Sura 2:65-69 - apes, the Sabbath, and the cow

[theplains]

Hello,

I had a few questions on this passage.

Verses 65-66 - "And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto
them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! And We made it an example to their own and to
succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God-fearing" (quranexplorer)

Were they really turned into apes or did they just appear to be apes? Does the Quran or
Hadiths record this type of punishment for Muslims who break the Sabbath? Or was
this a one time punishment?

Verses 67-69 - "They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what
(cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor
immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which ye are commanded.
They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is.
(Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a yellow cow ... the truth. So they
sacrificed her, though almost they did not" (quranexplorer)

Was Muhammad referring to other people? (because the Jews actually used a red heifer.
See Numbers chapter 19 in the Torah) Also, only the priests could sacrifice the red heifer.
The Quran seems to imply non-priests could sacrifice the heifer. Is that possible?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[ardianto]

Hello and greeting, theplain.

Surah Al-Baqarah 65-69 are about Children of Israel in Prophet Musa (Moses) time, not about Muslims. Sabbath is not a holy day in Islam.

Did those people really turned into apes?. Some of Muslim scholars said they did not really turn into apes, just they regarded like apes because they denied command and warning. But majority of Muslim scholars said they really turned into apes but lived only for three days because they could not eat and drink.

(source: Indonesian official Qur'an tafsir)

 

[Abu Loren]

Was Muhammad referring to other people? (because the Jews actually used a red heifer.
See Numbers chapter 19 in the Torah) Also, only the priests could sacrifice the red heifer.
The Quran seems to imply non-priests could sacrifice the heifer. Is that possible?

The Bible version of events cannot be trusted as most of the text are corrupt. Whatever is in the Holy Qur'an is the truth and we should go by that.

 

[theplains]

The Bible version of events cannot be trusted as most of the text are corrupt. Whatever is in the Holy Qur'an is the truth and we should go by that.

Thanks for your reply but it really didn't answer my question.

Peace,
Jim

 

[Abu Loren]

Thanks for your reply but it really didn't answer my question.

Of course I have. Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was not referring to any other people. The heifer was yellow.

 

[theplains]

Of course I have. Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was not referring to any other people. The heifer was yellow.

Hello,

You might have missed my question on the apes in the same thread.

"Were they really turned into apes or did they just appear to be apes? Does the Quran or
Hadiths record this type of punishment for Muslims who break the Sabbath? Or was
this a one time punishment?"

I saw that a previous poster mention that there are several Islamic views on this. I was
wondering which of those you held.

Peace,
Jim

 

[Ahmad H]

The Jews were not literally turned into apes. Apes is a metaphorical meaning.
Muslims do not observe Sabbath, since Friday is what the Muslims observe. Jews observe Sabbath, and every Jew and Muslim knows this. So the question does not apply.
The punishment itself is meant to be an illustration to Muslims to not do the same as the Jews did by breaking any of God's covenants.

As for the red heifer comment, that could be debated. The Torah has been changed, and every Jew and Christian I have ever spoken with knows this. The Qur'an is the only Book of God which is considered unchanged, though others dispute this. The Qur'an is a revelation from Allah, and it was written down right away, while the Bible does not remain in its original form. I would think the most recent revelation of God would be the most accurate account.
And non-priests are not necessarily indicated in the verses you quoted. Moses (as) was the Prophet of the Jews who brought the religion, what he commanded was from Allah, so there could be no dispute if he was telling the Jews what to do and they did it. Any laws which would seem to contradict this later on are definitely false, since the Qur'an is correct in any case.

I hope you are satisfied with these answers. Should you need elaboration, I will elaborate. Until then...

 

[Abu Loren]

Hello,

You might have missed my question on the apes in the same thread.

"Were they really turned into apes or did they just appear to be apes? Does the Quran or
Hadiths record this type of punishment for Muslims who break the Sabbath? Or was
this a one time punishment?"

I saw that a previous poster mention that there are several Islamic views on this. I was
wondering which of those you held.

Peace,
Jim

As per the following tasfir I agree with it that they were actually turned into apes. I can't think how else the people around them would have been 'taught a lesson'. If they were just made to look like apes and monekying around (pardon the pun) then that wouldn't deter the people now would it?
Allahu Alum!

تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn

{ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱعْتَدَواْ مِنْكُمْ فِي ٱلسَّبْتِ فَقُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُواْ قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ }

And verily (wa-la-qad: the lām is for oaths) you know that there were those among you who transgressed, violated, the Sabbath, by fishing, when We had forbidden you to do so — these were the inhabitants of Eilat — and We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised!’, rejected, and they became so: they died three days later.

altasifr.com
​

 

[Abu Loren]

The Jews were not literally turned into apes. Apes is a metaphorical meaning.

Where do you get that from? Please provide the source.

 

[Land.Of.Pure]

Verily she is a yellow cow ... the truth. So they
sacrificed her, though almost they did not" (quranexplorer)

Was Muhammad referring to other people? (because the Jews actually used a red heifer.

Many villagers even now used red\yellow alternately , IF , color is more like ORANGE...
Like orangish tinge of horizon is referred to as "Red" by some or as "Yellow"...

Also like someone said above, bible is altered... while about Quran non-muslims have researched & said it is original...



If u believe in Bible then u should also believe that it was fiddled with:-

JER 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
================================
DEUT 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
DEUT 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
DEUT 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
DEUT 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
DEUT 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.


IS 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Quran:2:79] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
[5:41] O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They(Jews) change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such - it is not God's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

[Quran:6:91]“No just estimate of God do they make when they say: "Nothing doth God send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "God (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.[92] And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book), and they are.[93] Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what God hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!"

 

[Ahmad H]

Where do you get that from? Please provide the source.

I used the tafsir of Muhammad Asad in my understanding of the verse. He explained using Ar-Razi's and Mujahid's explanation. I agree the most with Mujahid's view since he was very eminent in his collection of Tafsir. I would rather use his view than a scholar from later times. Mujahid's explanation on verse 2:65 is based on the understanding of verse 62:5, where the Jews are likened to donkeys. Mujahid explained that there was no actual transformation into monkeys, rather, it was a "mithal" just like how verse 62:5 says. I looked up the Arabic commentary on the altafsir website, and I checked the reference. Mujahid definitely says this under verse 2:65.

 

[Abu Loren]

I used the tafsir of Muhammad Asad in my understanding of the verse. He explained using Ar-Razi's and Mujahid's explanation. I agree the most with Mujahid's view since he was very eminent in his collection of Tafsir. I would rather use his view than a scholar from later times. Mujahid's explanation on verse 2:65 is based on the understanding of verse 62:5, where the Jews are likened to donkeys. Mujahid explained that there was no actual transformation into monkeys, rather, it was a "mithal" just like how verse 62:5 says. I looked up the Arabic commentary on the altafsir website, and I checked the reference. Mujahid definitely says this under verse 2:65.

In that case look at what verse 2:66 is saying.

Sahih International

And We made it a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded [them] and a lesson for those who fear Allah .

To be a deterrent surely those people would have to be physically turned into apes, right?

 

[Abu Loren]

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

And We made it, this punishment, an exemplary punishment, a lesson to dissuade others from doing what they did; for all the former times and for the latter, that is, for the people of that time or those that came later; and an admonition to such as who fear, God: these are singled out for mention here because they, in contrast to others, are the ones who benefit thereby.

 

[Ahmad H]

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

And We made it, this punishment, an exemplary punishment, a lesson to dissuade others from doing what they did; for all the former times and for the latter, that is, for the people of that time or those that came later; and an admonition to such as who fear, God: these are singled out for mention here because they, in contrast to others, are the ones who benefit thereby.

That may be what you think. But I am using the explanation of Mujahid, a scholar who is very renowned for his great understanding of the Holy Qur'an. Please don't take offence at this, but am I to take your understanding of the Holy Qur'an over his understanding? You would have to convince me of your understanding of this verse on transformations by at least using other verses of the Holy Qur'an. I don't like opinion-based thinking when it comes to the Holy Qur'an, as well as Ahadith.

Furthermore, the other Tafsirs, notwithstanding their literal explanations, mention that those people died after three days. If they died after three days as a result of their disobedience, then I would've found that a much better deterrence than seeing them transformed into apes. At least apes can climb trees and experience life differently. But does my view necessarily mean this is what the verse means? No.

And should this punishment have been a deterrence for later people, then the punishment would have to have made a much better effect such as showing suffering of those people who did wrong. If those Jews really were turned into monkeys, then this story would have been witnessed by one generation, and disbelieved in the next because they did not see this happen. To the next generation, it is just a tale - a mere legend. When do people turn into apes? At least with exemplary punishments of nations, you have some marks left from the past to stand as witness to their destruction. You've got nothing with people turning into apes. It is a very temporary sign in that case, and there is little benefit from it. Allah does know best in the end. However, I highly doubt your take on this verse because you cannot imagine an explanation besides the literal one. The Qur'an is not literal in all of it's verses. It requires knowledge of Arabic, history, and many other things before one can do tafsir. I cannot do tafsir. Thus, I rely on the scholars.

Again, if you have any other verses which corroborate your view in some way, then use them. But the example of verse 62:5 is sufficient to show that the explanation of this so-called literal transformation was really a "mithal" instead. think of this as well, why would the Holy Prophet (saw) say that when we kneel down for prostration a certain way we act like camels? When we spread out our arms in prostration we are like dogs? Or when we move quickly in prayers we seem like we're chickens pecking at the ground? These are similarities to animals in certain actions, but if we avoid those we act dignified. Thus, the use of apes here only means the Jews had traits as a result of their misbehavior like apes. As for those traits, I leave that for you to research on it.

 

[Abu Loren]

That may be what you think.

I gave you a tasfir from a scholar not my opinion.

But I am using the explanation of Mujahid, a scholar who is very renowned for his great understanding of the Holy Qur'an.

Not everybody has to use what you use.

Furthermore, the other Tafsirs, notwithstanding their literal explanations, mention that those people died after three days

Why would they die after three days if they were not turned into apes?

And should this punishment have been a deterrence for later people,

What punishment is that? Please explain.

The Qur'an is not literal in all of it's verses.

Agreed.

But the example of verse 62:5 is sufficient to show that the explanation of this so-called literal transformation was really a "mithal" instead.

Not really. The two are not related in any way except in your thinking.

Thus, the use of apes here only means the Jews had traits as a result of their misbehavior like apes. As for those traits, I leave that for you to research on it.

Your opinion.

Salaam

 

[Ahmad H]

As-salaam 'alaykum,

Yes, you used Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, and I used Mujahid. But, Mujahid's Tafsir is more eminent than the Tafsir of Jalalayn, since Mujahid is said to have studied under Hazrat Ali (ra), he lived in the generation right after the Companions of the Holy Prophet (saw) and he reviewed his Tafsir with Ibn Abbas around 30 times. So just because you used Jalalayn's tafsir, does not mean that everyone should agree with him.

You asked what I meant by "And should this punishment have been a deterrence for later people," I was referring to the punishment of the Jews being turned into apes. Why would I mention something else and divert the discussion?

As for my mentioning the "mithal" verse 2:65 is speaking of for the transformation into apes, and the similarity of it's use as mentioned in verse 62:5, that was not my own opinion, it was what Mujahid had stated in his tafsir. I am clarifying this because it was not my opinion, but I was referencing Mujahid's explanation. Mujahid said that: "They did not transform into monkeys, however it's like His statement: "like the donkey who carries books."" It is a rough translation, but this is what he stated under verse 2:65. I just wanted to clear up this confusion you had. I might have written it in an obscure manner for you.

I stated the facts to you, so it is up to you whether or not you agree with Mujahid. I believe Jalalayn may have meant "transform" metaphorically since Mujahid explained that the verse explains a likeness, not a literal transformation. Mujahid is way up there when it comes to Tafsir, considering his proximity in time to the revelation of the Qur'an, and his companionship with the eminent scholars of Islam. I think you should just give it a bit of consideration rather than outright reject it. it seems kind of wrong if you dismiss it because Jalalayn says what fits your own personal opinion.

Allah knows best in the end. Wassalaam.

 

[Abu Loren]

Are you Sunni or Shi'a?

 

[Ahmad H]

Are you Sunni or Shi'a?

I would rather not get into such a discussion as I do not see how this fits into our conversation. I need to know first why you are asking me this. I would rather stick to the topic if possible. not to sound rude, but if you go on a tangent, then another post will do fine.

 

[Abu Loren]

I would rather not get into such a discussion as I do not see how this fits into our conversation. I need to know first why you are asking me this. I would rather stick to the topic if possible. not to sound rude, but if you go on a tangent, then another post will do fine.

It matters a great deal as we would then know your point of view as they can differ. I don't know if you are aware but Shi'a are a deviant sect within Islam.

 

[Ahmad H]

It matters a great deal as we would then know your point of view as they can differ. I don't know if you are aware but Shi'a are a deviant sect within Islam.

It doesn't matter what I am. I presented facts to you. That's all. Whether I am part of one group or the other is not the concern of this discussion. I already told you my point of view, which was the facts i presented above. Either say you agree or disagree with them, or leave it altogether. And if you disagree, explain why you think so, since you obviously find whole groups wrong and cannot refute me individually. It is a very poor way of trying to discuss the issue here. I think you have no argument against what I said. So either accept, or reject it.

I will state it again, my view on verse 2:65 is based on what Mujahid said, nothing else. I accept his view over what is taken to be literally true in Tafsir Al-Jalalayn. I do not reject Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, I simply do not take his meaning on verse 2:65 as literal, because I accept Mujahid's view. Again, Mujahid is a very reliable scholar. I think if you are rejecting his viewpoint altogether, then that is very wrong, because him, 'Ata and 'Ikrima were the most reliable scholars from Mecca. By the way, you can read about him on the Sunnipath website and other early Tafsir scholars.