Unveiling Qur’anic Misinterpretations: Sabbath, Origins & Truth

I have already documented the widespread and deliberate phenomenon of polemic mistranslations of the Qur’an, which were clearly created to both demonize the Jewish People and to bury the Jewish Origins of the Historical Muhammad’s movement. Many of my earlier academic articles are available online regarding such topics as the Ka`bah as a Jewish Sukkah and the original calendar and fasts of Muhammad’s community being lunisolar and shared with the Jewish People as a whole.

These are only a handful of examples, as anyone familiar with my research over the past decades can attest. More recently, since the Hamas Pogrom of October 7th, I have decided to address these topics with a little more intentionality. The purpose in doing this has been to demonstrate that the ideas of terrorist organizations and fringe death cults — denounced by legitimate Muslim `ulema –  have been misappropriating the name of the Historical Muhammad and the words of the Qur’an. In doing so, though this is merely a small spark, it is intended to ignite a light that might shine on these concealed historical matters, from a fire that I sincerely pray will burn up the theological “paper tigers” of the extremists who associate their antisemitism, racism and terror with the word “Islam.”

To date, important examples of such works might serve as good sources of preliminary reading, before delving into the article at hand. If one is so inclined, however, to begin with this work, then it is my hope and suggestion, that they follow up by examining preceding works, such as The Qur’an Commands Jews to Keep the Torah and Follow Judaism; The Zionist Qur’an Condemns All Who Oppose Jewish Return to the Land of Israel; The Racist Reason Why Translators Hide the Quran’s Warnings to Arabs; as well as the chapter “Polemic Translations of ‘Those Who Turn’ as ‘’Jews’” in my first master’s thesis People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”.

As well, on the topic at hand, we have a convergence of both the aforementioned theme and that of reincarnation. These topics overlap in that reincarnation itself is – perhaps surprisingly to the outsider – a normative Jewish belief. For this reason, it should further be advised to the reader, that they familiarize themselves with the subject, by reading the preceding articles: “Resurrection” As Reincarnation in the Qur’an and Buddha as the “Ruler of Kapila” (Zhul Kifl) in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an Affirms the Sabbath is Obligatory for the Jewish People and No One Else

Throughout the Qur’an, the Shabbat or “Sabbath” (Arabic: Sabt), is referenced as a Commandment the Jewish People were ordered in the Torah to observe. Time and time again, the Qur’an makes it clear that Jews violating Shabbat is haraam. This is so much the case that in a thrice-retold claim, the Qur’an says that long ago there were Sabbath-breakers who violated the Shabbat not merely to have a cookout on a Saturday afternoon, but instead to engage in business while their neighbors had closed shop for the day. Because of this, they were not only harming the businesses of those Sabbath-observing Jewish neighbors, but also discouraging those neighbors from observing the Mitzvah of Shabbat and encouraging other Jews to do business with them when they should not be. For this, the Qur’an says Allah turned them into “disgraced apes” — qiradatan khasiyin (قِرَدَةً خَـٰسِـِٔينَ). As well, the Qur’an says another time that it was not just apes, but apes and swine, al-qiradat wa-l-khanaazira (ٱلْقِرَدَةَ وَٱلْخَنَازِيرَ)ِ.

Historically, the vast majority of `ulema have promoted the idea that this transformation was a physical metamorphosis. Still, a small minority of Muslim theologians and scholars rightly stated that this was intended to be understood metaphorically.

Indeed, if literal, then the shift from apes to apes and swine, clearly would show an inconsistency in the oration. But if understood as poetic license, the same way people might call a snitch a “rat” — then there is no contradiction here. For instance, imagine a thousand years from now an archivist or archeologist finds a copy of HBO’s The Sopranos or any number of other Italian mafia films, shows and the like. They fire up the video and hear that someone “turned out to be a rat all along!”

Should they take this to mean that — all along — the mobster was not a human being at all, but in fact a common New York subway rat who dawned clothing and a cigar and pretended to be a human?

As silly as this sounds, this is the sort of ridiculous overly-literal exegesis believed by the vast majority of the Muslim world throughout the past 1,400 years, in order to justify a confirmation bias against the Jews of Arabia who simply did not get on board with the Caliphate coercion to convert or pay a hefty jizya tax for not doing so.

Before we examine just how utterly ridiculous such an interpretation of the Qur’anic phrase is, let’s look how the sanctity with which the Qur’an looks at the Qur’an and how extreme it says Sabbath-breakers are punished.

“And We raised over them the Mountain for their Covenant; and We said to them, ‘Enter the Gate in Prostration (سُجَّدًا),’ and We said to them, ‘Do not violate the Sabbath,’ and We took from them a Solemn Covenant” (4:154).

وَرَفَعْنَا فَوْقَهُمُ ٱلطُّورَ بِمِيثَٰقِهِمْ وَقُلْنَا لَهُمُ ٱدْخُلُوا۟ ٱلْبَابَ سُجَّدًا وَقُلْنَا لَهُمْ لَا تَعْدُوا۟ فِى ٱلسَّبْتِ وَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُم مِّيثَٰقًا غَلِيظًا

Almost humorously, translations of the Qur’an often put in brackets a comment to the effect of this Holy Mountain being raised over the Children of Israel because of breaking the covenant. As you might expect by now, if you have been reading my articles on such translatory fabrications and antisemitic biases, the text of the Qur’an says no such thing in Arabic.

It must be remembered that this is a Qur’anic reference to the acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. This very midrash was already laid down in the Talmud — only recently at the time of this oration. The Qur’an is thus orating what one might call “cutting-edge” Talmudic commentary and midrash.

The Oral Torah, much of it written down in the Talmud in the centuries immediately preceding the oration of the Qur’an, tells us that on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan, the Children of Israel assembled at the foot of Mount Sinai. It was not for nearly another thousand years, however — at the events commemorated in the holiday of Purim — that the Brit or “Covenant” with the Children of Israel was finalized. The Torah teaches that prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, the Children of Israel “stood beneath the mountain” (Sh’mot/Exodus 19:17). The Talmud teaches that this means “Ha’Shem held the Mountain over them like a jar and said to them: If you accept the Torah, fine; if not, here shall be your grave.”

While this is often glossed over in non-Jewish translations, the Sages of the Talmud and the Qur’an itself both pay particular midrashic attention to the description of this event. The Talmud teaches that this is because the contract between Ha’Shem and Israel was contestable in validity since it was made under duress (Shabbat 88a) . Thus, it was not until the events of Purim, that our acceptance of the Torah was established without any compulsion. The Megillat Esther thus tells us that at this time we “established and accepted” as clear, incontestable, clearly and legally-binding, – that which our ancestors had accepted a millennium earlier at Mount Sinai (9:27).

The text, of course, does not suggest that the Children of Israel were threatened in order to accept the Torah, but instead that our death was imminent during the Exodus and it was only through accepting the Brit of the Torah that the B’rakhah Divine Protective Blessing bestowed upon those who accept it, was given. It was from this B’rakhah alone that we beat the odds and changed our trajectory.

Think of this like a person falling off a cliff and a skydiver says “here, take this parachute or you will die!”

Is this compulsion? Technically, one could make an argument that it is — if the One offering the salvation is Themself the Source of even Gravity itself! This is the sort of semantical argumentation that makes up the backbone of Talmud discourse and debate. The “nit-picking” and “loop-hole” finding was there to foster critical thinking amongst the Jewish People. As a result, the Jewish People have not only spread the Torah throughout the world through those offshoots we have influenced and pollinated, we have also spread jurisprudential reasoning, and given rise to the legal system as we know it today — in what is so often termed “the free world.”

Remarkably, the Qur’an knows about this Midrash, even while most of the Jewish world did not yet have a copy of the Talmud in hand. Far from being an “illiterate” unsupervised orphan from the sand dunes of the Hjiaz, running around the shuk like Disney’s caricaturesque Aladdin in his formative years, it is clear that the Historical Muhammad was well read and educated in the Jewish scriptures by figures such as his in-law, the Sabian Diaspora “Essene” Waraqah and and the monastic nazir Bahirah – another interrelated and fascinating topic which will be treated in more detail separately.

In Surat An-Nahl, the Qur’an is clear that the Sabbath is only obligatory for those who accepted this Covenant – that is, the Children of Israel, of the line of Abraham. Indeed, when non-Jews asked Muhammad about the Sabbath, he said that it was created only for those of an Abrahamic lineage — not for Noachide “Muslimin” of all the nations of the world.

The Sabbath was Commanded only for those of the background of Abraham. And surely your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment regarding their background. (16:124)

إِنَّمَا جُعِلَ ٱلسَّبْتُ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ فِيهِ ۚ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَيَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ فِيمَا كَانُوا۟ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ

In another often-mistranslated passage about the Sabbath, polemicists interpolate their own assumptions further. While Ashab can mean Companions — the plural of Sahib — it is well-known and widely-used to call someone who is seen as a “Master” of something the “Sahib” thereof. For example, within Shi`ism, the Twelfth Imam is regarded as the Sahib az-Zaman, the “Master of the Age.”

In fact, in Colonial India, the Hindustani term Sahib (صاحب/साहिब) was used as a title of respect (or submissiveness) to European Colonizers.

We can thus logically surmise that since the Sabbath is not a being, the term Ashab here cannot refer to “companions” but instead to those who presume themselves to be “Masters” of the Sabbath — who get to rewrite the Mitzvot or Commandments related thereto, based upon their own desires.

O you who were given the Bible! Believe in what We have revealed — confirming your own Scriptures — before We wipe out faces, turning them backwards, or We condemn the defiant as We did to [those who imagined themselves to be] the Masters of the Sabbath (أَصْحَـٰبَ ٱلسَّبْتِ, Ashab as-Sabt). For Allah’s Commandment is always to be carried out! (4:47)

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ ءَامِنُوا۟ بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقًۭا لِّمَا مَعَكُم مِّن قَبْلِ أَن نَّطْمِسَ وُجُوهًۭا فَنَرُدَّهَا عَلَىٰٓ أَدْبَارِهَآ أَوْ نَلْعَنَهُمْ كَمَا لَعَنَّآ أَصْحَـٰبَ ٱلسَّبْتِ ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ ٱللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا

We see from the outset of the ayah that what has been revealed here is said to be “confirm” the Bible, musaddiqana llima maeakum (مُصَدِّقًۭا لِّمَا مَعَكُم), not contradict it. This would make no sense if the revelation at hand was in fact saying that those who obey the Commandment of the Sabbath are cursed.

Instead, what these ayat are all referring to is a story relayed amongst the community the Qur’an is being orated to, regarding those who did not keep the laws of Shabbat, and instead used their working on Shabbat as a chance to gain an upper-hand on their business competition and tempt the Jewish People of Jerusalem into violating the Shabbat.

Ask them of the town that was by the Sea, how they broke the Sabbath, how their fish came unto them upon the Sabbath day and they did not come when it was not the Sabbath. Thus, We cursed them for they were Divisive Ones (يَفْسُقُون). (7:163)

وَسْـَٔلْهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْقَرْيَةِ ٱلَّتِى كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ ٱلْبَحْرِ إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِى ٱلسَّبْتِ إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًۭا وَيَوْمَ لَا يَسْبِتُونَ ۙ لَا تَأْتِيهِمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَبْلُوهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَفْسُقُون

These and these alone are those Sabbath-breakers said to be turned into, or reincarnated not only as apes and swine but also servants of Taghut Oppressors. Since it is impossible for them to have instantly turned into servants of the Oppressor, it is clear that the Qur’an is suggesting that they became these things later — in the future.

Bearing in mind the preceding articles in this series on reincarnation references throughout the Qur’an, and the Qur’an’s attestation of Buddha as a prophet, it seems to be the simplest “Ockham’s Razor “explanation that this ayah is simply referring to reincarnation. Indeed, reincarnation is central to the Buddha’s Dhammapada. Thus, if we establish that the Qur’an regards him as a prophet — as we have seen already — then one must logically conclude that the Qur’an shares the same views on reincarnation as the Dhammapada. 

This need not be imagined as the sort of hocus pocus transformation as one might imagine of a “Fairy God-Mother” in stories like Cinderella. Such imagined magic shows like this only seem to arise exegetically when one ignores or tries to explain away the Qur’anic literary rooting in the soil of Kabbalistic belief in Gigul Ha’Neshamah — reincarnation. 

Seven Layers of the Qur’an

Much as it is said in Kabbalah regarding the Torah, the Ahl al-Bayt of Muhammad’s family taught that there were seven layers of exegetical tafsir to the Qur’an. This is, of course, simply derivative of Hillel’s “Seven Middot Rules of Interpretation” (Tosafot Sanhedrin 7).. Nevertheless, in reference to the Qur’anic “midrash“, it was said by them that after Muhammad, only `Ali ibn Abi Talib and his progeny knew these tafaasir. 

Whether one takes this perspective as their own or not, it is clear that there are many passages of the Qur’an which are in fact allegorical, others that are literal, and others still which are literal, but not in a superficial way.

A good example of the latter would be the subject of the work at hand: the infamous “Apes and Swine” passages (2:65; 5:60 and 7:163).

Surat al-Baqarah references this first, in the suwar ordering of the Uthmanic Vulgate.

“You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath (Sabt). We said to them, ‘Become apes – lost and disgraced!’ (2:65)

وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱعْتَدَوْا۟ مِنكُمْ فِى ٱلسَّبْتِ فَقُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا۟ قِرَدَةً خَـٰسِـِٔينَ

Muslim tradition holds that the last ayat of the Qur’an to be orated were in fact from this Surah — which itself was said to have been completed over the course of a decade. We thus see the ayah in question references the Ummah of Muhammad already having been told this story, which otherwise is strangely presumed to be absent from Jewish discourse or Midrashic accounts. Indeed, it is not absent whatsoever, but it is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand to point the reader to the Biblical reference for this story, as it will undoubtedly raise more questions than a simple citation or answer like “Tyre, Lebanon” could possibly answer without an in depth discussion. As such, this topic and the identities of these “Divisive Ones,” will be addressed in a future work.

We read a hadith attributed to the famous muhaddath narrator, Ibn Abbas that Muhammad said, “Some people from this Ummah of mine will spend the night eating, drinking, and partying, and by the morning they will have transformed into apes and swine.”[1]

Thus, it would seem clear that the use of this allusion to being turned into “apes and swine” was widely-known to be poetic and allegorical in nature. No one in the Muslim Ummah today, nor since this hadith was first set to pen, has suggested it means “partying” will literally transform one’s body into that of an ape or swine. With that in mind, why would we treat the passages of the Qur’an, employing the same imagery, in a different manner?

We find chronologically earlier Qur’anic orations, later in the Uthmanic text in hand today. In Surat al-Ma’idah, we read the following:

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah? It is those who earned Allah’s condemnation and displeasure — some being reduced to apes and swine and servants of the Taghut Oppressors (عَبَدَ ٱلطَّـٰغُوتَ). These are far worse in rank and farther astray from the Right Way.” (5:60)

قُلْ هَلْ أُنَبِّئُكُم بِشَرٍّۢ مِّن ذَٰلِكَ مَثُوبَةً عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ۚ مَن لَّعَنَهُ ٱللَّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ ٱلْقِرَدَةَ وَٱلْخَنَازِيرَ وَعَبَدَ ٱلطَّـٰغُوتَ ۚ أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ شَرٌّۭ مَّكَانًۭا وَأَضَلُّ عَن سَوَآءِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ

Here we find a curious statement: these Sabbath-breakers were not merely turned into apes and swine, but also in some cases `ibad at-Taaghut – servants of the oppressors. How would this come to pass? Allah said — as we see in all of these references — “be” such things, and they became them? But was this some sort of instant, physical transformation?

What does this mean then, that an oppressor instantly appeared and enslaved the individual? Or could this more logically refer to rebirth within the context of oppression or even in a non-human incarnation?

The latter interpretation certainly seems the most logical, yet it has never been entertained by any known tafsir to date. Why is that, when it is the most obvious explanation and when this explanation would also account for why there had been no previous Midrash on the matter? That is to say, how would there be a Midrash of rabbis telling you of the the reincarnations of Sabbath-breakers?

Certainly, this could be the case, but we do not see that degree of hubris amongst the Sages of the Talmud, for instance. They do not suppose themselves to have such knowledge and thus such claims are not present in Rabbinic discourses. But the Qur’an claims to be orated by Divine Angelic forces, and thus, such knowledge would be expected by the listener.

The term employed this ayah for their metamorphosis is ja`el (جعل), meaning that they were simply “made” as such beings. It does not say that they were transformed, for instance, such as we see with the term musikhu (مُسِخُوا), in the aforementioned hadith attributed in transmission through Ibn Abbas.

Thus, we have Surat al-Baqarah saying Allah caused them to “become” apes, and Surat al-Ma’idah saying they were “made” these things – apes, swine and servants of oppressors. No where, in fact, does the Qur’an say that they were “transformed” or shape-shifted into such things. This is a product of the imagination of the Ummah and the ingrained anti-Judaism and antisemitism[3] therein.

Humans are often asserted to be transformed into pigs or threatened with it too like in Sahih Bukhari (69, Hadith 494) In Musnad al-Bazzar (5953), we even read that if you do not believe in Destiny or Fate — Al-Qadar – then you will be turned into an non-human animals like apes and pigs. This, of course, is a fairly odd hadith, as it implies that it was thus always one’s Fate to be turned into such a non-human, as this belief was always your Destiny.

This sort of language seems to be fairly common, not only in the Qur’an but in the later Hadith literature. We even see in the Qur’an, reference to those entrusted with the observing the Torah but failing to do so, becoming a donkey that carries books (62:5).

The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah but failed to do so, is that of a donkey carrying books. How evil is the example of those who reject Allah’s signs! For Allah does not Guide (يَهْدِى, Yahdi) the Raised Wrong-Doers (ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ, Al-Qawm Azh-Zhalimin).

Here we see the term Al-Qawm — the same root as Al-Qiyyamah, or “Resurrection,” which has already been established as a reference to reincarnation. So to describe the people who Allah does not Guide (this here being the same root as Yahudi, or “Jew”), the Qur’an says “Raised” Al-Qawm, Wrong-Doers (Azh-Zhalimin).

In other words, the Qur’an is — with mastery of the language — speaking in layered puns. It is cleverly saying that those who fail to keep the Torah will be resurrected in a new incarnation as Wrong-Doers — without the Jewish or Yahudi Guidance — “Yahdi” of Allah’s Torah.

The Qur’an says in Surat al-Baqarah that those who are metaphorically, spiritually “deaf, dumb and blind” (صُمٌّۢ بُكْمٌ عُمْىٌۭ) will “not return” (لَا يَرْجِعُونَ). The Qur’an is clearly not suggesting that people like Helen Keller (1880 – 1968) radical Christian Marxist, anti-racist author (who rejected her plantation-owning father’s legacy) and disability activist — without physical hearing or vision — will be barred from this “return”. Instead, we know that it is speaking metaphorically, just as in reference to a donkey carrying books. That is to say, reincarnation or “return” of a people “raised up” as “wrong-doers” who abrogate the Torah when they had been given it, is analogous to a donkey laden with books. Just as no one has taken this to mean a physical metamorphosis into a donkey carrying a heavy bibliothecal burden.

The Doctrine of Raj`a or “Return” of Certain Prophets

The Shi`i doctrine of the Raj`a (رَجْع) or “Return” of many biologically dead prophets and members of Muhammad’s family, from the past, and in the then future age of “Yom al-Qiyammah” is widely seen within secular academia as clear evidence for early doctrinal beliefs in reincarnation within the Islam of Muhammad’s closest family members and their inner circles.

Within the Muslim Ummah today, and for centuries past, the Raj`a has been associated with the term ghuluw – commonly translated as “extremism” — and ghulat (extremists, usually associated with the Shi`ah partisans of Muhammad’s family.

The term essentially  denotes certain doctrines classed as exceeding the bounds of mainstream, Caliphate-approved Islam.

There are a multitude of interpretations and movements within Shi`i Islam and a full survey of them – or even a brief overview – is beyond the scope of this particular discussion. The ghuluww/non- ghuluww paradigm was never static or fixed and this distinction has been a primarily retrospective one. As such, this can by nature only be a superficial gloss, over-generalization and simplification for the sake of readers not already familiar with the term and concept.

In hindsight, it is easy to see and define views as ghuluw and individuals and groups as ghulat. In the formative decades following the passing of the Historical Muhammad, it is unlikely that those now regarded as such were seen even as being of distinguished and defined sects. Thus, this concept that was far from neatly defined as latter-day heresiographers – particularly within mainstream Sunnism and Ithna `Ashari “Twelver” Shi`ism of the Modern dominant Usulism.

Indeed, within Isma`ili Shi`ism, this doctrine is still more notable, and within the Druze offshoot, it is fundamental. Because of persecution of those who openly adhered to ideas of reincarnation under the rule and oppression of the Caliphate, it it became necessary for the partisans or “shi`ah” of the Ahl al-Bayt to conceal their controversial beliefs. The doctrine of Raj`ah was one such case.

The word “raj’a”, while commonly used today in Shi`i Islam to indicate the “return” of the Twelfth Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt, in the Ithna `Ashari line, does not refer simply to individuals doctrinally believed to not have died (waqf).

In fact, within the hadith attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt, from generation to generation, the term is used to indicate the return of prophetic figures from Abraham to Ishma`el to David and thus `Isa,[4] to even Muhammad and some of his descendants like Hussein ibn `Ali, who was murdered and mutilated – decapitated – by the Caliphate which terrorized the Ahl al-Bayt first and foremost, before all others. Clearly, the return of a decapitated man is not going to be the same sort of return as the Shi`ite expected return of the Twelfth Imam, who they believe to be alive and in ghaybat al-kubrah – major occultation.

Interestingly, we see the Qur’an employ the term Raj`a for “Return” — or lack thereof — of those who reject the Torah after having incarnated as Jews. The Qur’an, continuing with what seems to be an extremely hardline Orthodox Jewish stance, says la yarji`un (لَا يَرْجِعُونَ) — they will not return — perhaps to a Jewish incarnation (most notably, 2:18; 7:174; 32:21; 36;31; 36:50 et al.).

Indeed, within a Kabbalistic context, there is a common view that those who do not keep the Torah as Jews will reincarnate in gilgul ha’neshamah, as non-Jews of the Nations or “Goyyim” — but that this may in fact call them to return to Yahadut and the Torah if they truly have a Jewish Neshamah (Arabic: Nasamah).

Once again, we perhaps surprisingly find the Qur’an stating patently orthodox Jewish views, yet the Muslim Ummah has traditionally taken those passages and interpreted them through their own anti-Jewish spectacles and antisemitic[3] bias.

Deliberate Mistranslations to Conceal Islamic Origins

As with so much of the Qur’an — as I have already demonstrated in the articles and text mentioned from the outset of this article – there is not a single critical passage of the Qur’an that is rendered honestly by any existing English translation I have encountered. Ayah 57 is not only no exception, it is a perfect example.

We read in common translations something to the effect of one not taking “friends” or “guardianship” of those who received the Book or “Bible” before them, nor from disbelievers. But that is not what the ayah says at all.

O you who have Iman, [you who Believe and have Certitude]! Those who make a mockery and make fun of your Iman, from amongst those who received the Bible — Al-Kitab – already before you [and do not take it seriously themselves] and those who know the truth of the Bible but conceal it — the kuffar — should not be taken as Awliya’ [whether] from those [lax in their religion] given the Scripture before you and those who conceal, who have made your faith a mockery and amusement. And be mindful of Allah if you are Mu’minin. (5:57)

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَتَّخِذُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًۭا وَلَعِبًۭا مِّنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَٱلْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَآءَ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

There was clearly no translation of the Bible into the Arabic language at the time of the Qur’an’s first oration. This is for the simple fact that there is in fact no evidence of Arabic as a formal written language at this time, but instead as a regional Hijazi dialect of Aramaic.

Aramaic, of course, was never just one homogenous language, but instead had numerous regional variations. Without question, a deeper exploration of this topic is a must for one to gain true understanding of the topic at hand. As with so many intertwined topics, particular where critical reconstruction of religious history and origins are at work, to interrupt the topic at hand with a full exploration and “deep-dive” into this matter, would take us far away from the continuity of the argument here. For that reason, this linguistic issue of Arabic Origins, must be “dog-eared” and held off for another time.

Returning to the point, the first known evidence for an Arabic Bible would date to the end of the 8th century CE, with a fragment of Tehillim/Psalm 78 (Septuagint 77) from the Qubbet el-Khazneh. This repository located in the courtyard of the Umayyad Masjid in Damascus, Syria is taken from a Greek text of the Septuagint, together with the corresponding Arabic translation in Greek script – specifically verses 20-31 and 51-61.

This in no way indicates there was no Biblical literacy in Arabic speaking regions before then. Instead, this is the natural result of the fact that this region simply was not Arabic-speaking before the Colonial expansion of the Caliphate Empire into the Levant. As such, the then Aramaic-speaking (and writing) Christians — fluent in Syriac Aramaic — would have naturally begun translating the Bible into the newly-codified language which was gaining popularity with the establishment of the Islamicate Empire.

The oldest known translation of a Biblical, albeit apocryphal, text is Sinai Arabic 155, belonging to the 9th century CE, containing the Arabic version of the Wisdom of Yeshua` ben Sirach — Yasua` ibn Sirah — as well as the Pauline Epistles of the Christian Testament. The content thus demonstrates to us that the earliest Arabic translations of Biblical material emanates from the Catholic Church and the Apocrypha. The purpose of the translation was thus not likely organic in linguistic nature, but instead to translate what they saw the most doctrinally essentially for missionary purposes. The fact that there is no record of similar missionary translations into Arabic prior to this shows us in fact just how new Arabic codification and cementing was. Without question, the Catholic Church would have been quick to translate the Bible as they held it, into any regionally extant language.

Prior to that, all evidence indicates that the earliest forms of the Qur’an not only were written in a Kufic “Arabic” — that is “Arabian” — script, but that this script quickly adopted the distinguishing dots of the Persian Prophet Mani’s particular, personal and unique form of Syriac Aramaic. This should naturally be another point where the reader stops and asks themselves “why haven’t I heard about any of this before?”

The tragic answer is: because the religious establishment profits off of your ignorance.

Returning the previous ayah, we must thus realize that when the Qur’an speaks of those who received “The Bible” or “Al-Kitab” before the listeners, it is speaking to new converts to a Biblical tradition — whether Jewish or Noachide-Muslim. These two designations, like those of Mani’s community, represent two tiers of adherence (see People of the Book for a full treatment of this idea).

“Swine” Who Do Not Keep the Torah

Many in the West are familiar with the passage from the Gospel narrative that one should not “caste their pearls amongst swine.” This is, within those accounts, a direct reference and response to non-Jewish, would-be students of the Gospel literary protagonist. The statement is clear: non-Jews are being described as “swine” for not keeping the Torah and its Mitzvot.

While the story itself popularly — and again, wrongly — assumed to have been unattested Biblically or Midrashically, the use of “swine” figuratively to refer to Jews who abandon Judaism, continued to be used, even into the Modern Era. In Spanish, a marrano was a Jew or Moor in Al-Andalus, who publicly professed conversion to Christianity while in many cases privately continuing in the practices and beliefs of their Judaism. Thus, far from being antisemitic[2] polemic, the Qur’an makes it clear that those who betray the Torah, Judaism and Jewry are “swine.”

“Ask them about the town that was by the sea; when they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: when their fish came to them openly on the Sabbath day, and did not come to them on the day they had no Sabbath. Thus, We made a trial of them, for they used to rebel” (7:163)

وَسْئَلْهُمْ عَنِ الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِى كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ الْبَحْرِ إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِى السَّبْتِ إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًا وَيَوْمَ لاَ يَسْبِتُونَ لاَ تَأْتِيهِمْ كَذَلِكَ نَبْلُوهُم بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ

If one believes this story to be true in any sense, and imagines the tafsir of transformation to be correct, then we are left with the question of “how” exactly Allah transformed these willful Sabbath-breaking apostates (kafirin) from Judaism? No where does the text say that their existing material bodies were shape-shifted into those of another species.

It may indeed be strange to the rational-minded reader, but this assumption absolutely prevails in the Muslim Ummah to this day. Contrary to popular ijma or consensus, however, ijma does not in fact indicate correctness (three hundred year old fabricated hadith speaking to the contrary, notwithstanding). The Qur’an says repeatedly that the majority are like unto cattle — even further astray (7:179) — and will lead you astray if you follow the proverbial herd (6:116).

With this borne in mind, the intellectual Muslim would do good to remember that the Ahl al-Bayt of Muhammad’s family said that Al-`Aql — Reason — was the first of all creation, and that through it, all things were created in the material world.[4]

Again, just as Surat al-Ma’idah (5:60) tells us that these would be people transformed into base animals, it also tells us that they were transformed in some cases into servants of the Taghut Oppressors. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that this passage meant something other than an abracadabra shapeshifting. Instead, it speaks of the idea of rebirth, just as these examples logically argue on their own.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated throughout several articles now, the Qur’an is intimately concerned with reincarnation or Gilgul Ha’Neshamah. For that reason, it would seem that the Qur’anic story about the merchants being turned into apes and swine, was allegorically referring to the following incarnation of said Sabbath-breakers. There will be more on this topic in the next article I present for your edification.

Needless to say, whether this passage or any other, the Qur’an is speaking within a context and milieu that is specifically Jewish and Kabbalistic. As such, a Kabbalistic tafsir on Qur’an Surat Al Imran 3:185, related to the life, death, the Spirit World (Barzakh), and rebirth:

“Every ego-consciousness (nafs) will taste death. And you will only receive your full reward on Yom Al-Qiyamah, the Day of Resurrection [when your higher soul, your neshamah (Hebrew: נשמה) or nasamah (Arabic: نسمة) spirit returns to life in the physical world, after having previously died]. Whoever is spared from the Fire [in the realm of the Barzakh barrier “Spirit World” of Yetzirah] and is admitted into the Garden (Jannah) will indeed triumph, whereas the life of the Dunya [physical world of matter] is no more than the delusion of enjoyment.”

كُلُّ نَفْسٍۢ ذَآئِقَةُ ٱلْمَوْتِ ۗ وَإِنَّمَا تُوَفَّوْنَ أُجُورَكُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ ۖ فَمَن زُحْزِحَ عَنِ ٱلنَّارِ وَأُدْخِلَ ٱلْجَنَّةَ فَقَدْ فَازَ ۗ وَمَا ٱلْحَيَوٰةُ ٱلدُّنْيَآ إِلَّا مَتَـٰعُ ٱلْغُرُورِ

Thus, the Qur’an teaches, as Muhammad is reported as having explained in Hadith, that we must “die before death (موتوا قبل ان تموتوا, mutu qabla an tamutu), and prepare for the Inevitable by destroying the illusion of the ego-self, the nefesh, the nafs. This is the Greatest Jihad al-Akbar, the Jihad an-Nafs (Jahada-n-Nafsa).

As the Great Chassid, as Rabbeinu Bachya called him, Muhammad said: “People are asleep and when they die, they awaken” (ٱلناس نائم فإذا مات إنتبهوا, an-Nas niyam fa-idha matu intabahu). As well, “in reality,” the Sufi mystic Ibn `Arabi said, “the entire physical existence of the Prophet [Muhammad] passed thus, as a dream in a dream.” He added, “know that you are Imagination, and all that you perceive and about which you say ‘that’s not me,’ is Imagination. So the whole of Existence is Imagination within Imagination.”

As the Qur’an says on this matter: “Tell them: ‘The death from which you flee will certainly overtake you. Then you will be returned to HU Which is COMPLETELY AWARE of the Unseen World (الۡغَيۡبِ, Al-Ghayb) and what is Witnessed [with the physical senses] (الشَّهَادَةِ, Ash-Shahadah). Thereupon HU will let you know ALL that you used to DO and all of your WORKS [in all your incarnations].”

قُلۡ اِنَّ الۡمَوۡتَ الَّذِىۡ تَفِرُّوۡنَ مِنۡهُ فَاِنَّهٗ مُلٰقِيۡكُمۡ​ ثُمَّ تُرَدُّوۡنَ اِلٰى عٰلِمِ الۡغَيۡبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ فَيُنَبِّئُكُمۡ بِمَا كُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ

I thus present these truths for your edification and critical reasoning, in order to hone your mind, strengthen your consciousness and argue in the best of ways (Qur’an, Surah an-Nahl 16:125). So that contextual historical sitz im leben and sitz im Ummah can lead us all — whether Muslim, Jew or anyone else — have a better understanding of what the original intentions of the Qur’anic text itself were and how they have been bastardized by those vainly in the pursuit of what they wrongly perceive as power, empire and wealth.

Footnotes:

[1] Source: Al-Mu`jam al-Saghir lil-Ṭabarani 168; Grade: Hasan li ghayrihi (fair due to external evidence) according to Al-Albani:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيَبِيتَنَّ قَوْمٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى طَعَامٍ وَشَرَابٍ وَلَهْوٍ وَيُصْبِحُوا قَدْ مُسِخُوا قِرَدَةً وَخَنَازِيرَ

168 المعجم الصغير للطبراني

1604 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن لشواهده في السلسلة الصحيحة

[2] See my article entitled Does ‘Antisemitic’ Refer to Hatred of ALL Semitic Peoples… or Just Jews? TL;DR: No. Just Jews. [3] A full Midrashic discussion of the cyclic Mashiach ben Yosef gilgulim and the final Mashiach ben David who is nothing more than whichever of the aforementioned ends up getting the proverbial “job” done – that being the final emancipation of the Jewish people from our enemies – is worthy of an in depth discussion at another time. It will be noted here, at minimum, that this is not only a Kabbalistic concept, but an Orthodox Talmudic one, and an idea found throughout various Dead Sea Scrolls, seemingly emanating from the recently-discovered Chazon Gavriel tablet, related to Shim`on ben Yosef (d. 4 BCE) [4] The term `Isa, unlike the Kristiyan term Yasua`, is a docetist term in the Qur’an for the Ruh or Spirit of the Messiah King of Israel. Accordingly, the Qur’an thus states “Cursed were those who concealed the truth amongst the Children of Israel – by the tongue of David and `Isa offspring of Maryam – this is because they transgressed the limits. (5:78)

لُعِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ مِنۢ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُۥدَ وَعِيسَى ٱبْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوا۟ وَّكَانُوا۟ يَعْتَدُونَ

The name itself is the cognate with `Oseh, not Yeshua`, the singular form of the Essenic self-designation `Osiyim Ha’Torah – “Doers of the Torah.” A detailed exegetical tafsir on this ayah alone could fill volumes. It suffices to note that Qur’anic pairings are significant across the board. David is paired with `Isa, and this is no coincidence, since Mashiach in Judaism – Mashiach ben David,[4] that is – is seen as the gilgul reincarnation of King David.

[4] This is found in the writings of Farabi, and his predecessors, including the founders of three leading philosophical schools such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Suhrawardi, Mullah Sadra, and Ibn al-Arabī. The concept of the First Intellect, as the first creation, is central to Ibn Sina’s philosophic prophecy. In his explanation of the ahadith on Al-`Aql, he says: ‘Al-`Aql is the first thing emanated from Allah, and the Prophet [Muhammad] had informed us of this Truth” (Ibn Sina, 1383 Sh, 11-13; idem, 1400H, p. 255). Hadith narrations to this effect are replete throughout Shi`ah sources attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt, and inaugurate the voluminous Usul Al-Kafi, to such an extent that it would be short-changing the read to even try to summarize them here.