An Atheist Explores the Qur'an Part 41: Not Lost in Translation. Plus, Colour Proves God (The Originator (Fāṭir))

The Originator (Fāṭir) 1-45
Not Lost in Translation. Plus, Colour Proves God.

Welcome to the next instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Qur’an version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the Qur’an, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post https://bit.ly/2ApLDy0

For the online Qur’an that I use, see here http://al-quran.info and http://quran.com

The Originator (Fāṭir) 1-20

 “All praise belongs to Allah, originator of the heavens and the earth, maker of the angels [His] messengers, possessing wings, two, three or four [of them]. He adds to the creation whatever He wishes. Indeed Allah has power over all things.”

First of all – three-winged angels? Sephiroth? Anyway, the beginning of this chapter is familiar territory about how great God is and how He creates night and day and runs all the machinery of the world whilst any other things worshipped as gods don’t have to the power to affect “even a date husk”. Except that the Qur’an, rather than claiming outright that these other supernatural beings don’t even exist, does acknowledge their existence (the various jinn, for example) and also that some have power - “Satan is indeed your enemy, so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his confederates so that they may be among the inmates of the Blaze.”

There are a few interesting points of translation and textual analysis in the footnotes to this surah. There is the verse that reads “Is someone the evil of whose conduct is presented as decorous to him, so he regards it as good… “. We are told that “The phrase omitted is ‘like one who is truly virtuous?’”, which is odd; why the ellipsis? A lacuna in the text? This particular translation is pretty free with including phrases that make the translation more clear in English within square brackets, so it’s not something that’s clearly implied but not written in Arabic, this is something that for some reason is actually missing.

There’s another verse that warns that seeking honour(‘izzah) is a vain pursuit, and we are told that “The word ʿizzah in Arabic has a composite meaning including the senses of honour, prestige, glory and might”; you can see how translating that makes it tricky to find the right word, but also notes like this ameliorate against complaints that the original Arabic has a very different meaning. That is accounted for in the translations.

Another case in point; “Not alike are the two seas: this one sweet and agreeable, pleasant to drink, and that one briny and bitter.” This is the source of the claim that salt and sweet water don’t mix, which isn’t really implicit in what’s written so far. But also we are told that “The word baḥr, like yamm is used for a large river as well as for the sea” and elsewhere is used to refer to the Nile as well as the Red Sea. So, all that’s really saying is that there is salt water, and fresh water. No special magical knowledge required.

The Originator 21-45

“Indeed We have sent you with the truth as a bearer of good news and as a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner has passed in it.”

There are largely familiar themes again in this section – encouragement to the Prophet to be a “warner”, and that other lands have also had Apostles and they were destroyed if they didn’t listen, the ruins being available for anyone to see. There’s also more about the two contrasting afterlife awards given to the faithful and faithless. I note that it’s described that when in Eden the faithful will be “adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearl, and their garments therein will be of silk”. As I write this I’m preparing the Gospels for publication in my Bible read-through, and in those someone poses the question to Jesus that if he marries his brother’s widow, when they’re al dead, who will be married to whom in heaven? Jesus’ reply is that things like marriage will be irrelevant because you will be in a more spiritual form. Evidently the Qur’an doesn’t think this, unless these are metaphorical silks and pearls.

“Have you not regarded that Allah sends down water from the sky, with which We produce fruits of diverse hues; and in the mountains are stripes white and red, of diverse hues, and [others] pitch black?” Is this argument really that things have colours, therefore God? “And of humans and beasts and cattle there are likewise diverse hues.” Look like it. I’ll leave how convincing that it as a exercise to the reader.