Reference to Allah speaking of Itself (in the plural) as a “the inheritors” of civilizations that were destroyed?

Out of curiosity, is there anyone who can make this ‘ayah make sense as Allah speaking?

كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ بَطِرَتْ مَعِيشَتَهَا ۖ فَتِلْكَ مَسَاكِنُهُمْ لَمْ تُسْكَنْ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ۖ وَكُنَّا نَحْنُ الْوَارِثِينَ

Popular translations are as follows:

[Shakir 28:58] And how many a town have We destroyed which exulted in its means of subsistence, so these are their abodes, they have not been dwelt in after them except a little, and We are the inheritors

[Pickthal 28:58] And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors.

[Yusufali 28:58] And how many populations We destroyed, which exulted in their life (of ease and plenty)! now those habitations of theirs, after them, are deserted,- All but a (miserable) few! and We are their heirs!

It seems to make much more sense as Muhammad speaking to his community when it says “and we are the inheritors.” i have documented many other cases where the actions of the “we” (nahnu) in the Qur’an, contradict those actions claimed for God. The Qur’an, of course, does not say that this term refers to God; this is just what later tafasir say.

The Qur’an makes it clear that of the inheritances of the heavens and the Earth, Allah is already the OWNER. Thus, we know that Allah cannot be the “Inheritors”, because Allah already owned it before it was passed on to be inherited. Thus we have yet another discrepancy between “Nahnu” being “Inheritors” (plural) and Allah being the singular owner – in advance – of the inheritance (مِيرَاثُ) that one would vainly try to hoard and pass on to their progeny (3.180).

MANY times where it says “Allah ONLY does x” and then says “We ONLY do y and z”. i could write a book on examples of this from the Qur’an ALONE. But the issue HERE is not simply the use of nahnu, but الْوَارِثِينَ which clearly means “the heirs” or “the inheritors” which CANNOT LOGICALLY REFER TO ALLAH.

How could God be the “inheritors” (or “inheritor”)? Who do they (or it) inherit from? How does God inherit? How can God be an heir/heirs?

The “Royal We” Myth

This “royal We” business as well should be addressed. First of all, it is VERY weak from a Jewish perspective, as it is clearly stated in Midrashim that the “royal We” references in Genesis/Berashit is Ha’Shem speaking to the Malakhim. From a Jewish perspective, “Elohim” is IN NO WAY the supreme reference to Ha’Shem, but instead a reference to LOWER “Divine Powers.” David says “You are ALL Elohim” (Tehillim/Psalms 82.6), something which the Christian Gospel accounts have Jesus quoting. From the perspective of Rashi, the entire book of Berashit/Genesis was written from a SECULAR perspective of the Mesopotamian peoples – TO them – as a HISTORY that ALL Mesopotamians would recognize and accept as a case for the Children of Israel’s religious and national origins. So this would explain why we see Elohim inaugurate the account in chapter 1, and then YHVH-Elohim and the Malakh YHVH in subsequent chapters, etc.

The Muslim Ummah tends to take Christian explanations and reconfigure them for more monotheistic usages. Judaism has a long legacy of discussing these things in Essenic terms (ideas that we synthesized into normative rabbinic Judaism post-Yavneh).

As for Al-Khidhr, i explain in a number of relevant works, that Al-Khidhr is the reference to Metatron, also known as the Malakh YHVH. So as you can see (from this brief synopsis), the issue is MUCH bigger than simply writing everything off to “the Royal We” as you understand as well).

Melkhitzedeq

From a Jewish perspective, Midrashically, Melkhi-Tzedeq is the prophet Shem; the name he was known by after leaving Sumer (which was named for him; in Sumerian it is pronounced “Shumer”). Paul was wrong about a lot of stuff, and seems to have been less acquainted with the ideas of Pharisees than we should expect, had he actually been one for more than a moment (as Josephus and others dabbled in all Jewish sects, and each of these was open to outsiders from any nation).The term “Angel” is far too loaded of a term for it to be used to translate Malak or Malakh. It is clear that the term means “Messenger” in all Semitic languages, and people cannot forget the importance of cognates in deciphering the meaning of the Qur’an.

From a Midrashic perspective, Melchizedek was Shem and that it was meant as such in the Torah. There are a lot of people called by names and titles in variant accounts in the Tanakh, including even David. The titles are pretty easy to spot in terms of their Hebrew meanings though.As for Paul’s reference, he is only drawing the conversation back to Shem/Melchizedek to make a case for the heart of Judaism predating Abraham and being this sort of primordial faith. He is RIGHT in saying that, but as a clever character, he is using sound philosophic conclusions to buffer his ultimately unreasonable core argument regarding Jesus.