The Qur'an, The Instructive Guide

While reading The Qur’an, I find that the text brings certain significance to its instructional style of narrative from God, himself, to his chosen prophet, Muhammad. It is truly interesting in comparing to the book of Genesis with this text. The Qur’an clearly relates that this is a revelation from God in his own words to the Prophet to be a guide for its people. In Genesis, the text merely narrates a story of God’s interactions in the world with certain people. God claims, “the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for mankind, clear messages giving guidance and distinguishing between right and wrong” (Sura 2:85).  The words in the text illustrate the ways of being a righteous person and a devotional worshiper to God.  In Sura 24, the text clearly explains in many instructions on how to carry out God’s law, especially when concerning some situations such as dealing with adulterers, respecting authorities, and several others. With the instructive narrative, the text is a guide for its followers.

To disprove lots of opposition to these “new” revelations, the text communicates itself in the instructional manner to reveal its perfection, which links that it is must be directly from God. For people to follow such a doctrine, the text must appear and express itself as a valid revelation. Being a direct guide from God, should it not be consistent and wise in all its teachings? Possibly, when using the instructive style, it reveals the text as true because of its consistency in its reasoning and explanations of proper living. Even the text points out that these words have to be consistent, it states, “[i]f it had been from any one other than God, they would have found much inconsistency in it” (Sura 4:82). The text presents the instructional manner because it has to convey itself as clear and understandable for its believers to use it as a guide.

In The Qur’an, the text establishes another point of the Prophet receiving these revelations gradually and for others to understand that fact as well. God points out that “[w]e sent it in this way to strengthen your heart [Prophet]; [w]e gave it to you in gradual revelation” (Sura 25:51). Instructing someone gradually with new revelations allows for better comprehension and acceptance. The gradual revelations reinforce the instructional style of narrative because this makes the revealing of these new ideas more believable. Again, God says to the Prophet “[w]e Ourself have sent down this Qur’an to you [Prophet] in gradual revelation” (Sura 76:23). Slowly introducing these revelations through instruction allows those who read it understand that this is guide for how to live.

            I find that the text was written in such an instructive manner for the significance of it being believable as a revelation from God and comprehendible as a guide for the believers. 

Changes in the Percieved Hierarchy

The intimacy of Enoch’s relationship with God calls to question the hierarchy between humans and their creator that chapter 3 establishes.  Enoch “walked with God,” showing a level of equality between him and God, but we are not given enough insight into Enoch’s relationship with God to explore what has caused this (5:24).  Abraham is also described as walking with God, but in this case, it is noted that the pronoun in Hebrew literally means “before” (72) instead of “with”, which does not imply the same level of equality. Despite this difference, Abraham’s relationship with God also demonstrates a break in the perceived hierarchy as Abraham’s interactions with God show mutual consideration for each other.

At the beginning of chapter 17, God forms a “covenant” with Abraham, promising him land and an heir (17:2). The formation of the covenant creates an interesting dynamic between Abraham and God. While God holds a great amount of power, as shown by his ability to destroy several cities (19:24-26), he also has a responsibility to Abraham, resulting in a slight shift of power. Abraham is able to barter with God and convince him to spare the city if he can find ten innocent people there (18:24-33).  God’s acceptance of Abraham’s proposal shows an increased level of equality between them because he is willing to consider Abraham’s idea even though it is in opposition to his own. In addition, before destroying the cities, God wonders whether he should “conceal from Abraham what [he was] about to do” (18:18). God’s consideration of how his actions will affect Abraham shows a level of respect.

Both Abraham and God show devotion to the covenant by fulfilling their respective promises. The mutual consideration and respect established between them creates a more relatable and reliable image of God, in contrast to the God we are introduced to the first few chapters, who often appears to be acting out of self-interest.

God's Self-Promotion

During the creation story of Genesis I, it is repeatedly said that God’s actions are good. Following the creation of light, the seas, and the fruit bearing trees, God saw that “it was good,” (1:4). This repetition establishes a sense of God’s inherent goodness. However, as Genesis progresses, some of God’s decisions prompt questioning of His morality. Such unjust and arbitrary actions serve as God’s self-conscious reassurance of His divine omnipotence, contradictory to “the way of the Lord to do righteousness and justice,” (18:19).

Two commands in particular represent the injustice that God occasionally yields. Chronologically, the first incident is when He wishes to destroy the city of Sodom due to the outcries of the people. Abraham instantly notes the injustice in this action. “’Will you really wipe out the innocent with the guilty?’” he implores of his God (18:24). “’Far be it from You! Will not the Judge of all the earth do justice?’” (18:26). It is clear from Abraham’s desperate language that God’s wish seems terribly uncharacteristic of His good nature that he established in the first chapter. However, solely his reputation is not strong enough to appease Abraham’s doubt in the intentions of his actions. Abraham knowingly refutes God’s immoral intent to take the lives of innocent people. This proves that while God himself sets the standard of good and evil, he too is capable of making mistakes.

God’s next questionable act is when he demands Abraham to offer up his son as a “burnt offering,” (22:2). After his previous failed attempt to question God, Abraham blindly followed his orders, not taking note of this blatantly immoral request. The importance of his son’s life is made clear by the repetition of language concerning offspring, such as “seedling” and the way that God saves Hagar’s dying child in just the previous chapter. God’s request for Abraham’s son appears extremely contradictory to His established notion of good. God’s reasoning behind this command is not moral or pragmatic. Instead, He seeks additional self-assurance of his power. Just as Abraham is about to slaughter his child, God stops him. He commends Abraham, awarding him by announcing that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed through [Abraham’s] seed because [he] have listened to [God’s] voice,” (22:18). This displays his primary interest is that of insecure reassurance, not the promotion of good.

             Some of God’s actions throughout Genesis aren’t unjust, but instead seem to serve no purpose at all. In particular, God’s covenant with Abraham includes some strangely arbitrary conditions. In exchange for making Abram the “father to a multitude of nations,” God changes his name to Abraham (17:5). “And no longer shall your name be called Abram,” He commands, “but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you father to a multitude of nations,” (17:5). This directly displays his reasoning for the name swap. There is no logical function of the name Abraham, except that it reminds Abraham of God’s great power. This arbitrary wish, therefore, is out of self-promotion. The same goes for the way that he changes Abraham’s wife name, Sarai, to Sarah. And finally, to leave a mark on all of civilization, he demands the circumcision of all males of present and the future to come. This physical mark reminds humanity that God’s wish is their command, even if it is something as arbitrary as physical mutilation that receives no practical explanation. The fact that God is only concerned for the male population parallels the theme of male dominance throughout the rest of Genesis. God’s arbitrary nomenclature and insistence on circumcision both act as tools to remind humanity of His unyielding power. 

The Significance of Dust in Genesis

                Throughout Genesis, a common image has been dust. From story to story, it has served as a metaphor for the various conditions of existence; however, instead of signifying only one concept, it has stood for opposites. This symbolic elasticity suggests the reversibility of human circumstances under God’s will.

The first mention of dust appears in 3:14, when God condemns the serpent with the angry proclamation that “On your belly shall you go/and dust shall you eat all the days of your life.” Almost immediately afterwards, God humbles Adam by telling him that “…dust you are/and to dust shall you return” (3:19). From the start, the text associates dust with punishment and lowliness. Unlike soil (always associated with tilling and fruitfulness), dust signifies barrenness, making it a fitting metaphor for the banishment that Adam and Eve face once they have sinned. Because of their transgression, they have lost value in God’s eyes, and their lives will be much emptier.

                However, later on in Genesis, dust takes on new meaning. In 13:16, God tells Abram that “I will make your seed like the dust of the earth—could a man count the dust of the earth, so too, your seed might be counted.” Now, dust no longer stands for loss, degradation, or emptiness. Rather, it stands for abundance. In fact, God elevates it to the status of the stars by giving them identical metaphorical significance: “Look up to the heavens and count the stars, if you can count them…So shall be your seed” (15:5-6).

                Admittedly, God’s second dust metaphor merely identifies its copiousness. Nevertheless, how could something so lowly—dust, trampled on by every beast—be similar to something so lofty—the stars, part of the heavens themselves? This pairing of opposites seems to convey God’s attitude towards humans. Though they have reduced themselves to waste through their transgression, they can still turn their fruitless existence into one of plenty. Amid the desolation of dust, they can find the means to “multiply and fill the earth” (9:2).

                In this way, Genesis points out the dynamism of the human existence as permitted by God.

The Earth as We Know it

Something that I have been thinking about as I've been reading Robert Alter's Genesis translation, is that God gives all things on earth to humans for their use.

Genesis 1: 26 states "Let us make human in our image, by our likeness, to hold sway over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and the cattle and the wild beasts and all the crawling things that crawl upon the earth."

While this is seemingly insignificant as a sentence, it has enormous implications as to what many religious people must have thought (or still think). This idea could be interpreted to mean that, we as humans have a right to use the earth's life and resources in a way that pleases us, because God gave us these resources. While this interpretation may seem as a stretch, there is no place in Genesis where God explicitly commands humans not to kill other animals, or not destroy environments.

 Most people of Abrahamic religions living in the US hold the ideology that we need to coexist with the world around us, and that fish in the sea etc. are not infinitely abundant. One possible reason for this is because most people of Abrahamic religions living in the US do not read Genesis literally today.

However,  most churches during the times of early the early US did read Genesis literally. Upon their arrival, and push westward, they (obviously not everyone, but many people) cut down forests, slaughtered buffaloes, and took over Native American lands. This is not to say that Religion is to blame for these things, but that the settlers had a sense of entitlement, that may have originated from a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Authoritarian Power

In Genesis figures of authority use their power to protect their own interests.  The first time conflict appears in the hierarchy of creation is when Adam and Eve disobey God and eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  The serpent reveals to Eve that the reason God does not want her and Adam to eat from the tree is that when they do they “will become as gods knowing good and evil” (3:6).  This suggests that understanding the nature of what is good is a key source of God’s power, and one which he does not want to share.  God lies to the humans to attempt to protect this source of power, telling them that if they eat from the tree they will die. Not only do the humans not die, but afterward they eat from the tree God fears that Adam and Eve will “reach out and take as well from the Tree of Life and live forever” (3:22). This comment reveals two things: first, that Adam and Eve were not going to live forever before, and as such were going to die whether or not they ate from the tree of knowledge; and second, that eating from the tree of knowledge did not cause them to die as God said, and indeed increased their chances of gaining eternal life as their rebellion could have led them to eat from the Tree of Life. To prevent Adam and Eve from gaining power comparable to his own, God banishes them from the garden of Eden.
Another instance of authority acting in its own interests is when God prevents humans from building the tower in Babel. Once again, God involved himself in human affairs when he notices that they are gaining power comparable to his own. Noticing the progress the humans have made working together on the tower, God says, “As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, nothing they plot will elude them” (11:6). Fearful of the humans’ potential and wanting to keep the tower from penetrating heaven, God scatters the humans and destroys their common language. This act is clearly in his own interests and has nothing to do with judgments of good or evil, even from God’s own perspective.
God is not the only figure in Genesis to use power in his own interest. After the invention of wine Noah gets drunk and passes out in his tent. When his son Ham enters he “saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside” (9:22-23). Nakedness is a state of vulnerability, and as such is compromising for Noah, a figure of authority and the head of the household. Ham’s brothers listen to what he has to say and then “walked backward and covered their father’s nakedness, their faces turned backward so they did not see their father’s nakedness” (9:23). When he wakes up the next morning Noah punishes the Ham for recognizing his weakness, condemning Ham’s son Canaan to slavery in service of the sons who walked backwards to avoid facing their father’s vulnerability. Like the instances with God, Noah has no moral precedent for his action beyond the perpetuation of his own power.
Authorities in Genesis consistently use their position to perpetuate their power and repress those below them, without any moral precedent beyond their own self-interest.

On the Origin of Humankind's First Judgement

 The beginning of humankind's corruption is identified first and foremost by the fall of Adam and Eve.  Their blissful ignorance shattered by the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they hid from the Lord in fear of their nakedness "I heard your sound in the garden and I was afraid, for I was naked, and I hid"(Gen 3:10). For their transgressions the man and woman each receive a punishment of "pangs" in hand with banishment from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:16-17).  Humankind is thus derived from these two individuals as they obey God's command to be fruitful and multiply. What I find interesting is that, in a typical lifespan, an individual's child is typically removed from the influence of the older generation by their passing.  In Genesis Adam and Eve are alive for many generations and thus their descendants are yet removed from Humankind's first sinners.  While this doesn't imply that all of these descendants are consumed by Sin, the genealogy breaks its pattern to highlight Enoch's story.  "...he begot Enoch...And Enoch live sixty-five years and he begot methuselah.  And Enoch walked with God after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and he begot suns and daughters.  And Enoch walked with God and he was no more, for God took him." (Gen 5:19-24).  Here I believe it is suggested that Enoch in whatever manner stayed true to God despite his knowledge of good and evil.  For this, Enoch is "taken" by God which to me implies an admittance to the heavens (5: Gen 24).  If one individual of the descendants of Adam, of which multiplied greatly, was saved then the entirety of the population must have suffered from a distinct corruption from which Enoch separated himself.  I don't know whether this is due to the continued existence of Adam and Eve across enough generations to ensure their descendants proclivity for Sin or if it was just the natural progression of Original Sin.

Regardless only one other individual proves himself worthy in the eyes of God, Noah.  Noah was described as "blameless in his time" and that "he walked with God" (Gen 6: 9-10).  Whether by the same actions as Enoch or by a different path Noah proved himself to God in such a manner not only he but also his line would be saved from the coming flood.  Of all the individuals descended from Adam and Eve only two are mentioned to have escaped the corruption of humanity as described by God, "that the evil of the human creature was great on the earth and that every scheme of his heart's devising was only perpetually evil." (Gen 6: 5).  Noah is thus saved from the cleansing of the world because he had proved himself true to his god.  The purpose of such a genocide was to remove the influence of any one once exposed to Original sin whether it was by the sinners or the individuals who had lived along side them.  Now that the corruption has been purged, humankind is again free to "be fruitful and multiply"free of Adam and Eve's influence.