A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád': Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and; that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not; Allowed in The Koran - 1885Cherágh Ali
Islamic
A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád': Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and; that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not; Allowed in The Koran - 1885
Cherágh Ali
Islam -- Apologetic works; Islam -- Relations; Jihad; War -- Religious aspects -- Islam
He quotes verse 36, Sura XXXIII. But he has himself admitted (Vol. III,
page 229 footnote) "that this verse is rather in a recitative style of a
past event," and not a divine command to marry Zeinab. The words "we
joined thee in marriage unto her" in the verse do not mean a command for
marriage. They simply mean that the marriage had taken place. The phrase
"we joined thee in marriage unto her" is a mere form of expression.
Almost all human actions are attributed to God in the Koran, and
whatever occurs in the world by the ordinary course of nature, and by
the free agency of men, is referred in the Koran to the immediate agency
of God.
[Sidenote: A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir.]
22. In the next verse--"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in
that which God hath enjoined upon him"--he wrongly translates _Faraza_
as enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. _Faraza_
means he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic
Dictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr.
Lane quotes this very verse.[374] Such unions were made lawful not only
to Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of
a special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these
verses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure
his own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely
said that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.
The word "_Amr_," translated "command" and "behest," in XXXIII, 37 and
38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar
passage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),--God's
foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same
is the case with the word "_Qadr_" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60,
and LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated
decree.
[Sidenote: In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured.]
23. In conclusion, Sir W. Muir remarks:--
"Our only matter of wonder is that the Revelations of Mahomet
continued after this to be regarded by his people as inspired
communications from the Almighty, when they were so palpably formed
to secure his own objects, and pander even to his evil desires. We
hear of no doubts or questionings, and we can only attribute the
confiding and credulous spirit of his followers to the absolute
ascendency of his powerful mind over all who came within its
influence."[375]
The verses 37 and 38 of the thirty-third Sura had not in any way
"secured the objects of Mohammad, much less pandered to his evil
desire." As his marriage with Zeinab had taken place long before they
were published, they could not be said to confer any exceptional
privilege upon him.
[Sidenote: The false story traced to Mukatil.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account