I originally drafted this post years ago but am only just publishing now because I think that the information may be useful.
It’s one of the most shocking verses in the Qur’an, the antisemitic statement that some Jews have been turned into pigs and monkeys by Allah. But does this parable really mean what it looks like it means on the surface? Has every possible angle been explored? And how far ranging is “some”? I could simply state that the majority of practicing Muslims in the communities that I know in the UK don’t make a habit of going around making abusive speech towards Jewish people (not that an argument from anecdote is sufficient), and I could say that some of the most widespread and general principles of Islam are to be welcoming and friendly to people, to offer good hospitality, to turn the other cheek with respect to others’ sins, and to avoid speaking ill of others. And those things are all true! But I also didn’t want to live with the idea that my glossing over the subject with generalized principles was deliberately ignoring the more prickly verses of the Qur’an in order to force the scripture to fit my western liberal ideas. So, I decided to read as much as I could on the topic, and this work is the result of that research. In a sense it’s a fruitless endeavour, since I have no wish to have my personal convictions overturned, but I saw a post on Facebook relating to a recent article in the Swedish press where the slur, “Offspring of apes and pigs”, was used at a protest in support of Palestinian rights and I thought, “Uh-oh! I know of a place where that could have come from.” There’s no suggestion in the article in the majority of the people saying it at this particular protest were Muslims, and hateful idea can quickly spread from one person to another within a group of people who get pleasure from being hateful, irrespective of whether a faith based rationale is present or not. A police investigation remains ongoing. Nonetheless, I became aware of the article via a Facebook group dedicated to cataloguing examples of antisemitism, and for this reason I felt that if I can do some action that might hopefully improve things, even if just one person reads this article, then I should (and also conditional on my investigations into the Islamic literature yielding something useful and my writing being measured and wise, inshallah).
Don’t be racist cunt by hating on Jews. No matter what interesting historical details you (or I both) might discover inside this article, in no way does this represent my personal endorsement of anyone being an antisemitic cunt. Just don’t do it.
A quick Google search shows that the Jews being descended from pigs and monkeys accusation is a widespread one, particularly in the Middle East. It’s also not a new phenomenon, but goes way back to the early period of Islam, since the 9th Century naturalist Al-Jahiz spoke rather flamboyantly about it (died 869CE).
In his 9th century treatise The Book of Animals, the greatest of these authors, Al-Jahiz mentions that it is generally thought that the cheetah, eel, white ant, mouse, and lizard were originally Jews. He mentions the tradition telling how a sage saw a man eating a lizard and said to him: “Know that you have eaten one of the sheikhs of the sons of Israel.” He does not mention why they were changed into animals, but does say that proof of this is that “the lizard’s foot resembles the human hand.”
The quote is from a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (second link). I discovered many interesting things in that report.
Okay… what a creepy weirdo. Although, as it happens, his false deductions about Jews notwithstanding, this guy did deduce the basics of the theory of evolution 1000 years before Darwin.
Also, the illustrations in this book in this book are quite nice, even though the dude was a massive antisemite. Perhaps he had an illustrator that wasn’t.
The Qur’an Verses in Question
Okay, so let’s get onto addressing the basic question. Does the Qur’an say that Jews are pigs and monkeys?
Sabbath Breaking 1
Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
And when we took your covenant and we raised above you the mountain, saying, “Hold fast to that which we have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become pious.”
Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the grace and mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers.
And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. We said to them, “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”
So we made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are pious.
Qur’an 2:62–66
The, “We”, here refers to God and His angels. The translation I’ve used is mostly the one by Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali from Darussalam publishers who are based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, so like it’s the official translation. Unfortunately, while the guys’ Arabic knowledge is wonderful, their unconventional use of English punctuation in a few places and their practice of shoving in copious amounts of their own explanations inside bracketed expressions when they should really be footnotes is a bit dodgy, so I’ve fixed both of those (by deleting most of the bracketed bits for present purposes).
There’s a few interesting things to note from this first passage.
Contrary to shitting on the Jews, the opening verse actually complements them. “Jews, Christians and Sabians”, anyone who believes in God, the final judgement (modern Jewish thinking is somewhat variable on this but the Orthodox perspective isn’t far away from the Islamic one, see Jewish Resurrection of the Dead and Is There A Jewish Afterlife?) and, “Does righteous good deeds”, then they shall, “Have their reward with their Lord”, and, “On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” So, believing and practising Jews are just as pious and worthy as practising Muslims and they shall be rewarded by God in just the same way, problem solved? Well, no. But nonetheless, in what follows let’s not lose sight of this very important point.
Argh, we spoke too soon! Then we get onto the matter of transgressing on the Sabbath and the concept that there’s some kind of punishment involved for doing so. When, who, how, if, and how many persons were involved in transgressing the Sabbath and what the nature of the punishment truly is we’ll come onto later, but for now it suffices to note that one is suggested by the Quranic text. Furthermore, it states that the punishment was, “An example to their own”. This proves that when the Jews broke the Sabbath only some of them were inflicted with the punishment (notice how I’m now switching to assume it was Jews and not the Christians) because those who did receive the punishment served as an example to warn the others that transgressions against God’s law have consequences. Furthermore still, the phrase, “To their own and to succeeding generations”, is used. Thus to punish a few people is sufficient to act as a deterrent for the others of that generation and all future generations. The alternative Sahih International translation writes clearer still, “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.” Thus, already we’ve moved from suggestion that Jews generally are pigs and monkeys to the reduced case where some people in one particular time period, in a single generation were punished for a wrongful deed. Can we find a more liberal interpretation still?
Mention is made of the giving of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, and then, “After that you turned away”, so possibly we’re talking sometime near to the time of God giving the Torah to Moses. We do know that there were Israelites who fell off of the proper path around that time, most famously the incident of the golden calf narrated in Exodus 32. The next verse continues, “And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath.” With regards to Biblical evidence for breaking the Sabbath around this time, there is a case mentioned in Exodus 16, where some people go out to look for food on the Sabbath when they have been told not to, though this is before the receiving of the full Torah and the swearing of the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 19), so at this point the Israelites only have a few instructions from Moses about a select group of things that are relevant to them in that early time period, but they still manage to break them. It’s a bit strange that as we progress forward from one Qur’an verse to another, to think that we might be travelling backwards in time so far as the events in the Bible are concerned. Then again, the Qur’an is not a linear narrative on the larger scale, so why should it not jump around on the smaller scale as well? The Bible doesn’t mention any grotesque punishment regarding people being changed into monkeys being metered out but nonetheless it clearly is a big deal because the Bible is at pains to say “Moses was angry with them” for not taking the Sabbath seriously, and Moses is normally a chilled out kind of guy I think. So this is one of the possibilities of when the Sabbath breaking might have occurred. The following Qur’an verse (2:67) doesn’t yield any further contextual clues because it jumps the story along to a different time period: “And remember when Moses said to his people: ‘Verily, Allah commands you that you slaughter a cow.’ They said, ‘Do you make fun of us?’ He said, ‘I take Allah’s Refuge from being among ignorant.'” This a reference to the Red Heifer in Numbers 19 (or the yellow heifer as Islam refers to it). The language, “And remember when…” is common in the Qur’an to shift to a different point in the Biblical story to make some sort of combined lesson composite from previous instances in history.
There is a question about whether the transformation into pigs and monkeys is meant literally that people’s bodies were changed, or whether it simply means that people who disobey God will have their spirituality and advanced intellect taken away from them and just act like animals. Perhaps the metamorphosis is purely figurative? Muhammad Abdel-Haleem, an Egyptian Muslim and professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS, University of London, in his book The Qur’an: a New Translation states in a footnote:
This is understood by some as ‘physically turn into apes’ but in fact it is a figure of speech—the structure ‘be apes’ is like ‘be stones/iron’ in 17:50. Just as the Quran describes the disbelievers as blind, deaf, and dumb, here the transgressors are apes.
Muhammad Abdel-Haleem
For reference, here is the relevant verse.
And they say: “When we are bones and fragments, should we really be resurrected to be a new creation?”
Say, “Be you stones or iron, or some created thing that is yet greater [troublesome] in your breasts.” Then, they will say, “Who shall bring us back?” Say, “He who created you first!” Then they will shake their heads at you and say, “When will that be?” Say, “Perhaps it is near!”
Qur’an 17:49–51
My insertion of the word “troublesome” as an emendation is copied from The Sublime Qur’an, a translation by Dr Laleh Bakhtiar, and it is needed in order to convert the Arabic idiom into it’s nearest English equivalent, otherwise the Muhsin Khan translation doesn’t make any sense. Other translations shift away from a literal translation but with the same semantics, such as Yusuf Ali’s, “Or created matter which, in your minds, is hardest (to be raised up)”. Dr Ghali’s translation is the only commonly used translation that provides a somewhat different take on it, “Or (some) creation from among that which is (yet) greatly (admired) in your breasts!”
Clearly, “Be you stones or iron”, is not some magical incantation on Muhammad’s part to turn the disbelievers into stones or iron to prove a point about the resurrection! Instead, the word “be” is acting to imply some sort of hypothetical scenario. After all, this isn’t Harry Potter, it’s Islam! Thus Abdel-Haleem’s argument is that it doesn’t apply to turning Israelites into actual monkeys either. The Arabic word is كُونُوا۟ in both cases.
There is another metaphor in the Qur’an that seems relevant at this point.
The likeness of those who were entrusted with the Torah but who subsequently failed in those obligations is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). Wretched is the likeness of people who deny the verses of Allah. And Allah guides not the people who are disbelievers.
Qur’an 62:5
Again it’s using metaphor to express that people who sign up to believing in scripture but then don’t act upon it are reduced to status of animals. Incidentally, this verse appears similar to the Biblical verse Isaiah 1:3 where prophet Isaiah laments that people are not obeying the Torah.
The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.
Isaiah 1:3
If, what we are really talking about, is not a scriptural justification for a racist comment concerning people being like pigs and monkeys, but rather the comparatively placid assertion that when one violates the teachings of their religion then they lose something of their spirituality, then this is rather favourable, considering that theoretically the punishment for violating the Jewish Sabbath is the death penalty, though this was rarely ever carried out (and now cannot be), just as the conditions for imposing the hudud penalties (including the death penalty) during the Islamic Golden Age were also extremely restrictive and almost impossible to satisfy.
Sabbath Breaking 2
Say: “O people of the scripture! Do you criticize us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and in what has been sent down to us, and in that which has been sent down before us, and that most of you are rebellious and disobedient to Allah?”
Say: “Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into monkeys and swine, those who worshipped false idols, such are worse in rank and far more astray from the right path.”
Qur’an 5:59–60
In this verse we have the mention of transformation into pigs as well as monkeys. However, the ones being transformed are those who worshipped false idols. Any Jew who worships false idols has strayed very far off of the straight path indeed, for Judaism is as fiercely monotheistic as Islam! The only other way that this verse could be applicable to a Jew is if the worshipping of false idols is interpreted in the wider sense, for example, becoming obsessed with having material possessions, as suggested in the verse 5:62 by the, “Devouring illegal things”, to which the Muhsin Khan translation helpfully adds a parenthesised remark, “As bribes and Riba (usury), etc.” Oh, that old antisemitic trope of Jews as ripping everybody off with their unfair loans! Antisemitism added into the Muhsin Khan translation as an ideological driven imperative is another matter, and one that I’ve mostly glossed over, as is perhaps worthy of an article in itself. But would you expect anything less from Saudi Arabia? Anyway, the Arabic word for false idols, taghut, has a wider meaning in the same sense as the wider meaning in English.
Sabbath Breaking 3
And ask them O’Muhammad 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, and did not come to them on the day when they had no Sabbath. Thus we made a trial for them, for they used to rebel.
And when a community among them said, “Why do you preach to a people whom Allah is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?”, the preachers said, “In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and perhaps they may fear Allah.”
So when they forgot the reminders that had been given to them, we rescued those who forbade evil, but we seized those who did wrong with a severe torment because they used to rebel.
So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, we said to them, “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.” (It is a severe warning to mankind that they should not disobey what Allah commands them to do, and be far away from what he prohibits them.)
Qur’an 7:163-166
Ah! Here we have a more specific narrative about the tale of the Sabbath breakers! Note that it refers to, “The town that was by the sea”, and not the entire Jewish population. We also know in what manner the Sabbath was broken. This will become important shortly. There’s also mention of a dispute between different groups within the community where some didn’t approve of the actions of others. The parenthesised remark is an original comment of the Qur’an translator and not my own, but it usefully explains that the phrase, “Be you monkeys”, doesn’t imply that anybody was changed into a monkey, but that it is a turn of phrase when one person expresses a warning to another that God is capable of ferocious intervention.
It’s also even clearer in this version of the story that among the people who were involved in the scene some of them were spared any punishment.
Thus, from the Qur’anic evidence alone, it is extremely unreasonable—wrong—racist, and antisemitic to extend the meaning of the Qur’an outside of its context by comparing modern day Jews to pigs or monkeys. The only suggestion in the Qur’an is that a small number of people a very long time ago may have been punished—and even then the words concerning animals may be intended only metaphorically, as a warning against further sidelining of religious principles.
Is it Really a Violation of Shabbat?
Shabbat is the Hebrew word for Sabbath, or rather it’s the preferred way of transcribing the concept of the Sabbath as it exists according to the Jewish rules and regulations, whereas “Sabbath” refers to the general concept of a day of rest, either in the Christian sense, or, since Christians are the dominant group, to the concept without limitation to a specific religious group.
The assumed implication from the description in Qur’an 7:163–166 is that leaving out traps (nets, etc.) to catch fish on a Friday, allowing the fish to swim into the nets on a Saturday (which is the day of Shabbat), and then collecting the winnings on a Sunday (or after dark on Saturday), that this is a violation of the Jewish regulations for Shabbat, and hence is worthy of God’s punishment.
But is this really true? Let’s now analyze the Qur’an’s hypothetical Shabbat breaking case from a Jewish scriptural point of view. For this we need to look at a document called the Mishna, which is a collection of rules first written down early in the 3rd Century CE. In the section relating to Shabbat we can indeed verify that “trapping” an animal is something that should not be done during Shabbat.
This fundamental mishna enumerates those who perform the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, which number forty-less-one. They are grouped in accordance with their function: One who sows, and one who plows, and one who reaps, and one who gathers sheaves into a pile, and one who threshes, removing the kernel from the husk, and one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, and one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, and one who grinds, and one who sifts the flour in a sieve, and one who kneads dough, and one who bakes. Additional primary categories of prohibited labor are the following: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, and one who combs the fleece and straightens it, and one who dyes it, and one who spins the wool, and one who stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, and one who constructs two meshes, tying the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, and one who weaves two threads, and one who severs two threads for constructive purposes, and one who ties a knot, and one who unties a knot, and one who sews two stitches with a needle, as well as one who tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches. One who traps a deer, or any living creature, and one who slaughters it, and one who flays it, and one who salts its hide, a step in the tanning process, and one who tans its hide, and one who smooths it, removing hairs and veins, and one who cuts it into measured parts. One who writes two letters and one who erases in order to write two letters. One who builds a structure, and one who dismantles it, one who extinguishes a fire, and one who kindles a fire. One who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), and one who carries out an object from domain to domain. All these are primary categories of labor, and they number forty-less-one.
By the way, only a few of the prohibited activities are explicitly prohibited by the text of the (written) Torah itself. Some history
But, assuming that you consider the Mishna to be a valid scriptural resource (which Jews do), and having discerned that in that case then going fishing on Shabbat is not allowed if one is fully observant of the Mishna’s rules of Shabbat (indeed there’s now a phrase “Shomer Shabbat” (“Observant of Shabbat”) to describe the strictly orthodox practice as compared to more liberal Jewish attitudes), then still the question remains, if one hasn’t actively done any fishing during Shabbat but merely has a net left out over the weekend, then does that laziness of not putting one’s fishing equipment away immediately after use count as breaking Shabbat or not? Again, we can consult the Mishna. By the way, there’s also “Shomer Negiah” (“Observant of Touch”) to describe the practice of adherence to the traditional Jewish rules that prohibit physical contact with members of the opposite sex, similar to how many practicing Muslims also refrain from contact with the opposite sex. All of this only goes to show that there are different scholarly viewpoints within Judaism during modern times. And one cannot judge a person on a matter of faith based on something that they haven’t signed up to believe in in the first place. And although differences between denominations within Islam are much smaller than compared to the differences between Orthodox and Progressive Judaism, nonetheless it just the same as how one cannot apply the rules of the Islamic shariah to someone who has not accepted the rules of Islam and agreed to submit to Allah. And opinions on the Mishna are very variable and far ranging, even between those who are within the faith of Judaism, let alone people who are trying to become informed outsiders, ranging from the idea that the legal conundrums of the Mishna were anticipated in advance by God and relayed directly from Him to Moses on Mount Sinai at the time of the exodus, and then conveyed orally for over 1000 years until they were written down in the 3rd Century CE (despite having very little by way of any equivalent to the Islamic isnad, that is to say a recorded chain of persons involved in the transmission) through to the other end of the spectrum where they are perceived simply the writings of some very wise and well informed Rabbis, that though human written rather than God given are deserving of careful study and meditation nonetheless. This is all with respect to the modern era. I think it’s a reasonable assumption though (perhaps not?) to put forward the idea that we can safely assume that the Jewish people whom Muhammad encountered (peace be upon him) would have been more of the orthodox variety (with a small o, specifically Mizrahi).
Beit Shammai say: One may not spread traps for animals, birds or fish [on Friday] unless they will ensnare [their quarry] during the day. But Beit Hillel permit it.
Oh? The House of Shammai says no but the House of Hillel says yes? What does this mean? For this we need to consult the Gemara, which is the later Rabbis’ explanation of why the earlier Rabbis ruled the way that they did with respect to the issues of concern where the community had been in need of guidance and turned to their priests in the earlier times up until when the Mishna was written down. The Mishna and Gemara put together make up the Talmud. The work of writing it, collecting together the different Rabbis’ opinions, and publishing it was initially completed around about 500CE but further editing continued for another two centuries.
When Beit Shammai express an opinion where Beit Hillel disagree, Beit Shammai’s opinion is not considered a legitimate opinion in the Mishna, and it is completely disregarded. Since everyone knows that Beit Shammai’s opinion is entirely rejected by halakha, it is not taken into consideration. Therefore, those cases are not viewed as disputes at all.
Shammai and Hillel were both wise Rabbis who held extremely high up positions in the temple in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus, and they founded competing schools of scholarship. So the Gemara tells us that by the time the Gemara was written it was already agreed by the community that the rulings of Hillel’s school of thought took precedence over the rulings of Shammai’s school in cases where their guidance conflicts. Therefore, combining this with the previous statement from the Mishna, we deduce that leaving fishing nets out on Shabbat is NOT a violation of the Sabbath as the best and most well studied Rabbis understood it at the time the Qur’an was revealed. This changes everything.
There are however a few outstanding questions that still need to be cleared up. Firstly, by what reasoning did the people know that Hillel’s judgement was better than Shammai’s? And secondly, the Gemara was a relatively new document in Muhammad’s time. How can we be sure that the Arabian Jews had all of its chapters in the their possession and that they took them as firmly authoritative? Thirdly, there are actually two different versions of the Gemara, the Babylonian version quoted above, but also the lesser quoted (in modern times) Land of Israel (or Jerusalem) version which is 100–150 years older. Which articles might the Medinan Jews have favoured?
Fortunately, there is no contradiction between the two Talmuds on this point.
[Regarding Mishnah’s story of Tarfon’s vulnerability to danger which resulted from his adherence to the Shammaite view:] This [principle that one who follows the Shammaite view endangers himself] applies only after the heavenly voice [Bat Qol or echo] went forth [to decree that the law follows the view of the House of Hillel]. But before the heavenly voice went forth anyone who wished to adopt for himself a stringency and act according to the stringent rulings of both the Houses of Shammai and Hillel [they permitted him to do so but] concerning him it was said, “The fool walks in darkness”.
[And one who wished to adopt] the leniencies of both was called “wicked.”
Rather [one could follow] the leniencies of one and stringencies of that house or the leniencies of the second and the stringencies of that house.
All this applied before the heavenly voice went forth. But once the heavenly voice went forth, thereafter the law always followed the words of the House of Hillel. And whosoever violated the words of the House of Hillel was liable to [be put to] death.
It was taught: A heavenly voice went forth and proclaimed, “Both [houses speak] the living words of God. But the law follows the words of the House of Hillel.”
In what place did the Heavenly voice go forth? Rabbi Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “In Yavneh the heavenly voice went forth.”
Jerusalem Berakhot 1:5 (pdf)
Yavneh is located a little bit west of Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin (religious court) sat there between 70CE and 80CE.
Wow! So now we know that the superiority of Hillel’s view was known to be the correct one because the heavenly voice of God himself informed them it was so (if we take the verses literally). And while we already discovered that the Babylonian Talmud considered Shammai’s views as deprecated, the Jerusalem version makes the even more strongly worded statement that one could (in theory) actually be put to death for reverting back to Shammai’s views from earlier times. So irrespective of whether the Arabian Jews were more influenced by the writings of Babylon or of Jerusalem, the same ruling applies, that Hillel’s views take precedence, and therefore in our case it was legal to leave fishing nets out on Shabbat. Furthermore, the Jerusalem Talmud was completed a fair bit sooner than the Babylonian one, so it’s unlikely that Arabian Jews didn’t have access to it and we can also date the particular issue of the “heavenly voice” and its preference for Hillel to stem from a very narrow time frame and a very ancient time, between 70CE and 80CE. Any Jews that Muhammad might have encountered would have been well aware of this ruling.
So, what can we deduce about the Qur’an’s story about the supposed Sabbath breakers? Let’s revisit the verses.
And ask them O’Muhammad 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, and did not come to them on the day when they had no Sabbath. Thus we made a trial for them, for they used to rebel.
And when a community among them said, “Why do you preach to a people whom Allah is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?”, the preachers said, “In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and perhaps they may fear Allah.”
So when they forgot the reminders that had been given to them, we rescued those who forbade evil, but we seized those who did wrong with a severe torment because they used to rebel.
So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, we said to them, “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”
Qur’an 7:163-166
“We made a trial for them”. What is the nature of this trial? The trial is whether or not they will obey the heavenly voice and stick to following the law according to the House of Hillel. Or, alternatively, if this event took place before the heavenly voice resolved the matter then it becomes a trial of whether or not they will obey their chosen school of thought (Hillel or Shammai) consistently, or whether they will be one of the “Wicked ones” who pick and choose from different scholars so that they can obtain the leniencies of both. Incidentally, I remark that the Jerusalem Talmud’s argument seems to mirror one of the reasons why a Muslim is encouraged to stick to the rulings of a single madhhab. “For they used to rebel”. Seemingly this appears to refer to the tendency to rebel against the teachings of the religious scholars. “When a community among them said”, shows that this matter involves some element of a dispute within the community. Either the fishermen are taking advantage of the lenient interpretation provided by Hillel and the other group are responding with something like, “But you were following Shammai’s approach to religious law when we met you last week”, or the event could be taking place after the arrival of the heavenly voice, in which case the fishermen are exercising their legitimate right to fish in such a way, but some rebellious minority group trying to be holier than thou is saying, “Oh, but you should obey Rabbi Shammai’s interpretation, for he was a more a pious Rabbi who upheld all of the restrictions of the law, unlike Rabbi Hillel with his easy legal concessions”, even though these people know full well that God has decreed that Hillel’s interpretation was the correct one.
So where are we now? Contrary to the original idea that we were talking about a simple transgression of the rules of the Sabbath, the Jews who transgressed (if they really existed) consisted of some tiny minority within a small town somewhere, wherein the people were debating about one minuscule point concerning one tiny detail concerning the correct way to practice Judaism, and the tiny group of individuals who transgressed on the matter were also going against what modern Jews would say the law is now and they were also going against the overwhelming majority viewpoint back in that time too. Thus this argument has no bearing at all on whether of not Judaism is a virtuous faith to follow or whether the values of the Jewish people in general displease God.
I had previously argued that the incident of the supposed transformation into monkeys might have occurred sometime around the time of the exodus. Some Muslim scholars have argued this. However, it now seems likely that it occurred after the emergence of the competing schools of Hillel and Shammai. It is documented that the competition between these two schools was intense, and that the arguments which ensued between believers threatened to tear Judaism apart altogether, and that the arrival of the heavenly voice was a welcome relief and a bringer of harmony. It seems then that in the first Qur’an extract the juxtaposition of the events at Mount Sinai and the breaking of the Sabbath and rendering as monkeys is rather a literary feature, as a mark of persuasion rather than because the events occurred within close temporal proximity to one another. What a way to try to encourage piety in a Jew by suggesting that if they didn’t follow the law properly then they would be in violation of the great promise that their ancestors made to obey God at Sinai? By invoking the memory of such momentous scenes it adds gravitas, not to mention raising the matter of personal honour in obeying God’s covenant.
Indeed, it even seems probable that the dispute in the town of the fishermen was in or just before Muhammad’s time. Perhaps the squabbling townspeople appealed to Muhammad for his help and this was when these verses of Qur’an were revealed. Or perhaps it was simply in the collective memory of the Medinan community that there had been such a town only one or two generations previously and that they driven themselves to destruction with their infighting. Anyway, it seems to be an existing story that is already circulating within Arabic folklore around that time, and one that the Quranic narrator is able to draw upon in order to get across the message across that the same wrongdoing should not be repeated.
An alternative explanation is that the rendering into monkeys occurred twice, once in the small town and once at the time of the exodus. However, the Qur’an is more integrated in the scenario where the similar verses consistently refer to a single story, one that is repeated on different occasions and recorded in different chapters of the Qur’an. This is a leap of faith on my part though.
Evidence from Hadiths
Okay, so it’s the author’s editing voice jumping in again here to say that I originally had a bunch more stuff researched which I wanted to include here but I’m not going to devote lots more time to writing a thorough analysis of it just now. Maybe I will add something later if people ask me to and if I can manage to locate my original notes but really the moment has kind of passed. This whole article originated in part from an experience I had where I was discussing some aspect of Islam with a friend and I commented that some detail or other was similar to Jewish practice and she responded, “Jews! Allah turned them into pigs and monkeys!” and I scorned her for being racist and she retorted with, “It’s true. It’s in the Qur’an! You should look it up!” And so I did. But in the intervening years I’ve since left Islam and I no longer feel any imperative to try to influence friends around me to become better Muslims. Most of those people are no longer in my life. It was a difficult road to travel but at some point you just have to accept that there are kind hearted people of all religions and cruel hearted people too and that you can interpret scriptures in different ways. But on the other hand what preachers and institutions and those with power teach does make a difference. To summarize what this section of the post would have said, when I looked into the later writings in the hadith and the tafsir things got a lot weirder and more literal and more antisemitic in ways which I don’t think the Qur’an verses were originally meant to be interpreted. But when you have scholars who were writing a mere two centuries or so after Muhammad and were already promoting antisemitic interpretations and taking things off in what I regard to be morally (and historically) the wrong direction, it didn’t exactly rouse a happy feeling. Let’s just say that David Icke wasn’t the first person to conceive of lizard people. Which is not to say that things can’t ever get better. But there are challenges.
People of The Book 