(Note: the following are reflections based upon the 87th chapter of the Qur'an. The translation, unless otherwise stated, has not been shared. This allows the reader to consult the English translation of their own choice. All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated.)
One of the main functions of the Qur'an is that it compels us to think, to ponder on its words, its message, as well as how that plays out in our lives or the world around us. This Soorah is particularly interesting, in that it weaves together a tapestry of images designed to evoke deep thought. This Soorah is often recited in Salaat Al Witr and Salaat Al 'Eid.
(A) Q 87:1-5
The symmetry is beautiful. The structure of the creation, the physical world, is evidence of Allah's work, displaying reasons we should glorify him.
(B) Q 87:6-7
It reads "We (God) will relate to you, so forget not, except as Allah has willed, Indeed, He knows the visible as well as the hidden". Some have taken this as textual evidence of abrogation (Naskh) in the Qur'an, not only in the development of laws, but even texts. Some have read this as proof that the Prophet was to "Forget" some of the Quranic revelation. The latter view is particularly disturbing, as it presents the Qur'an in a very weak position, as if it is so unworthy of adherence that it has to literally be forgotten. The nature of the Qur'an is the opposite, it is read, memorized and pondered upon by millions, ever since its revelation. To attribute dismissing any Quranic revelation to the Prophet is to do a disservice to both the Prophet, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Qur'an itself.
In his comments, the Qur'an commentator and translator Muhammad Asad (whose work is called The Message of the Qur'an) alludes to these verses not actually referencing the Prophet or the Quranic revelation given to him. He argues that these verses refer to "mankind's cumulative acquisition of empirical and rational knowledge, handed down from generation to generation and from one civilization to another"(ft.1)
We state this in another way, Allah conveys lessons, points of reference or information, that will be submerged when more important or useful points are needed. This is the Divine system, alluded to elsewhere in the Qur'an, and can be related to all points in the life of a single human being.
(C) 87: 8-13
"And We (Allah) will make the easiness easy for you, so do remind, because reminder is beneficial, such reminder will be really beneficial for those who have fear of God, yet, that reminder will be shunned by the most wretched ones, who will enter the great fire, therefore, in it they neither experience death nor life."
The core commands of God are easy, and He has made them easy. Being open to guidance is-in fact- a characteristic of guidance. Those who shun reminders are those who carry arrogance within themselves, who eventually enter a fire (in this life, fully experienced in the life to come) that consumes them, they can not life healthily therein, nor can they mercifully expire.
(D) Q 87:14-15
There is a logical flow present in this Soorah. Being open to Divine blessings, being able to see the big picture and praise God for it, dropping what God wants you to drop, in order to progress in life.
The rectification of the soul (Tazkiyatun Nafs) is am important subject within Islam, rooted in the Qur'an, it has been noticed by the many great minds of the Muslim civilization, such as Imam Al-Ghazali, but the point being is that we have to be consistent in looking at self, just as we are consistent in bathing!
Vigilance in purifying efforts is mainly exercised, as the verses indicate, through reciting the name(s) of Allah and through prayer.
The classical commentator Abul Qasim Mahmud Az-Zamakhshari (d.1144) cites the importance of purification from idolatry, disobedience, as well as acts of physical purification which precedes prayer, as concrete examples of things to do to be vigilant in soul-care (ft.2).
(E) 87:16-19
It is my view that these verses can apply to both the life now (Dunya) and the life after death, as well as life with and without guidance.
The life without guidance can be glittery. It is glitter. It is attractive in many ways. However, the life of substance, of real and tangible core values, morals and ethics, a life of God-connection, that is the real life, the enduring life.
These insights were presented and symbolized by both Abraham and Moses, upon both of them be peace. They stood for God and were connected to him.
Footnotes
(1) The Message of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad (Gibralter 1980) page 1080.
(2) Al Kashaaf 'An Haqaaiq At Tanzeel, page 556, Vol.2 ( Beirut edition, 2016)
10 comments:
Hi Waheed, I know I've asked this before, but I'm sure my question has never been answered:
Why are the Torah and Abraham and Moses mentioned in the last two verses? As I've previously pointed out, I have never found any mention of Hellfire or the Hereafter in the Torah. That being the case, the assertion that the message in this Surah can be found in the Scriptures of Abraham and Moses is objectively false.
"the Hereafter is better and more enduring" is not a concept found in the Torah and it is also not a worldview that I would ever choose. Not only that, it seems to contradict the first verses of this Surah which praise God and the perfection of THIS world, a practice which is very much a part of Judaism and a joy that we should all share in.
The more that I study the Torah and the Qur'an, the more I appreciate just how much the Jews got right and how much Muhammad misunderstood. You've told me that Islam teaches that when someone doesn't know what is right, he should ask someone who knows. I would say that Muhammad ought to have heeded this advice and found out what was in the Scriptures of Abraham and Moses before speaking about them.
Hello N.B.
I do seem to recall answering this query in the past, you disputed the answer. I had shared, if memory serves, a link to a Jewish Rabbi's article on this.
In any case, read the article again.
" It is my view that these verses can apply to both the life now (Dunya) and the life after death, as well as life with and without guidance.
The life without guidance can be glittery. It is glitter. It is attractive in many ways. However, the life of substance, of real and tangible core values, morals and ethics, a life of God-connection, that is the real life, the enduring life.
These insights were presented and symbolized by both Abraham and Moses, upon both of them be peace. They stood for God and were connected to him."
The above takes into mind an alternative way of understanding "Akhirah" in various places in the Qur'an. I wrote an essay on this years ago, the point being that there are places in the Qur'an where "Akhirah" denotes "deeper realities" and not the superficial. Abraham and Moses, Prophets after whom civilizations have emerged, symbolize this deeper realities, they are examples of an existence of substance. None of the above negates that the hereafter, an existence after the termination of this life, is better and more lasting.
I don't know what you've said that I could "dispute". It seems like a poor word for what this discussion is about.
If you are making an analogy between the two transitions, from life to afterlife and from life without guidance to life with guidance, and then are able to draw some meaning from that analogy, so be it. There's nothing to "dispute". However, if you are denying that these verses are speaking directly about the difference between worldly life and the Hereafter, you are being heretical and, furthermore, if you are willing to re-interpret verses of the Qur'an to mean whatever you want them to mean, the words of the Qur'an no longer mean anything.
Since you haven't shown me verses in the Torah to substantiate Muhammad's claim that Moses and Abraham declared "the Hereafter is better and more enduring", we really have to agree that Muhammad was mistaken.
However, that wasn't my question. I asked "why?". Why did he say this? What do you believe was in Muhammad's mind that he would need to make this comparison to the Torah? Did he think that his message was unconvincing on its own and it would be more convincing if he could cite others before him and frame his message as a "reminder"?
What I haven't yet asked about is the evolution of Muhammad's view of the Torah and the Jews. In these verses and in other early verses, Muhammad seems to be praising the Jews, their belief in God. and the Torah. This changes radically once he emigrates to Medina. It seems like we have the answer: he turned on the Jews once he realized that they did not, in fact, share his theological views, in particular, about the Hereafter (Q 2).
Hello N-B.
The analogy I presented is rooted in the Qur'an, and does not deny the import of the life to come.
In the past, you asked the question regarding the texts of Judaism and the belief in the hereafter, and I shared an article in response. If memory serves, you did not accept it. Here's another one.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/life-after-death/.
You are actually only seriously disputing the last two verses of the Soorah Al A'la, in that it associates "Akhirah" with Abraham and Moses. What I am sharing, regarding "Akhirah", is that there is perhaps another meaning that is implied. Indeed, why name Moses, or Abraham? What is so special about them?
The answer is that these two are symbols, symbols that the three monotheistic religions take from. Symbols of new life as dedicated to God. From a secular perspective, Moses- himself a minority status in Egypt, became the foundation for Jewish civilization, and that in itself has at its roots Abraham, the "father of many nations" (Bible). A life of guidance is distinct, more beneficial, than a life devoid of guidance.
It has been years, perhaps I will be able to find that essay on Akhirah in the Qur'an to share here, because it is a fascinating concept, with more depth than we realize.
As for your cynical viewpoint on the Prophet Muhammad, you forget that there were groupings among the Madinan Jews who viewed him with suspicion, and actually took actions against him. He did reach out to them, and there were people from the Jewish community who did accept Islam at that time, 'Abdullah b.Salaam being the most famous of them. In other words, simply saying that the Prophet "turned on the Jews because they don't believe in the hereafter" is a serious overstatement.
May God's peace be on all his prophets, and upon righteous people.
Hi Waheed. It occurs to me that your readers may not understand what I mean when I write about "the Torah" and how it is different from the Qur'an. So let me explain myself more clearly so that they can see for themselves that the article that you link confirms exactly what I've been saying.
The word "Torah" can mean different things in different contexts. In its narrowest meaning, it refers to the scriptures in the Torah scroll that is such an obvious symbol of Judaism. The Torah scroll consists of the first five books of the Bible, "the Pentateuch", or "the Five Books of Moses". It describes the time from Creation up until the death of Moses. It contains many stories that are mentioned in the Qur'an: Adam, Noah, Abraham and his family, and four books devoted to the story of Moses. This is what is being referred to in Q 87:18-19 "Lo! This is in the former scrolls. The Books of Abraham and Moses."
Something to understand about the Torah is that it wasn't written down for hundreds of years after Moses. Most scholars and archaeologists believe that the Torah was first written down during the 6th and 5th Centuries BC. It is also important to understand the context of the times when it was being written down: this was after the Jewish kingdoms and the Temple had been destroyed and the Jewish elite had be taken to Babylon as captives and then, after the Persians conquered Babylon, they were allowed to return to Jerusalem. It can be imagined just how traumatic this was for them as a people, but also how it would have affected their understanding of God. When reading the Bible, it should be remembered that many of the events that were "prophesied" by the early prophets had already taken place by the time the Bible was written down. Hindsight is 20/20, they say.
When you read the article that Waheed has linked, you'll notice that none of the books of the Pentateuch are mentioned. In fact, only two books (the Jews divide the Bible into 24 books) are mentioned and they are books that date from long after Moses. It would be too much for this post to go into these two books in detail.
One only needs to read relevant portions of the Torah and of the Qur'an to understand just how differently Muhammad understood Divine Judgement. The Jews believe that they will suffer Retribution in this life, not after death. For example, in Leviticus 26 it is written:
But if you do not obey Me and do not observe all these commandments,
if you reject My laws and spurn My rules, so that you do not observe all My commandments and you break My covenant,
I in turn will do this to you: I will wreak misery upon you—consumption and fever, which cause the eyes to pine and the body to languish; you shall sow your seed to no purpose, for your enemies shall eat it.
I will set My face against you: you shall be routed by your enemies, and your foes shall dominate you. You shall flee though none pursues.
And if, for all that, you do not obey Me, I will go on to discipline you sevenfold for your sins,
and I will break your proud glory. I will make your skies like iron and your earth like copper,
so that your strength shall be spent to no purpose. Your land shall not yield its produce, nor shall the trees of the land yield their fruit.
And if you remain hostile toward Me and refuse to obey Me, I will go on smiting you sevenfold for your sins.
I will loose wild beasts against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and wipe out your cattle. They shall decimate you, and your roads shall be deserted.
and more!
I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves whether the Qur'an accurately reflects the Torah's description of Divine Judgement and to imagine for themselves what the interaction would be when Muhammad came into direct contact with Jews after 12 years of preaching to pagans that they should worship God the way the Jews did.
Hi Waheed. It also occurs to me that your readers may not understand what is behind your statement: "As for your cynical viewpoint on the Prophet Muhammad, you forget that there were groupings among the Madinan Jews who viewed him with suspicion, and actually took actions against him. " Let me explain my position, and they can judge for themselves whether I'm being "cynical" or not. Previously, you have referred me to "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. It can be read online at http://www.islam4theworld.net/Sirah/LifeMuhammadS/index.htm This is at best a third hand source, and your readers may prefer to go directly to the second hand Sirah sources, for example, https://www.justislam.co.uk/images/Ibn%20Ishaq%20-%20Sirat%20Rasul%20Allah.pdf.
It is important to remember that all the sources are from Muslims. The bias is extreme.
There is always another side to these stories that must be considered.
Let's look at the relationship between Muhammad and the Madinan Jews.
First of all, the Muslims emigrated to Madinah as refugees. When they arrived they had neither wealth nor power. Within months of the Muhajirun's arrival in Madinah, they began robbing Makkan traders. During the sacred month of Rajab in 2 A.H., the robbers murdered a Makkan at Nakhlah, captured two others, and seized the goods. The Makkans responded by sending an armed force towards Madinah seeking restitution and they were met by a Muslim force at Badr. It is clear from reading the Sirah that this was not an invasion force nor a force intent on destroying Islam, but merely seeking proper compensation and a promise that such incidents would cease. The histories are clear that the Makkans were eager NOT to fight and sought a peaceful resolution to this matter.
What does this have to do with the Madinan Jews? Well ... following the Muslim victory at Badr, the Muslims began boasting how Allah had favoured them during the battle (Q 8:17, for example). This is something that the Jews would ridicule, then and even now. Then, the Muslims murdered a Jewish leader, Ka’b ibn al Ashraf. So it is easy to see that the violent hostilities were initiated by the Muslims.
Next, there is a story about a Muslim woman would was assault by a Jewish shopkeeper. A Muslim killed the shopkeeper and the Jews killed this Muslim. The histories mention many "attacks" by the Jews, but never an incident where the Jews initiated a physical attack. It was only verbal attacks against someone they viewed as a fraud. However, Muhammad couldn't stand for this verbal abuse and he besieged the Jews. The Jews were forced to surrender and then were expelled, leaving most of their property behind.
The same happened again and worse, with a tribe of Jews not merely being expelled, but murdered. Getting rid of the Madinan Jews was not enough, though. Muhammad marched on Khaybar where he plundered the Jews, tortured a man, and kidnapped a woman to be his wife.
Yet, we can't find incidents of Jews initiating violence against the Muslims. It was sufficient to accuse the Jews of "treason" and "jealousy" and then to destroy them.
I leave it to you readers to decide for yourselves whether this is a "cynical viewpoint". Just think about the implications of a policy that allows an assault by a shopkeeper to escalate into the expulsion of an entire tribe, or that allows "viewing Muhammad with suspicion" to be grounds for any sort of "legal" action.
Also, consider the implications of punishing an entire tribe for crimes of an individual. Isn't that exactly what we mean by "hate"? How would you view this if it was the other way around? Could the government of a country expel every Muslim from their country as a response to a single crime by a single Muslim? Of course not.
Hello N-B.
You wrote: "The word "Torah" can mean different things in different contexts. In its narrowest meaning, it refers to the scriptures in the Torah scroll that is such an obvious symbol of Judaism. The Torah scroll consists of the first five books of the Bible, "the Pentateuch", or "the Five Books of Moses". It describes the time from Creation up until the death of Moses. It contains many stories that are mentioned in the Qur'an: Adam, Noah, Abraham and his family, and four books devoted to the story of Moses. This is what is being referred to in Q 87:18-19 "Lo! This is in the former scrolls. The Books of Abraham and Moses."
Muslim commentators have treated the text regarding the "Suhuf" of the past, of Abraham and Moses, in a variety of ways [1] A reference to a text of the Jewish Torah. [2] An independent text all together, associated particularly with Abraham and/or Moses , which is now lost. [3] Symbolic. (4) Actually not connecting their explanation of "Akhirah" to the Suhuf of Abraham and Moses.
The article briefly looks at the term "Akhirah" in a different way than "The hereafter", because such is actually rooted in how the term is used in the Qur'an. As for your post regarding the Torah and the Hereafter, remember that the Torah is not as important in terms of doctrine and practice as the Talmud and living tradition are. The point being is that yes, you will find in their ranks arguments for a hereafter.
In any case, the article was looking at something different, that "Akhirah" can refer to the life of guidance in this life, to that which is substantive in this life, as well.An independent article would have to be published to explain this further.
Nakhlah was addressed elsehwere on this blog, if memory serves. It was not something ordered by the Prophet, peace be upon him.
Moreover, you speak of "Muslim boasting" after Badr,treating the Jewish forces as if they were now helpless against the Prophet, however, that didn't stop them from ridiculing the Prophet, often to his face.
If he was as powerful as you imagine, they would never get away with what they were able to do in those days.
To finish off the comment above, there are incidents recorded in the Hadeeth literature which shows how some of the Jewish members of Madinah society would ridicule the Prophet in his own face.
Hi Waheed. I honestly can't comprehend why you post as you do. Surely your readers are intelligent enough to recognize a double standard when they see it, and also to notice how you evade the key points in my posts. They can see how I'm prepared to back up my statements with references to the Qur'an and to the Sirah.
As for those Jews who believe in a Messianic Age, your readers can read about it from Orthodox Jewish sources such as here: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1157486/jewish/Moshiach-An-Introduction.htm They can see for themselves how different it is from the concept of Hereafter that is described in the Qur'an. If Chapter 87 was the only place where there was a mention of the Hereafter, or the only place where the concept is connected to Judaism and, particularly to Moses, you might have an argument. However, the totality of the evidence makes it clear that your argument has little merit.
Your readers can read about the Nakhlah incident for themselves in https://www.justislam.co.uk/images/Ibn%20Ishaq%20-%20Sirat%20Rasul%20Allah.pdf beginning on pg. 286 "Expedition of 'Abdullah b. Jahsh". They can read how the Muslims used the deception of impersonating pilgrims to gain the caravan drivers' trust and then murdered one of the drivers. They can read how the murderers and Muhammad were more concerned that the killing took place during a sacred month than they were that the murder was criminal. Muhammad is said to have spoken "I did not order you to fight in the sacred month". Your readers can read for themselves how Muhammad pardoned the murderers and even rewarded them by allowing them to retain their share of the booty. They can read for themselves the verses of the Qur'an that were "sent down" and are used to justify all of this.
It is up to Muslims to figure out how to reconcile their own conscience when defending such actions.
Finally, I have never said that Muhammad was not ridiculed, first by the Meccan pagans and then by the Medinan Jews. However, again you are guilty of a double standard. The Sirah records that the Meccans' grievance against the Muhammad was that he continually insulted their mode of life, their forefathers, religion and cursed their gods and that Muhammad was dividing the community. "What they [the Meccans] had borne was past all bearing" (Ibn Ishaq, p. 131)
You are also guilty of a double standard with regard to those who deny prophetic claims. You, yourself, would not accept a man today making the claims that Muhammad made during his time. You would reject him as a false prophet. You would deny that his words came from Allah. You would not follow him. You and I would be in complete agreement that the man was delusional, and if he also claimed that everybody was "persecuting him" and if he imagined that there were numerous plots to harm him, we would agree that he was paranoid. I would hope that you would treat him as I would, with compassion, and do whatever you could to see that he found the help that he needed. Ridiculing him would be wrong, but many would treat such a person that way. However, the pagans and the Jews did nothing more harmful to him than occasionally lashing out at him with anger when they were insulted. This, too, is documented in the Sirah. Your readers can read for themselves and see that I am being truthful.
Naturally, the attitude of the Jews became more hostile when Muhammad became belligerent towards them, besieging them, expelling them, and murdering prominent men of their community. This, too, is recorded in ibn Ishaq. On p. 368, we can read: "Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life."
Frankly, I don't know how you reconcile your conscience when faced with this history, Waheed, but that is your problem, not mine.
Post a Comment