Sura 67:5

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
OP - November 16, 2014, 07:42 PM

Pickthall
And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.

I have looked up a bunch of tafsirs and english translations for this verse and all of them are saying the same thing: stars or at least pieces of stars are thrown as projectiles at Jinn. How can anyone read this verse and still take the hypothesis that the Quran is the speech of God seriously? Whenever I am on a camping trip, it definitely appears as if the meteors I see are in fact stars moving quickly across the sky. Heck, if I was a 7th century man living in the desert, I would probably come to something of a similar conclusion as whomever wrote this verse.

But trying to reconcile this with our knowledge in the 21st century requires layer upon layer of absurdity. Meteors are not stars and are not pieces of stars that have been broken off. Even if we accepted that it was talking about meteors, seeing that meteors travel for years and years in their trajectory, that would mean that the Jinn would have years to realize that the meteor would be coming and could move out of the way. Add this to the fact that jinns are supposed to be immaterial and would not be harmed, this is simply ridiculous.

For some of the other scientifically false verses, they can be wriggled out from because they aren't so specific (the earth being flat, the creation story). But this verse explicitly states something that really could only have been written by someone living in an ignorant, prescientific world. It is even written from the point of view of God, so it can't be said to have been written from the frame of reference of humans.

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #1 - November 16, 2014, 08:39 PM

You underestimate the power of faith to get out of any corner.

Muslims will simply say the classical tafseers got it wrong and explained it according to their limited and mistaken view. It is not referring to stars & meteors but <insert any made-up explanation, i.e. it refers to devils being chased away in a 'spiritual' sense and the shihab is the light of truth etc...>
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #2 - November 16, 2014, 08:41 PM

Logic and reason has absolutely NOTHING to do with faith, so never be surprised by what a believer can believe, nor think that you have a watertight case he cannot deny.
- countjulian
- Member
- Call Me Snake
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #3 - November 16, 2014, 08:54 PM

وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَجَعَلْنَاهَا رُجُومًا لِّلشَّيَاطِينِ ۖ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهُمْ عَذَابَ السَّعِيرِ

"And we have decorated the heavens with lamps and have made them as things to throw at the devils and have prepared for them a seering torture." (My translation).

This verse seems to be pretty clear that (a) the stars are lamps (maSba7 means a lamp and it comes from a root meaning "morning" not illumination, so this is definitely a "lamp" and not illumination as some have translated it) and (b) these lamps are going to be thrown at the shaytans. As part of my studies I have been reading more of the Quran and "ja3ala" is the common word used when god talks about making or fashioning something (along with Sawwara sometimes), whereas I think modern Arabic would more use shakkala, 3amala, or Sana3a. So the Quran is definitely saying he made them with this purpose in mind. It should be remembered that it was a common belief in ancient times that the sky was a kind of fabric with holes poked through it through which shone the light of these "lamps" (as opposed to starts which were thought to be demons or deities, and which included most of what we now consider to be planets). In keeping with much of what we know about the Quran and Muhammad's early career according to modern critical scholarship, I would argue that this verse is eschatological. Compare Revelations 6:12-14. The stars are lamps in the sky which will fall to earth to punish the evil ones at the end of days. Read in its context this is a warning about future events. It's pretty clear in my eyes IMO.

إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #4 - November 16, 2014, 09:08 PM

Quote from: countjulian on November 16, 2014, 08:54 PM
Compare Revelations 6:12-14. The stars are lamps in the sky which will fall to earth to punish the evil ones at the end of days. Read in its context this is a warning about future events.

This is what I find very interesting. I'm not so familiar with the Bible as I am with the Qur'an but the more I see of things like this the more I realise how much of the Qur'an has copied from the Bible.

Do you know if anyone has made an in depth study of the parts in the Qur'an that relate to the Bible? It needs to be done by someone with a good knowledge of both.

Quote from: countjulian on November 16, 2014, 08:54 PM
It's pretty clear in my eyes IMO.

That's because you don't see with the eyes of faith
- countjulian
- Member
- Call Me Snake
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #5 - November 16, 2014, 09:21 PM

There are many, many new studies coming out on this subject. In particular, the Quran seems to burrow not just from the Bible in general but from the Syriac Bible tradition, which contains some differences to the "Byzantine" Greek text and the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bibles currently recognized today. One book in particular, a compilation put together by Gabriel Said Reynolds, deals with these issues. I have not read it yet, so it is on my Christmas wish list, in case you're wondering :

The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415524245/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=O7X99PYF8DFB&coliid=I1ZFQ8AW4QCCAV

"In a series of studies involving the devil, Adam, Abraham, Jonah, Mary, and Muhammad among others, Reynolds shows how modern translators of the Qur’ān have followed medieval Muslim commentary and demonstrates how an appreciation of the Qur’ān’s Biblical subtext uncovers the richness of the Qur’ān’s discourse. Presenting unique interpretations of 13 different sections of the Qur’ān based on studies of earlier Jewish and Christian literature, the author substantially re-evaluates Muslim exegetical literature. Thus The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext, a work based on a profound regard for the Qur’ān’s literary structure and rhetorical strategy, poses a substantial challenge to the standard scholarship of Qur’ānic Studies. With an approach that bridges early Christian history and Islamic origins, the book will appeal not only to students of the Qur’an but of the Bible, religious studies and Islamic history."

إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
- countjulian
- Member
- Call Me Snake
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #6 - November 16, 2014, 09:29 PM

I would be a very happy German Landser if I found that book as a Weihnachtsgeschenk unter meinem Tannenbaum

إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #7 - November 16, 2014, 09:52 PM

Quote from: countjulian on November 16, 2014, 09:21 PM
There are many, many new studies coming out on this subject. In particular, the Quran seems to burrow not just from the Bible in general but from the Syriac Bible tradition, which contains some differences to the "Byzantine" Greek text and the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bibles currently recognized today. One book in particular, a compilation put together by Gabriel Said Reynolds, deals with these issues. I have not read it yet, so it is on my Christmas wish list, in case you're wondering :

The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415524245/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=O7X99PYF8DFB&coliid=I1ZFQ8AW4QCCAV

"In a series of studies involving the devil, Adam, Abraham, Jonah, Mary, and Muhammad among others, Reynolds shows how modern translators of the Qur’ān have followed medieval Muslim commentary and demonstrates how an appreciation of the Qur’ān’s Biblical subtext uncovers the richness of the Qur’ān’s discourse. Presenting unique interpretations of 13 different sections of the Qur’ān based on studies of earlier Jewish and Christian literature, the author substantially re-evaluates Muslim exegetical literature. Thus The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext, a work based on a profound regard for the Qur’ān’s literary structure and rhetorical strategy, poses a substantial challenge to the standard scholarship of Qur’ānic Studies. With an approach that bridges early Christian history and Islamic origins, the book will appeal not only to students of the Qur’an but of the Bible, religious studies and Islamic history."

I'm going to add that to my wish list. (£28 on amazon uk)

Thanks
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #8 - November 16, 2014, 10:51 PM

That Reynolds book may be my single favorite book on the Qur'an and its interpretation. It's not just invaluable, it's pretty much mandatory. I think you may be able to rent it on your kindle account for a pittance by the way.

Reynolds analyzes 67:5 in that book, and his contention is that the decisive Arabic word -- rujum -- does not mean 'missiles,' but rather is derived from Ethiopic (like the Qur'anic term shaytan itself, a pair) rgm, meaning 'to curse.' "Saytan ragum" is a common Ethiopic phrase, meaning Satan the cursed, which was brought over into Arabic as al-shaytan al-rajim.

According to Reynolds, the term rujum does not mean 'to stone' but rather is an Arabic re-interpretation of the Ethiopic term to mean 'a barrier,' meaning that the stars (in the cosmology of Late Antiquity, fixed at the furthest point of the celestial vault) were a *barrier* that blocked the devils from reaching the divine realms beyond, the realms from which they had fallen when cast out of heaven. This is the classic Late Antiquity monotheistic view of a universe set in concentric spheres, with heaven above the stars. That is why the Qur'an also calls the devils 'rajim' in other passages, what is meant here is not 'stoned' as the exegetes would have it but rather that they are 'banished/barred' from heaven in a cosmological sense, thus 'outcasts.'

Even a moment's reflection will show how consistent that is with the rest of the Qur'an and with biblical monotheism more generally.

In other words, this is just yet another instance of the Qur'an repeating the prevailing narratives of Late Antiquity, and then later Muslim exegetes failing to comprehend what that context actually was -- both in terms of linguistic analysis and interpretation.

This certainly makes infinitely more sense than interpreting this as 'stoning/missiles,' and again goes to show how poorly the Arabic exegetes were able to interpret the language of the Qur'an.
- countjulian
- Member
- Call Me Snake
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #9 - November 16, 2014, 11:00 PM

Wow, yes I will be buying that soon and I can't wait! Looking back at the verse in question, this makes a lot more sense! The original Arabic is pretty absurd grammatically, it does not make clear what is going to be done with the rajuum that Allah has "ja3aled." It just says it has been created "for them." "as a barrier to/for them" makes so much more sense. Classy and helpful as usual Zoatar

إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #10 - November 17, 2014, 12:01 AM

Whoa blown away with explanations as usual. Are you guys familiar with the Arabic and Syriac dialects present in the Quran? Or do you mainly just accepts what Reynolds says about these root words to make sense of these passages? I don't have the time to study linguistics, so I don't know if I have the technical expertise to be able to follow in these interpretation analyses of people like Reynolds and Luxemburg.

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #11 - November 17, 2014, 04:01 PM

Quote from: Zaotar on November 16, 2014, 10:51 PM
That Reynolds book may be my single favorite book on the Qur'an and its interpretation. It's not just invaluable, it's pretty much mandatory. I think you may be able to rent it on your kindle account for a pittance by the way.

Reynolds analyzes 67:5 in that book, and his contention is that the decisive Arabic word -- rujum -- does not mean 'missiles,' but rather is derived from Ethiopic (like the Qur'anic term shaytan itself, a pair) rgm, meaning 'to curse.' "Saytan ragum" is a common Ethiopic phrase, meaning Satan the cursed, which was brought over into Arabic as al-shaytan al-rajim.

According to Reynolds, the term rujum does not mean 'to stone' but rather is an Arabic re-interpretation of the Ethiopic term to mean 'a barrier,' meaning that the stars (in the cosmology of Late Antiquity, fixed at the furthest point of the celestial vault) were a *barrier* that blocked the devils from reaching the divine realms beyond, the realms from which they had fallen when cast out of heaven. This is the classic Late Antiquity monotheistic view of a universe set in concentric spheres, with heaven above the stars. That is why the Qur'an also calls the devils 'rajim' in other passages, what is meant here is not 'stoned' as the exegetes would have it but rather that they are 'banished/barred' from heaven in a cosmological sense, thus 'outcasts.'

Even a moment's reflection will show how consistent that is with the rest of the Qur'an and with biblical monotheism more generally.

In other words, this is just yet another instance of the Qur'an repeating the prevailing narratives of Late Antiquity, and then later Muslim exegetes failing to comprehend what that context actually was -- both in terms of linguistic analysis and interpretation.

This certainly makes infinitely more sense than interpreting this as 'stoning/missiles,' and again goes to show how poorly the Arabic exegetes were able to interpret the language of the Qur'an.

Great stuff, Zaotar - thanks. Definitely getting that book - inshallah
- ibn Bilal
- Global Moderator
- سلاسي هو المسيح
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #12 - November 17, 2014, 04:21 PM

It would be interesting to compare this against 37:6-10, where the implication of devils being “thrown upon from every side” and “chased by a blazing flame” seems to fit more with the idea of stars being pelted at eavesdropping devils. Was there anything in previous doctrines, apart from Islamic ones, that might have served as a basis for this sort of interpretation?
- zeca
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #13 - November 17, 2014, 04:31 PM

Here's a review of the Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/research/centres/clarc/jlarc/contents/Review%20Reynolds%20The%20Qur'an%20-%20D.%20King.pdf

Which side are you on?
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #14 - November 17, 2014, 05:17 PM

Reynolds analogizes the issue to the Biblical angel who defends the Garden of Eden with a fiery sword.

The stars are blazing lamps which are fashioned as barriers at the limits of heaven; they repel the devils from getting back into heaven.

Thus they are certainly 'fiery', and they burn/blast the devils, but as a fiery blockade, not as stony missiles raining down on them.

Insofar as 37:8 explicitly refers to 'wayuq'dhafūna', usually translated as 'pelting,' take a look at the term on Qur'an corpus online.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=37&verse=8

I would suggest that this is refer to the devils being thrown down/hurled/repelled down from heaven. In other words, it is not that the devils are literally being 'pelted' but rather that they are being 'hurled' or 'thrown' out of heaven, repelled. And this is an incredibly common concept for devils in Judaeo-Christianity -- fallen angels who are barred from returning to heaven, thrown down, cast out from heaven. Notice that the 'wayuq'dhafūna' is immediately preceded by saying that the devils "Cannot listen to the assembly of the exalted ... wayuq'dhafūna from every side, repelled," which I take to mean they cannot pierce the celestial vault and get back into heaven with the divine assembly; they are blocked and repelled by the fiery lamps that Allah has fashioned in the sky, thus eternally outcast/accursed.

So there is certainly hurling and casting down when it comes to devils and heaven, but it is the devils themselves who are hurled and cast down.

Interestingly, if you look at comparative English translations of 37:8, it is the Yusuf Ali translation that comes closest IMO to what this verse is actually saying:

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=37&verse=8

"Yusuf Ali: (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side."
- moi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #15 - November 17, 2014, 06:28 PM

How does Reynolds make his interpretation work with the fact that meteors do look like stars being thrown at something, and some of these "stars" reach the earth, what we call meteorites, and were commonly worshipped, for example an extremely famous one!

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.

A.A. Milne,

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #16 - November 17, 2014, 07:09 PM

Here is the place to drop the Ethiopic expert Manfred Kropp's discussion of the Qur'an's use of the Ethiopic term "Shaytan", who is termed in the Ethiopic Bible (which predates the Qur'an, and uses the Ge'ez Semitic dialect that is closely relate to Ancient South Arabian) as "Shaytan ragum."

________________________________

Shaytan proves to be a more complex but equally illustrative example of a Qur’anic loanword. Let us start with the fact that there is a genuine Arabic root √SHTN. with the general meaning “fetching water (from a well) by means (of a bucket and) a rope;” Shaytan, “rope,” then means in metaphorical use “snake, serpent” – from where later on the link to the “devil” was made – and was used as a proper name among pre-Islamic Arabs. These words originally have nothing to do with Qur’anic Shaytan “devil; Satan.” The interesting and illuminating problem is the phonetic shape as Shaytan. The meaning and lastly the word is certainly taken from the well-known “Satan” as present in nearly all the languages sharing a common (religious and linguistic) heritage with the Hebrew Bible. One could easily propose – and it would be a plausible proposal – to explain it as a kind of phonetic and popular etymological assimilation and adaptation into Arabic. But there is the fact of Ethiopic Shaytan in the Ethiopic Bible which precedes the Qur’an, and, moreover, the fact that al-Shaytan al-rajim is clearly not the “stoned devil” but “the cursed one” from r7gum in Ethiopic.
As in the case of ma’ida the Ethiopic translator(s) found satanas in their Greek Vorlage and put regularly Shaytan. The conclusion in parallel to the above proposal is that this form was common, current, popularly used and understood by the people of the time. How can we explain this form by phonetic shifts? This requires several and admittedly (as of today) hypothetical steps. It starts with the phenomenon of strong imala (a→e and lastly→i) in spoken languages in Palestine. As a second step such long vowel tends to become a diphthong under accent. The final assumption is that the missionaries and translators coming from Syria preferred again this – hypothetical as of now – popular form to literary “Satan,” unless this form was already received and used by the Ethiopian people at the time.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #17 - November 17, 2014, 07:14 PM

Btw, I think it's *possible* that the Arabicized version of this older Semitic phrase for the Devil had been understood by Arabs with the false sense of "stone" attached to it by the time at least some of the Qur'an was composed. In other words, a secondary sense of 'stoning' was becoming attached to the use and interpretation of the borrowed phrase, under the influence of the Arabic rajama, 'to stone.' Certainly this happened at SOME point in Islamic history, where you had an association made with shooting stars; what had begun as the archaic phrase "Shaytan ragum" (which developed as Syriac Christianity filtered into Ethiopia) became understood as meaning the "stoned devils." The question is simply when, and how much the language and grammar retains the more archaic concept of "Satan outcast/barred/accursed", not its eventual colloquial Arabic successor "stoned devils."

I see with Google that at least one Quranist has made the same argument btw.

https://quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/more-on-rajim-banished-from-heaven-or-pelted-with-stones/
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #18 - November 17, 2014, 07:14 PM

Quote from: Zaotar on November 17, 2014, 07:09 PM
Here is the place to drop the Ethiopic expert Manfred Kropp's discussion of the Qur'an's use of the Ethiopic term "Shaytan", who is termed in the Ethiopic Bible (which predates the Qur'an, and uses the Ge'ez Semitic dialect that is closely relate to Ancient South Arabian) as "Shaytan ragum."

________________________________

Shaytan proves to be a more complex but equally illustrative example of a Qur’anic loanword. Let us start with the fact that there is a genuine Arabic root √SHTN. with the general meaning “fetching water (from a well) by means (of a bucket and) a rope;” Shaytan, “rope,” then means in metaphorical use “snake, serpent” – from where later on the link to the “devil” was made – and was used as a proper name among pre-Islamic Arabs. These words originally have nothing to do with Qur’anic Shaytan “devil; Satan.” The interesting and illuminating problem is the phonetic shape as Shaytan. The meaning and lastly the word is certainly taken from the well-known “Satan” as present in nearly all the languages sharing a common (religious and linguistic) heritage with the Hebrew Bible. One could easily propose – and it would be a plausible proposal – to explain it as a kind of phonetic and popular etymological assimilation and adaptation into Arabic. But there is the fact of Ethiopic Shaytan in the Ethiopic Bible which precedes the Qur’an, and, moreover, the fact that al-Shaytan al-rajim is clearly not the “stoned devil” but “the cursed one” from r7gum in Ethiopic.
As in the case of ma’ida the Ethiopic translator(s) found satanas in their Greek Vorlage and put regularly Shaytan. The conclusion in parallel to the above proposal is that this form was common, current, popularly used and understood by the people of the time. How can we explain this form by phonetic shifts? This requires several and admittedly (as of today) hypothetical steps. It starts with the phenomenon of strong imala (a→e and lastly→i) in spoken languages in Palestine. As a second step such long vowel tends to become a diphthong under accent. The final assumption is that the missionaries and translators coming from Syria preferred again this – hypothetical as of now – popular form to literary “Satan,” unless this form was already received and used by the Ethiopian people at the time.

Is that a bit like the snake in the garden of eden, luring Adam and Eve to sin on the Tree of Knowledge? It was later used to describe a character like that of the opposing side to a main god in the Zoroastrian faith?
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #19 - November 17, 2014, 07:19 PM

Btw, I note that the Qur'anist post is by "Gabriel." One wonders if it is Gabriel Said Reynolds ... posting his own argument on the Qur'anist forum.
- Zaotar
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #20 - November 17, 2014, 07:29 PM

Quote from: Lilyesque on November 17, 2014, 07:14 PM
Is that a bit like the snake in the garden of eden, luring Adam and Eve to sin on the Tree of Knowledge? It was later used to describe a character like that of the opposing side to a main god in the Zoroastrian faith?

If I understand Kropp rightly here, his point is exactly the opposite. "Shaytan" originally has nothing to do with the Arabic term "rope," and "rajum" originally has nothing to do with "stoning." Rather these foreign-derived (Ethiopic) words got interpreted by Muslims as if they conveyed the meaning of these similar-sounding Arabic terms (rope, stoning), since they no longer understood their actual derivation in the complex process of translating Syriac Christianity into Ethiopic centuries before. They re-interpreted the terms with the meanings from the most similar-sounding Arabic terms, in other words. In doing so, they ultimately formed uniquely Arabic terms (since a borrowed term becomes a genuine word with its own meaning in the language it is borrowed into), but the Qur'anic usage retains archaic features of the original source, including form/grammar/usage/context.

The Hebrew term "Satan" itself has nothing to do with ropes, serpents, falling stars, etcetera. It simply means the "adversary," literally one who obstructs. This problem is epidemic in the Qur'an's use of foreign religious vocabulary ... it is especially confusing because some of the botched later understandings were probably used to compose Qur'anic verses, thus seemingly confirming a traditional 'Arabic' understanding of the term, while actually leaving a complete exegetical mess.
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #21 - November 17, 2014, 07:33 PM

OK. That quote you posted confused me.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #22 - November 17, 2014, 09:28 PM

Are there other places in the Quran that affirm the Biblical idea of the firmament?

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- Kodanshi
- La solitude s'eprend de mon coeur
- Ex-Muslim
- *Careful Plague & Scarred Joy*
- offline
Sura 67:5
Reply #23 - November 17, 2014, 11:04 PM

One of my favourite verses, mainly because it means that atheist scientists can predict — with a high degree of accuracy — precisely WHEN jinn will get stoned by angels. Awesome!
1« Previous thread | Next thread »