Skip to main content

A Study of the Qur'anic Oaths by Farahi: Section 14

 Evidentiary Significations of Argumentative Oath

We have been acquainted with argumentative oaths in prose and poetry from both the Arabic and the Non-Arabic sources. We have also learnt that employing an oath to reinforce a statement is a certain style of lending eloquence to the discourse. Now I wish to explain the evidential significations of the examples of oaths mentioned in the previous chapters. This will help us fully understand the argumentative character of oaths. A thorough discussion in this regard is necessary because this issue is of central importance to this book. We will also find some further examples of this kind of oaths in the discussion around the rhetorical aspects of the oaths.

While taking oaths of evidence, the Arabs, at times, clarify the nature of the muqsam ‘alayhi, such as in the following verse of al-Rā‘ī:

Indeed, the heavens, the winds, the earth, the days and the city all bear witness (tashhadu) to that ….

The poet says that what he swears of is so evident and well established that everything bears witness to it. Everything on the horizons of the skies and the corners of the earth proves it. Every city knows it. It has been preserved on the pages of history. The strength of stress on the assertion is achieved by highlighting the fact that even inanimate things bear witness to it let alone men endowed with the faculties of hearing, vision and speech.

This is apparently a bit of exaggeration. Yet it is based on truth. It relies on the general knowledge of the fact. It is similar to the oath taken by Moses (sws), as referred to earlier, where he swore by the heavens and the earth.

Sometimes oath-takers mean to present something as an example by way of comparison in order to strengthen a claim. The oath of ‘Urwah b. Murrah referred to above evidences this fact. He has likened the tribe of Banū Bakr, whom Abū Amāmah called for help, to the Markhah tree. This is merely an empty claim. However, when such a claim is just intricately hinted at, it is often well received by the audience, just as is the case with simile and antonomasia. This has been explained by the experts of ‘ilm al-ma‘ānī (Science of Meaning). We will return to this discussion in the seventeenth chapter.

Sometimes, by such oaths, the oath-takers try to corroborate a statement. They thus swear by the muqsam bihī because it corroborates the muqsam ‘alayhi. We can see this in the statement of Eupolis mentioned above. He swears by the crown by which his nation had honored him. This act of his nation was an expression of respect and glorification for him. It is as if he says, in rejecting the claim of his contender: “I, after receiving this great honor bestowed upon me, cannot be imagined to have borne ill-will for my people.” This evidence was indeed weak. For his opponents could have said: “You are ingrate. You have changed since your people honored you.” He has, therefore, further strengthened his oath by the crown by adducing his personal dignity and respect. He seems to say: “I have acquired this respect in the most famous war my nation ever fought, a war in which all the great warriors of the nation showed their true valor. None of them could reach my position.” This stress and emphasis on his personal traits did not leave his opponents with an option but to recede to the position of the envious who can only fret over other people’s honor and dignity. Still, however, this kind of oaths does not fully tie together a claim and evidence to prove it.

Sometimes the oath-swearer intends to bring a decisive proof for his statements. This could be achieved by referring to a fact which joins the muqsam bihī and muqsam ‘alayhi. This phenomenon can be observed in the oath taken by Demosthenes. He mentions the praiseworthy works of the ancestors of his addressees. His audience could not doubt his claims. Thus he could definitely prove that their deeds were just as praiseworthy as the acts of their forefathers, whom they emulated. To do this, he first makes it plain that their ancestors were exemplars for them. This is indeed the best form of argumentative oaths. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

English Translation of al-Jahshiyari’s Kitab al-Wuzaraʾ wa al-Kuttab: 2

The Scribes Among The Persians The kings of Persia were exceedingly strict with anyone who forged or engraved a seal resembling the royal seal. They considered such a crime equal to the gravest offenses and punished it accordingly. The Persian kings referred to the letter-writers as “the interpreters ( tarājimah ) of kings.” They used to say to them: “Do not let your desire to make speech concise lead you to omit meanings, abandon proper structure and clarity ( al-iblāgh ) in it or weaken the strength of argument.” It was the established practice in the days of the Persians that the younger generation ( aḥdāth al-kuttāb ) of scribes, and those newly emerging among them, would gather at the palace gates seeking employment. The king would then command the heads of his chancery to test them and examine their intellects. Those found worthy would have their names presented to the king and would be instructed to remain at the gate so they could be called upon when needed. The king w...

شرح صحیح مسلم، امام نووی :مقدمات، ۴ صحیحین کی فضیلت اور ترجیح

-فصل: [صحیحین کی فضیلت اور ترجیح] علماء کرامؒ کا اس پر اتفاق ہے کہ قرآنِ کریم کے بعد سب سے معتبر اور صحیح کتابیں صحیحین، یعنی امام بخاریؒ کی صحیح اور امام مسلمؒ  کی صحیح ہیں۔ امت سے ان دونوں کتابوں کو قبولیت ملی ہے ۔ البتہ صحیح بخاریؒ ان دونوں میں زیادہ معتبر اور صحیح ہے، اور اس میں ظاہر و خفی فوائدو معارف کی کثرت بھی ہے ۔ یہ بھی واضح ہے کہ امام مسلمؒ خود امام بخاریؒ سے استفادہ کرتے اور اس بات کا اعتراف فرماتے ہیں کہ علمِ حدیث میں ان کی کوئی نظیر نہیں۔ صحیح بخاریؒ کی صحیح مسلمؒ پر ترجیح کا یہ نقطہ نظر جمہور، اہلِ اتقان، اصحابِ حذق، اور دقائقِ حدیث میں غور کرنے والوں کا ہے۔ البتہ ابو علی حسین بن علی نیسابوری حافظ، جو امام حاکم ابو عبد اللہ بن البیع کے شیخ ہیں، نے مسلم کی کتاب کو صحیح تر قرار دیا ہے۔ مغرب کے بعض مشائخ  نے بھی ان کی موافقت کی ہےاور صحیح مسلمؒ کو افضل کہا ہے۔  مگر درست اور صائب پہلی رائے ہے۔  امام حافظ، فقیہ، اور ناقد ابو بکر اسماعیلیؒ نے اپنی کتاب المدخل میں بخاریؒ کی ترجیح کے مضبوط دلائل بیان کیے ہیں۔ ہمارے سامنے امام ابو عبد الرحمن نسائیؒ کی روایت آئی...

شرح صحیح مسلم، امام نووی :مقدمات، ۳ صحیح مسلمؒ کی شہرت اور اس کے طرقِ روایت

 :۔ فصل:[ صحیح مسلمؒ کی شہرت اور اس کے طرقِ روایت] [ صحیح مسلمؒ کا تواتر اور انتساب] صحیح مسلمؒ کی شہرت انتہائی درجے کو پہنچی ہوئی ہے، اور اجمالی اعتبار سے یہ کتاب امام مسلمؒ سے تواتر کے درجے میں ثابت ہے۔ اس لیے اس امر کا قطعی علم حاصل ہے کہ یہ ابو الحسین مسلم بن الحجاجؒ ہی کی تصنیف ہے۔ البتہ جہاں تک متصل اسناد کے ساتھ امام مسلمؒ تک پہنچنے والی روایت کا تعلق ہے، تو ہمارے بلاد اور ادوار میں اس کا سلسلہ عملاً ایک ہی طریق پر منحصر ہو کر رہ گیا ہے، اور وہ ابو اسحاق ابراہیم بن محمد بن سفیان کی امام مسلمؒ سے روایت ہے۔ [مشرق اور مغرب میں روایت کے معروف طریق ] بلادِ مغرب میں اس کے ساتھ ساتھ ابو محمد احمد بن علی القلانسی کی روایت بھی امام مسلمؒ سے منقول ہے۔ ابن سفیان سے اس کتاب کو ایک جماعت نے روایت کیا، جن میں جلودی بھی شامل ہیں۔ جلودی سے بھی ایک جماعت نے اسے روایت کیا، جن میں فارسی ہیں۔ فارسی سے بھی ایک جماعت نے روایت کیا، جن میں فراوی ہیں۔ فراوی سے بھی بہت سے لوگوں نے روایت کیا، جن میں منصور ہیں۔ اور منصور سے بھی ایک بڑی جماعت نے روایت کیا، جن میں ہمارے شیخ ابو اسحاق شامل ہیں۔ شیخ، امام،...