Exploring the Qur'an IV: Suras 97-99

I am falling behind on this, for the usual reasons. But I'm still trying to get a post up almost every day.

Sura 99 is yet another that is simple and needs little comment. It is a portrait of the 'Last Judgment' and differs little from the picture you will find in most Christian writings. (In fact, this is an idea I am very sympathetic to, even though I do not believe in it. Not the judgment part, but the sudden moment of understanding and memory at the end of life that lets you see your entire life, and its impact.)

Sura 98 is another matter. The Arabic is apparently difficult enough that the translations vary somewhat, and none of them is entirely clear. The first part seems to claim that the unbelievers, whether People of the Book or polytheists, were not going to change their ways until the coming of Mohammed, with a clear message from God. Certainly an unexceptional sentiment, for anyone assuming the truth of his religion.

But the next verse claims that there was no division among the people of the book until the coming of Mohammed. This seems unlikely, that it was he who caused schisms, when in fact the Eastern Chruches and the Western had split off long before, the Arians and Athenasians had fought their battles (the Athanasians won, btw. and no, I won't explain the difference, but all of modern Christianity is decended from the Athanasians), and the various Gnostic sects had produced their literature long before. And the Jews too had had their splits.

The description of religion as consisting merely in accepting God, obeying him, being 'upright' and 'pure in religion' and paying the poor tax is interesting. It leaves little guidance -- or too much, depending on how 'obeying him' is interpreted (the phrase is missing in Shakir and Yussuf Ali) for how man should act in general. It almost abandons the idea of ethical principles dealing with the relation of people with each other.

And then we have the condemnation of unbelievers to hell as the 'worst of people.' This is such a constant theme I will return to it again and again. It is not the 'evil man' but the 'unbeliever' that is repeatedly condemned, or at best the unbeliever is assumed to be an evil man, once the 'clear truth has been revealed.' And it is certainly not clear if these unbelievers are the same as those in the first verse, or if now the unbelievers among 'the People of the Book' are those who simply maintain their old beliefs. But this is not the last time we'll see this, I'll give the book time to make itself clear.

As for the ending, the promise of paradise to the believers and doers of good works can only be questioned on the grounds that there is no statement as to what are, in fact, 'good works.' That and the question whether the implication is that 'only a believer can do good works,' or that a person must be both. Surely a God who sees the hearts of men knows better than to think that only believers do good works.

Sura 97 is a puzzle to me, and for once Palmer's footnotes let me down. I'll quote it, but I simply don't know what is being said here, but I think I have seen this Sura referred to as an important one.

Lo! We revealed it on the Night of Predestination. Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Night of Power is! The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees. (The night is) Peace until the rising of the dawn.

I believe that this is supposed to refer to one of the nights of Ramadan. But again, in a Final Message should a God have to rely on others to footnote his words. Should they not be 'a clear message'?

I am gfoing to reserve Sura 96 to the next post, not just because of time, but because I have a lot to say about it, and at least a couple of interpretations I ran into in a previous discussion.