2/101-103 — Sorcery and Solomon
"…They followed what the satans recited about the kingdom of Solomon (Sulaymān). Solomon did not cover over the truth; but the satans did: they were teaching people sorcery…"
At the centre of the sentence stands this: وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَٰنُ — "Solomon did not cover over the truth."
There is, that is, a narrative ascribing sorcery to the name of a prophet, and the verse rejects it. Solomon's extraordinary kingdom had been explained by sorcery; the Qurʾān returns that explanation to those who made it.
This is another form of the subject of "what was done to the text" treated through the section: what is altered here is not a text but a prophet's record.
"…and what was sent down to the two angels at Babylon, Hārūt and Mārūt. Yet the two taught no one anything without saying, 'We are only a trial, so do not cover over the truth.'"
This expression has been the subject of long debates in the classical commentaries, and some of them are unresolved:
| Debate | Views |
|---|---|
| The reading of مَلَكَيْن | The widespread reading is "the two angels"; some sources also transmit the reading "the two kings" |
| The scope of "what was sent down" | Was sorcery sent down, or should the sentence be understood as "sorcery was not sent down" — the lexicographers differ |
| The angels' teaching this | As a trial, or in order to show how sorcery is to be recognised |
Most of these uncertainties the classical commentaries could not resolve either, and a significant part of the narratives circulating around the subject rests on reports coming from pre-Islamic sources. I state no definite preference here and do not transmit those narratives.
In the midst of the uncertainties there are things the verse says plainly, and these are what matter:
First: "They harm no one except by God's permission." Any independent power ascribed to sorcery is thereby refused. The authority to harm does not lie in sorcery itself.
Second: "They were learning what harms them and does not profit them." The claim of gain is brought down as well.
Third, and most important: "They certainly knew that whoever bought it would have no share in the hereafter." The same expression once more. The finding that turns on every page of this section holds here too: the knowledge was there.
Nothing will be said in this commentary about the nature, kinds or practices of sorcery; that is not the subject of the verse. The subject of the verse is what it means to leave the book in one's hand and turn to another source of power — and the sentence ends thus: "If only they had known."