"Woe that Day to the deniers! "Eat and enjoy yourselves a little; truly you are guilty." Woe that Day to the deniers!"
Quran 77:45-47
Here's another section drawn from al-Mursalat, "Those Sent Forth," the 77th surah. As we discussed yesterday, it features the repeating of the line, "Woe that Day to the deniers!" which both works as emphasis but also gives us a sense of the poetic flow of the Quran.
That said, what interests me is this comment from Nasr:
"These words, which God addresses to the disbelievers, are ironic. They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves, as in 31:24: We grant them enjoyment a little, then We compel them toward a grave punishment." (Nasr, p. 1461)
We are reminded, as, truthfully, most followers of any religion are, that we can love this fleeting world too much, and that we need to devote more time to thinking about the more profound, eternal issues. So, that part of the verse is not particularly surprising. What is troubling, or, again, at least challenging, is that concept that God is being "ironic." Was God being ironic, or was Muhammad being ironic? That is, by the time the message passed from God through Gabriel and eventually through Muhammad had the tenor, if not the message itself, been altered? Muhammad was an extraordinary man, but he was, in the end, also a man, and a man who we know was at times frustrated and annoyed and, at least to a degree, angry. Then it would be not be surprising that he was at times ironic (although, to be fair, he was also known as a very fair and not hateful person)? It's an interesting notion, and also more than a bit of a slippery slope, because there's a profound difference between changing the tone of the message and potentially changing the core meaning of the message, and if you open yourself up to the concept that the message might have been altered then, at the very least, arguments await.
The other point that Nasr makes (again, this is not a shot at Nasr, because he's just stating the obvious) that can be troubling is his point: "They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves." As always, there's that delicate balancing act in our perception of an omniscient God who allows humans to go make terrible mistakes. If we're not free, then how can we be free to make the right choices? Any parent understands the seeming illogical act of giving your teenager the freedom to go make the mistake that you know they're going to make; you have to do it, or they never become anything close to a functioning adult which would have the experience and ability to make the right decision, that they are so magnificently and clumsily avoiding right now. Of course, that's different than God letting us "dig a deeper hole" for ourselves. I mean, once we start to fuck up dramatically shouldn't God rein us in a bit because, going back to our example, a parent would? It's difficult to believe that God would be intentionally cruel (or at least not a God I would have any interest in following), so maybe it's just a case of a God who would be infinitely patient, with the fallback being that God would also be infinitely forgiving of human failure. Once again, the complexity of a monotheistic god.
Quran 77:45-47
Here's another section drawn from al-Mursalat, "Those Sent Forth," the 77th surah. As we discussed yesterday, it features the repeating of the line, "Woe that Day to the deniers!" which both works as emphasis but also gives us a sense of the poetic flow of the Quran.
That said, what interests me is this comment from Nasr:
"These words, which God addresses to the disbelievers, are ironic. They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves, as in 31:24: We grant them enjoyment a little, then We compel them toward a grave punishment." (Nasr, p. 1461)
We are reminded, as, truthfully, most followers of any religion are, that we can love this fleeting world too much, and that we need to devote more time to thinking about the more profound, eternal issues. So, that part of the verse is not particularly surprising. What is troubling, or, again, at least challenging, is that concept that God is being "ironic." Was God being ironic, or was Muhammad being ironic? That is, by the time the message passed from God through Gabriel and eventually through Muhammad had the tenor, if not the message itself, been altered? Muhammad was an extraordinary man, but he was, in the end, also a man, and a man who we know was at times frustrated and annoyed and, at least to a degree, angry. Then it would be not be surprising that he was at times ironic (although, to be fair, he was also known as a very fair and not hateful person)? It's an interesting notion, and also more than a bit of a slippery slope, because there's a profound difference between changing the tone of the message and potentially changing the core meaning of the message, and if you open yourself up to the concept that the message might have been altered then, at the very least, arguments await.
The other point that Nasr makes (again, this is not a shot at Nasr, because he's just stating the obvious) that can be troubling is his point: "They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves." As always, there's that delicate balancing act in our perception of an omniscient God who allows humans to go make terrible mistakes. If we're not free, then how can we be free to make the right choices? Any parent understands the seeming illogical act of giving your teenager the freedom to go make the mistake that you know they're going to make; you have to do it, or they never become anything close to a functioning adult which would have the experience and ability to make the right decision, that they are so magnificently and clumsily avoiding right now. Of course, that's different than God letting us "dig a deeper hole" for ourselves. I mean, once we start to fuck up dramatically shouldn't God rein us in a bit because, going back to our example, a parent would? It's difficult to believe that God would be intentionally cruel (or at least not a God I would have any interest in following), so maybe it's just a case of a God who would be infinitely patient, with the fallback being that God would also be infinitely forgiving of human failure. Once again, the complexity of a monotheistic god.
No comments:
Post a Comment