Introduction Part 1: The Message, the beginning

This abridged tafsir based on the book tayseer ila usul it-tafsir by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta describes the initial phase of Prophet Mohammed (saw) mission to convey the message of Islam to take humanity from darkness to light. The tafsir of the ayat vividly illustrates how Allah (swt) communicated in the Arabic language challenging the belief, customs and values of the Arabs. Their resistance turned to denial then to open hostility yet the Arabs could not refute the truthfulness of Allah (swt) speech delivered in a language in which the Arabs were masters. Bismillah irrahmaniraheem : , Allah sent Muhammad with the message of Islam to take the people from the darkness into the light with the permission of their Lord, to the path of al-Azeez al-Hameed.

Alif Lam Ra. [This is] a Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring forth men, by their Lords permission from utter darkness into lightto the way of the Mighty, the Praised One, [Ibraheem 1] He made his miracle and the proof of his prophet-hood a blessed book from Allah, the Quran al-Kareem, the speech of Allah al-Adheem, which

Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One. [Fusilat 42] Allah sent it down in the language of the Arabs, from the letters of their speech, addressing them with a clear Arabic tongue, calling them to become believers in it, understand it and adhere to it; but, they found that it did not recognize for them their desires nor did it give their idols any weight, nor did it give any legitimacy to their wickedness and corruption as they used to do. On the contrary, it ridiculed their idols, condemned their cruelty, oppression and tyranny, bringing equality between the slave and the master, the near and the far, the Arab and non-Arab, except for who is most pious, so he is purest,

O people, truly your lord is one and your father is one. There is not superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, except according to taqwa. Nor for red over black, nor black over red, except according to taqwa. All of you are from Adam and Adam is from dust,

O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the most pious; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. [al-Hujarat 13] When they heard what Rasul Allah (saw) came with, they comprehended and knew that it was from Allah, the speech of Allah and not the speech of man. They were the people of the language and its masters, it is their tongue and their instinct, it is their product and their goods, and with it in their markets they would compete and with its blades they would debate. Except that they stopped at that which they heard, then they thought and evaluated, so how could they be equal to their slaves?! and how can they live without servants?! then how can they be masters if they are not tyrants and oppressors demonstrating their power, the fierce who does not fear anyone?! how and how?! At this, they denied it, after they had comprehended it.

They said, you are only a man like us, and ar-Rahman did not send down anything, you only lie [Yasin 15], so they turned their backs arrogantly, increasing in their insolence wandering blindly. They thought that the matter would end at that, as they were greater in number and more vociferous. They will say that what Muhammad brings is only

The stories of the ancients he has got them writtenso these are read out to him morning and evening [al-Furqan 5],

And when Our verses are recited to them, they say: We have heard indeed; if we wanted we could say the like of it; this is nothing but the stories of the ancients [al-Anfal 31], and that they could recite as he recites, then they turned their backs arrogantly laughing. They did not expect that the proof would be established against them, and who could defeat them?! Rather, who could even debate with them?! If Muhammad said a word, they would say ten. If he raised his voice a little, they would gather for him loud shouting bellowing voices,

The likeness of those who are kafir is that of someone who yells out to something which cannot hear it is nothing but a cry and a call. Deaf dumb blind. They do not use their intellect. [al-Baqarah 171] They related falsehood to confront the true stories, thinking that with those falsifications the truth would get lost in the crowd. Yet, the matter came not as they desired, and from where they had not reckoned. It was said to them, if you are truthful in your claims that what Muhammad recites is just a mans saying; that if you wanted, then you would say like he says; so the arena is in front of you and the battlefield is at your fore. This Quran is a witness, not absent. You hear its verses and comprehend its words. Its letters are from the same letters that you utter, so come on, bring the like of it. If you can do that and bring the like of this Quran, then the matter is as you said.

Say: If men and jinn should come together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, even if they were helpers one of another [al-Isra 88] But, they did not do so. Instead, they turned back on their heels confused. So, from one angle they knew that it was Allahs words, as was pronounced by the truthful and

trustworthy one, as they were the people of the language and its masters, yet from another angle they were not able to admit to that. For their idols, their dreams, their corrupted and corrupting interests will, if they did that, become as dust blown by the wind in a storm. They would be unable to grab anything of what they had gained. That is the great loss. So, they turned round in a circle and immediately began searching maybe they could find what would lengthen by a few days the period until the announcement of their failing in the challenge, thus delaying the establishment of the proof against them. They found, as was evident in their actions, that bringing the like of the whole Quran is a difficult thing, so the burden was lightened a little when it was said to them:

Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Hud 13] But, they could not do that, so they returned to their original remarks. The comprehensive proof completely conquered them:

Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Yunis 38] You, and every helper from the creation that you can muster, from wherever and whatever it is. Yet again, they could not do so. The proof was the final proof and the last word:

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do not and never shall you do [it], then fear the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; prepared for the unbelievers. [al-Baqarah 23-24] You will not only be unable to do it now, but you will never ever be able to do it for all eternity. The Quran is the speech of Allah .The speech of man does not come close to his kingdom, nor do the words of the Jinn ascend to approach it. It is the truth that the falsehood does not come near to, not from the front nor from behind; a revelation sent down from a wise praised one.

That was enough for them to become believers, except that Shaytan got the better of them, desires destroyed them,

The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem attractive to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal [of life]. [aal-Irman14] They gave a lower status to knowledge, were haughty and stubborn, remaining on their kufr (disbelief) while they knew fully well. This compounded their confusion and brought them bewilderment on top of bewilderment. How could the masters convince the masses that this Quran is not the speech of Allah? How can they turn them away from it, so that they do not follow it? They gave great importance to the issue and seriously searched for a way out of this predicament. However, their destruction was in their plans, so instead of making clear a way out, their predicament got even worse,

To Him is due the true prayer; and those whom they pray to besides Allah give them no answer, but [they are] like one who stretches forth his two hands towards water that it may reach his mouth, but it will not reach it; and the prayer of the unbelievers is only in error. [ar-Rad14] They entered with kufr and exited with it, establishing the proof against themselves, instead of raising for themselves a proof. They said: they are nothing but Muhammads words, but how when Muhammads words differ from that which he recites? And how when Muhammad is illiterate while his people read and write, yet they are incapable of bringing the like of it? It is therefore not a valid statement that they are Muhammads words, so they put this accusation behind them and left it. They said: a man who is not from us teaches him and mentioned a foreign Christian, yet they had it turned on their heads:

And certainly We know that they say: It is a man that teaches him. The tongue of him whom they incline to is notably foreign, and this is clear Arabic tongue. [an-Nahl103] So, they put that behind them and left it. Then, they said: It is nothing but narrated magic, charming words, however they found that the proof was established against them, as it was an evidence of their inability, such that the book in front of them appeared to be magic due to its strength and greatness. Also, the proof was against them, as magic has a reality well known to them due the their extensive experience with it, and they knew the difference between the utterances of the magician and these great words. They were about to drop this statement, if they hadnt found that they were able to convince some of the general public with their saying: dont you see that the entering of a family member into Islam is what makes the son, if he became Muslim, leave worshipping the idols of his father, therefore Islam divides between them, as if it were magic? They found that this was more useful for misguiding than other ways, so they relied upon it:

Then he said: This is naught but enchantment, narrated [from others]. [al-mudathir 24] However, it was as if they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Whoever listens to Allahs words recited is absolutely certain that what he hears is not magic, therefore they agreed among themselves to come between the people and them listening to the Quran:

And those who disbelieve say: Do not listen to this Quran and make noise therein, perhaps you may overcome. [Fusilat 26] They made noise to disturb it until no-one would hear it from Rasul Allah, rather the situation reached the point where they met with the riders, talking to them about the magic of Muhammad (saw) sometimes with temptation and other times with fear, afraid that they might hear it and realise that it is from Allah, as they themselves had become aware. They did this so that neither the Bedouin Arabs, the travellers nor the residents would become

believers, such that they delay, if they could, the emergence of Islam and the raising of its banner. They did it to obstruct, without increasing the army of ar-Rahman and the elevation of His word, yet they should have known that there is no way for that to come to them, if they were intelligent. This is how they proceeded; on the one hand they were pulled by their recognition that this Quran is Allahs speech, such that even their leaders would go secretly to the house of Rasul Allah (saw) to listen at night to what was being recited of the verses of the Quran, and ( the Wise Reminder). If they saw some of the others while they were returning, they agreed to never return again, so that the general public would not see them. But, they did return, the Quran had captured their hearts, so one of them would say: It is so graceful, and so sweet, its lowest part is abundant and its highest part is fruitful, confirming that it is not the words of man. That is from one side; they were pulled by their recognition that this Quran is Allahs speech. On the other hand, they were pulled by their idols, that which their forefathers were on, their interests and their lusts. Whoever had a pure nature, a clean mind, became aware, repented, believed and became pious/fearful. Whoevers eyes were blinded and he settled lower than low, while his corrupt world ascended for him to the highest levels, remained wandering in his insolence prostrating to and clasping his idols. Like this, he became a believer whoever believed and a disbeliever whoever disbelieved he raced to Iman (what makes a believer a believer) whoever raced, and procrastinated whoever procrastinated until the Islamic state was established in Madinah ( .) Islam was spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula then that light extended to end the oppression of the great states of the time. Persia was shattered, the Romans were cut apart and the Islamic state became great. Justice was spread as a companion of the Jihad, the flag of Islam was raised, the flag of ( there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger). The conquests widened and the earth radiated with Islam and the army of Islam.

Introduction Part 2: Inseparable: Islam and the Arabic language

Islamic Culture September 18, 2010 5 Comments

This is Part 2 of the Introduction in the abridged tafsir of Surah Al-Baqarah based on the book tayseer ila usul it-tafsir by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta This tafsser explains the centrality of the Arabic language in understanding and deriving the laws, rules of Islam. Similarly they did not exercise the mind in the unseen that were not sensed by them. This understanding made them glad and satisfied their hearts.

Bismilliah irahmaniraheem With Islam the best ummah (people) raised from mankind was founded:

You are the best ummah raised from mankind, you command the good and forbid the evil and you believe in Allah [aal-Imran 110+ With Islam a state arose that was a guiding light for the world, spreading justice to all corners of the earth. The sovereignty and leadership of this ummah and this state was for the book of Allah (jalla jallalahu) and the sunnah (way) of His messenger (saw). The Muslims in the time of Rasul Allah (saw) and the time of his companions (raa) used to understand the book and the sunnah with a pure understanding. An understanding that made them glad and satisfied their hearts. If a verse or part of a verse was explained by Rasul Allah (saw) as a shariah legal explanation, so the word or verse was given a shariah terminology, they adhered to it and followed it. If he did not give it a shariah terminology they searched for it in their language, the Arabic language, in which it was sent down

an Arabic Quran and whose tongue it was

with a clear Arabic tongue Like this, if Rasul Allah (saw) read:

establish prayer then explained prayer as specific actions and sayings, they followed this shariah terminology in understanding the verse and its performance, thus leaving the linguistic meaning of prayer that has the meaning of supplication. As for when it was read to them

carrion is forbidden for you and he (saw) did not give it a shariah terminology, they understood it in their Arabic language as a prohibition to eat carrion, because the prohibition is connected to carrion as is clear in their language. This is what they used to do. If an explanation was authentically traced back to Rasul Allah (saw) speech, they adhered to it and followed it. If not, they looked for it in their language that the Quran was sent down in. This matter gave them a sound understanding and a straight path that they traveled along, so the ummah became honoured and the state became strong. With that they had a great position. What increased the purity purer and the clarity clearer was their adding to their understanding of the language of the Quran their understanding of the limits of the human mind that Allah distinguished mankind with.

Allah taught Adam all of the names [al-Baqarah 31] They understood that the mind is limited in its scope and its capability, so it cannot study except that which has a sensed reality. As for what has no reality, then there is no role for the mind to produce a thought about it, rather every study of what has no reality will not fail to be an instance of imagination. They thought about Allahs creation and contemplated His signs. They saw that this universe, man and life, with its limited nature, its incapability and its neediness and its existence with this precise system, indicates definitely that it has a great powerful eternal creator who limited its existence and organized its sustenance, who is able to end its incapability and secure its needs. So, they believed in Allah, the Creator, the One, al-Ahad as a result of contemplating His signs and thinking about His creation on the basis of the sensed reality for them. Then, they believed in the Quran al-Kareem and that it is the speech of Allah (jalla jallalahu), because they failed in the challenge and their inability to bring a surah like it while they are the people of clear speech and eloquence. Their language is the language of the Quran, so their incapability was a definite proof that the Quran is the speech of Allah (jalla jallalahu), so they believed in the Quran that they read or heard its verses, while it was sensed by them, not unseen to them. Like this it was confirmed that Muhammad is a Messenger from Allah, as he had come to them with the speech of Allah revealed by Him .So, they believed that Muhammad is Rasul Allah (saw) while it was sensed by them, not unseen to them. However, they did not exercise the mind in the unseen that were not sensed by them. So, they did not subject it to an intellectual study, because it is not its domain. Rather, they were satisfied with an-naql (the transmission), i.e. with what came about it in the book of

Allah and what they heard of it from Rasul Allah (saw) , or was transmitted to them of him (saw). Therefore, they did not exercise the mind to investigate the attributes of Allah: are they are created or uncreated? Are they connected to the essence or separate from it?! Because, their reality was not sensed by them, so they believed in them as they came by way of transmission from Allahs book and the sunnah of His messenger (saw). The Quran is the speech of Allah, they believed in that and were certain about all that was in it, without doubt or suspicion. Allah is Samee, Baseer, Aleem, Hakeem, for Him is the best names. They believed in that and had certainty without any investigation into how are these attributes. Rather, they surrendered to them submissively. Their Iman in the unseen matters became complete just as the Quran brought it, without increase or decrease, without interpretation or misguidance. They were happy with that and their hearts were satisfied. Just as they understood the scope of the language in understanding the Quran, similarly they comprehended the scope of the mind and the transmission in al-iman. So the Quran is not understood except in the language with which it was sent down, and the mind is not exercised in what has no sensed reality, rather it is transmitted from the book of Allah and the sunnah of His messenger (saw) and it is believed in as it is. The limits of the language are not exceeded in understanding the Quran, nor is the scope of the mind that Allah distinguished mankind with exceeded. Their adherence to these two: the language and the mind, and understanding their limits and their domains, was a path to the soundness of the aqeedah (creed) and its correctness, and to the best implementation and perfection of the shariah rules. This is what the Muslims were on in the time of Rasul Allah (saw) and the time of his companions (raa), all of them, and those who followed them in good. Their weapon in understanding their deen (religious way of life) was what was authentically transmitted of Rasul Allah (saw) of explanation, and their comprehending their language, the Arabic language that the Quran was sent down in. Then, their understanding the scope of the mind, its limits and that it has no role in the un-sensed unseen matter, except in proportion to what the mind transmits from the book of Allah and what tawatara (was transmitted in a way that leaves no room for error) from Rasul Allah (saw). But, there came after them successors, who were weaker in their possession of the language and who were confused about matters. So, they delved into explaining the verses of Allah without the language that it was sent down in, giving meanings to it which it cannot carry. Interpretations became many as they made for the text apparent and hidden meanings. Sects were founded and the people who followed their desires disunited the opinions. This did not stop at exerting effort in the branches, rather it transgressed into the foundations until it extended to the beliefs and the branches of belief.

That which muddied the waters more, was that they did not comprehend the scope of the mind and its limits, so they gave it free reign in what it was not created for. They entered into the intellectual study of Allahs essence, His attributes and the creation of the Quran. They brought investigations that are neither in the book of Allah (jalla jallalahu) nor in the sunnah of His messenger (saw). They busied the people along with them in investigations that Allah did not send down authority for, dividing the Muslims instead of gathering them on the truth that Rasul Allah (saw) and his companions (raa) were on. Then, after those successors, came other successors, distancing further from the truth, descending lower than those who came before them in terms of guidance. Those who came before them had one calamity in that they gave free reign to the mind in other than its domain. As for those who came after them, the initial calamity remained as it was, so they also gave free reign to the mind in other than its domain, then they completed the previous misfortune [so it became a calamity] by neglecting the language, not giving any value to it. If only they had known that they were on ignorance, for they would have then sought knowledge and learnt it. But, they thought that they themselves were knowledgeable, so you see that they were daring with the deen of Allah. They were asked and gave fatwas (specific legal rulings) while they read the verses of Allah and the narrations of Rasul Allah (saw) without understanding or contemplating the language that the Quran was revealed in and the messenger of Islam (saw) spoke in, without comprehending its sciences and styles. If you said to them how do you issue rules from the book and sunnah while you dont understand the language of the Quran and the sunnah?! Or, you said to them Dont you fear Allah in deriving rules that you are not qualified for, and it is obligatory upon you to concentrate on the language before you issue rules and misguide or be misguided?! They reply to you with belittling the standing of the language in understanding the book of Allah (jalla jallalahu) and the sunnah of His messenger (saw). They added to this claim of theirs, making matters worse, and increasing more on the two calamities. Then some of the general public were affected by them, carrying some of their corrupted concepts and erroneous thoughts, so, sects were established upon them, some connected to those who came before and some of them unconnected. Except that Allah (jalla jallalahu) sent his favour to this ummah with men after men, who were elevated with this deen to towering heights, with Allahs favour. Allah protected His deen, so these sects were not able to change its path or destroy its thoughts. Knowledgeable men stood up, among them the extraordinary. They exerted effort and ability in transmitting this language, the language of the Quran, pure and clean, from its foundations and principles, then they built upon it other sciences in al-usul Principles and alfiqh Jurisprudence. The sciences of the language were a companion to the sciences of the Quran and hadith and were a basis for them.

They protected for us and transmitted how the Arabs used to speak, and how they used to understand the book of Allah and the sunnah of His messenger (saw) with the language in which it was sent down and the language in which the messenger (saw) said it.
5 Comments
1. H Khan September 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm

They were asked and gave fatwas (specific legal rulings) while they read the verses of Allah and the narrations of Rasul Allah (saw) without understanding or contemplating the language that the Quran was revealed in and the messenger of Islam (saw) spoke in, without comprehending its sciences and styles. Is this charge also applicable at the contemporary Arabs, particularly the Saudis, some of whom have recently issued highly dubious fatwas concerning Hijab / Niqab in European countries? These clerics certainly live by the Arabic language of Makkah and Medinah, but perhaps not so the narrations of Rasul Allah (saw) [Allah knows best+, whilst the Noble Quran is the same today as the day it was revealed. Allah (swt) says, to the nearest meaning, And thus: We have revealed to you a Quran in Arabic so that you may warn the Foremost of all towns and those who dwell around it, and may warn of the Day of Gathering, which is beyond all doubt. One group will be in the Garden, and one group will be in the Flames. *TMQ: Surah Al Shura, 42:7+. Now if We had made it a Quran in a non-Arabic tongue they would surely have said, Why is it that its verses have not been made clear? Why a foreign tongue and an Arab? Say, For those who accept it, this is a Guidance and medicine for a wholesome life. But as for those who will not believe (Arabs or non-Arabs), in their ears is deafness, and so it remains obscure to them. They are like people who are called to from afar. *TMQ: Surah Fussilat, 41:44+. Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason. *TMQ: Surah Yusuf, 12:2]. Behold, We have made it a Quran in clear Arabic language that you may fully understand. *TMQ: Surah Al Zukhruf, 43:3+. How, with the Arabic language as their mother tongue can these Arabs grossly misunderstand or misinterpret such verses, whilst they give credence to a monarchical & hereditary system of government? How does one understand this article in the context of the contemporary Arab, for whom Arabic is as native as his deen?
Reply 2. Abu Hasib September 20, 2010 at 11:49 am

Assalaamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah, the article discusses how the original muslims understood how to correctly use the language and their mind to understand Islaam. However it goes on to say how people moved away from the correct understanding which lead to problems and then it states how extraordinary and knowledgeable men came and returned to the muslims the clarity of before, building fiqh and Usool etc.. upon pure foundations. Its been written as If they saved the day but yet whats confusing to me is that the writer does not provide any detail to this narrative i.e. what specific times or stages he is talking about and who were the saviours of this deen? If he is referring to the four Imaams then the muslims did not have a problem with language at that time and it was at a high level up until the first 400 years of Islaam. And added to this what about what happened after the four Imaams where the muslims fell into decline and those of their madhabs became entrenched in supporting their madhhabs and their Usool and fiqh blindly as if their role was just to defend their madhhab rather than seek the correct opinion. On top of this this is when the language declined even if some attempted to write books to protect it and then the gates of Ijtihaad were closed and arabic became less and less important. If the author is talking about people in recent times who have saved this deen then again this needs further clarification and is harder to comprehend especially as we are living in the most declined of times. Finally the title of this article Inseparable: Islam and the Arabic language does not relate well to its subject matter confusing the reader about what topic he is actually reading about. Jazaakallahu khairan

Reply 3. Dr Q A September 21, 2010 at 6:56 pm

AA This leaves much to be desired in the understanding of the importance of Arabic This is the way I understand it Arabic is basically needed to derive rules and laws from the sources of Islam i.e Quran and Sunnah So one cannot be a Mujtahid without knowing Arabic Since we need Mujtahideen at all times to keep Ijtihad going, we need to make sure that people know Arabic Just the fact that someone knows Arabic however is no guarantee that they will be on the righteous path If we look at the Arabic speaking Muslim world, they are basically living in a system of Jahiliyah and in the past they have supported all sorts of kufr like Nationalism, Socialism, Democracy and Monarchies etc However to understand the Quran one has to understand Arabic similarly one has to know Arabic for Salah It ultimately comes down to people In non Arabic Muslim countries even though Muslims dont know Arabic, those who desire to learn about Islam can do so with very good translations of books available to them but those who dont care, it does nt really matter if they know Arabic or not So basically it comes down to two things sensing the miracle of the Quran directly and secondly for ijtihad
Reply 4. Yahya September 22, 2010 at 8:07 pm

As Salamu alaikum, This article is a partial translation of the introduction to a book called Tayseer fi Usul at-Tafsir, which aims to explain the foundations of tafseer. It is being serialised, so more evidence will be mentioned in the coming articles inshaAllah. However, for clarity the article mentioned those who protected the deen, by protecting the language: They exerted effort and ability in transmitting this language, the language of the Quran, pure and clean, from its foundations and principles, then they built upon it other sciences in al-usul Principles and al-fiqh Jurisprudence. The sciences of the language were a companion to the sciences of the Quran and hadith and were a basis for them. It was their transmission of the language that was key. It should not be assumed that every individual wholly ignored the language, however many did ignore it. That is hard to understand without examples, but the thrust of the point is that they used their minds to explain verses even if their was no usage of that word with that imagined meaning among the early Arabs. They would even ignore meanings that the Arabs did use, then instead give meanings from their own thinking. This did happen very early on, after the time of the Tabieen, and all of the discussions of the Mutazila, the Ashaira etc. are littered with such ramblings. It became known as ilm al-kalam and even the great imams were effected, as it was rife during their time. Al-Hamdulillah, Allah saved many and we have some quotations from the four Imams saying how they now reject such debate. The important point is, that we need to refer back to the earliest sources of the Arabic which has been preserved for us, in order to understand the Quran correctly. If we do not appreciate its significance, then we only bring harm to the ummah, as we will only set up a new sect and invite to more division as a result. Be patient brothers and sisters, the rest of the serialised article will cover these points, but they are quite long, so needed to be broken up.

Reply 5. Abu Laith October 24, 2010 at 11:56 am

Arabic we have today is not the same as the Arabic at the time of the prophet (saw). The Fusha arabic is preserved in books and spoken at a high level on by a tiny proportion within the ummah. Hence the ability ti directly understand the texts is only open to a tiny proportion within the ummah. This situtation was noted 7 centuries ago when scholars like imam juwainy witnessed the decline of the arabic language. This led to a number of wrong fatwas and ijtihadat being issued due to the mistakes in the Arabic language. Therefore to preserve the corruption of the the Islamic law the majority of ulema began to call for the doors to ijtihad to be closed such that the number of mujtahid declined severely. This meant the ummah became mass imitators unable to develop new laws to address new issues particularly when faced with the growing dominance of the west through the industrial revolution. This resulted in some intellectuals and thinkers to shift their taqleed away from past ulemas fatwas and adopt western political thought. While unable to comprehend its reality and how it contradicted Islam. Secondly as the Arabic language declined foreign philosophies became more important. One such example was the rise of Greek logic which some believed that its rules could transcend language and be applied to the quran and sunnah. An example of this was the debate that occurred between as sirafi and al mata during the abbassid khilafah. Al mata argued that Greek logic was more important than Arabic grammar whereas as sirafi argued against this. In logic words such as and upon of in and others have very specific connotations. So al mata believed that knowing the science of logic would help elucidate the true meaning of the quran (or at least that was the implication of the discussion). Hence grammar was a science beneath logic. As sirafi asked al mata what are the different forms of the word waw which sometimes can mean and or the fee and ma etc. Al mata didnt know its different forms even though he was an Arab speaker. As sirafi showed that an extensive knowledge of Arabic grammar is needed to elucidate meaning and that logic simply followed Greek grammatical forms which could not be simply transposed onto the Arabic language. As the Arabic language began to decline outside influences such as Greek philosophy began to gain strength thereby confusing the meaning of Islam. Eg the subject of guidance and misguidance in the quran was looked at rather than from trying to understand the language used in the quran and thereby helping to reconcile its meanings according to the rules of the language, to adopting various philosophical positions and then justifying those positions by the text. Therefore the one who adopted stoic Greek school of thought would look to the texts to justify their position just like the one who adopted the epicurean position would do likewise. This showed then that the decline of the Arabic had both effects in law and concepts of Islam.

Part 3
Bismillahirahmaniraheem An exhaustive study of the Arabic language as it has been recorded and transmitted, shows us that the sources of the Arabs naming and meanings of their words are four: Firstly, (the Real meaning) of which there are three: a) ( the real meaning in the language). It is the given meaning for a word/term ( )when it was originally put down in the Arabic language. Like the term for the person or animal which is the highest part of the body (head). b) ( the traditional or customary meaning). It is meaning for a term transmitted of the Arabs traditional usage, instead of the originally given meaning for it. Like the term traditionally used for everything that goes on all fours, instead of its linguistic use for everything that moves of the earth ( .) So the word is for four legged creatures. This is called the general traditional meaning , in other words the tradition of the general Arabs. There is also the specific traditional meaning in the terminology of the

people of every specialist field. Like the use of the term for indicating who does the verb according to the grammarians. c) ( the shariah meaning). It is the transmitted meaning by way of the Islamic legislation ( ,)like the term for the specific set of sayings and actions, instead of its linguistic use for . Secondly, (the metaphorical meaning). It passes the real meaning ( ) in its usage of the term. In other words, it is the use of the term for other than what it was really put down for, due to an indication (:) a) Which could be preventing using the real meaning ( )while a relationship exists: i) This is known as the if the relationship was not similarity, for example

They put their fingers in their ears [al-Baqarah 19], so the whole was mentioned (the fingers) and the intended meaning is the ends of the fingers, i.e. the part. So with that, the relationship is ,completeness. ii) It is called if the relationship is attributing to other than the reality, such as the ruler built the city. So building is attributed to the ruler while the builders are other than the ruler. iii) It is called (simile) if the relationship is similarity, such as I climbed to the head of the mountain. So head is used for the top of the mountain in similarity with the real usage of the word as the top of mans body. The indication in all this prevents the original meaning being intended. The whole fingers do not enter the ears, the ruler does not actually build the city and the mountain does not have a real head. b) Or the indication does not prevent the real meaning. This is allusion: like the sleeper till mid-morning. Alluding to the pampered girl who is served in her house. Here the indication does not prevent the intended meaning being the real meaning, as this girl could actually sleep until mid-morning. Thirdly, derivation: If the Arabs used the root of a particular word with a specific meaning, then all of the derivations according to the patterns of the language can be used having a meaning connected to the meaning of the root of the derivation, whether the Arabs actually used this new derivation or not. For example: If the Arabs used the term with its well known meaning, and they used , but they did not use ,so the use of according to the pattern as an exaggerated form of is an Arabic usage and the word will be an Arabic word, even though the Arabs didnt use it, so long as they used the root of its derivation, and as long as it is derived according to their patterns. The chapter on derivations is wide and important. Its importance comes from the fact that all of the derivations are bound together by a general meaning.

Fourthly, Arabisation: Like when the foreigners put a word for something that they have and then the Arabs take that thing and take its name with them, but they make that foreign name fit their words patterns by changing some of its letters, lengthening or shortening, to make it according to their linguistic patterns. So the word becomes Arabic to indicate the same thing that the foreign word used to indicate before. For example: and for thick and thin silk respectively. So, when it was arabised, i.e. when the Arabs entered it into their words after changing its letters to fit their patterns, so it then became Arabic in structure and meaning just the same as any words they put down as original meanings, or metaphors or derivatives of a root that they did use. Arabisation, as is well known, does not occur except in the sensed things and not in meanings (conceptual matters), because the Arabs only did so with the names of material things that existed in the foreigners lands and that were brought to their own lands, after they had changed the letters according to the patterns of their language.

Introduction Part 4: Why give such importance to the Arabic language?

This is Part 4 of the Introduction in the abridged tafsir of Surah Al-Baqarah based on the book tayseer ila usul it-tafsir by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta Bismillahirahmaniraheem Here it is necessary to mention two important matters: First: Some people say that there is no need for giving this much importance to the Arabic language to understand the Quran, as the Quran explains itself, or by the narrations of the Prophet (saw) ( .)In other words, a verse is explained by another verse or hadith. Hence, depending on the Arabic language to this extent is unnecessary. Then there appeared, as a consequence of that, some books like Explaining the Quran with the Quran, while they thought that this was correct. Second: Some other people said that there are no in the language or in the Quran. They also thought that this was correct. As for the first saying: The one who contemplates on it does not find it sound, for the following reasons:

1. Not all verses are explained by another verse or a hadith, rather very few are explained by other verses or hadith, such as His saying (jalla jallalahu)

Verily, man was created very impatient; anxious when evil touches him; And stingey when good touches him [al-maarij 19-21].

Here the verse explained the meaning of His saying

that it is the one who

anxious when evil touches him; And stingey when good touches him Or his saying in surat al-Baqarah, was explained by Rasul Allah (saw) with his hadeeth on the meaning of as-Salah. 2. Those verses that are explained with other verses and hadith are few. The explanation coming in the other verse or hadith is [itself] not understood except with the Arabic language in which the verse was sent down, or in which the hadith was said. These two matters, that not all verses are explained by other verses and hadith, and that the verse or hadith that is doing the explaining, is itself in need of the Arabic language to realize the correct understanding. These two matters make the saying of those who say that the Quran is explained by itself or by hadith, and that there is no need for giving this much importance to the Arabic language to understand the Quran correctly; they make this statement incorrectly and it cannot be used as a proof. It is worth mentioning that the one who wants to understand the Quran without the language in which it was sent down has suspended understanding the Quran and acting upon it. So, with that he has perpetrated a great sin, as the Quran was sent down in the Arabic language and without it it is not possible to understanding it correctly. So, because of that the jurists were very keen for the Arabic language and its knowledge, not to mention the scholars became firmly established in understanding the Quran and extracting the shariah rules from it. Much of the misguidance had as its origin in the weakness in Arabic and the lack of restricting the verses of Allah to their meanings according to the implications of this language that Allah specifically limited His book to. Such that Rasul Allah (saw) said when a man erred in his speech: guide your brother, for he has been misguided, so Rasul Allah (saw) called the linguistic errors misguidance in consideration of what it will lead to. i.e. He mentioned the effect (misguidance) instead of the cause (linguistic errors). Umar (raa) came across people doing archery poorly, so he rebuked them.

They said: [ when it should be ] so he turned away from them saying: By Allah, your tongues mistakes are more severe than your mistakes at archery! I heard Rasul Allah (saw) say: Allah was merciful with a man whom He perfected his tongue The Quran is Arabic in language, so cannot be understood except with this language. Whoever wants to straighten their aqeedah and understand the shariah rules with knowledge, then he should perfect his language and perfect his deen, as Rasul Allah (saw) taught his companions, and as they (raa) went according to his sunnah. They worshipped Allah with knowledge and were of the successful ones. Whoever does not have suitable knowledge of the Arabic language should not plunge into the verses of the Allah trying to explain them without the Arabic language that it was sent down in. He must ask those who have knowledge, learning from them the meaning of the verses of Allah. Truly, statements about Allahs verses without knowledge is a grave matter with Allah, bringing Allahs anger to the one who does it. We seek refuge in Him the glorified from His anger and from the fire, and we ask Him the glorified for His pleasure and alJannah. As for the second statement: The ones who say it are in two groups: A group that views that there is and in the language, but there is only in the Quran A group that views that there is no in the language or in the Quran, rather all that came of the Arabs usage of terms and meanings, all of that in the language and in the Quran are the same. As for the first group, their statement cannot be used as a proof, as the one who establishes that exists in the language, he must also affirm that it is in the Quran, as Allah (jalla jallalahu) said of the book:

We sent it down as an Arabic Quran [Yousuf 2] and

This is a clear Arabic tongue [an-Nahl 103], so it is Arabic in language. As long as the Arabic language contains and it is used in the language of the Arabs, their styles and speech, and the Quran was sent down in the language of the Arabs, so there is no choice but to affirm that in the Quran is also. That is from one perspective.

From another perspective, the Quran actually does contain of speech, and none denies that except one who is arrogant or stubborn.

His statement (jalla jallalahu) : they put their fingers in their ears [al-Baqarah 19] is using fingers for other than what it was originally put down for, rather for just a part of the fingers, i.e. only their tips, as this is what is put into the ears. And His statement (jalla jallalahu) : and ask the village [Yousuf 82] is , because the walls and buildings of the village is not the one who is asked, rather its people are asked, i.e. ask the people of the village. And His statement (jalla jallalahu) : and the valleys flow according to their measure [ar-Rad 17] is ,because that which flow are not the valleys in reality, i.e. not the hollowed out piece of the earth, rather it is the water that is in it. i.e. and the water that is in the valleys flows.

And His statement (jalla jallalahu) : freeing the believing neck [anNisaa 92]is ,because freeing is for the believing slave, not only for his neck, so what is intended is not the neck.

And His statement (jalla jallalahu) : I saw myself pressing wine [Yousuf 36] is ,because that which are pressed are the grapes. ( )Wine was mentioned but grapes were wanted, i.e. what was wanted from the term is not . And there are many more than that, that the one who has awareness and contemplation does not deny.

Introduction Part 5: Are there metaphors in the Quran?

As for the statement of others, that there is no in the language nor in the Quran, they prove that with the following: 1. All that the Arabs used of meanings for their words were ,indistinguishable one from the other. Why do you say that this meaning was put down first so is ,then this other meaning is used later, bypassing the real meaning so is the metaphor? And why is it not said that all of these meanings were put down in the beginning each the same for use with that term for various purposes? i.e. that the term is a homonym for all of its meanings in reality.

They say, for example about the word head, that the Arabs used it as was transmitted from them a. The head that exists on animals and people b. The head that is the peak of the mountain () c. The head that is the origin of the spring () So why do you say the head is for people and animals in reality, and is for the mountain and spring metaphorically? How do we decide that this meaning was put down originally for people and used metaphorically for the mountain and spring? So, they say that all these meanings of head *+ are real meanings, and that the term is a homonym. The meanings are on one level. When we use it or understand it in a text, we present all of these meanings and rely upon the most suitable one for the context. Because of that, it is not correct to first take it as the human head considering this as , and if this usage is excused, then we take the .Rather, we present all meanings at once, and whatever suits the context, we take. Here there is no and if it was excused . Rather all are real meanings and there is no priority of one meaning over the other, except with an indication in the context. 2. They also say that it has not been transmitted from the early generations of Arabs that they divided speech into and .If there was in langauge and ,then it would have been transmitted from them in their narrations or writings. For these two reasons they say that there is no dividing the language into and , rather all that they used is on one level. We can discuss this statement: 1. It affirms all of the meanings that the Arabs used for their words and that they are applied on the words of the language and the Quran alike. 2. The lack of dividing these meanings into and due to the infeasibility of knowing which of these meanings was put down first, and because they are all on one level in terms of usage, so they consider them to be homonyms. 3. There is no prioritization of usage in understanding the text, there is no real meaning and if it was excused .Rather all are real meanings and there is no priority of one meaning over the other, except with an indication in the context.

Now, we ask is it correct that it is infeasibility to know the meaning that the term was put down for originally ( )from the meaning that it was later used for due to an indication preventing the use of the original meaning? And, are the meanings that Arabs used for the words all on one level? i.e. they equally share [their meanings], so the mind does not turn to one of them before another?! or does the understanding turn to one not the other upon first hearing the word? With contemplation on this matter and looking into it deeply, we find the following: If the term was a homonym in all of these meanings, some of these meanings would not be understood more quickly than others when the word is uttered, considering that they are equal in their indication; yet the matter is not like that. For example: The Arabs usage of the word head as we said to indicate the head of the body, the head of the mountain and the head of the stream, except that this word head, if it was said without (an indication), then the mind turns immediately to mans head and not to anything else, like the head of the mountain or the stream, except with (an indication). Also, the Arabs used the word hand for the well known limb and also for power ( ) the hand of the ruler reaches every fool, and for generosity and kindness ( ) he has a white hand with me. Except that if we uttered the word hand without any indication, the mind jumps to the well known hand and not to anything else, except with (an indication). And there are lots more like that. It shows us that the like of these meanings are not on one level and that some are original, so the mind turns to them without an indication, while the others need (an indication). i.e. they are used for other than its original meaning with an indication, due to the existence of a certain relationship. This is what they called the metaphor. i.e. it passes the real meaning ( ) in its usage of the term, to another meaning due to (the indication) and a relationship with the original meaning. So because of that, there is and ,and the meaning is taken first, unless it is not possible, then the is taken. As for their saying: If there was in the Arabs speech and ,then it would have been transmitted from them in their by word or writing. This statement cannot be used as a proof. This is because the Arabs in the early ages, whether jahilyyah, the beginning of Islam and so on, used to use in their speech and the ,and they knew that this meaning was and that was .They knew the difference between the hand which is a limb and that which is power and generosity, and just like that, between the head for humans, the mountain and the stream. They knew that this meaning is because it does not require (an indication), and that this meaning is because it does require (an indication) *+ Except that the sciences of Arabic, Quran, Hadith, Fiqh and Usul were not

given their terminology until later, particularly when some weakness began to enter into the Arabs language, so these sciences were defined to clarify how the Arabs spoke to correct the tongues according to them. Then the sciences related to the meanings of words were set down, such as the well know terminologies direct and implied speech, the metaphor, the synonym and the homonym and so on. So, the lack of discussion about and in the early ages is not considered as a proof for the lack of existence of and in the Arabic language. However, the saying of those who affirm all of the meanings that the Arabs used for their words, and they consider all of them recognized whether in the language or in the Quran, we say that this saying of theirs does not differ with the correct statement, except: 1. in classifying these meanings into and ,rather considering each of them . 2. that there is no prioritization of usage in understanding the text, there is no and if it was excused .Rather all are meanings and there is no priority of one meaning over the other, except with an indication in the context. All of that, if they applied their words and depended upon them. We say, if they gathered all of the meanings that the Arabs used, and depended upon them to understand the text, and called all of it ,then the difference would be very minor indeed. However, the problem occurs when they do not depend on anything other than the to understand the Quran. Then they meet with the people of the first statement who say that there are in the language, but not in the Quran, rather they recognize only and ignore the other Arabic meanings. Here the problem is concealed. Ignoring some of the meanings that the Arabs used for their words, i.e. ,and depending upon some of the other meanings, i.e. only ,in understanding the Quran; this problem causes a problem from two perspectives: The first: their falling into sin due to not understanding the Quran with the Arabic language that it was sent down in, because their dependence upon a section of the Arabic language and not the other section of meanings that the Arabs used, means not using the Arabic language to understand the Quran. This contradicts the fact that the Quran is Arabic in language. The Second: their falling into contradictions in their understanding of the verses of Allah, because of abandoning part of its meanings. So if they read His saying,

And the wajh of your lord remains [ar-Rahman 27] And they are satisfied with for the word meaning face, but this will create contradictions in understanding, because they will find that the meaning that the Arabs put down for this word is the well known face. Allah is far above and innocent of this that the Arabs put down for this word, because He

nothing is like unto Him [ash-Shura 11] Due to that, they fall into confusion and say of its explanation ( ) a face but not like a face. This is (tafseer) an explanation for these words without the Arabic language: So, they didnt explain it with ( the real linguistic meaning) that the Arabs put down for the word, nor did they explain it with ( the traditional meaning) that the Arabs became accustomed to, nor did they explain it with (tafseer) an explanation that was transmitted from Rasul Allah (saw) i.e. ( the shariah meaning) for the word, nor did they explain it with (the metaphorical meaning) or (the allusion) in the language of the Arabs. Rather, they said: ( ) a face but not like a face i.e. they recognize that these words were not used in the verses with that the Arabs put down for them, so instead of explaining them with the metaphorical meaning that the Arabs used to use, they put a meaning for them that is not from the language of the Arabs. ,for example, in the Arabs language is used to indicate the well known face with ( the real linguistic meaning). The Arabs used it to indicate a persons self *+ as .But, they did not use to mean ( ) a face but not like a face. The Quran is Arabic in language, so explaining its verses and words should be in the language of the Arabs. If they did that and contemplated, they would find that the Arabs used: with a meaning for a person of rank due to his honour and greatness, so they would say:

( ) the face [honourable person] of the people came, so the verse [ar-Rahman 27] i.e. And the of your lord remains

It is not said that this is a far-fetched interpretation of the meaning. This is not said, because this is an Arabic usage with this meaning. The Arabic language necessitates it, because the word has either a real meaning or it has a metaphorical meaning. And, as every Muslim believes that Allah (jalla jallalahu) is far above and innocent of having a face with its real meaning that the Arabs put down for it. In other words, is impossible, so that the Arabs used is taken and explained accordingly, because the Islamic aqeedah is definite that Allah (jalla jallalahu) does not have a face according to ,like our faces, as Allah is far above and innocent of any likeness or similarity:

nothing is like Him [ash-Shura 11] So, with that, either: 1. The verse is explained with the Arabic language, so meaning is taken, so for example, it is said that the indicates 2. or the verse is explained without the Arabic language and we say it means ( ) a face but not like a face, as if the one saying so is embarrassed to say I dont know. Like this, those who say that meaning exists in the language, but not in the Quran, and those who say all of the meanings that the Arabs used for a word are meanings, but when it comes to the usage in the Quran only mention one meaning, and leave the other Arabic meanings; all of them, despite their contradicting the text of the Quran: this is a clear Arabic tongue [an-Nahl 103], they do not depend upon the Arabic language for understanding it. I say, despite all of that, they busied the Muslims with issues that encouraged their sectarianism, and was about to lead to each sect declaring the other kufr, yet they dont realise. If they had understood the meanings of the language, then these sects would never have appeared nor would they have quarrelled, and the slaves of Allah would have remained brothers. I will end with a word from one of the Scholars of language, the extraordinary ibn Jinny, who says: this language, most of it yields to ,and rarely does a thing come from it with .So, as that is the case and as the people that were addressed were the most knowledgeable of people about the breadth of its ways and the spread of its manners, so, what they were addressed with took the way that they were accustomed and used to.

They understood the objectives of the message for them according to their habits and traditions when using it. [end quote] So with that, their aqeedah became correct and their actions sincerely for Allah (jalla jallalahu), so they straightened their matters and purified their situation. They were during the time of Rasul Allah (saw) and the time of his companions (raa) on a clear path, its night like its day, none would deviate from it except the doomed, and none would avoid it except the misguided.