, Allah is CLEARLY one of, if not the biggest prick in the history of the universe, whereas in the Judeo-Christian religion, God loves humanity like a parent, even when He judges us, whereas Allah judges us with a friggin’ sneer on his face and is generally a son of a bitch by any human standard. Even if one considers both constructs imaginary, I have absolutely no doubt which one I’d choose as the content of my imaginings. So, yeah, I’d declare the Judeo-Christian tradition the “winner” in terms of “who has a nicer god?”, despite being non-religious myself.
The second layer of comparison of Judeo-Christianity and Islam in this series is “Which is more compatible with secular democracy and human rights?”. Again, one doesn’t have to go far into the Koran to see that it doesn’t allow for the separation of mosque and state, whereas in both the Old and New Testaments, this idea is shown as permissible. In the Old Testament, God is disappointed that the Jews want a king instead of having him rule over them, but he allows it, while the New obviously separates God and “Caesar”. Again, Judeo-Christianity “wins”.
The third type of comparison is in the realm of logic and consistency. True, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Bible contain illogic and contradiction, but at least it tries and some of the greatest logicians in history were also Jews and Christians and tried to reconcile revelation with Greek logical thinking. Islam doesn’t even seem to care about logic and just says “Do this or I’ll freakin’ kill you!”. Again, Judeo-Christianity wins.
That’s my two cents from a non-believer who does have one bias in this regard, which is that I don’t think all religions are equally bad or equally good.
venividivici on June 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Thank you sir, now I know.
Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Check Answering Islam for all the mentions of Allah as the greatest deceiver. That won’t hurt your thesis.
Or I guess I could dig up a direct link:
Allah - The Greatest Deceiver
Beagle on June 29, 2008 at 8:51 PM
There are some instances where comparisons come up between Islam and other religions, but I don’t see this as the main gist of what’s being done in this series as a whole. But I do see three types of comparison being made, alongside general explication of the Koran itself, including copious citations of well-known Islamic scholars.
The first type of comparison refers to theological constructs that, for what it’s worth, do paint a very different picture of the Supreme Being in Islam and Judeo-Christian traditions. In Islam, Allah is CLEARLY one of, if not the biggest jerks in the history of the universe, whereas in the Judeo-Christian religion, God loves humanity like a parent, even when He judges us, whereas Allah judges us with a sneer on his face and is generally a SOB by any human standard. Even if one considers both constructs imaginary, I have absolutely no doubt which one I’d choose as the content of my imaginings. So, yeah, I’d declare the Judeo-Christian tradition the “winner” in terms of “who has a nicer god?”, despite being non-religious myself.
The second type of comparison of Judeo-Christianity and Islam in this series is “Which is more compatible with secular democracy and human rights?”. Again, one doesn’t have to go far into the Koran to see that it doesn’t allow for the separation of mosque and state, whereas in both the Old and New Testaments, this idea is shown as permissible. In the Old Testament, God is disappointed that the Jews want a king instead of having him rule over them, but he allows it, while the New obviously separates God and “Caesar”. Again, Judeo-Christianity “wins”.
The third type of comparison is in the realm of logic and consistency. True, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Bible contain illogic and contradiction, but at least it tries and some of the greatest logicians in history were also Jews and Christians and tried to reconcile revelation with Greek logical thinking. Islam doesn’t even seem to care about logic and just says “Do this or I’ll kill you!”. Again, Judeo-Christianity wins.
That’s my two cents from a non-believer who does have one bias in this regard, which is that I don’t think all religions are equally bad or equally good.
venividivici on June 29, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Hmm. That almost sounds Triune-ish to me.
“The Confederates” Heh.
Thank you, RS, for another good lesson! It is very much appreciated.
locomotivebreath1901 on June 29, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Barry Norris:
Indeed. You may be surprised to know that I pointed that out myself in a previous discussion of this topic, here.
If the Evangelical Christian in question believes that God condemns people to hell who never had a chance to hear about or accept Jesus, then I would say yes, it is essentially just as arbitrary.
The point being made in I Timothy is different, but I am not going to argue the point. People will see contradictions there or elsewhere, or not see them, depending on their point of view. In this case and others, I believe it is unwise to take the Bible — or the Qur’an — in isolation from the traditions in which they are situated. Neither book exists or ever has existed in a vacuum, and that is why I rely in this series on Islamic exegetes to show how Muslims have traditionally understood the Qur’an, rather than giving my own interpretation of the various passages.
Your opinion of the New Testament is immaterial to me. You may think it looks worse than anything in the world, and that would have nothing to do with this Qur’an commentary. I am not trying to make the New Testament “look good” or the Qur’an “look bad.” I am trying to show what the Qur’an says and what mainstream Islam has understood it to be saying. Since the readers are Westerners, Jews and Christians, I sometimes refer to the Bible to show similarities and differences. In this case, whatever you think of I Timothy, it is a fact that mainstream Islam has denied free will and most Christian traditions have upheld it. You may believe they are contradicting their own Scriptures in doing so — that’s just fine with me. But it doesn’t change the facts of the case, or the fact that I set out those facts accurately.
This is an issue that is more important to readers than I thought: I haven’t spent much time on it thus far. I will have opportunities to return to it. Here is a brief discussion of it from my Qur’an blog on the beginning of sura 2, with a reference to a book that provides a full and fascinating discussion of the controversy on this issue in Islamic history.
In this they are contradicting the traditional teachings of Islam. I am writing this in an airport and don’t have access to more sources, but here is Ibn Kathir, quoted in the Qur’an Blog I linked to just above: “These Ayat [verses] indicate that whomever Allah has written to be miserable, they shall never find anyone to guide them to happiness, and whomever Allah directs to misguidance, he shall never find anyone to guide him.”
Historically, the free will party lost out in Islam. Read about the Qadaris and see.
Exactly what axe do I have to grind? I hear this constantly, and yet no one has ever demonstrated that anything I am saying is false — they’re just sure it must be, or at least biased beyond usefulness. In reality, I am supposed to have an axe to grind because I point out that Islam teaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. But what if it really does? Then wouldn’t those who say that I am biased and have an axe to grind, and that Islam is peaceful, be the real biased axe grinders here?
It’s a question of fact, in any case. Read the Qur’an and Hadith and study Islamic history for yourself, and show me where I am wrong.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Jaynie59:
Is it, now? And on what do you base this idea? That I say Islam teaches one thing, and Christianity another? So I must claim, against all evidence, that they are exactly the same, or else I am a foolish proselytizer?
That traditional Islam denies free will and traditional Christianity affirms free will has nothing to do with whether either of them is true or false. It is simply a statement of fact. Prove the fact wrong, if you can, but I will thank you not to ascribe motives to me that I do not hold when I am not discussing, and have nowhere claimed in this Qur’an Blog, that Christianity is true and Islam false.
You are arguing against an opponent you imagine in your own head, as you did before when you claimed I was dissembling about Islam’s violent teachings. I am not going to held responsible for something I did not say and have never said, either in that case or this one.
I am a Christian, certainly. But I do not base my analysis of Islam upon any theological critique of it, or any championing of Christianity. If you think otherwise, I challenge you to find one proselytizing statement in this Qur’an Blog. Explaining the differences in the Islamic and Christian understandings of free will doesn’t count, as it is not proselytizing, it is, as I said above, stating facts.
In saying that a Christian cannot “criticize Islam,” you sound like the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which would outlaw things like this Qur’an Blog and uphold the spurious claim that only Muslim believers can speak about Islam.
Well, I am not a Muslim believer, but I am standing for the right of anyone to speak about these things if he so desires. I refuse to accept the privileged status for Muslims and Islam, off limits to discussion and criticism, that the OIC is trying to establish. I have studied the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fiqh, and I stand by everything I have written here as genuinely reflective of the Islamic understanding of the Qur’anic texts I have discussed. If you think it is inaccurate, say exactly where, and bring your proof. If you’re right, I will acknowledge it and make the correction.
Otherwise, again: stop telling me I’m doing things I’m not doing.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Even a cursory reading of the Koran reveals that you are 100% correct and I for one pray you never stop bringing us the truth.
jerrytbg on June 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I see someone who assumes most critics of Islam practice another organized religion. That’s foolish.
It’s almost impossible to avoid comparing Islam to other religions as a pedagogical and rhetorical device. It helps those with brains to think.
Beagle on June 29, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Beagle:
Precisely.
This canard is a common tool in the arsenal of jihad apologists. Remember that when Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon’s sole expert on Islamic law, was fired, he had previously been criticized by Hesham Islam, a top aide to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, as a “Christian zealot with a pen.” There was absolutely nothing to this: Coughlin is a Christian, but just try to find proselytizing or cheerleading for Christianity in his massive thesis on Islamic legal teaching on jihad warfare, which is available online and well worth reading. You would search for such things in vain, just as you would search for them in vain in all the segments of my Qur’an blog, or at Jihad Watch, or in my biography of Muhammad, and on and on.
Even in my book about Christianity and Islam I engaged in no discussion of the truth claims of either religion, and certainly no proselytizing. I was simply evaluating the common claim that radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.
But the jihad apologists find it useful to consign all honest discussion of Islam’s jihad ideology or its supremacist assumptions to some kind of jockeying for religious market share. And Jaynie and others like her, although she is not a jihad apologist, unwittingly abets this by saying that a Christian should not “criticize Islam.”
Axe to grind? I can’t for the life of me figure out why telling the truth about Islamic teaching is griding an axe. When non-Muslims say this I can only think it is because they don’t know anything about Islam, and have perhaps been taken in by some deceptive and distorted material, and are just certain that it couldn’t be the way I am saying it is. All right, then. Show me where I’m wrong, from the Islamic texts. I have to catch another flight, but I’ll check in here later on.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Jaynie and Barry Norris et al would probably be surprised to learn that my closest colleague at Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, is an atheist. I encourage them to check out his articles here.
Robert Spencer on June 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Beagle you need glasses. Jaynie59 did not at all state “most critics of Islam practice another organized religion”. Jaynie59 and I are talking about the people here and their ilk.
… in a certain way, yes.
venividivici, you demonstrate the problem here. You are aware that the Judeo-Christian God flooded the Earth almost wiping out humanity as well as ordering the Israelites to kill the children and infants of their enemies? It’s in the Bible.
Robert Spencer:
Mainstream Islam denies free will? I’m right now reading a pamphlet by the Islamic Circle of North America:
Man, A Free Agent
Man is the highest creation of God and he has a free will to make his own decisions.
Robert, the problem is not that you’re either right or wrong. The problem is there is only one perspective. You say mainstream Islam rejects free will and with the little research I’ve done so far, I’ve found the opposite. The problem with the Bible and the Koran is that a lot of it is up to interpretation and there are verses which seem to contradict each other.
But does this just mean Allah has the power to take away free will or does Allah in fact do this on a regular basis? I found something on the web attributed to Ibn Kathir:
Adam complete free will, and he bore the consequences of his deed. He disobeyed by eating of the forbidden tree, so Allah dismissed him from Paradise. His disobedience does not negate his freedom. On the contrary it is a consequence of it.
The truth of the matter is that Allah knew what was going to happen, as He always know the outcome of events before they take place. However Allah does not force things to happen. He grants free will to His human creatures. On that He bases His supreme wisdom in populating the earth, establishing the vicegerents, and so on.
You’re wrong on all counts. I think the objective reader understands why “an axe to grind” applies to you and others on this blog.
Nope, I think it’s great and I will definitely read his articles. But tell me something Robert: generally speaking, do you think it’s an exercise in futility to compare the Koran and the Bible in order to conclude that one book/one God is superior to the other?
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Barry Norris:
Do you know anything about Islam Online and the Islamic Circle of North America? Are you aware that Islam Online is an operation of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the Islamic Circle of North America is a Brotherhood organization? Are you aware of what the Brotherhood is trying to do in the West, according to its own documents?
I stand by my statement: the denial of free will is the position of traditional and mainstream Islam. I am fully prepared to back this up with Islamic sources as soon as I am back in my office, which unfortunately will be a few days, but I will certainly do it for the record in any case. The sources you are using are trying to give American non-Muslims a particular perspective on Islam. That perspective is not a traditional Islamic one, but it is one that Americans will find more palatable.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Barry Norris:
I wonder if you’d be so kind as to explain it to me anyway. I ask because I actually have no interest in doing anything but telling the truth about Islam, with no axes or what have you. No one has ever shown that I have not done so, although some have claimed to have done so when they themselves were bending the truth. Have at it, please.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Barry Norris:
Please point out where I have ever done such a thing anywhere in any segment of this Qur’an Blog, or at Jihad Watch.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Robert Spencer:
Let’s just look at the title of one of your books (and no, I haven’t read any of your books):
‘Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t’
I don’t think Islam is a religion of peace, but I think it’s debatable to say that Christianity is. It’s pretty obvious what the agenda here is.
I didn’t say that you did which is why I started the question with “generally speaking”. Now can you answer my question please?
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Barry Norris:
As I said above, I’ll be away from my office for a few days. But here is something to chew on:
http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/alashaira3.htm
So sure — is there a difference of opinion? Of course. But is the traditional view as I characterized it? Yes.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Barry Norris:
Is it really? You know all about what is in the book — which you haven’t read — by its title, eh?
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Barry Norris,
In answer to your question, as I explained above, I don’t think either Christianity or Islam can be evaluated by their Scriptures alone without reference to the traditions within which they developed and of which they are a part.
I reject your assumption that to point out a difference between Islamic and Christian teaching — the mainstreams of both — is to engage in religious proselytizing.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM
JetBoy
Abul Kasem - an ex-Muslim activist who analyzes Islam in ways similar to Mr Spencer and Ali Sina - has written an online book called ‘A Complete Guide to Allah‘. Not only are both your assumptions correct, but there is a lot more to it than just that. To summarize:
Highly recommended reading!
infidelpride on June 30, 2008 at 3:51 AM
Oh, call the UN, God did something bad. Grow up. First of all, immediately after flooding the Earth, God also promised never to do it again. Second of all, Allah’s reaction would probably have been, “Hey, tough deal, but I wouldn’t want to limit myself by promising not to do that again”. Third of all, I never said God didn’t judge in the Judeo-Christian tradition, just that he was a loving judge. As told in the Bible, God saved Noah, his family and all the animals, i.e. all of creatures deemed innocent of the wickedness that brought on God’s wrath in the first place.
As far as ordering the “killing of the enemy’s women and children”, sure, it’s a harsh sentence, but it’s also localized to the military and political enemies of the days the stories are set in, not a generalized command to “slay the infidels” if those infidels don’t convert to Islam or pay the jizya. This is to say nothing of the fact that God in the Jewish tradition clearly “evolves” as a moral character, so that the warlike God of the first few thousand years of Jewish history is certainly different from the God who is inspiring the later prophets.
It’s pretty clear that your problem is that you don’t know how to read things in context and you have unrealistic expectations of God, neither of which are conducive to mature discussion, obviously.
venividivici on June 30, 2008 at 7:13 AM
Thanks much for that. I’ll check into it!
JetBoy on June 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Dr. Spencer, you wrote “The attentive reader of this Blogging the Qur’an series, particularly over the last few weeks, may have noticed that these themes — removing doubts of the people concerning…Muhammad’s status as a prophet — are concerns of many, many other passages of the Qur’an outside of this chapter…and so we hear again in it that the Qur’an is true beyond doubt and Muhammad has not forged it (vv. 1-2)”
Unless I remember incorrectly, neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament delve into how defending how valid they are, or God’s commands and lessons in those texts are, to anywhere near the degree the Qur’an goes into defending itself as really being the Word of God and into defending how Muhammad really was the final prophet of God.
Rhetorically: Why would the Supreme Being, the one Deity in charge of all things, knower and director of events past, present, and future, creator of everything, have the NEED to defend himself/itself against doubters? Why would any true prophet spend so much time arguing to validate his claim as to his status and role?
It tends to heighten doubts about the validity of the Qur’an and Muhammad’s role, not resolve them.
Shirotayama on June 30, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You twit,venividivici! You’re missing the point! You call Allah a jerk but say that “whereas in the Judeo-Christian religion, God loves humanity like a parent” but I gave you biblical evidence to show that God and Allah aren’t so dissimilar. My point wasn’t that God does bad things, my point was that Allah and God share similar characteristics. And if you want to call Allah a jerk then others can call God a jerk too.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and are hardly mature enough to discuss anything with adults.
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
“The more I read these weekly posts, the more I am led to believe the Quran is the most circular, convoluted, mind-numbing thing I’ve ever encountered”. Waccawa
The fact that they write from right to left, cover women so that they might control themselves and base their religion on submission (which uses violence to attain it and martyrdom) rather than love shows how they are our opposite. It’s extremely hard to come to an agreement with someone whose beliefs are ‘the negative’ of our own.
Christine on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Christine,
I think you may have gotten something wrong. My understanding of why they cover their women is NOT because they believe women can’t control themselves, but because they believe MEN can’t control themselves. In other words, cover up a woman’s beauty so men won’t go crazy and have their way with them.
In other words: Women have zero independence and thus no right or strength to tell a man “no” and Men have no ability to control their own urges and act like civilized creatures as opposed to dumb animals.
As for writing from right to left…WTF does that have to do with anything? Hebrew is also written from right to left. So were a whole bunch of other scripts in different parts of the world. What on EARTH was your point?
Shirotayama on June 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM
“In other words: Women have zero independence and thus no right or strength to tell a man “no” and Men have no ability to control their own urges and act like civilized creatures as opposed to dumb animals.”
I meant that as my interpretation of the Islamic view of human behavior and how it must be controlled.
I certainly don’t believe all that stuff about control.
Shirotayama on June 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Not to mention the fact that it says in the Koran that a Muslim is allowed to lie if it advances the cause of Islam.
You’re missing the point. If you’re such an expect on the subject, you’d know that what Christianity teaches is peace. What Man does with those teachings is another story altogether. Yes, Christianity was responsible for some horrendous things… in the past. It’s not Christians that are flying airplanes into buildings.
Islam teaches violence. Islam is responsible for some horrendous things… in the HERE AND NOW.
crazy_legs on June 30, 2008 at 3:22 PM
No, you’re missing the point. If you’re just going to tell me that the teachings of Christianity and the Bible (New Testament) are great while Mohammed and the Koran are evil, then don’t bother replying to my comments because this discussion has obviously gone over your head.
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Barry Norris:
Why haven’t you responded to any of my posts giving you evidence about free will in Islam?
Attempting to win an argument by insulting your opponent is not a wise — or effective — strategy.
Aside from whether one is “great” and the other “evil,” do you think that the New Testament and the Qur’an are essentially equivalent in the material they contain that their adherents can use to harm other human beings?
A serious question.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM
“If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.”
If the principle of Tawhid, “Oneness” or “Unity” in Arabic, is so all important for Islam, then I guess I have a question or two for Dr. Spencer:
Why is the word “we” used when the almight is speaking in Qur’an? Is this a direct translation of the Arabic word for “we” as in “نَحْنْ - Nahnu” or is this an English translation using the “We” used by English Royalty as in “We are not amused”?
Because if the former, it sure doesn’t do much to speak to the Almighty’s singularity…
Shirotayama on June 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM
You’re being very dishonest, Robert. You’re taking my comments out of context by not showing what was posted to me. It was not me who threw the first stone. Maybe you should give your advice to venividivici.
Yes, a serious question that is sort of like the question I asked you so I’ll give you the same answer:
“In answer to your question, as I explained above, I don’t think either Christianity or Islam can be evaluated by their Scriptures alone without reference to the traditions within which they developed and of which they are a part.”
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM
You can plug in Koran and New Testament if you wish. It’s all in the interpretation, isn’t it?
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Shirotayama:
It is definitely in the Arabic, and repeatedly. For example, in 32:13, which has been the object of so much discussion here, the word لاتينا — latyna — is used: “we could have given” in the phrase “we could have given each soul its guidance.
But this is not considered by Muslims to compromise Allah’s oneness. The idea is that it is very like a royal we — an honorific usage, but most emphatically not one that implies anything about the nature of God.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Barry Norris:
I disagree. I offered a characterization of your posts, and I stand by it. I suggest that you are not in my mind to know whether or not I meant it sincerely.
Maybe, or maybe not. He offered you substantive arguments, which you dismissed contemptuously but not by offering any counterarguments of your own.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Barry Norris:
Not entirely. Words have meanings. There is a huge gray area, and yet human beings sometimes manage to make themselves understood fairly well. Mein Kampf is not a cookbook and has never been interpreted as such, and no one is worrying about violent passages in the Bhagavad Gita today not just because no one is interpreting them as such, but because there aren’t any.
As I have already told you several times, I do not think the Bible or the Qur’an should be understood in isolation from their respective traditions. This is why I continually quote Islamic sources for interpretation, as in the Islamic material I posted above denying free will — material which you have so far ignored, including my question about why you were ignoring it.
Let’s remember the initial point here. I made a comparison between Christianity and Islam that led you to call me a fool. The comparison was, however, accurate. Facts may be inconvenient or unwelcome but they are no less facts for being so. If Islam has not generally taught free will and Christianity has, I have not suddenly become Franklin Graham or Craig Winn by pointing that out. And I ask you again, since you sidestepped the question above:
Aside from whether one is “great” and the other “evil,” do you think that the New Testament and the Qur’an are essentially equivalent in the material they contain that their adherents can use to harm other human beings?
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Robert Spencer:
I don’t need to be in your mind, the truth is in the post.
Either you’re being willfully blind or blantantly dishonest. Neither venividivici nor crazylegs posted anything substantive and opened their arguments by taking pot shots.
Robert, do yourself a favor and stick to your arguments please.
You won’t answer a simple yes or no question from me and yet you expect the courtesy of me answering your question. Now for the THIRD TIME, answer MY QUESTION:
“…generally speaking, do you think it’s an exercise in futility to compare the Koran and the Bible in order to conclude that one book/one God is superior to the other?”
If you cannot answer this question then our discussion is over if it’s not already.
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Boy, great way to argue there, Barr.
You obviously don’t understand (or, more likely, are willfully ignoring) what I was getting at, so I’m not going to even bother arguing with you. You’re not worth my time or energy. Robert has much more patience than I do, though I don’t know where he gets it from.
crazy_legs on June 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Good because you don’t know how to argue like an adult, and you don’t understand what’s in front of you.
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Mr. Norris,
Debating Mr. Spencer is always welcome on this blog, but please do it out of respect. He is very educated and puts his heart and soul into these posts. Everything he says is very well researched and he shows where he gets all of his information. Whether you agree or disagree is completely up to you. But please show him some respect when you are speaking to him because when I read your posts it makes you look like a 12 year old boy throwing a temper tantrum and it makes you look extremely careless and unprofessional, not him. Thank you for all your posts Robert, they are much appreciated
SoCalInfidel on June 30, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Barry Norris:
Oh, it’s quite over. I have already answered that question several times, and this thread speaks for itself on that and other matters.
However, for the record, as soon as I get back into my office, later this week, I will post here (on this thread if possible, or at Jihad Watch, if not) some additional supporting evidence from Islamic sources for the proposition that mainstream, traditional Islam denies the freedom of the human will. After all, pointing that out is what started this whole thing, and that is where it will end.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 7:03 PM
SoCalInfidel:
I much appreciate your kind words.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM
:)
SoCalInfidel on June 30, 2008 at 7:27 PM
PSoCalInfidel:
I’ve never posted any rude comments to Mr. Spencer, but when I stated that he was being “dishonest”, I backed it up. Mr. Spencer should not have defended the childishness of some users here. It certainly made him look bad if not hurt his credibility.
SoCalInfidel , learn to be objective because you’re just making a fool of yourself otherwise.
Robert Spencer:
No you did not. Of course there’s a reason for that, isn’t there?
Yes, please do.
barry norris on June 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Barry Norris:
I will, but speaking of hurt credibility, I note (again) that you had nothing whatsoever to say about the evidence I posted above in support of my position.
Like so many others, you accuse me of inaccuracy, but cannot back it up, and make no response when I prove that what I wrote was indeed accurate.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 7:35 PM
objective or inobjective, you sound like you have “an axe to grind” as you put it against Robert. I am only speaking as an outside observer looking in and nothing more. I do not know how long Robert has been studying Islam but I am 28 years old and I think he has been doing it longer than I have been alive. Many times people say he is wrong but I have yet to see one person disprove him, and I read jihad watch and hotair and his posts every single day. The only evidence to support your arguments are propaghanda from the muslim brotherhood which is an institution with a definite agenda. As entertaining as it has been to read all the posts here I must get back to work. Barry, just argue respectfully, thats all we ask. And Robert…Keep doing what you do best because everyone here looks forward to your posts. I feel much more informed when I speak to my friends now because of you. Thank you
SoCalInfidel on June 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Translation:
Nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa!!!
You’re the one hurling insults and can’t argue like an adult, Barr. I’ve read this whole thread, tried to argue a valid point, and, like you’ve done to everyone on this thread including Robert, you did the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you!!”
And I’m the one who can’t argue like an adult?
Typical lib. Distract, ignore facts, then when that doesn’t work call names.
crazy_legs on June 30, 2008 at 8:36 PM
No, you are missing the point of the portrayal of God in the Bible, which is that God “realizes” that he was too harsh in some of the things he did and promises not to do them again. By the end of the Christian version of the Bible, God even comes to earth in human form to sacrifice Himself for humanity. That is not something anyone can say of Allah. If anything, Allah undergoes the reverse evolution, from a more tolerant deity in the early chronology of the Koran to a more intolerant. Only a superficial reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that God and Allah shared any but superficial similarities.
It’s one thing not to believe in Judaism or Christianity, but it’s quite another thing to miss their essential nature and say their deity is similar to the Muslim deity.
venividivici on June 30, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Mr.S, with respect, it was my quote from June 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM that Barry Norris quoted when he first used the term “fool.” I am the fool! You are just explaining Islamic Theology way better than I will ever understand it. I am learning a lot in the process and for that thanks. I really do not know how you manage to deal with such obtuse people. For us regular reader this is almost a weekly event.
dentalque on June 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
dentalque:
I am fairly certain he meant both of us, and everyone who looks favorably upon this enterprise.
Robert Spencer on June 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Robert Spencer says:
It seems to me that ‘traditional Christianity’ has more faces than a politician. The churches I was raised in certainly believed in pre-destination from God. The grace of God was akin to the arbitrariness of God - he saved whom he willed. As I grew older I was taught that God did pre-ordain whom he saved, but we were also given free-will to choose salvation - a paradox which I now consider to be an unworkable contradiction.
Anyway, it seems to me there are many ‘traditional’ Christianities. Presbyterianism, and particularly Calvinism is now roughly 500 years old, and adhered to by who knows how many - dosen’t the ‘traditional’ tag apply here also?
HeIsSailing on July 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Robert Spencer:
Now THAT would be amazing prophetic fortelling in a Holy Book. That might even be convincing enough to make me convert.
HeIsSailing on July 1, 2008 at 9:27 AM
I just read Sura 32. Based on that reading, can you not say that Islam also teaches a kind of Pre-Destination/FreeWill paradox, like the kind I mentioned above? From what I have read, I am convinced you are correct about Islam and Pre-destination, but I wonder if some Muslims are justified in including Freewill in their version of doctrine:
v26:
Fascinating Sura though. I find the teaching of eternal salvation for the believer and eternal damnation for the non-believer to be abhorant - in both Christianity and Islam. It is not the belief in God, or religion per se that is the source of all the religious struggles, wars, persecutions, tortures, or exclusion over the years. I am pretty convinced this one doctrine and belief - eternal damnation - can drive us mere mortals to madness in order to avoid it, and eternal salvation which we will do anything to attain.
It is pure barbarism and religious exclusivity, yet it is the bane of our existance, and the source of so many of the ills in our modern world.
HeIsSailing on July 1, 2008 at 9:45 AM
HelsSailing: There are really only two ‘Traditional’ Christianities, that is, two that can legitimately claim that their teachings originated with the apostles (i.e. the teachings of what things in scripture mean were passed down from teacher to student and so forth.)
That is, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Everyone else denied a bunch of important stuff and lost the stuff that keeps us together, that is, the Spirit.
But anyway, as for the teaching on free will, here is what the Orthodox (the oldest teaching I know of) say:
Here is the whole article (someone get a designer to fix that horrible page!) John of Damascus is this guy here.
Fr. Thomas Hopko (to point to a contemporary wording and understanding of S.John’s points) says:
The article is here on ‘man’.
Now, I don’t know specific Roman Catholic teachings on the subject, but those typify the pre/non-Augustinian view. Calvinism is only ‘traditional’ in the sense of the past couple of centuries. The other teachings date back millennia and thus truly can be considered traditional.
RiverCocytus on July 1, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Also keep in mind that the Orthodox view is that hell is self-selected and a state of being more than a place (since spiritual places are not places in the sense of material places.) Thus God does not condemn people to hell; we all stand condemned to hell already because we have turned against God. If this is the case, Deism would be a fallacy since God would not care and leave us to rot.
Regardless, Christianity doesn’t so much have special ideas (if it did nobody would understand it) as it has the person of the Son of God and the experience of him.
To answer your question, I will say what Paul said, “Not all who are of Christ are in Christ.” He said “Israel”, but the type and shadow continue to this day.
RiverCocytus on July 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Robert, is there any evidence that Mo’s father or grandfather was a Nestorian?
RiverCocytus on July 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM
OK, I just read this entire painful exchange and I must state that the question posed is as loaded as “when did you stop beating your wife?”
Christians obviously believe in the superiority of their texts and their god, as Muslims do, likewise. That is completely irrelvant to this discussion and this Q-blog.
This Q-blog is meant to understand the Qur’an as it is understood, interpreted and presented by mainstream Islamic scholars. This is not a compare and contrast blog.
Barry norris, afflicted with either a narrow atheistic vision or an Islamic apologia, used this disingenuine form of attack, yet Barry cannot refute a single point of context in this blog. Why, you ask? Because these are not Robert’s words or interpretations.
If one were to perform a mere cursory comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an, the difference in tone towards all those considered disbelievers would hit you in the face like a brick, unless of course, you are already predisposed to try to conceal that fact.
Thank you Robert for your tireless and thankless work.
awake on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 AM
HeIsSailing:
I was using it to mean generally the apostolic Churches: Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental. It is hard to see this in the United States, but these groups still make up roughly two-thirds of the world’s Christians.
Probably that represents a movement in your church from strict Calvinism to…a less strict variety of Calvinism.
Sure, but as a member of a Church roughly four times older than that, I admit I do tend to see such a group as rather newfangled.
Robert Spencer on July 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM
HeIsSailing:
Yes, there is definitely an element of such a paradox involved here: from the human perspective one must act as if it is all about human will, but from the divine perspective it is all foreordained. However, there is an absoluteness to Allah’s sovereignty — witnessed by how common it is for Muslims to qualify all statements with “inshallah” — God willing. This is in the New Testament also, to be sure, but it is much, much stronger an idea in Islam.
Robert Spencer on July 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM
HeIsSailing:
Agreed. In the early Fathers of the Church, however, and in Eastern Byzantine Christianity, there is not this idea. There is rather the understanding that Heaven and Hell are not diametrically opposed places, to which God sends people and sometimes does so arbitrarily, but the same place, in which the presence of God is experienced in quite different ways by people depending on how they have formed their souls on earth.
Robert Spencer on July 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM
RiverCocytus:
And that little-noted and marginal hybrid to which I belong, Eastern Catholicism. But yes, this is how I was using the term “traditional.”
Robert Spencer on July 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM
River Cocytus:
St. John of Damascus and