This section begins with a rebuke of henotheism (the belief that there is one Creator-God who is distant from mankind, and many other lesser deities who can be influenced by human words and actions). The gist of verses 31-36 is that Allah, as the Creator and Sustainer of all life, has a superior claim over all others upon peoples worship, and the guidance that Allah gives should be followed above all other guidance.
Part of v. 31 echoes Exodus 31:11 (which is part of the story of Moses, which is related later in this surah). Theres riddle-like statement in v. 31: Allah brings out the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living. While this can describe some natural occurrences, the intended explanation is probably spiritual: in Mecca, some unbelieving (spiritually dead) parents had believing (spiritually alive) offspring, and some believing adults had unbelieving children.
Having established that Allahs guidance should be followed, the text proceeds to attempt to make a case that Muhammads recitations -- this Quran, or what there was of it when this surah was delivered -- constutute guidance from Allah. Two pieces of evidence are used to support this claim: (a) no one but Allah could produce material like Muhammads recitations, and (b) Muhammads recitations confirm Allahs earlier guidance in the Torah and Injil.
Verse 38 invites people to try to compose a surah like Muhammads recitations. This challenge has been taken up by some humorists; critics of Islam have written surahs imitative of Surah 105, 108, 109, 111, or 114. For example, surah 114 has been imitated like this: In the name of the most-merciful, all-compassionate Sigmund, say: Sigmund, I seek thy protection, O Sigmund, king and god over all people. Deliver me from these voices that haunt me in the night -- these whispering voices from the devil who troubles the hearts of people and forest-spirits. And surah 111 has been imitated like this:
In the name of Marvin, most-merciful, all-compassionate:
Damn both hands of my neighbor Sam; damn him!
His money and children will not save him!
He will be burnt in a blazing flame --
Sam and his dame, who is also to blame.
As she was carrying wood to her home,
She put some thorns in the path where I roam.
So she shall suffer a torment most dire,
Dangling in hell from a noose of palm-fibre.
Such attempts to make a surah resembling a surah in the Quran, as well as serious attempts in Arabic, face a big obstacle, however. Its the same obstacle that faces anyone who attempts to win a contest in which the umpire is against him. Who gets to decide whether a surah from some source other than Muhammad is like a Quranic surah or not? Muhammad never said anything like, Lets go find an objective poetry-scholar who can compare your surah and one that I have delivered. Muhammad seems to assume that Allah will be the judge of any surah-comparing contest -- and Muhammad already considered himself the herald of Allah, so it seems obvious that had anyone approached Muhammad and said, Here is a comparable surah, Muhammads verdict would be a foregone conclusion.
Plus, later on -- realizing, perhaps, that the challenge here could be exposed as pointless as long as he appointed himself as the umpire of any surah-contest -- Muhammad clarified his challenge. It was re-issued in Mecca in a different form in 11:13. There, Muhammad claimed that he was instructed to say to challengers, Bring you then ten forged surahs like unto it. What's the challenge: to bring one surah, as is stated in 10:38, or to bring ten surahs, as is stated in 11:13? If someone brought a single surah, and it was as coherent and poetic and truthful as Muhammads material, was Plan B to demand nine more such surahs? My suspicion is that Muhammad realized that his challenge was a safe challenge to make because in case it was engaged, he could always point out that a surah delivered in the name of any deity other than Allah could not be as *authoritative* as /his/ surahs because it was given in the name of a lesser source.
By the time Muhammad was in charge of Mecca, it didnt matter, because in 2:23-24, Muhammad re-issued the challenge, but followed up by saying that you can never do it -- that is, no one can ever produce a surah like the surahs in the Quran. So as of the issuance of 2:24, the challenge was effectively withdrawn because Muhammad stated then and there that the outcome of any such challenge would be a foregone conclusion. If a Muslim admitted that a freshly-made surah is equal in coherence and poetry and truthfulness as a surah in the Quran, he would be implying that the statement in 2:23-24 is mistaken, which of course it is rather difficult to do and remain a member of the Islamic community.
The second piece of evidence that Muhammad offers for the genuineness of his recitations consists of how well they confirm the guidance which Allah gave in the Torah and the Injil. But many a rabbi and Christian scholar can attest to the numerous disagreements between the Quran and the Old Testament and New Testament. Even if one defines the Torah as the Pentateuch, and the Injil as the Gospels -- thus removing most of the Old Testament and New Testament from the equation, which is quite a generous gesture -- there are still very many contradictions between what the Quran says and what the earlier Scriptures say.
The loophole which Muslims resort to as the solution to this problem has the disadvantage of making Muhammads statement here unverifiable. They claim that whatever is in the extant Scriptures of the People of the Book, if it disagrees with the Quran, then it must not have been revealed by Allah in the first place -- that is, they accept anything in the Torah and Injil that agrees with the Quran as material from Allah, but whatever disagrees with the Quran they regard as alterations and additions. While some have gone further and attempted to use textual criticism to make a case for this claim, such a case is superfluous for those who believe the Quran; the statements in the Torah and Injil, to them, /must/ be alterations and additions -- whether this is scientifically verifiable or not -- because Muhammad said so, or said things which must be regarded as false unless it is so.
So neither the first claim nor the second claim offers any proof whatsoever that the Quran is an inspired text. The lines of reasoning that are used to defend Muhammads statements here would be tossed out of court if they were employed in an attempt to prove that a messengers message was from an earthly king. Imagine:
(a) This is really a message from the king, because the king is clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative, and this message is clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative. Just try to make a message as clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative as this one. Let me re-phrase that: try to make ten such messages, written in the name of someone other than the king. You know you cant do it. No one is as authoritative as the king.
(b) This is really a message from the king, because it agrees with the instructions that the king sent to other people previously. What? You say that my message disagrees with many things in your copies of the kings earlier messages? Obviously your copies have been corrupted. Whats that you say? Do /I/ have better copies of the kings earlier instructions to prove that yours have been so extensively corrupted? No. But the fact that my message disagrees with your copies proves that this must be what has happened.
So it is not particularly surprising that so many of the Meccans, viewing Muhammads claims as audacious and their supportive arguments as specious, did not believe him. He responded to those unbelievers with a pluralistic answer in v. 41 ~ For me are my deeds and for you are your deeds! You are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what you do. In other words, if you reject Muhammads claims, just let him go about his business, as he lets you go about your business.
This pluralistic approach reflects the sentiment expressed in Surah 109 (Al-Kafirun, The Unbelievers), verse 6 -- To you be your religion, and to me my religion. As 10:42-45 indicates, Muhammad decided not to waste time trying to give sight to those who had made it clear that they preferred to remain blind; he lowered his goal from Persuade them to believe you to Persuade them to tolerate you, and took as consolation the expectation that those who rejected his message would be held accountable for that decision on Judgment Day.
Verses 46-47 expound on the thought of v. 45, stating that a messenger is sent by Allah to each nation (a la 35:24, where in the surrounding verses Muhammad presents himself as only a warner), and everyone who rejects their divinely-sent messenger will be rightly judged.
In verse 48, Muhammad refers to people who ask when Judgment Day is coming. The verbage here is a lot like part of Second Peter 3:4; even the reference to a promise is shared. Muhammad did not set a date; he replied, rather, that the punishment of unbelievers is already scheduled and the schedule will not be changed. He turns the request for knowledge against the questioners: although currently they say that they wish to know the time of judgment, when it arrives they will that they didnt know it. Then, v. 52 says, they will be commanded to Taste you the everlasting torment.
EXTRA: Heres something to think about. The statement in 10:37 that the Quran is a full explanation of the Book, when considered in its historical setting, implies that the Meccan surahs are a full explanation of what Allah has decreed for mankind. What does this say, then, about the revelations that were delivered subsequent to this point? What differences in Islam would there be if the Medina-surahs were considered as instructions intended exclusively for the Muslims then living, and the Mecca-surahs alone were considered the full explanation of what Allah commanded for all mankind?
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
Part of v. 31 echoes Exodus 31:11 (which is part of the story of Moses, which is related later in this surah). Theres riddle-like statement in v. 31: Allah brings out the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living. While this can describe some natural occurrences, the intended explanation is probably spiritual: in Mecca, some unbelieving (spiritually dead) parents had believing (spiritually alive) offspring, and some believing adults had unbelieving children.
Having established that Allahs guidance should be followed, the text proceeds to attempt to make a case that Muhammads recitations -- this Quran, or what there was of it when this surah was delivered -- constutute guidance from Allah. Two pieces of evidence are used to support this claim: (a) no one but Allah could produce material like Muhammads recitations, and (b) Muhammads recitations confirm Allahs earlier guidance in the Torah and Injil.
Verse 38 invites people to try to compose a surah like Muhammads recitations. This challenge has been taken up by some humorists; critics of Islam have written surahs imitative of Surah 105, 108, 109, 111, or 114. For example, surah 114 has been imitated like this: In the name of the most-merciful, all-compassionate Sigmund, say: Sigmund, I seek thy protection, O Sigmund, king and god over all people. Deliver me from these voices that haunt me in the night -- these whispering voices from the devil who troubles the hearts of people and forest-spirits. And surah 111 has been imitated like this:
In the name of Marvin, most-merciful, all-compassionate:
Damn both hands of my neighbor Sam; damn him!
His money and children will not save him!
He will be burnt in a blazing flame --
Sam and his dame, who is also to blame.
As she was carrying wood to her home,
She put some thorns in the path where I roam.
So she shall suffer a torment most dire,
Dangling in hell from a noose of palm-fibre.
Such attempts to make a surah resembling a surah in the Quran, as well as serious attempts in Arabic, face a big obstacle, however. Its the same obstacle that faces anyone who attempts to win a contest in which the umpire is against him. Who gets to decide whether a surah from some source other than Muhammad is like a Quranic surah or not? Muhammad never said anything like, Lets go find an objective poetry-scholar who can compare your surah and one that I have delivered. Muhammad seems to assume that Allah will be the judge of any surah-comparing contest -- and Muhammad already considered himself the herald of Allah, so it seems obvious that had anyone approached Muhammad and said, Here is a comparable surah, Muhammads verdict would be a foregone conclusion.
Plus, later on -- realizing, perhaps, that the challenge here could be exposed as pointless as long as he appointed himself as the umpire of any surah-contest -- Muhammad clarified his challenge. It was re-issued in Mecca in a different form in 11:13. There, Muhammad claimed that he was instructed to say to challengers, Bring you then ten forged surahs like unto it. What's the challenge: to bring one surah, as is stated in 10:38, or to bring ten surahs, as is stated in 11:13? If someone brought a single surah, and it was as coherent and poetic and truthful as Muhammads material, was Plan B to demand nine more such surahs? My suspicion is that Muhammad realized that his challenge was a safe challenge to make because in case it was engaged, he could always point out that a surah delivered in the name of any deity other than Allah could not be as *authoritative* as /his/ surahs because it was given in the name of a lesser source.
By the time Muhammad was in charge of Mecca, it didnt matter, because in 2:23-24, Muhammad re-issued the challenge, but followed up by saying that you can never do it -- that is, no one can ever produce a surah like the surahs in the Quran. So as of the issuance of 2:24, the challenge was effectively withdrawn because Muhammad stated then and there that the outcome of any such challenge would be a foregone conclusion. If a Muslim admitted that a freshly-made surah is equal in coherence and poetry and truthfulness as a surah in the Quran, he would be implying that the statement in 2:23-24 is mistaken, which of course it is rather difficult to do and remain a member of the Islamic community.
The second piece of evidence that Muhammad offers for the genuineness of his recitations consists of how well they confirm the guidance which Allah gave in the Torah and the Injil. But many a rabbi and Christian scholar can attest to the numerous disagreements between the Quran and the Old Testament and New Testament. Even if one defines the Torah as the Pentateuch, and the Injil as the Gospels -- thus removing most of the Old Testament and New Testament from the equation, which is quite a generous gesture -- there are still very many contradictions between what the Quran says and what the earlier Scriptures say.
The loophole which Muslims resort to as the solution to this problem has the disadvantage of making Muhammads statement here unverifiable. They claim that whatever is in the extant Scriptures of the People of the Book, if it disagrees with the Quran, then it must not have been revealed by Allah in the first place -- that is, they accept anything in the Torah and Injil that agrees with the Quran as material from Allah, but whatever disagrees with the Quran they regard as alterations and additions. While some have gone further and attempted to use textual criticism to make a case for this claim, such a case is superfluous for those who believe the Quran; the statements in the Torah and Injil, to them, /must/ be alterations and additions -- whether this is scientifically verifiable or not -- because Muhammad said so, or said things which must be regarded as false unless it is so.
So neither the first claim nor the second claim offers any proof whatsoever that the Quran is an inspired text. The lines of reasoning that are used to defend Muhammads statements here would be tossed out of court if they were employed in an attempt to prove that a messengers message was from an earthly king. Imagine:
(a) This is really a message from the king, because the king is clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative, and this message is clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative. Just try to make a message as clear and poetic and truthful and authoritative as this one. Let me re-phrase that: try to make ten such messages, written in the name of someone other than the king. You know you cant do it. No one is as authoritative as the king.
(b) This is really a message from the king, because it agrees with the instructions that the king sent to other people previously. What? You say that my message disagrees with many things in your copies of the kings earlier messages? Obviously your copies have been corrupted. Whats that you say? Do /I/ have better copies of the kings earlier instructions to prove that yours have been so extensively corrupted? No. But the fact that my message disagrees with your copies proves that this must be what has happened.
So it is not particularly surprising that so many of the Meccans, viewing Muhammads claims as audacious and their supportive arguments as specious, did not believe him. He responded to those unbelievers with a pluralistic answer in v. 41 ~ For me are my deeds and for you are your deeds! You are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what you do. In other words, if you reject Muhammads claims, just let him go about his business, as he lets you go about your business.
This pluralistic approach reflects the sentiment expressed in Surah 109 (Al-Kafirun, The Unbelievers), verse 6 -- To you be your religion, and to me my religion. As 10:42-45 indicates, Muhammad decided not to waste time trying to give sight to those who had made it clear that they preferred to remain blind; he lowered his goal from Persuade them to believe you to Persuade them to tolerate you, and took as consolation the expectation that those who rejected his message would be held accountable for that decision on Judgment Day.
Verses 46-47 expound on the thought of v. 45, stating that a messenger is sent by Allah to each nation (a la 35:24, where in the surrounding verses Muhammad presents himself as only a warner), and everyone who rejects their divinely-sent messenger will be rightly judged.
In verse 48, Muhammad refers to people who ask when Judgment Day is coming. The verbage here is a lot like part of Second Peter 3:4; even the reference to a promise is shared. Muhammad did not set a date; he replied, rather, that the punishment of unbelievers is already scheduled and the schedule will not be changed. He turns the request for knowledge against the questioners: although currently they say that they wish to know the time of judgment, when it arrives they will that they didnt know it. Then, v. 52 says, they will be commanded to Taste you the everlasting torment.
EXTRA: Heres something to think about. The statement in 10:37 that the Quran is a full explanation of the Book, when considered in its historical setting, implies that the Meccan surahs are a full explanation of what Allah has decreed for mankind. What does this say, then, about the revelations that were delivered subsequent to this point? What differences in Islam would there be if the Medina-surahs were considered as instructions intended exclusively for the Muslims then living, and the Mecca-surahs alone were considered the full explanation of what Allah commanded for all mankind?
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
