I don't think I've been giving the epigraph to these books its due, especially considering the emphasis Hulusi gives to the first letter, which is also my name.
1. This mysterious introduction acquires even more meaning in Hulusi's Sufi reading, but it is still obscure, and correspondingly fascinating. I especially like Baha u'llah's mythical idea that the letters were formed from tears of the divine.
2. A reminder that with knowledge comes no anxiety; learning is one of the only activities in life that has no downside.
3. Is this a chastisement of the prophet himself, or of the reader? No doubt both can benefit from being reminded that the only real knowledge is remembering that which one already knows in رَّبِّكُمۡ.
4-7. The we here is clearly the divine itself, the destroyer and the questioner.
8-9. Knowledge of the signs, in contrast to what is stated in v.2, does come with certain responsibilities.
10: Clearly a clue that "You" here is the reader, the people, not the Prophet. will it remain so throughout?
11: Another name for Satan here: إِبۡلِيسَ . Muslim theology seems to hold that he was not an angel at all, but a Jinn, something different entirely, which opens a fascinating metaphysical rabbit hole.
12-18: Way more detail here about Lucifer than expected. Is this book shaping up to be the Job of the Quran? It does not line up with Biblical/Hebrew mythology. Here Lucifer is cast out (after seemingly being forgiven once) immediately after refusing to prostrate himself to Adam along with the angels. In Biblical mythology, he is still given access to heaven at least until the time of Job. The most fascinating part here is not the details of the timeline, however. It is the recurrence in v.16 of the idea that the divine is directly and purposefully responsible for the evil deeds of wrongdoers, as if by predestination. This continues to be one of the most puzzling and ill-answered questions of both the Quran and the Bible.
19-25 A retelling of this story more or less consistent with the Bible. Hulusi's metaphysical interpretation that the forbidden tree is ego, the idea of self and corporeality, opens a wealth of possibilities. Another tantalizing angle is the implication that the Paradise out of which they were cast was not on the Earth itself. The two ideas together offer the possibility that Eden is consciousness of one's true self, and Earth is slavery to the ego.
26-27 Again, the idea that the devils tempt unbelievers on direct orders from Allah raises uncomfortable questions that could unravel all Abrahamic religion if answered honestly.
28-29: Supposedly, these verses are in reaction to the local custom of worshiping in the nude. It is not clear the theological reasons against this. The surrounding verses could be taken, as Hulusi does, to indicate a connection to the awareness of nudity that accompanied the fall from grace, but the connection is tenuous at best.
30-33: The argument seems to be, not against nudity, but against putting words in the mouth of the divine.
34-36: An advertisement for the book in which it appears.
37-41: A much clearer statement of hellfire than is found in the Bible. Hulusi's Sufi assertion that the torment described here is actually a form of radiation seems far-fetched.
42-43: The Sufi version leaves ٱلْحَمْدُ (praise) untranslated, and ascribes great significance to it. None of the other four versions do such a thing.
44-45: The idea that the residents of torment are there because they have been misled is at odds with 12-27. Are they just casualties of the divine order?
46-49: The eponymous "heights" are a partition then, between paradise and torment. If the Sufi metaphor is to be pursued, then what is this intermediate state between awakening and ego? It is tempting to assign it to the state I am myself in at the moment, but where are the inhabitants of paradise to whom I can look and call?
50: The parallel with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. Unlike in that parable,the response of those in paradise is not recorded.
51-53: More cruelty and entrapment, if their eyes were blinded purposefully. 53 in particular seems to be an exhortation to faith, as opposed to waiting for proof, but the whole thing is a knot of cause and effect that even Hulusi does seem to be concerned with untying.
54-56: The addition of mercy as a factor in this existential conundrum does nothing to simplify matters. Still, some good poetry here.
57: Unclear why Hulusi leaves هُوَ untranslated here, but not elsewhere. "Hu" is either a divine name, or it is not.
58: Where is the line between this required evaluation, as يَشكُرونَ is translated here, and faith? 53 indicates that there is such a thing as too much evaluation. Perhaps "thankfulness" is a less prickly translation, as it is rendered elsewhere.
59-64: The people perished in the flood because they failed to believe the signs given. What is so wrong then about requiring such signs in 53? I am fixated on this point.
65-72: A fascinating new story, my favorite part of this project. Presumably we will learn more about Hud in the book that bears his name later, as it is only referenced here.
73-79: And likewise with Salih, though the story of the she-camel is at least mentioned here.
80-84: The story of Lot is more familiar. In this version, it is clear that homosexuality was the real sin here. Liberal Christianity likes to say that the real sin was lack of hospitality, in an effort to preserve their old wineskins, but that argument has always rung hollow to me.
85-93: I also hope to learn more about Shuayb, as part of this project or otherwise, since he seems to be a larger figure in other texts. The fact that the proscription against "corrupting that which has been reformed" in 56 is repeated here invites further consideration. One interpretation is that this reformation is the revelation of the prophets, a return to monotheism, and the corruption is an attempted reversion to animism.
94-100: This does not seem to be an accurate summary of the pattern. The hardship in each case was delivered as a punishment, rather than a trial. No wonder each group was reluctant to welcome a new prophet; their current way of doing things was going just fine. It was only after they rejected the prophet that their error was revealed and their hardship delivered. One could well ask, "Are we supposed to believe every schlub who comes along claiming to be divinely inspired then? That seems unsustainable . . ."
101-102: And this is especially cruel if their hearts are then locked, as if by divine order. This is at least slightly kinder than locking their hearts before the fact, at least. A certain argument could be made that people must be "on the heights", so to speak, ready to see the reality of paradise, when the prophet arrives. Perhaps only those are capable of distinguishing the divine.
