Yunus

 It is to be hoped that the return to opening with بِسْمِ اللَّهِ signifies something less of an invective than At-Tawbah.

1: It is somewhat surprising that Hulusi doesn't have much to say about opening with the mysterious الر ۚ.  Perhaps he agrees that their meaning is to remain unknown.

2: One might call this the thesis statement of the book.  In Western dialectic, it would be followed by some statement of connection or purpose, but hopes are slim for that here, and we will likely digress, only for the connection to be revealed later.

3-4: I expect to learn more about Hulusi's fixation with ق in the book that bears its name.  For now, no other translator that I am referencing seems concerned with it here.

5-6 One begins to see where this is going.  If Allah created the sun and the moon, surely it is no stretch for him to use a prophet.  There is also the hint of a theme: the cycles of life, of creation and rebirth.

7-8: Another seeming non sequitur, no doubt to be connected later.

9-10: The sense is of one unbothered by the demands of so-called unbelievers, challenging them to fuck around and find out.

11: Hulusi consistently renders لِقَآءَنَا as "returning", which is a bit of a stretch, but consistent with the themes developed earlier.

12-13: The connection: this is not the first time a prophet has come, nor the fist tiime he has been doubted and rejected.

14: A bit problematic theologically, and not unique to the Quran.  What need does the divine have to "see ho it goes"?

15-17: Sound logic, if one takes the victories of Mohamad as "signs".

18-21: So far all much sounder and gentler reproof than in previous books.  

22-24: A new expression of an existing theme, and a reminder of the bigger picture.  The mysteries of everything are revealed in nature, and there is no need for intercessors.  Allah has created the moon and the sun both.  The waves and the wind, the rain and the drought.  All of these are signs, and one must have perspective to understand them.

25: This problem of predestination and divine appointment remains problematic and unsolved.

26-29: An almost comedic takedown of the idolators

30-36: So much for idols.

37-39: A series of persuasive, but subtly fallacious, arguments: 

1. This book is just a continuation of what has been revealed already.  It must be from Allah.
2. You think you can do better? Go ahead.
3. Don't forget what happened to people who didn't believe in the past . . .

40-44: A bit of protesting too much. The more you say, "I don't care," the more we suspect that you do.

45-46: A bit of support for the theme of the meeting with Allah being a return, according to the natural order.  This بِلِقَآءِ is mentioned rather a lot in this book, and I don't recall it being so phrased elsewhere.  

47: This is the argument that I would use: there is always a prophet.  If not me, then who is it?

48-52: Another more sound argument: "Oh, you want to see now, do you?  Be careful what you wish for."

53-56: Hard to see this as anything other than demagoguery though.

57: Hulusi's interpretation of رَّبِّكُمۡ opens up quite a deep well here.  If it is within us, as he maintains, then the return is simply a moment of clarity with one's self.

58-61: It remains unclear what the reasons for inventing certain proscriptions were.  

62-66: A summary of the reasons for this book: don't forbid what Allah has allowed, and don't use idols.  Eerily parallel to certain passages in the Greek scriptures. One definitely feels that this book was not entirely meant for a modern audience, and designed specifically to address concerns that are no longer relevant.

67-70: Fairly specific, and the target is clear.

71-73: I don't recall this moment in Genesis. One of my favorite things about this project is this sort of elaboration on existing stories.

74-87: This more closely parallels the Judaeo-Christian account.

88-90: I don't recall Pharaoh saying this haha.  It brings one back to the literal meaning of Muslim.

91-92: This would be more convincing if the doubters had then been summarily eaten by snakes or something, a la Moses.  This religion is less interested in such signs, however.  It considers the witness of the natural world and that of our own higher self to be sufficient.

93-97: There can be no argument against this, especially as so succinctly put in 94.

98: What good are signs?  That worked exactly once before: in Ninevah. Might as well stop asking.  Actually, this brings me a moment of pause, as I evaluate my own spiritual practice.

99-101: So problematic.  What is the point of any of this, then?

102-104: They really are asking for it . . .

105-109: Pretty solipsistic, if you ask me.  But in keeping with the overarching theme of submission.