Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 37, “The Ranks”
posted at 7:50 am on August 3, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“The Messenger of Allah,” said `Abdullah bin `Umar, “used to command us to make our prayers short and he used to recite As-Saffat [“The Ranks,” i.e., this sura] when he led us in prayer.” This Meccan sura begins (verses 1-11) with a heavenly vision: the angels “ranged about in ranks” (v. 1), repelling evil (v. 2) and thus proclaiming Allah’s message (v. 3). That message, of course, is that Allah is one (v. 4) and is Lord of all (v. 5).
The angels are apparently ranged in ranks in order to keep the rebellious demons from listening in to the Exalted Assembly (vv. 7-8) – that is, says Ibn Kathir, “they cannot reach the higher group — which refers to the heavens and the angels in them — when they speak of what has been revealed by Allah of His Laws and decrees.” Some devils, however, do manage to hear and snatch away a bit of Allah’s revelation (v. 10); Ibn Abbas explains that “when they heard the revelation, they would come down to earth and to every word they would add nine of their own.” This may be the cosmic derivation of the Scriptural corruptions that the Jews (5:13) and the Christians (5:14) engaged in.
Verses 12-39 return to the very familiar themes of the scorn of the unbelievers for Muhammad’s message, which they dismiss again as “mere magic” (v. 15) while they dismiss the messenger himself as a “poet possessed” (v. 36). They again deny the resurrection of the dead (vv. 16-17). They will accuse each other of leading them all astray as they realize that Allah’s word was true (vv. 28-32). For Muhammad’s message is true and confirms the messages of the earlier prophets (v. 37) – a statement which, as we have seen, requires the idea that the earlier prophets who are listed in the Qur’an, including Biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc., taught Islam — until their messages were corrupted by their venal followers.
Then verses 40-49 turn to the blessed in Paradise. They will drink from a “clear-flowing fountain” (v. 45), which will, says the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, be filled with “wine that flows along the ground like streams of water, white, whiter than milk, delicious to the drinkers, in contrast to the wine of this world which is distasteful to drink.” Ibn Kathir adds that “Zayd bin Aslam said, ‘White flowing wine,’ meaning, with a bright, shining color, unlike the wine of this earth with its ugly, repulsive colors of red, black, yellow and turbid shades, and other features which are repugnant to anyone of a sound nature.” This wine won’t even cause drunkenness (v. 47). They will also enjoy the company of chaste, beautiful women (v. 48), like “eggs closely guarded” (v. 49) – that is, according to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “in terms of [the starkness of their white] colour, hidden eggs, of ostriches, sheltered by their feathers from dust, the colour being that whiteness with a hint of pallor, which is the most beautiful of female complexions.” These are the fabled virgins of Paradise, in search of whom Muslims have fought against unbelievers and sought death throughout history, knowing that Paradise is guaranteed to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111).
In verses 50-59 one of the blessed will turn to another in Paradise and start telling him about his friend who scoffed at Islam (vv. 51-53). Then a voice will direct him to look down and see his old friend suffering in hellfire, whereupon he will chastise him for almost getting him sent to hell also (vv. 54-59). Verses 60-73 dwell on the torments of the damned. At the heart of hell they will find the Zaqqum tree, with its fruit like devils’ heads (v. 65), and they will drink boiling water (v. 67). Allah sent messengers to the people who were ultimately damned (v. 72), but they did not heed (v. 73).
Verses 74-148 then hail Allah’s believing servants: Noah (vv. 75-82); Abraham (vv. 83-111); Isaac (vv. 112-113); Moses and Aaron (vv. 114-122); Elijah (vv. 123-132); Lot (vv. 133-138); Jonah (vv. 139-148).
Abraham sees in a dream that he must sacrifice his son (v. 102) but Allah stops him just before he is about to do it (vv. 104-105); it was all a test (v. 106). The son is not named in the Qur’anic text, but Isaac’s birth follows (v. 112), which strongly implies that he was Ishmael. Ibn Kathir explains the view of virtually all Islamic scholars: the sacrificial son was Ishmael, and the Jews and Christians corrupted the text of their Scriptures to make the claim that he was Isaac:
According to their Book, Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his only son, and in another text it says his firstborn son. But here they falsely inserted the name of Ishaq [Isaac]. This is not right because it goes against what their own Scripture says. They inserted the name of Ishaq because he is their ancestor, while Isma’il is the ancestor of the Arabs. They were jealous of them, so they added this idea and changed the meaning of the phrase ‘only son’ to mean ‘the only son who is with you,’ because Isma’il had been taken with his mother to Makkah [Mecca]. But this is a case of falsification and distortion, because the words ‘only son’ cannot be said except in the case of one who has no other son. Furthermore, the firstborn son has a special status that is not shared by subsequent children, so the command to sacrifice him is a more exquisite test.
As in the Bible, Jonah is swallowed by the big fish (v. 142). He is spat out onto a shore (v. 145), preaches to a hundred thousand people (v. 147), and they believe, whereupon Allah “permitted them to enjoy their life for a while” (v. 148). In the Bible, they “repent,” but here, they “believe” – which is the all-important act in the Qur’an, that of accepting the message.
The story of Jonah then segues neatly in verses 149-182 into a polemic against the pagan Arabs who worshipped “daughters of Allah.” Allah instructs his prophet to ask them if they really think that Allah has daughters while they themselves have sons (v. 149) – because everyone knows, of course, that sons are superior to daughters, and so this would be attributing an inferiority to Allah. Those who say Allah has begotten children are liars (v. 152). Those who claim otherwise should produce their proof from Scripture (v. 157). In reality those whom people worship besides Allah are powerless (vv. 161-163). But those ranged in ranks (whose return is a nice bit of poetic rounding) declare Allah’s glory (vv. 164-166). Allah’s forces will be victorious (v. 173) – as the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains: “assuredly Our hosts, namely, the believers, they will indeed be the victors, over the disbelievers by [their being given] the definitive proofs and assistance against them in this world. And if some of these [believers] are not victorious over them in this world, then assuredly in the Hereafter [they will be so].”
Next week: Sura 38, “Sad”: “the unbelievers are steeped in self-glory and separatism.”
(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
Comment pages:
Once again we see the usual tactic used by the originator (and some followers) of this religion, that of using a variety of accusations and demonizations against all “unbelievers” in order to validate their belief system.
Pathetic.
Mcguyver on August 3, 2008 at 8:35 AM
“Believe or you are doomed. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because you are already doomed,” Part 12?
Niiiiice.
wccawa on August 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM
This is what happens when everybody names their kids the same thing. Mass confusion. This is the first of these that I have read. Later today I’m going to go back and look at the others. Right now I am just seeing a variation on an existing theme. Currently this seems to back the saying that all politics are local.
Cindy Munford on August 3, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Thank you Mr. Spencer.
dentalque on August 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Robert, what is it that Islam sees in Lot? He is one degenerate of a character in the Torah. He departs Abraham for the materialism of Sedom and then his daughters get him good and drunk and sleep with their father, because they thought all of humanity was destroyed and not just the population of most of the plain of Sedom and Amora.
Could it be that since the daughters gave birth to the national fathers of Amon and Moav, who were the natives of the lands to the east and southeast of Cana’an, that some people in Mohamed’s time still viewed themselves as descendants of the biblical Amonites and Moabites, and it was in Mohamed’s interest to draw them to Islam by flattering their ancestor Lot with the title of prophet?
Otherwise, Lot in this list just sticks out like a sore thumb.
Shy Guy on August 3, 2008 at 10:11 AM
In 2 Peter 2:7 Lot is called just or righteous, depending on the translation. This shows that the thinking around the first century was that Lot was, if not a prophet, a very good person and someone to emulated. It is probable that the people (Jews, Christians, and Pagans) around Mohamed all viewed him in a similar light.
talking_mouse on August 3, 2008 at 10:35 AM
This has been my experience with Gin. Though it depends on what you mean by “nor are they made mad thereby”.
JonRoss on August 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Did Peter travel from Israel eastward to Mesepotamia on his eventual way to Rome?
Shy Guy on August 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I seem to recall from Ben’s series that according to either the Hadiths or Ibn Ishaq’s Biography of of Muhammad, he originally thought himself possessed and went several times to the top of a mountain to throw himself off but each time Gabriel would appear to assure him he was Allah’s Messenger. Have I go that right?
They are promised in Paradise what the are forbidden on Earth it seems.
…Because he willed it so. How perverted.
Yet they aren’t able to produce a single “original” despite the fact by Muhammad’s time copies existed all over the known World in many different languages. Anyway, you might find this interesting:
Torah or Taurat Part 133: Did Muhammad believe that the Torah & Gospels of his days were CORRUPTED?
TheBigOldDog on August 3, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Thank you again, Mr. Spencer. This series is really illuminating.
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
So Muslims always preferred white women?
logis on August 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Racist!
wccawa on August 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Well, d’uh. I just never knew it was officially part of their religion until now.
logis on August 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Shy Guy:
Talking Mouse is essentially correct: he was viewed as a righteous man in those days, and so is included in the roster of Islamic prophets. The Qur’anic retellings of his story generally have him condemning homosexuality and fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah.
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 12:43 PM
ShyGuy:
No, although he did go up to Antioch. He was certainly familiar with the popular spirituality of the day.
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM
TheBigOldDog:
I am not familiar with Ben’s series, but yes. Ibn Ishaq recounts that after Muhammad’s first revelation, he went home saying, “Woe is me poet or possessed.” That is, “poet” in the sense of someone who has ecstatic visions. Ibn Ishaq further recounts Muhammad’s words:
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
TheBigOldDog:
Forbidden on earth to some degree, but Islam is not nearly as ascetic as Christianity. A man may have four wives and slave girls, if he can afford them.
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
This is still a major selling point: Saudi TV recently carried a preacher who was positively ecstatic over the promise of the Hot Babes of Heaven.
irishspy on August 3, 2008 at 1:41 PM
How does one go from this:
To this:
JetBoy on August 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM
And by the way…isn’t Becks non-alcohol brew called Haake-Beck? I never saw that label in the screencap before…
JetBoy on August 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
JetBoy:
They’re the same. They both say that the wine of this world is distasteful, but the wine of the next world has a pleasing, delicate, fruity bouquet, reminiscent of almonds and vanilla…
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
JetBoy:
I know nothing of Beck’s non-alcoholic beer. I just found a picture I thought went with the text. My acquaintance with Beck’s line has been decidedly on the side of their alcoholic varieties.
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Allah’s Heavenly wine on Earth
Unsweetened now available for the pious who have to watch their sugar…
TheBigOldDog on August 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I had to laugh. This line could have been used by Vizzini in Princess Bride…
“Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. ”
Why is it that so much of the Quran seems like Vizzini is speaking?
Craniac on August 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Craniac:
And given the Islamic idea of the value of the pre-Islamic period of any nation, and of any non-Islamic philosophy or system of thought, the Vizzini declaration is also apt: “Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!”
That was Vizzini, wasn’t it?
Robert Spencer on August 3, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I think you have stumbled upon a whole new way to “Blog the Quran”! But if the Muslims did not like the Danish cartoons…it might be a little risky!
Craniac on August 3, 2008 at 6:03 PM
You should have used an American beer like Shiner. We are not dhimmified yet.
Johan Klaus on August 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM
heh…Kinda like decaf coffee…Why bother?
Just strange to hear comparisons to wine, when Islam is supposedly against alcohol.
JetBoy on August 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Johan Klaus:
Never heard of Shiner. I was thinking of O’Doul’s, but I couldn’t find an image that said “non-alcoholic” prominently enough.
Robert Spencer on August 4, 2008 at 6:40 AM
JetBoy:
Well, as you can see from this sura, the prohibition is only against the “distasteful” wines of this world, not against the non-intoxicating variety that runs in streams through Paradise.
Robert Spencer on August 4, 2008 at 6:42 AM
I have never had it either, but as I am interested in trying every beer made by man before I die, I was able to find this.
dentalque on August 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I’ve kind of wondered this as well. It seems as if everyone even metioned in passing in the OT is considered a prophet. Lot, David, Solomon, even Adam. They weren’t called prophets in the OT, yet they are in the Koran. Is this another mis-reading of the Bible (ie, like their mistake about Mary being a “goddess” to Christians and part of the Trinity)?
crazy_legs on August 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Where’s the fun in that? Doesn’t seem like Paradise to me. Now wine that causes drunkenness but doesn’t cause a hangover now we’d be talking!!
crazy_legs on August 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Now that would be a top seller. I have switched to red wine over beer for the health benifits but have to deal with some minor hangovers now and then.
brtex on August 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Shiner is made in a town called Shiner in Texas, about midway between San Antonio and Houston. It is pretty much the “official beer” of both the University of Texas and Texas A&M. The town was founded by Czech and German immigrants, and has been brewing beer since 1909.
connertown on August 4, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Robert, Mr. Spencer,
I just heard you on Michael’s show… enlightenment, as always…
Norquist = enabler, do we know any consenters that we can swing?
Do they even exist?
jerrytbg on August 4, 2008 at 8:37 PM
jerrytbg
Thanks very much.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question. Do you mean people who consent to what Grover Norquist is doing, who can be compelled to switch sides? I doubt it.
Robert Spencer on August 5, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Okay, enough with the wines, on to the virgins…
Robert
I’ve searched for references to scour the source of the number 72 with their virgins, but couldn’t find it. I’ve seen videos of Walid Shoebat claiming that the actual number of virgins is much more – 72 bedrooms, each with 72 beds, each bed with 72 virgins – which would give the lucky Mohammedan in question a total of 373,248 virgins. That in turn begs several kinky questions, which I’ll refrain from right here.
Nonetheless, my question here – which text(s) of the Mohammedans has references to 72, or whatever many the number of virgins that are there?
infidelpride on August 5, 2008 at 4:14 AM
IP:
I am kicking myself because just yesterday I came across an Islamic source for the 72 women on 72 beds in 72 rooms idea — but today I can’t find it. In any case, what I can tell you right now is that the 72 number never appears in the Qur’an, in which the number of hoors (the heavenly babes) is never specified. Nor does it come from any of the canonical Hadith collections, and there are in fact varying traditions as to the number of the hoors.
Robert Spencer on August 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM
TheBigOldDog
Thank you so much for using our series as a point of reference
For those who do not know about us, please spend only EIGHT minutes of your time and LISTEN to any of our 170 chapters and tell us what you think.
Our purpose is exactly the same as that of Robert’s: to ENLIGHTEN & EDUCATE an otherwise mostly TOTALLY ignorant human beings about the greatest threat to human civlization in the 21st centuty, namely:
FUNDAMENTALIST MUHAMMADAN ISLAM with or without WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION!
http://www.youtube.com/ahmadsquran3
Thank you all
muhammadsquran on August 12, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Comment pages: