I’ve been wanting to discuss this for a long time but every time I wanted to, I would always forget.
As you all know, the Quran contains verses that describe Jews as pigs and apes. Many so called Islamic scholars have used them to justify their pathetic arguments which claim that Jews are descendants of apes and monkeys. Moreover it’s the negative interpretations of those same verses that are also one of the reasons for the widespread anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Indeed they’re very controversial.
Many Muslims have misunderstood those verses thanks to ignorant interpretations by some so called Islamic scholars. Many others also have no idea they even exist because they’ve either never touched a Quran in their lifetimes or never read one properly.
Let me put this thing to rest (although I realize some of you will never let it rest). Long ago my father explained those verses to me. In order to understand them you need to have a good idea about adverbs in the Arabic language. The words pigs and apes aren’t literal. They’re a mere description. Moreover they don’t refer to all Jews in all times. They only refer to a group that disobeyed God and committed blasphemy. As a result God described them by equating their qualities to apes and pigs. Did I already mention they don’t refer to all Jews?
Let me provide you with an example to help you understand what I’m trying to say. In Arabic we sometimes use the names of animals to describe peoples’ qualities. If a man is brave, we describe him by saying “he is like a lion” but if he’s really really brave, we say “he is a lion”. In this case saying “he is a lion” doesn’t literally mean that this man is a lion. It’s just a way of describing his extraordinary bravery.
Someone who blogged about this and discussed it in an even better way is Ali Eteraz. He’s an American Pakistani Muslim and his blog is fast becoming one of my favourites. Check out what he has to say.
it meant that the people being referred to had expressed the qualities of an “ape” and the qualities of a “pig.” Given the fact that in classical Arabic an ape was someone impulsive and a pig was someone stubborn
UPDATE: I must admit that a great many Muslims view and sadly interpret those verses in a literal way. This post might seem out of touch with reality and naive to some of you but that’s how I sincerely view the meaning of the verses. Extremist and literal interpretations must be shed. They’re wrong and racist. The reform is going to be long and excrutiating but I’m hopefull.
DirtyMuslimBlgr
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Hehehehehe….
Lots of discussing going on over there as well. I suppose one understands it as one wants to understand it.
Gottago now
check if I can de-flea my partner, LOL…
Tse.
“I suppose one understands it as one wants to understand it.”
Hoho yeah. You defintely got that right.
The problem of interpretation..
I, for one, readily accept that Jews (like all humans) are the evolutionary decendants of apes, and not that far off from pigs either.
Thank you for your well-written and rational post. It would be ideal if people could accept differences between people without the prejudice and hatred. Thank you for promoting this perspective.
Hey Drima, welcome to your new home
I understand what you’re saying here, but your post does not explain just what the words ‘ape’ or ‘pig’ mean when used adjectivally. Whatever the intention was, though, I doubt it was flattery.
My second point, though, brings me to a question you asked me on a previous post (on which I was flamed), regarding belief in god. It seems to me, and I say this with all due respect by the way, that a god, aware of the nature of humanity and its foibles, would have been extra, extra careful, in writing its text (or dictating it), not to include statements that were in any way open to interpretation. This strikes me as being particularly the case in Islam, which seems to acknowledge (at least in tradition) that god’s message had been corrupted, possibly twice before. So what’s the solution? To write yet another book? And still to couch it in terms that require interpretation?
This is, respectfully, where religion and I agree to disagree. I cannot accept the concept of a god that needs to write a book (and then correct it, twice) in order to get his message across. If he created the universe, then the message should be obvious in the very existence of the universe. It shouldn’t require a book.
Because when you have a book, apart from anything else, you get people saying things like “look! It says apes and pigs! Let’s go and kill them all!” … and I think that any god should be smarter than to leave herself open to something like that.
“it meant that the people being referred to had expressed the qualities of an “ape” and the qualities of a “pig.” Given the fact that in classical Arabic an ape was someone impulsive and a pig was someone stubborn”
The above is from Ali’s post.
NC, I’ve had many discussions about religion with my atheist friends. I’m not offended by what you said in anyway and I respect your views.
Religion like different ideologies have produced some of the worst and most blood thirsty people in history but yet some of the best and most humane. Ghandhi, Sudanese Mahmoud Mahammad Taha, mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama are all examples of the kind people who did and promoted good things for humanity in the name of religion.
Like Tse said: “I suppose one understands it as one wants to understand it.”
The idea of God and religion to me like many other people I know, Muslim and non-Muslim alike is (as naive as it may sound) one promoting peace, love and tolerance. That’s the way I was raised and how I was taught things. My mom and dad are my role models and if it wasn’t for them I might have turned out very differently.
A debate wouldn’t do any good because at the end of the day we’ll still believe what we believe. I do however thank you, for our past discussions have indeed been very enlightening. You helped me and continue to help me understand a perspective I know very little about. Atheism might not be weird afterall.
Peace my Israeli sister =)
Bible interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. It takes a lot of spinning to make the OT’s God consistent and rational. Man wrote every bible out there, and many bibles have been translated over and over by man again.
No offense, but your interpretation may or may not be what was really meant in the first place. What it means to you and hopefully most Muslims today is the reality….to you at least.
If Palestinian children are being taught that the Koran says Jews are swine, then it is a reality for those children.
The New Testament has numerous interpretations, which help you to understand why there are so many Christian sects.
Drima,
I’m pleased you weren’t offended - I wasn’t trying to offend you. Nor did I intend to enter into a debate. You had merely asked my opinion at one stage, and this seemed like a good place to let you know what it is. I certainly respect your views. Apart from anything else, belief is a very individual thing.
Just a point of correction - I’m your Israeli brother, not your Israeli sister …
Peace to you too, my Sudanese brother
Atheist Jew,
“The New Testament has numerous interpretations, which help you to understand why there are so many Christian sects.”
I guess the same can be said about Muslims today. You’ve got the terrorist types and my type, and then you’ve got the confused types too.
NC, damn! I thought you were a chick this whole time LOL. My bad.
Alright then so I guess it’s peace to you Israeli (brother)
There is a difference that although every religion has their complete nutbars who interpret their holy book, Christians, Jews and Buddhists don’t have any sects that interpret the books to allow for the odd head chopping or blowing up of an innocent like the Muslims have.
The Christians used to, but that is another story.
The problem for this interpretation of the Quran is that it is contradicted by Mohammad’s own words. He wasnt metaphorical when he abused the Jews of Khaybar for example using similar words.I admire the spin but spin is not truth.
This reminds me of the statement:
“it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”
It seems that certain Central American politicians are using this passage to condone the killing and robbing of wealtheir people to redestribute wealth. I argue that this is a misinterpretation.
Besides the literal interpretation, a Christian friend of mine explained to me that the “eye of a needle” was refering to a certain landmark at the city gate. The idea was that it was impossible for a burdened (loaded with trade goods stacked up high) camel to enter the city gate (literally a small opening in the wall), while an unburdened one could walk right through. So in her interpretation, the rich man can enter heaven as well, but must lay down his possessions before entering.
I thought it was eloquent. But that’s just me being some godless Buddhist. =p
Leave a Comment