Ibrahim

 1: Already a fascinating qualifier: that those reading this may only be led out of darkness by the permission of their own Rabb, a vague referent that I am inclined to agree with Hulusi in interpreting as "the higher self".

 2,3: Standard admonition against the unbelievers.  They are specifically chided for making what is simple appear complicated.

4: The but . . . why?  Because he is the Aziz and the Hakim, and we can't understand his ways?  Pretty fruitless reasoning, that.

5-8: and related is the question "why this 'testing' through suffering?  what end does it serve?" 

9-12: A whole lost, alternate history lurks here, the people of Aad and Thamud, who received their own prophets and whose messages could probably sustain their own book.

13-15:  The distinction between Hulusi's interpretation of "Rabb" and the traditional one blurs here, and it is possible that drawing a distinction is pointless anyway.

16-17: Culturally fitting that the ultimate punishment is thirst.

18-22: It certainly seems like the only requirement for escaping the tortures of hell is to not deny Allah.  Indeed, as far as rules and regulations go, the entire Quran is startlingly non-prescripitive.  The characterization of Satan here is spot on too.

23: And the reward is also aquatic.

24-26:Hulusi's liberties here are really unsupportable.  All seven of the other renderings I'm referencing are true to the word بِإِذْنِ, and translate it "will" or "permission".   Hulusi can't help himself from squeezing the inscrutable Sufi interpretation "based on the suitability of its Name composition" out of it.

27-30: "Have fun in hell!" is an unexpected bit of comedy.

 31-34: Really all that has ever been required of followers is a spirit of submission, salat, and prayer.  Pretty reasonable if you ask me, especially considering the benefits outlined here.

35-39: We finally get to the eponymous character of this book, and he seems to be referring to Lot in his pleas.

40-41: Here ends the portion that has anything to do with Ibrahim.  All he asks is that people be generous and that Allah be merciful.

42-52: The entire book is a warning, and Hulusi naturally metaphorizes all of it in quite a pleasing and resonant way.  Your Rabb is clear.   The rasuls have been given you.  Allah is consistent. However you respond to them in this life is exactly what you will experience in the next.

 

 

Ra'd

Well, this bodes . . . something.  Hulusi doesn't even agree with any other version of the Quran on the title of this book.  My mouth waters anticipating the bizarre tangents he might take.

Sadly he has yet to offer an explanation of his obsession with the letter بٖ

 1: . . .or of the meaning behind these cryptic beginnings.  One would assume that if anyone was unsatisfied with the "It is known to Allah alone" explanation, it would be the Sufi.  My digging often leads back to Al-Imran 7, which says that some of the signs are clear and some are not, and that only those who have reached the essence can perceive them.  This will never be enough for me, and I expect not for hulusi either.

2: which makes the assurance here, that the signs are clear, a bit amusing.

3: It would be tempting to say that the interpretation of the earth here as a metaphor for the body and its organs is a Sufi stretch, except for the word  زَوۡجَيۡنِ, which is translated in the other three version I'm consulting as mates, kinds, and pairs,  but which Hulusi renders "pairs", and to which he ascribes something very like the Hermetic concept "As above, so below".  It makes one want to investigate the connections between Sufism and Hermetecism.

4: Without drowning in the allegory here, I wish to point out the difference between this sort of parable, and the ones found in the Christianist Bible: the latter explains what it means.  Here, they are simply given and  IYKYK.  It certainly is more satisfying to a modern reader than "Lightning is the whip of an angel".

5: Now this is fascinating on so many levels.  Without a Sufi perspective, this verse is inscrutable.  in the frame of the aforementioned allegory, however, it tracks perfectly.

6: Hulusi loses me again here with his liberties.  It makes me want to find a better Sufi.

7: Is this to mean that each civilization has had its prophet, even as the Muslims, Hebrews, and Christians have?  What a fun idea to explore.  Who was the guide of the Aztec?  The Hmong?  The Maori?

8-10: One wonders if any Islamic scholars wrestle with this sort of verse as much as I do?  Predetermination and spiritual transparency, especially when combined with the Muslim version of "salvation" seem absolutely incompatible.

11:This might be the first hint of an answer to the above dilemma I've seen so far.  The idea that a people is given the ability to change what is in themselves, and therefor their condition in Allah's eyes, may well be the key.  And it is even a point of translation upon which all four versions more or less agree (Hulusi being the more or less).

12-13: If one is to adhere to the Sufi allegory, even verbs like بِحَمۡدِهِۦ take on allegorical significance.

14-15:For all his obsession with orthography and semiotics, it is astonishing the there is no mention by Hulusi of the symbol ۩, supposedly meant to indicate prostration.  One wonders what the Sufi interpretation of this symbol is.

16: A fascinating extension of the idea of رَّبُّ as something like a personal genius, rather than a divine ruler, is missed here.  If one's own رَّبُّ is the higher self, then the idea that Allah is the رَّبُّ of a larger system, that of the entire heavens and Earth, opens up lovely lines of reasoning.   

17: And it is only natural that rain and rivers are expression of unseen truths, both above and within, even as thunder and lightning are. 

18-19: Interesting that is is not only necessary to listen to the voice of the higher self (or Allah, depending on how Sufi you want to get), but also to respond to it. 

20-24: The response being relatively straightforward:  surrender, submit, prostrate yourself to the ultimate truth of unity.  This is the divine contract that must be joined, fulfilled, and followed.  The only way to enter into Paradise, whether the Sufi or the more mainstream, literal version, is together.

25: And to exist in a world of division is its own punishment.

27: The will of Allah, of the divine, can not possibly be this whimsical.

28-30: It is much more palatable to say "You either get it or you don't" than to say "Allah either guides you or he doesn't".

31: The question remains, why did Allah not do as posited here: simply reveal the absolute reality to everyone?

32-33: Setting aside that larger conundrum, however, one is left with the perfectly clear and reasonable foundation: all is one, and don't you forget it.

34-35: One is tempted to dig into the theology that has arisen from verses like this, an whether it has translated into a belief in an immortal soul

36-39: A more succinct and poetic phrasing of the truth in 33, and it is worth memorizing.

40-43: And nothing more need be said, let alone done or expected.  Though plenty has been and will be. 

Yusuf

 The unnumbered Bismillah introduction feels like one of the only things worth uncovering in the entire book.

1: And its related enigma, the الٓر ۚ, here ironically paired with an invocation to clarity.

2-3: The audience here is explicitly of one, both by language and by invitation.

4-6: A strikingly different version than that in Genesis 37, on several points: in that Joseph told his father the dream, not his brothers, and that he recognized it as a sign, rather than rebuking him.

7-9: And no mention of the coat, which would be enough to drive anyone to jealousy.

10-15: And several other slight differences, which give this account the flavor of originating from an entirely different source.  It is not the omissions, but rather the insignificant differences that make one wonder if the oral recounting of the story diverged at some earlier point,rather than both versions coming from more or less the same text.

16-19: The differences have the general effect so far of painting Joseph in quite a positive light, and removing redeeming qualities from certain of the brothers: Judah and Reuben.

20-21: Perhaps the idea of Potiphar (here unnamed)'s affection for Joseph may come from this source, or some Jewish tradition.  In Genesis, it is all business.

22-25: Slightly different framing here:Joseph is specifically prevented from sin by his رَبِّهِۦۚ, a troublesome fly in the larger ointment of free will and predestination.

26-31: A delightful and fascinating embellishment to the story.  It makes one want to create a new version fusing the two.It makes one wonder how Joseph's exoneration will affect the rest of the story though.

32-35: This dovetails with the Genesis story, and makes the two accounts reconcilable.

36: Again, avoiding identifying the Egyptians in questions, unlike GOnly minor devi     enesis.

37-40: Joseph gives a better summary of his theology than we have received elsewhere: don't divide the indivisible, and be grateful.

41-42: Pretty parallel to the Genesis account, though missing the details of the interpretation.

43: fairly offputting to avoid transitions, but that's the consistent style.

44-49: Only minor deviations here, such as the addition of the year of plenty after the drought.

50-52: This might be my favorite additional detail: the comeuppance of the women.  Also, it is clear that Hulusi's interpretation of رَبِّكَ has more credence than I originally thought.

53-56: Hulusi's translation of نَفۡسِيۖ as "special friend" makes certain extrapolations irresistible.

57: None of the translations I'm considering agree on the best rendition of يَتَّقُونَ  translating it as protecting themselves (Hulusi),  pious, mindful, and god-fearing.

58-66: For the most part the accounts are reconcilable.  I did not remember, however, that it was Simeon who remained behind.  One wonders about his treatment while in Egypt alone.  

67-68: Jacob/Israel comes across rather better in this account again.

69-70: And cluing Benjamin in on the trick is a nice touch.  One is touched by the brotherly love in this and in the Genesis account.

71-77: Again the brothers come off rather worse in this account.

78: Evidently ٱلۡعَزِيزُ was not Potiphar's name, but a title.  He (and the brothers) remain unnamed.

79-80: Reuben is slightly less terrible here, but again unnamed.

82-86: And Jacob is quite a model of patience and submission here.  He always came across as flat and vague in the Genesis account.

87-90: Joseph and Benjamin must have been cracking up during all of this, though rather a cruel trick to play on their father.

91-93: Clearly he knew his father well.

94-98: A small moment, but I love it.

99: His mother too, evidently.  I don't recall Rachel being mentioned much in Genesis.

100-101: A lovely prayer from Joseph, and one that focuses on what is presumably the focus of the whole volume: مُسۡلِمٗا, submission.

102-107: This alternate account is attributed to direct revelation, though it still has the flavor of an oral tradition.

108-111: And the summary/application is . . . tenuous.  I would rather say the point of the story is that all things are revealed, and have their timely purpose--even what seems to be evil at first.

 

Hud

 As satisfying as ever to see the mysterious بِسمِ begin this surah.

1: And the equally cryptic الر ۚ.  These words work as a chant, rather than anything else in my mind.  The sounds themselves contain the power.

2: Studying Arabic concurrently with this project makes me very confused by Hulusi's insistence on leaving مِنهُ untranslated, as though it was another of the cryptic sounds.  It is just a straightforward pronoun in my estimation. 

3: Whereas leaving رَبَّكُمۡ untranslated seems to have a greater purpose.  Hulusi's interpretation of this concept is almost Reiki-adjacent, and one of my favorite aspects of his explication.

4-6: More curious treatment هُوَ of here.  If it were simply a King James style deference to the Divine, surely Hulusi would leave it untranslated throughout, rather than haphazardly as here.

7: Surely Hulusi goes too far here, interpolating more Eastern philosophy into the significance of the water.  I don't disagree with him, but there's certainly nothing in the text to support it.

8-11: Haters gonna hate, I guess. On the one hand, it is a relief to remove the text from dogmatic concerns.  On the other, it's rather too convenient.

12-14: A sentiment repeated in previous surahs.  I'm not sure whether it's #unbothered or #theladydothprotesttoomuch.

15-16: I am very on board with this.  Let those who value material success pursue it, and let their reward be according.

17-19: The greatest sin, by this interpretation, is then against one's own truth, rather than against an external Lord.

20-22: And materialism is its own punishment.

23-24: Which simplifies everything.  But it also undercuts its authority.

25-41: Not much to say about this passage, except that I really like the characterization of Noah here.  I realize that he's rather an enigma in the Hebrew version of the story, except for a certain incident with daughters and wine.  Wonder if that will make it into this telling.

 42-43: Wait, what?  Another son?  Whomst could it have been?

44-49: And I especially like the secret revelation flavor here.  Unfortunate that this son is unnamed.

50-57: Skipping a few generations, we come to the eponymous prophet of this book.  He certainly seems to take after his great-great-grandfather.

58-60: Rather sparse on details here, though the blanks seem to be filled in elsewhere, in other surahs and oral traditions. Kind of false advertising from the title of the surah, though.

61-68: Far more detail in the story of Salih, though the appearance of a she-camel would not have seemed miraculous to me either.  

69-73: Sarai comes across better in this account.  There is no mention of her being struck dumb for her disbelief.

74-76: I had never thought of Abraham as "tender and sensitive", but it actually makes a lot of sense.

77-83: There is no more explanation for Lot's horrible behavior here than in other versions of the account.  How is this not a bigger talking point?  Is there any more despicable act?

84-86: This is becoming a bit like the book of Judges, casually running down the list of leaders,  giving only enough information to pique interest.  One wonders if Shuayb gets more mention later, of if that is left to the Druze holy books.

87-90: Shuayb seems far more timid than the others in this list.

91-93: This is consistent with the tone of the book as a whole.  Shuayb is #unbothered, especially in v.93.

94-95: The "layered clay" that is said to have destroyed sodom could easily be a volcano.  What on earth is the ٱلصَّيۡحَةُ that leveled Madyan?  It is translated differently in all four of the versions I'm referencing, but my favorite is "The Shriek".

96-99: This is a rather offhanded telling of Moses' story, but it raises one interesting metaphysical point.  What exactly is the "Day of Resurrection", and why on Earth would Pharoah be leading anybody during it?

100-102: Which neatly sums up this book: listen to me--or don't, and face the same end as all these others.

103-108: One really wonders where this eternal hellfire doctrine originated.  It does not seem to have Zoroastrian roots, like many of the other elements.  Rather, it seems more Greek in origin.

109-111: The "prior decree" is of interest here.  The divine seems to have an interest in maintaining the confusion and schisms.

112-115: And very little is being asked: prayer, good deeds, and iconoclasm.

116-123: More curious endorsement of schisms.  #IYKYK i guess? At any rate, I'm partial to the simplicity of 121-122.  On a whole, this book was more coherent and tight than previous ones, or I'm just getting more familiar with the particular dialectic.

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.

At-Tawbah

 Already this book has taken an ominous tone by the omission of the invocation of the compassion and mercy of the divine بَسْمَلَة.  

1-2: And no wonder: it is identified immediately as an ultimatum to the polytheists or, as Hulusi names them, the dualists.

3-5: It is not until after their death sentence has been given that the possibility of commutation is offered and the compassion and mercy of Allah is invoked.

6-12: This is justified with the explanation that these dualists would do the same if the roles were reversed--a rather petty argument.

13-15: And furthermore, they always have the option to reverse course.  In this respect, at least, the god of the Quran is more merciful than the god of the Hebrew scriptures.

16-18: There is some disagreement among the translators how to render مَساجِدَ.  The word itself invokes the act of worship, though it seems to be inextricably tied with the non-translation "mosque".  For my part, I prefer Hulusi's rendering "place of prostration" for it's thematic consistency.

19: There is a theological principle here that could bear comparison with similar concepts in other religions: the interplay between faith and works, with clear preference here being given to the former.

20-22: The admonition that the particular place of worship is not of utmost importance seems to be lost on modern Muslims.

23-27: A nice moment of thematic consistency here: the reality of things is not connected to their physical form.  Attachment to physical things, including particular holy sites, is not to be confused with actual faith.

28: Which makes this command inexplicable

29: Likewise the command in one breath to fight the unbelievers, and to fulfill the duty to protect them implied in the collection of  الجِزيَةَ .

30-32: Hulusi makes a rather uncharacteristic point of transliterating the entire phrase لا إِلٰهَ إِلّا هُوَ, which he usually does only for words he considers holy in their very pronunciation.  One wonders if there is a connection to the very peculiar orthographic features of the character لا, the only one in Arabic that might be considered syllabic rather than alphabetic.

32-33: I don't know if this is an accurate characterization of the Jews and Christians of the time.  It is rather the Muslims who are interested in abolishing other religions, in this very same breath.

34-35: This, at least, is fair--even poetic.

36-37: Rather a difficult sentence to parse, as reflected in four very different translations.  Hulusi renders it in a way that indicates a one-year period for the creation.

38-39: The call to battle is altogether incompatible with a detachment from earthly concerns.

40: The intersection of muddy pronoun reference and shifting listener require a level of dialectic mastery I will never attain.

41-47: A rare rebuke of The Prophet here, and a bit inexplicable.  In 40, the assurance is that those who stayed behind were not necessary, and in 47 that they would even have been a hindrance.  Why is The Prophet scolded for allowing it?

48-50: It certainly sounds like leaving these individuals to their own devices was the right choice.

51-55: A nice parallel with 19-22 here, and a reversal of the corresponding concept in James 2:26.

56-59: If these verses were followed today, the result would be world--or at least regional--peace.

60: The only thing that stands out about this seemingly apostrophic verse is the inclusion of those who collect the charity in the list of recipients.  I can see how that would go south very quickly.

61-66: The Surah that these chatterers feared is this very one.

67-68: I suppose it is the behavior in 62 that qualifies them as hypocrites, rather than just disobedient or greedy.

69-70: The stories of عادٍ and ثَمودَ were seemingly as familiar to the audience as those of Noah and Lot, but I find very little specific narrative of those stories, here or elsewhere.  Maybe in a future surah we will get details.

71-72: The fact that the promised rivers flow under paradise, rather than through it as in Judeo-Christian texts, is no doubt a regional accommodation.

73-79: The list of charges here draws attention to something that is not present (so far) in the Quran.  The defendants here are guilty of muttering, conspiring, and withholding charity.  The god of the Israelites would have rained death upon them for even one of these charges, but this version of the divine is content to punish them in the hereafter.  

80: A contrast with Abraham's experience of mercy.  Despite caveats in 66 and elsewhere, forgiveness does not seem to be an option for these hypocrites.  The plea deal has been withdrawn, so to speak.

81-93: And Allah has not forgotten that they stayed behind during the battle either, though his instructions to The Prophet regarding them are contradictory.  The fact that Allah has "sealed their hearts" remains troubling theologically.

94-96: The sudden change in tense here is difficult to integrate.  Indeed, the book retains traces of its character as a surah that has been pieced together after the fact.

97-99: The mention of a still existing specific ethnic group here would seem to have modern implications.  I wonder how modern Bedouins feel about these verses.

110-104: Even the Prophet does not know the heart, and this book returns to the position that it is best to mind one's own work and not worry about others . . . lovely, but in contrast to the rest of this book.

105: One of my favorite verses in the entire Quran so far.  

106-110: A fascinating side tale, but one wonders about a few things: since the details of the episode are not mentioned here, how were they retained?  Is there some adjunct book that gives the narrative?  The earliest surviving account seems to have been written 200 years after the fact.  Also, the directions in 108 are seemingly a rare moment of direct and specific revelation to The Prophet alone.

111: I don't know if it is accurate to say that the directive to kill and be killed is also in the Gospel.

112-114: This is not the story of Abraham I was thinking of in 80, but I look forward to learning more about it in future surahs.

115-117: There might be some resolution to the tension between mercy, repentance, and free will here.  It seems that the principles operate differently in groups than in individuals--something akin to the statistics being useless in individual cases.

118-119: It is assumed that these are Ka’b ibn Mâlik, Murarah ibn Rabi’, and Hilâl ibn Umaiyah, mentioned in 106.  More evidence for the gradual revelation of this surah, and possibly a key to unraveling confusing passages in other surahs.

120-122: A distinct minority report exists in the interpretation of these verses, and for once it is not Hulusi who is the dissenter.  Of the four translations I am referencing, three interpret this to refer to the fight at Tabuk, but https://al-quran.info/#9 interprets those who "march forth" to be going to Medinah.

123-125: I can certainly imagine that some grew suspicious or weary of the timing of these revelations.  The writing of this text even as it was happening gives it a unique structure and character among holy books.

126-129: I don't recall another instance of the Prophet himself being given the descriptor رَحيمٌ, elsewhere used almost ritually to describe Allah, and especially in the invocation that begins every surah but this one.

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.

Al-A'Raf II

 103-108: A telling fairly consistent with the Hebrew account, until Moses puts his hand into his garment.  Where Exodus says the hand was leprous, all translations of this verse render it "shining white" which makes more sense.

109-118: The only difference with the Hebrew account seems to be that the Egyptians' magic was an illusion, and Moses' real.

119-127: Another difference.  In Exodus 7:13, Pharaoh hardened his heart against these miracles, leading to disaster for him and Egypt.  But here there is an interesting moment where the Egyptian magicians sensibly submit to the superior power of Moses' رَبِّ.  Only after threatened by Pharaoh with temporal punishment did they relent.

128-136: An interesting rush through possibly the most riveting part of this story: the ten plagues and the pursuit across the Red Sea.  Here, it is framed as the mistake of seeing the good as deserved, and the bad as unjust.

137-142: A dizzying rush through the golden calf and the ten commandments.

143: Tempting to envision this, and the parallel account in Exodus, as a volcano.  Also tempting to draw a metaphorical parallel with the eponymous heights, and perhaps also with Nietzche's mountain.

144-146: Perhaps a clue to the mystery of predestination: the trigger that causes the Divine to withhold its truth and harden hearts to the signs is mere arrogance.

147-151: Aaron surely dodged a bullet here and in the parallel accounts.  

152-156: This supports the ideas in 144: repentance and humility go hand in hand.  

157-158: The mention of "The Unlettered Prophet" through here is intriguing in that it is unclear to whom it refers.  Moses?  Christ?  Muhammad? Presumably they are all reflections of the archetype.

159-162: All of this has the sense that the listeners were already familiar with the stories, from Exodus and elsewhere, and allusion was sufficient.  

163-168: The story of Aylah and the Sabbath is not as canonical to modern readers, however, and I wish there was more.  The idea of a test of devotion runs parallel to the idea of predestination.  Taken with 131, blessings are as much a test of devotion as curses.

169-170: A justification for the removal of divine blessing from the Jews.

171: More evidence for a volcanic reading of 143.

172-174: Message->Signs->Test->Chance for Mercy->Judgement seems to be the pattern.

175-176: Eivdently there is some dispute about the reference here.  Some take it to refer to  Bal’am ibn Ba’ûrâ, but even if true there is little information about him.

177-179: the dilemma of predestination extends even to the spirit realm.

180-186: The only justifiable position is that this Divine misdirection is the last step in the process.

187-189: Hulusi reads a lot into these seemingly straightforward verses.  How curious that it dovetails nicely with what I have been thinking about lately: the parallel between "gender" duality and the mind/thought relationship.  To Hulusi, Adam is the mind and Eve the thought.

190-192: Presumably this is directed at the descendants of Adam and Eve, rather than the original pair.  An argument can be made, however, that the original sin is the conflation of reality with the mind that thought it up.

193-198: More warning against the mistake of duality, the mistaking of the finger for the moon.

199-204: Wrapping up here.  "Just . . . don't be a dick, okay guys?"

205-206: Be as the angels.  Remember what you are, both divine in nature and minutely insignificant.

 

Al-A'raf

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.

Al-An'am

 Again we begin with the letter بِ, and cannot resist invoking the power of that letter.  I have even gone so far as to inscribe it on an amulet.

1: I much prefer this to the opening of Genesis.  Allah grants that there be darkness, the void, as well as light.

2-3: Only one of the translations--I am now considering four simultaneously--seems to note the second "term" mentioned here.  One term for this life, and another for the next.

4-6: Hulusi's interpretation of رَبِّهِم is thoroughly integrated into my readings now.  The Lord here is the higher self, and it would be difficult to convince me otherwise.

7-9: Especially because the challenge here is not to believe what one sees from without, but to perceive and act according to the dictates from within.  Hulusi's translation "doubt-dilemma" is undeniably a liberty, but an apt one.

10: I wonder if we will be seeing a lot of this structure: they will be confused by that which they confuse.  they will be mock by that which they mock.

11: Sadly, this does not hold up with reality.  The fate of the deniers on this earth is little different than the fate of any others.

12: Whenever the question of who rules reality is raised, it is usually followed by a reminder such as in 1: that both the dark and the light are both ruled by Allah.

13: Sure enough.

14: The eponymous أَسلَمَ takes center stage again, and this surah already feels more coherent than any of the others so far.

15-18: More reinforcements of the themes submission to one's highest self and embrace of the void as well as the light.

19: The equation between idolatry and duality is not self-evident.

20-24: Rather difficult to break this section into smaller parts; it continues until at least 49, which is another sign that this book is more linear and coherent than the previous.  These four verses seem to be merely the first beat, the first of their errors: to ascribe equals to Allah.

25: The expected argument seems rather more applicable to the dualists themselves.

26-28: No Holy text would be complete without unverifiable threats.

29-32: The next related mistake: to believe in this as the final reality.  So foolish by any measure.  Even were there no afterlife, the idea that one is their own body is ludicrous.

33-36: Rather a cheeky suggestion: "If you really want to convince them, go ahead.  Show them a miracle.  I'll wait."

37-38: Them: "Gib miracal pleez" Him: [gestures broadly]

39: this remains the most troubling part of the Quran so far.  To what end would Allah purposefully lead some astray?

40-41: From an organizational standpoint, however, it makes sense as a hedge against the fact that it doesn't always work out the way we would expect.  It is the equivalent of "God works in mysterious ways," which I have also always hated.  What nonsense.

42-45: This also reeks of entrapment, and furthermore as gilding the lily.  Why would it be necessary for Allah to torment wrongdoers in this life, if the ultimate judgement is inescapable?

46-47: Furthermore, why would it be necessary for Allah to test their hearts in this way?  the only possible conclusion is that there are those whose hearts are intractable and those whose hearts are locked open, but also those in the middle who can be influenced one way or another.  It is to these latter that the Quran--and one would assume most sacred texts--is addressed.

48-49: Further support for the above.  It is something of a comfort, in fact, to be told that there is hope even for those of us who are not holy by instinct.

50-51: The blind are lost to their own blindness.  But if you can see even a little, there is hope.

52: I have trouble with this verse, and the inconsistency of the various translations shows that I am not alone.  The admonition here seems to be to the Prophet himself, rather than to the reader.  Why would the Prophet need to be reminded not to turn away the devout?

53-55: Perhaps it is related to the natural tendency of humans to see only with their eyes, and say "Those who are poor must be doing something wrong." The admonition is to resist that urge, and embrace the lowest among us.

56-58: "Y'all better be glad that it is Allah who decides things and not me [shakes fist]."

59-60: The only mention I have seen in any sacred text of the mystery of sleep.

61-62: The Golden Thread is visible in the tapestry here.  The Prophet is in agreement with Lao Tze, Confucius, Solomon, Epicurus . . . there are bigger things to worry about than your death.

63-64: This is manifestly untrue, especially considering 52-55.  Allah rescues on this plane, but he also deigns not to, and it is seemingly arbitrary which way he will treat you.

65-67: Difficult to escape the inconsistency here.  In one breath, Allah rescues those who humbly beseech Him.  In the next breath, he afflicts them for seemingly no reason.

68-69: Don't associate with dualists.  In case you do by accident, don't get sucked in to the trap of feeling responsible for them.

70: You can remind them of the reality, but let it end there.

71: I cannot help but wonder, when a verse like this seems cloudy to me, whether I am one of those whom Allah has intentionally blinded.

72-73: The power of sound underlies these verses, and reminds one of Hulusi's obsession with certain syllables.  All creation is merely a word, and the sound of the trumpet is all that will be necessary to end it.

74-79: Where is this amazing account in the Bible or Torah? It beautifully captures the moment of enlightenment, whether metaphorical or not, much better than Newton's apple.

80-81: The truth was revealed to Abraham only in that it was there all along and he saw it for the first time.  The book of reality remains the best evidence, as in 37-38.  The fact applies to me today as well.  I search for signs, and marvels, but perhaps my eyes are still blinded.

82-83: The problem lies here.  According to this, Abraham's eyes were opened by the whims of a capricious deity.  It is no use to seek enlightenment, for it is either given to you or not.

84-87: Oh, to be so chosen!

88-90: There must be some way of reconciling these ideas.  Some are chosen, but clearly not for their own willingness to believe, for even among those chosen some deny what is revealed.  In their place, still others are chosen, from among whom even more deny.  One must have both luck and virtue to attain enlightenment, a horrifying parallel to material success.

91-92: How many times must this pattern be repeated? And what of any books revealed after the Quran?  

93-94: Where are your gods now?  Your material goods and all your worldly success?  

95-97: Indeed, the book of reality is more than enough.  Life and death, light and darkness, all are revealed.

98: Lots of disagreement on this verse, but the most straightforward interpretation in context is that the self is given a body, and then a grave.

99-102: Very rational and intuitive.  The acrobatics required to maintain a doctrine of Jesus' godhood are indeed ridiculous.

103-105: Does He actually make it clear, though?  Or does he purposefully blind some, and reveal himself to others?  The repetition of these contradictions reveals no new key to a blinded one such as I am.

106-107: This, at least, I see clearly.  The core is unity, and submission to that unity.

108: Another admonition that goes ignored today.  

109-111: this might be a glimmer of the key to unlocking the problem  of Allah "lock[ing] their hearts."  It is not that He has locked their hearts actively, perhaps, merely that he refuses to play their pointless game and answer their meaningless demands.

112-113: But this belies that interpretation.  Has Allah really actively recruited deceivers?  Is He not content to follow his own advice here?

114-115: This is poignant advice to me now.  The Book of reality is clear.  The filigrees of jinns and prophets are a distraction.

116-118: i hope for more elaboration about what to "eat," especially insofar as it is open to metaphor.

119-122: The connection requires some disentanglement here.  There are those who say, "why not eat what is dead?" Allah replies, "Because it is better to eat that which is alive."  I am emboldened by Hulusi to take serious liberties with this interpretation, admittedly.

123-125: It is a stretch, but an extrapolation is possible here: Allah has not shrunk the hearts of some actively; He has merely created reality, and reality is such that those who cannot submit are unable to understand.

126-127: The simple path is the true one, but it is tempting to take the intricate path instead.  Very opposed to the corresponding Christian doctrine.

128-134: I wonder what happens to the jinn on this day, though.  They were merely serving their function, after all.

135-136:A subtle but important bit of metaphysics: If one's worship is divided, it all goes to the lowest destination.

137-140: Here is where a metaphor is irresistible.  If the cattle here is not literal meat, but truth, then truth in and of itself is useless without submission, and sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is delusion.

141-142: Accordingly, certain animals are not forbidden because they are unclean, but merely because to eat them is wasteful.

143-145: I wonder if modern Muslims allow for he eating of pork if forced out of need, as indicated here.  The verses are clear: this is not pedantry, but practicality.

146: A more detailed list than I recall from the Torah.

147-150: Underneath this is a principle that could be applied elsewhere.  The dualists say, "There is no law against adding to the law." The Prophet is instructed to reply, "Your default position should be to stick to what is revealed, not to add random nonsense. When in doubt, keep it simple."

151-153: Speaking of simple.  The straight path is consistently emphasized in this book.

154-156: I get the feeling of "As per the email I already sent you,".

157-158: The Quran can well make this claim.  It is indeed clearer and more straightforward, especially in this surah, than what has gone before.

159: Including divisions between Sunni and Shia?

160: This is indeed a comfort.  I have done bad in life, but just maybe I have done enough good to have not been a complete waste of life.

161-165: An excellent, and uncharacteristic, summary. 

 

 

Al-Ma'idah

 The further I get into this project, the less interested I am in parsing the Islamic surface of the text, and the more interested I am in untangling the Sufi depths.  The former so far has come across as a generic, though not unenjoyable, religious text.  The latter, however, specifically the mysteries of HU, Rabb, and ب , always seize my fascination when they arise.

1: The parallel between the restrictions of Ihram and those of Lent are irresistible.  It is natural to find the links between all these Abrahamic religions, but one wonders if the link goes back even further to Zoroaster.

2-5: Even more parallels between the three "peoples of the book", with the addition of an injunction against resentment against people of hostile faiths one notable point of departure.

6: So-called "dry ablution" is another interesting feature, and I don't know of anything similar in other religions.

7: It never hurts to recall the overarching theme of Islam: submission.  

8: Already reemphasizing the point in v2 (and in An-Nisa) against resentment and the cloudy thinking of antagonism.

9-10: These verses seem to play against each other, and it takes a bit of theology to reconcile them.  On the one hand, those who practice their own religion faithfully are forgiven, whatever it may be.  In the same breath, those who disbelieve the specific signs of this book are bound for Hell.  As is usual in such cases, only Hulusi's Sufi perspective can make sense of it:  it is not the disbelief in this particular Rasul that destines them for hell; it is a denial of reality, and specifically the reality of indivisibility.

11: A very straightforward verse that Hulusi confounds with his explication.  He posits that the Name Wakil is being referenced in the penultimate phrase, but there neither seems to be justification for this vowel shift, nor explanation of such a Name in his extensive preface on names.

12-13: Several potential inroads into this section: who are the "we" that appointed the tribes of Israel? What is the "share of the realities" that they have forgotten (Sahih version assumes it is the share that related to The Prophet)? What effect does this hardening of hearts have?  Is a member of such a "hardened" group forever locked out by blood?

14: To believe that the intersectional disputes between Christians are preordained by Allah brings a similar series of difficult questions.  The Allah of the Quran seems scarcely less petty than that of the Bible.

15-16: There is an emphasis on نو in Hulusi's rendition that seems unjustified.  Light is light, and does not seem to need explication.  The hint is of some sufi metaphysical meaning, but what could be deeper than the literal in this case?

17: A deft blow to the ridiculous Christian notion of Christ's divinity.  

18: Will the Quran keep to this, though, and refrain from claiming privileged status, or fall prey to ego as the Jews and Christians before did?

19: It is certainly tempting to think that a Divine messenger is thus destined to appear at intervals.  We are certainly due for a new one.

20-26: A surprisingly straightforward section, almost exactly as it is described in the Pentateuch.  Who, I wonder, are the two from among them who are said to have spoken up, though.

27-31: The alternate version of this story is fascinating. The addition of the crow is especially flavorful. Surely Abel threatening Cain with hellfire is anachronistic, however.

32-34: This would be a keystone verse in any text--were it not for the loopholes that modern day Muslims take to be the law itself.

35-37: Evidently the idea of eternal damnation was thoroughly trenchant by this time.  One wonders whether it became so in Islam as a result of Greek (and ultimately Egyptian) influence, or from further East.  In Christianity, at least, the corruption seems to begin with Tertullian in the 3rd century, and be thoroughly entrenched by the time of Augustine in the 5th.

38-39: Allah is all-forgiving--unless his followers get to the offenders first as in 34.

40: An interesting parallel with the LunHeng of Wang Chong, which I am reading concurrently.  Don't bother questioning your fate.  Heaven is capricious and petty, and does what it will.

41: At least the fifth time this troubling phenomenon has been highlighted.  Who are those whose hearts Allah does not wish to purify?  What are the criteria?  When is it determined?  The same problems exist with similar verses in the Bible, but the latter text does not emphasize it nearly so often.  

42-43: One wonders why indeed Jews or Christians would come seeking Islamic justice.  

44: The logic does not follow here, and I feel like I am missing a subtlety of the Arabic equivalent for "so".  The second clause simply does not follow from the first.

45-47: It makes a bit more sense now.  The effect seems to be, "Look: Jews and Christians have these same directions, and then twisted them.  If you just go by what Allah has revealed, no matter which version, you'll be fine.  But if you are worried about man's version of the same . . . well good luck with that."

48-49: And therefore, "If you stick to what Allah has revealed, it will become clear that which is common in all three."

50: ". . . you got a better idea, wiseguy?"

51-56: No doubt it would be tempting to side with the temporarily upper-handed, especially if the beliefs are fundamentally the same.  Very clever of The Prophet to nip that in the bud here.

57-60: And it is tempting to mock rituals which we find unfamiliar or extreme.  I sure received my share of it growing up.  If one is committed to the course, though, this is the only response.

61-63: Which is to say, "The proof is in the pudding," or, "By their works you will know them."

64: I can't be certain from context, but the Jews in this verse seem to be saying that their wealth is proof of their blessing.  Oh, what a pernicious doctrine, and how widespread among Christians today.

65: The reward here is an interesting one: the Gardens of Bliss are by no means a literal paradise, but easily seen as a state of enlightenment.  Hulusi, naturally, takes advantage of this interpretation.

66: But there is danger here of readers falling into the same trap as in 64.  If one follows the given Word, whether Torah, Gospel, or Quran, blessings will come.  If, therefore, one is not so blessed, surely they are sinners.

67: This one is an enigma.  Why should the Prophet need protection from the people?  Of what should he be afraid?   

68-69: I sure do like this ecumenical sentiment,and I sure do see little of it in modern Islam.

70-71: This tracks very well with the stories in the Torah.

72-73: And a valid critique of Christianity.  It is astonishing the nonsense that modern Christians allw themselves to believe, and evidently it was no different in the 6th century.

74: A well-placed reminder that this is not malice, but ridicule.

75: A new critique of the doctrine of Christ's divinity: "Then why did he eat, dummies?"

76: Nothing to see here on the surface, but a hint from Hulusi at a deeper meaning of هُوَ

77: This book is beginning to sound like it's intended for other "people of the book" as much as it is for the people of Islam.

78: David is an interesting choice here.  Of all the Hebrew prophets, he would not have not been in my top ten choices for an example of condemnation.  I wonder what the Prophet is referring to here.

79-80: Lets of disagreement between the three translations here.  I prefer Hulusi's version, especially in that it makes the eternal punishment one of ego, rather than of hellfire.

81-84: This is manifestly no longer true.  Perhaps in the 7th century there were men among the Christians who matched this description: sincere, humble, and ascetic.  I cannot think of an example in the last century, however.

85-86: This afterlife, while vague, certainly is appealing.

87-88: Almost exactly the sentiment of Peter in Acts 10.

89: I like that the breaking of an oath is not a sin against the recipient of the oath, but against reality itself, and the penalty corresponds.

90-92: Well I'm guilty of all of these on a weekly if not daily basis.  I do not sense that it causes the animosity that is predicted here.  I can see the point, though.  Maybe if I did them with others instead of alone in my hovel the result would be as described.

93: In two of the translations, this is a perfectly natural  extension of the preceding exhortations.  For Hulusi, naturally, there is a deeper progression: from devotion to understanding to enlightenment to protection.

94-96: An interesting and seemingly disjunct prohibition.  Why is hunting specifically prohibited during Ihram and not other activities?

97: The connection between these sacred practices and a reminder of Allah's omniscience is not intuitive.

98-99: Unless it is to be revealed through the punishment for violations.

100-102: A reasonable enough edict.  Don't keep asking why; you may not like the answer, not because Allah doesn't care to be questioned, but because you may not like the answers and they aren't useful to you anyway.

103-104: No doubt a necessary injunction at the time, but mostly a historical footnote today.

105: This verse resonates on several levels.  You are not your results. Worry about your dang self, and it will turn out alright, and you will be given understanding to boot.

106-108: A very practical regulation, with parallels in the Torah and the Gospel.  The emphasis on material goods and wealth is what sets the Quran apart from the others.

109: Another lovely connection to 105.  We are not called to task for the results of our actions, but for the actions themselves--even the prophets.

110-120: The longest coherent narrative I have yet encountered in the Quran, and wonderful in proportion to its fluidity.  Not only is the idea of Christ being called to account on the Judgement Day a marvelous concept, but his answer as well.  The inclusion of the account of Christ bringing a bird to life from clay here also gives weight to so-called apocryphal accounts like the Gospel of Thomas.  

Perhaps most wonderful, though, is the eponymous "table", the مائِدَةً that is revealed to the believers.  With no mention of a literal feast, it can only be taken as the glorious feast of revelation that is available to those who sincerely search for it.  I hope to be among them.

An-Nisa II

 95: A brief dip into the Arabic gives a little insight into the familiar words Jihad and Mujahideen here.  The root of each seems to be "strive" rather than "fight", 

96: And those who so strive, risking life and property, are rewarded with "ranks", which is a fascinating overlap with Dante's struggle over the hierarchy of virtue.

97-99: Another seemingly ignored verse.  "But we were oppressed!" is not among the accepted excuses.  Why live where you are oppressed?  Is the world not vast enough for you?

100-103: No doubt a necessary allowance at the time.  What about today, now that the believers have themselves become the oppressors, as it ever is with religion?

104: The cycle returns, like the line inscribed by a point on a rotating wheel, to a position of power.

105-106: This seemingly disconnected point may well simply be the signal of a shift in rhetoric.  Very often at this point, there is the sense that an answer is being offered to an unasked question, one that is so obvious as to not need included.

107-111: And this is the point into which we are being led, by only the most tenuous of connections to the previous topic.

112: An excellent point, one that I can't think of a parallel for in other religious texts.

113: Hulusi's (and by extension the Sufi) obsession with orthomancy, arises again here, though هُ remains ignored by the now 3 other versions I am referencing.  It seems to have some linguistic veracity, however.  The diving Name is indeed given as اللَّهُ in places, and elsewhere (as here) as اللَّهِ.  It remains to be seen whether this is a simple morphemic variation, or, as Hulusi seems convinced, the source of a deep metaphysical truth.

114: A little unclarity here.  "They" seems to mean the enemy of v. 104, who are then said to be deceitful (105), self-destructive (107), conspiratorial (108), slanderous (112), and heretical (113).  There is nothing in this string of verses to suggest a shift in pronoun referent that I can see.  And here we are in 114 promising them a reward for their acts of charity.  

115: And more confusion.  "We will abandon him" seems to directly contradict the "and lead him to hell" that follows it.

116: Hulusi takes a liberty that the other three translators do not.  The text is clearly a proscription against assigning partners to Allah, but Hulusi extrapolates that into duality in general.  It's a nice point, but not in the text.

117:This is a fascinating prospect.  Allah is the alpha male.  Satan is the correspondingly naughty female.  the first mention of the supposed topic of this book in some pages.

118-120: Even more fascinating! Who is this Iblis, and what is his connection with the Satan of the previous verse?  Most importantly, why does Hulusi insert him here when there is no mention in the original text, and these verses are clearly referring to the same being as 117.

121-122: Of course we can't go a full page without a few of these verses.  

123: The subject of this sentence evidently leaves a lot of room for wiggling.  "Sunnatullah" in Hulusi, "Divine grace" in Khattab, "Paradise" in Saheeh.  Perhaps the unattributed translation I'm referencing has the right idea to simply leave it as "it".

124: A little more of the eponymous topic, and pretty unequivocal at that.

125: More linguistic wiggling here.  حَنِيفٗاۗ is rendered "upright" and "inclining toward truth", but in the other two is left untranslatable as "Hanif".  No dictionary I tried seems to be up to the task either.

126: Our obligatory interlaud  (a word I just coined and of which I am incredibly proud) for this page.

127: I sense that we are about to get to the point . . . and I also know that I am always wrong when I sense that.

128: Oh.  I was wrong about being wrong.  And this is a delightfully concise summary of the matter.

129: A nice bit of advice to the polyamorous among us.

130: We have stayed on topic for a record of 4 verses!

131: Aaaaaaaand it's gone.  

132: I don't recall this Name before, and it stands out from the others: وَكيلًا rendered as agent, trustee, or dispoer of affairs.  This is somehow more comforting to imagine than the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-righteous names.

133: Wouldn't it be a kick if mankind was not, in fact, the first try.

134: more familiar Divine Names here, no doubt gearing up for a warning or admonishment.

135: I love this verse, and there's no ambiguity among the translations either.

136: Unlike this verse, in which Hulusi finds room to reinsert his emphasis on the mystical nature of the letter ب.  There does indeed seem to be some room for interpretation here, and the Book mentioned in other places, ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ, is clearly different than the book mentioned here, كُتُبِهِۦ.  I may be predisposed to think that ب bears some mystical power, though.

137-139: Fairly straightforward, and mirrors can be found in other religious texts.

140: Hulusi may go too far here, extracting a reference to "mirror neurons" from this verse.  It damages his credibility, in fact, and gives him the air of an uninformed youtube video.

141-146: Continuing the admonition starting in 137, this may be this longest passage that remains on one topic so far.  One wonders exactly what situation arose to cause such emphasis.

147: I am growing unimpressed with the structure of this book.  Isolated verses such as this seem utterly meaningless.

148-149: Even verses such as these, with a clear and relevant message, lose some of their power due to the "Oh, BTW" algorithm.  It is irresistible to take verses out of context when there is no context.

150-152: These verses present a bit of a dilemma for they who would take them literally.  All Rasul must be believed, including Moses, Abraham, and Jesus, without distinction or exception.  This certainly undermines the idea of the Prohpet's hegemony.  Hulusi's approach finds the happy middle ground here.  There is no such thing as duality, after all.  One must see all aspects of the Divine to truly approach it and, one might suppose, even those Rasul who come after.

153-155: A hilarious and valid reading of the Hebrews' actions at Sinai, muddies only slightly by more pronoun fuzziness.  All four versions render this "We", but it seems that it could easily be "I", and the translators are likely erring on the side of reverence.

156-158: I was prepared for this respect of Jesus, but did not expect to find Mary similarly exalted in this book.  She is given rather more weight here and in Al-Imran than one would think.

159-161: It is interesting to think that the Mosaic Law was rather a punitive Law than a prescriptive one.

162: One is tempted to judge Hulusi harshly for inserting another paean to the letter بِ here, but he may just be on to something.  It does seem to pop up here and there, especially attached to the Divine Name, without being acknowledged in the other translations.

163-165: Rather a lengthy list of Rasuls.  One would scarcely think to give Aaron or Ishmael the same weight as Jesus or Abraham.  As for my part, I rather like the idea of adding Baháʼu'lláh and others to the list after the fact.  It is even more tempting to think who in more modern times we might add to the list.  

166: The divine name gets an extra بِ here again, but Hulusi forgoes mention of it in favor of his other obession, the equally compelling concept of HU.

167-169: A breather after all that metaphysical mystery, and a brief return to generic religious flavor text.

170: After which we get the third fascinating Sufi obsession: the Rabb.  If by the end of this project I have some working concept of بِ, HU, and Rabb, I will count this as time well spent. 

171: I would wager money that this verse alone has given rise to volumes of analysis and commentary. There's so much to unpack here.  The doctrinal points are clear enough, but the role of Mary in all of this, along with Hulusi's decision to insert HU again, slowed me down considerably.  This latter, unlike the other two Sufi mysteries, seems to have little linguistic root.

172-174: Winding down a bit.  Will there be a twist ending?

176: The only surprise is a sudden return to the topic.  There are those who say the the Quran is remarkably progressive in its treatment of women, and there are points to be made in that regard.  this summary makes it clear though:  women are important! Just not as important as men.

An-Nisa

It is surely vanity that I enjoy the holiness of my own letter B this much.  I do not, however, entirely endorse Hulusi's interjection of it here.

1: If this verse is to be any indication, along with the epigraph, Hulusi is growing more comfortable intersting Sufi interpretation in the text--and not always with appropriate denotation.  Which is not to say that his ideas cannot be found in this excellent verse.  Merely that, as in all literature, explication can weaken the message and detract from the joy.

2-3: Hilarious and revealing that Women are given the epithet اليَتامىٰ (orphans) here, and there is no dispute among three translators that it is indeed the correct rendering.

4: Not entirely clear what fiscal policies were in place.  We in the West think of a dowry as a gift to the wife's parents, not to herself.

5-6: Are we not then referring to marriage, but to actual orphans, or to a man's sisters after their parents' death?

7: This is no doubt one of the verses people have in mind when they refer to the Quran's relative liberality toward women.  All things are relative, after all, and this is at least better than what Moses would grant.

8,9: Perhaps a corollary of the so-called "Golden Rule", flawless in its reasoning and appeal to compassion and fellow feeling

10: . . . but followed up, of course, with a more practical appeal to fear and loathing.

11: Again, liberal and feminist . . . by comparison. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the dubious math of this portion gave rise to plenty of conflict across the centuries.  The last part of this verse is the most interesting to me, though.  What a lot of conflict this could have prevented if common in the West!

12: I am extremely curious to know how many rich Muslim women there are in the world.  If this law were executed faithfully, there should be quite a lot. 

13,14: . . . of course every edict has to be thus punctuated.  

15: Again, extremely liberal by contemporary standards.  Not only are double the witnesses required by the Hebrew god necessary, but the punishment is relatively lenient.

16: A rare moment where Hulusi's liberty with the text takes him backward.  He translates this verse as saying "two men," but all other translations, and the dictionary, agree that وَاللَّذانِ is "any two people".

17, 18: Oh, another lovely distinction.  Repentance here is not some easy out.  It is much more specific, and the type of silliness we see in Christianism is specifically prohibited.

19, 20: I wonder if there was any resistance to this proscription at the time it was given.  We need only take a look at the fragile masculinity on display today to infer how easily it would have been to perceive it as an assault on the patriarchy, and trigger male defensiveness.

21-26: It would be easy, blinded by the relative liberality toward women and respect of their rights, to lose sight of some key facts:

• "You" in this book means "Men."  Women are the objects of this discourse, not the subjects.
• Marriage is still treated as an exchange of goods and services, and this transactionality only reinforces the objectification.
• No mention is made of women's right of refusal, insofar as goods cannot decline to be purchased.

Nonetheless, it is even more striking than I expected how much leverage women are given.  How on earth is it justified, then, to deny women rights on such a level as is seen in modern Islamic countries?  Where did the leap from "Treat women justly or burn forever" to "Who said you could drive, bitch?" happen?

27-28: or, "Misery loves company".

29-30: An interesting equivalence between wealth and life.

31: Rather a more reasonable and charitable demand than that of the Christian god.

32: This verse seems to contradict itself.  At first it makes the reasonable suggestion not to covet, for all things come from Allah.  This is based on the assumption that Allah gives unequally, however.  The following assertion that all get what they earn loses its way.

33: Seemingly a non sequitir.  If patterns hold true, this will be revisited in a few verses.

34-35: And here is the answer to the seeming contradiction in verse 32.  When it exhorts the reader not to covet another's position, it really means "Don't feel bad because your husband beats you.  You deserved it."

36-42: It had been a while since we got a warning against duality, but here it is.  Hulusi's nuanced interpretation makes the connection between unity and generosity rather easier to follow than other more literal renderings.  It also highlights the real problem with arrogance: it is rooted in duality.

40: Ok, this really seems like a bud that will bear fruit later.  All three renderings give لَدُنهُ as "Himself" or some variation thereof.  The dictionary meaning, however, is "elastic" or even "spandex" in one dictionary.  Furthermore, none of the possible translation given in the reverse, from the English "himself", are anywhere close.  I need to keep an eye out for this in the future, because it could be marvelously revealing.

43-45: I have come to instinctively assume the Prophet means "Jews'n'Christians" Whenever he uses this expression.  Interesting that Hulusi does not make his usual choice of leaving the Names untranslated when it comes to نَصيرًا, especially notable because his rendering emphasizes the وَكَفىٰ in the same verse.  Hulusi doesn't even bother to include the former in his comprehensive introduction, as he does with the latter.  

46: Yes, of course.  As predicted above.

47: Hulusi's explanation of these creative curse is as good as any, I suppose, but it does not seem to capture the essence of it.

46-57 This lengthy diatribe seems completely unrelated to the rest of the book.  The generous explanation is that An-Nisa, and even the whole of the Quran, is really about one thing, namely "one thing", and everything is to be read on some level as an invective against duality.  A less generous reading might be "The Prophet let his anger run away with him."

58: "Trusts" here seems to be used in a way other than "credibility", but neither the three renderings I am referencing, nor the dictionary itself is any help in parsing it.

59-60: Taghut appears again, and my fuzziness on the concept is palliated by complete disagreement between the three renderings. If a figure other than of speech, a fascinating one.

61-70 And another lengthy diatribe against "Jews'n'Christians".  It might be fruitful to keep track of these digressions.

69: I'm suddenly quite curious about the distinction between الرَّسولَ and النَّبِيّينَ. One would be tempted to say that the former was Muhammad, and the latter lesser prophets, if the latter were not pluralized earlier in 64.

71-77: And now a call to war! This book has gone right off the rails of its original topic.

78: This is pretty sound reasoning, and gets to the crux of the matter: there is basically one message in the Quran, and it is very simple and very difficult.

 79: Hulusi keeps adding things to make his point, but they are not in the text.  It seems that he most often does it to emphasize his pet mystic concept: the various powers of the Names in our own selves.

Speaking of which:

Running list of the Names referred to (started late, so possibly incomplete): 

Rahim: merciful

Aleem: all-knowing

Aliy: exalted

Kabir: great

Habir: all-aware

Afuw: all-excusing

Ghafur: all forgiving

Waliyy:  ally

Aziz: mighty

Hakim: wise

Sami: all-hearing

Basir: all-seeing

Tawwab: clement

Muqeet: watchful

Hasib: reckoner

80: none of which are to be confused with the Rasul, who is somehow both the topic and the addressee of this verse.

81: And neither does Wakil here seem to have the same weight as the above names.  

82: I will say that there do not seem to be the same inconsistencies in this text as in others of its class--no doubt due to its relative recency and singular purported authorship.  this is not to say, however, that it does not occassionally speak out of both sides of its mouth.

83: And we are back here to the curious question of the addressee.  Based both on plurality and content here, The Rasul does not seem to be addressed directly.  These shifts are disorienting, but may hold a key to some larger perspective.

84: A nice verse, and one I'm tempted to frame in my familiar paradigm of process v. product.

85: The line between a divine name and a simple descriptor is blurry. Capitalization of Muqeet here in one version, and transliteration in another, seems to argue for the former.  Simple lower-case translation in another version argues for the latter.  

86: And the same here with Hasib.  I do like this sentiment, though I can't imagine many humans being able to bring themselves to do it.

87: The suffix هُ here is given special treatment in Hulusi's rendering.  It makes me terribly curious about the semantic content of it.  It doesn't seem to have any innately.  I need to be on the lookout for incidences of the Divine Name without it, or it as a suffix in other contexts.

88: The idea of divine misdirection , here and in other similar texts *coughthebiblecough* is wildly grating to me.  Is belief a matter of divine selection, or of choice?  It seems to be a terribly important distinction, and this is not the first time this text has fallen on what I consider to be the unsustainable side of it.

89: If they have been led astray by divine will, then how would it be possible for them to reverse course in this way? The dichotomy has the aroma of convenient selectivity about it.

90: Another surprisingly progressive sentiment, and one that seems ignored by modern Islam.

91: This verse, on the other hand, has a fascinating blank space in the middle.  Those whom readers are given sanction to kill with impunity are those who have given into temptation, but the three texts I'm referencing here are at odds with regard to the nature of that temptation, and each sees fit to insert a non-textual explanation: polytheism, disbelief or hostility variously.

92-93: The idea of a hostile believer is somewhat prescient here.  At the time this book was written, which seems to be rather later than its placement in the canon would indicate, were cracks already beginning to appear among the followers of Islam?  Or is this a reference to their perpetual foes the Meccans?

94: A return to the ideas of v.90, with the same skeptical eyebrow from this reader.

Ali-Imran II

I'm ready to level an accusation of false advertising against this book.  The title promises new stories about the family of Mary, but so far only verses 35-50 have had anything to do with that.  As much as I am enjoying exploring the theme of "submission", it is not what I was hoping for, and I'm ready to look for my stories in the Talmud instead.

103: The sin of sectarianism is the same as the sin of polytheism.  Division into Jew and Christian and Muslim is no more a commision of this sin than division in Sunni and Shia.  It is from the edge of this pit that true understanding of the Divine saves us.

104-105: A command that is easier said than done, as it requires direct rebellion against powerful human tendencies.  Indeed, the formation and maintenance of such a community is itself the challenge, rather than the enforcement of "good" and "bad".

106-107: Indeed, the darkest of visages is that which has seen the Divine reality, and chosen the easier path in spite.

108-109: It is against the nature of the Divine reality to ackowledge either harm or division.

110: Its would be easy to observe that the same accusation levelled against Jews and Christians here could be applied to Muslims today.

111-112: The metaphor of a rope in the original بِحَبلٍ is killed by translation to "covenant" or "asylum" in some translations.  Hulusi wisely leaves it literal, here and in v103.

113-115: Hulusi's metaphysical approach leaves the idea of "the last day", here and elsewhere, so far unaccounted for.  The liberties he takes in translating it are rather without merit.  The idea of a final reckoning is very clear and pronounced throught this book, and his refusal to acknolwedge it is glaring.

116-117: This metaphor is a bit arbritrary, and does not seem to illustrate what it is meant to illustrate.  The frosty wind is not a result of people's own action, and its destruction of their crops does not seem to be a suitable symbol for a harm one brings upon oneself.  And it belies the statement "Allah has not wronged them" which it is meant to reinforce.

118: Certainly incompatible with the frequent reminders that there is no East or West nor any other such thing as division in the Divine reality (most recently in v109).

119: But the above seeming contradiction can be understood in terms of not drawing to oneself the idea of division.  For here it is observed that the natural inclination of the who understand the Divine to act ecumenically is not a reciprocal one.

120: A pessimistic and xenophobic view of humanity that Schopenhauer would have endorsed.  Which does not make it wrong; only depressing.  One interesting note is the use of مُحيطٌ to invoke knowledge of something.  The way in which Allah knows something is different than the way in which we know it: reality is not something external to Him, and is known as one knows one's own body.

121: The battle referred to here is that on the slopes of Uhud (or so it is believed), and it is no doubt relevant to the verse that the prophet was injured here as a result of his soldiers' lack of fortitude.

122: It's curious that this battle is not framed as a loss, and that Allah is still called the وَلِيُّهُما of the guilty soldiers.  One would almost be tempted to call this disingenuous.

123: The battle mentioned here was more clearly decided in the prophet's favor.  Perhaps the intent is to contrast the result when one follows the divine path (as at Badr) with that when one gives in to temptation (as at Uhud).  At any rate, Hulusi's rendering of تَشكُرونَ as "be of the evaluators" is opaque and inscrutable.  I much prefer the translations "be grateful" or "give thanks" in other versions.

124-125: The addition of المَلائِكَةِ here is a fascinating one, and open to rather a lot of linguistic parsing.  In what way are these angels marked?  The meaning is left so unclear that, one might as well consider Hulusi's position that they are such in the sense that they have names, and are in fact aspects of the Divine name.

126-127: . . . which leads him to take the more extreme liberty of identifying them as parts of the individual essence, to the extent that it reflects the divine--a point decidedly not in the text.

128: Perhaps there were those who wondered why Allah did not destroy the enemy entirely.  The simple explanation, that this was merely a military victory and not a miracle, is far too pedestrian for the prophet and his believers.

129: An uncommonly clear and relevant transition from the explanation above, and the warning below--

130: To Allah belong all your assets, as surely as do the lives of  your enemies.  To lust after wealth is to question Allah.

131-132: Standard issue religiosity.

133: Hulusi's approach to the identity of this رَبِّكُم is as fruitful as ever, perhaps the most fruitful line of thinking in his commentary so far.  It's decidedly a modern concept to be concerned with forgiveness of oneself, from one's own divine nature, rather than frogiveness granted externally and arbitrarily from a divinity that we can only partially comprehend.

134: One of the best verses so far.  The first of these three virtues has been emphasized throughout, but the addition of the latter two is natural, and enriches the understanding of exactly what "submission" looks like in praactice.

135-139: More verses that could just as easily have come from another religious text, and accordingly less interesting than those like 134 that seem unique to this book.

140: To the extent that Ecclesiastes 1:9 could be slipped in here without anyone noticing.

141-142: Sounds like the hunger games.  I guess there's not room in heaven for everyone.

143: Be careful what you wish for?

144: This seems somewhat out of sync with the way the prophet is viewed among belivers today.  Rather unexpected of him to be so self-effacing however.

145: A point that Islam gets better than most other religions, as far as I have experienced.  Certainly the sentiment of keeping your eyes on spiritual things is present in the Bible, but I have yet to find a denomination of Christianity that practices it.

146-148: The backdrop of the battle at Uhud linders over this verse.  No doubt the believers were in need of bolstering at that point.

149-150: Nothing remarkable here; nothing but vanilla religious invective.

151: This is, so far, the main offering of the Quran in my eyes: the emphasis on the unity of reality, and the proscription against thoughts of duality and separation.  Naturally, Hulusi's liberties take it even farther from Tawhid to pantheism.

152-153: Seems like those responsible for the defeat at Uhud are getting off rather lightly here, considering the cost.  Very politic of the prophet.

154:  A concept plenty apparent in other religious texts as well, but lgoically unsustainable: the bad things that befall you, including your own weakness, are sent from above as a test.  But what need has the divine for a test?  Surely all things have unfolded as they will unfold in the eyes of reality.

155: More absolution for those who selfishly escaped with their lives.

156: This is rather a surprising doubling down on the above absolution, at once very politic and very zen.  From one perspective, it's very sensible of the prophet to reassure his living followers that they will be remembered honorably.  From another, it's not calculated at all, but consistent with previous admonitions to mind one's own business, and submit to the divine--even if that divinity has put fear in your heart.

157-158: But one wonders why quite so much ink is spent on it.

159: This admonition, which seems to be directed at the writer, not at the reader, removessome suspicion of calculation.

160: And the reader is merely left with a bit of foreboding.  Those who Allah leaves have no hope.  But were we not just told that those who ran from battle did so because Allah allowed fear to enter them?  If this is the case, what is to prevent us from simply assuming that all our baser tendencies are His plan, and surrendering to them?

161-163: Difficult not to see some inconsistency here in the original text, and one can see why the Sufi approach is so attractive.  If one wishes to take the book as divinely inspired and flawless, then the Sufi reading is the only one that effectively deals with these inconsistencies.

164: There is an evident pattern of inserting generic verses like this one into the middle of a discourse, one which in a western dialectic would be seen as unfocused and illogical.  But once one surrenders to the pattern, it becomes clear that these are interjections, and the effect is rather one of giving the reader a break from didacticism.

165: After which interjections, the topic is returned to exactly where it was lain.

166-168: And this seems to be the moral: not that the dead were at the mercy of their natures, and chould be remembered honorably, but rather that their actions have nothing whatsoever to do with our own.  To sum up, mind your own business.

169-174: Though it never hurts to end with a little panegyric. 

175: The logical extenstion of this verse is that be careful, not who you worship, but who you fear.  Be afraid, be very afraid.

176-177: More admonition to "mind your own business".  I just wish it was more consistent with the overall theme of the book.  Difficult to reconcile "don't worry about the unbelievers" with "KILL THEM ALL".

178: Presumably rhetorical here, and not literal theology.

179: In contrast to this verse, which is making a very clear statement of theology: you can't hope to know the divine mysteries, unless Allah chooses you as a prophet/apostle/messenger/rasul (depending on which translation you prefer). So just do as we say.

180: In light of the previous verse, it is tempting to take the stinginess mentioned here as refusal to share divine truth. Although I suspect tht we are about to see a more material application.

181-184: Well, I was wrong.  This is pretty clearly a condemnation of the Jews' hoarding of spiritual resources, not material ones, though the two have some overlap here.

185: A lovely verse, partly in its clarity, but mostly in its universality: the dismissal of this life as "delusion" fits nicely into the sentiment of all religions, but also upon a deeper look into the the metaphysical branches of those religions: Sufi, Kabbalah, and the Dao.

186: A warning is added to the usual caution against dualism (a mistaken belief in separation).  The sin of "those who were given the book before you" is also, in its own way, one of separation, however; it is vertical face of dualism: pride, superiority, and dominance.

187-189: As made clear here: their mistake is in trying vainly to keep the divine truth for themselves.

190: . . . when the idea of separation into us and them is completely alien to the divine reality.  Such separation is no more possible than the ascription to the divine of duality.

191: It is a shame that the element of fear has to be introduced.  Surely it's a practical matter, and one common to all religions.  And it's just as common for the metaphysical sides of those religions to discard it.

192-195: It's an equally universal rhetorical tool to double down on the stick, and then proffer the carrot.  Almost textbook abusive behavior.  Surely there is a thesis to be written about the overlap between the behavior of abusers, and the behavior ascribed to the divine in world religions.

196-200: The explications added by Hulusi here are almost unnecesary.  The truth is there in these verses for all to see: mind your business, especially the business of your Rabb.  This applies without embellishment to material, religious, and metaphysical matters alike.

But I'm still bitter that we have had nothing of the advertised story of Imran since basically verse 59.