Al-Anfal

 I can never hear these introductions other than in the voice of Freddy Mercury.

1: The eponymous "Spoils" seem suspiciously like plunder, from a historical context.  They do not seem to be the rewards of a battle between armies, but rather the pillaging of trade caravans

2-4: Which makes it somewhat disingenuous to insinuate that these material rewards are the result of pious reflection.

5-6: To those who resisted, it may have seemed the opposite at the time.

7-10: The implication is that simple bloodshed is not enough; there must be violent conflict on a grander scale.  This is a bloodthirstiness that one would expect of the Hebrew god.

11-13: A level of pettiness one would not expect from the divine.

14-18: I'm finding this altogether difficult to reconcile with earlier portrayals of the divine as relatively tolerant and accepting.  In earlier surah, the message is often "What do you care what others do?  If they are good, they will be rewarded.  If not, punished.  Mind yourself."  Here, however, there seems to be a caveat: "Unless they have nice things."  Even Hulusi's metaphysical reading is strained.

19: For example, Hulusi interposes here that the Meccan's persistence is a metaphor for belief in duality.  What then, is the metaphysical interpretation of the numerous troops that they are using to no effect?  The whole thing seems manifestly literal, and was in fact an actual war, and any attempt to allegorize it fails to soften the violence.

20-24: The minds reels at the seeming irreconcilability of these two concepts. First, there are those who simply will never be able to perceive the truth.  this is already problematic.  Then it is added that the divine is willing to open the eyes and ears of such ones.  Okay.  But even if the divine so wills it, they will be unable to perceive!  How is this possible? And what does it means that the divine "Stand between a man and his heart"?  Is this as an impediment, a judgement, or an intercessor? If, as Hulusi interposes, it is the former, then is not all search for truth vain?  The unsatisfying, though politically and commercially expedient, message seems to be that "If you do what I say, then you are doing it right.  Don't worry about it."

25-28: More contradiction.  The victories of the believers are held up as evidence that they are on the right path, but the spoils of those victories are said in 28 to be an object of trial.

29-31: The promised standard/criterion/فُرۡقَانٗا would solve the quandary of "chosen-ness".  It is left vague, however, leading one to wonder if it exists.

32-35: The protestations of the dualists/Meccans certainly seem reasonable.

36-37: Unlike in Hebrew and Christian holy texts, hell is pretty clearly intended to be seen as a literal place here.  No doubt this is because the idea had gained traction by the time of its writing.

38-40: "Fight until there is no more oppression" seems like quite the paradox.  The warning given to the disbelievers here seems to be lip service.  Have not their hearts and eyes been divinely sealed, and is not their path set for them?

41: More ambitious than the tenth prescribed in other holy traditions.

42-45:The metaphysical interpretation is irresistible here, and Hulusi does not disappoint.  Numbers and groups and armies are illusions, and only contemplation of the names of reality can reveal the essence.

46-48: It is unclear how the trick played by the Shaitan here is different from that done in behalf of the Muslims.  Both were shown something unreal to manipulate their actions.

49-51: As with belief in a literal hell, this verse reflects the belief of its time in a metaphysical soul--in contrast to earlier religious texts.

52-54: The push and pull with Hulusi is strong here.  His metaphysical translation of these verses is consistent and justifiable.  Sadly, it has almost no relation to the text.

55-57: The connection here between oath-breakers and people incapable of belief jumps several logical steps, but it is a revealing one nonetheless.  To run it through the metaphysical interpretation engine one more time might produce: " Those who are inextricable from their ego-self will never keep their word, and are suitable only for object lessons."

58:But . . .but . . . those who break a treaty are the worst of all possible creatures in 55.  Is it different somehow if one does so openly?

59-62: Seemingly advice for this specific situation rather than a general principle.

63-63: A lovely verse, tying up the central ideas of the surah.

64-66: A little bit of comedy here, which mirrors Abraham bargaining for the lives of Sodom.  Yeah if you were steadfast, you could take ten times your number.  But . . . maybe let's say twice your number, looking at you.

67-68: I'm reminded vaguely of a parallel account in the Hebrew scriptures of the Israelites trying to secretly keep a little plunder and the whole camp being punished for it.  Wonder if I'm making it up.  Aha!  It was the sin of Achan in Joshua 7-9.

69-71: One wonders what became of these captives--whether good was found in their hearts, or betrayal.

72-75: Well, this at least seems to have come true on a grand scale.