English Translation of Seminal Islamic Texts

Conclusion   The above discussions relate to the Qur’ānic oaths in a general way. Detailed dealing of the interpretation of the oath verses has been provided in the commentary on the Qur’ān. Still however, I have, in the organization of the sections and selection of examples in them, pointed out to the essence of the oaths and their true aspects. It needs to be appreciated that the main objective of this book was to highlight a particular aspect of the oaths to which people raised objections. Yet, however, at times I have been forced to deal with some other relevant matters which required elaboration. This made me expand the discussions till the time the truth of the relevant matter was exposed and the related doubts were cleared off. However, this achieved, I hastened to the original discussion and abandoned the exhaustive survey of that interrupting issue. Thus book combines two plans, briefness and enlargement, flowing on two axis, brevity and detail. A hasty reader may blame ...

Proper Use of Different Oath Formulas   The experts in Arabic language have made it clear that no two words are exactly synonymous. Each word, among a group of synonyms, conveys a signification peculiar and confined to it alone. The scholars of Arabic language have discovered that the synonymous words used in the Qur’ān too have different shades of meaning that can only be detected by a keen analyst. The word riyāḥ, for example, has been used for winds, in the context of benefits, and the use of word rīḥ (singular of riyāḥ ) with reference to its harm. Similarly, the Qur’ān uses amṭār the plural form of maṭar (rain) in context of punishment. Application of different words for swearing oaths in different places is a similar practice. I will point out some of the particularities of different expressions of oath. I have mentioned in the eighteenth section that some kinds of swearing oaths injure the honor of the oath-taker and harm his dignity. The Qur’ān has indicated this...

Wisdom Behind the Specificness of the Command of Jesus Christ   Christians do not find it imperative to reconcile the received knowledge with reason. They believe that the religion operates beyond reason. However, some of them, with philosophical tendencies, endeavored to defend their religion against all kinds of rational attacks. However, for this love for rationalization of religion, they are always condemned and branded as heretics by both the scholars and the commoners among their co-religionists. Famous religious philosopher and thinker Spinoza who was an expert in Hebrew language is one such scholar. Before I deal with my understanding of these exhortations, I wish to present the view of this philosopher concerning these directives. This will enable us understand that he agrees with me as far as the specificness of these commands to a particular group living under particular circumstances is concerned. This will also help us understand difference between the approaches of ...

Evangelical Prohibition of Oath   We know that Gospels as we have them are not the original text delivered by Jesus (sws). What we have in our hands is the translations of the original Injīl. The Gospels mix the sayings of Jesus Christ (sws) with the statements of the reporters. Its narratives vary and sometimes mutually contradict. It is not traced back to the Prophet (sws) and is not authentic. The text of the Gospels is disarrayed and confused. Keeping the above facts about the text of the present Gospels in perspective, we cannot resort to it and rely on it in our efforts to know the will of God. We may, however, discuss it supposing it to be authentic and accept its assertions just for the sake of discussion.  A detailed prohibition of taking an oath occurs in the famous Sermon of the Mount according to the Gospel of Matthew. It does not find mention in the Gospels of Mark and John. An abridged version, however, has been given in the Gospel of Luke. I have selected, for t...

Desirable and Undesirable Oaths Since oaths are sworn in order either to present oneself or the Almighty as witness to some facts, in both cases, the oath-taker puts his honor or religion on stake. It is not something to play with. This entails that an oath may not be taken unless in grave matters and that too with solemn resolution. This is why it has been forbidden in certain cases: i.         from the perspective of muqsam ‘alayhi ii.       from the perspective of muqsam bihī iii.      from the perspective of the both. i. Whoever takes an oath in every petty matter proves to be an unserious person. Such a man does not succeed in upholding his personal honor. That is why the Almighty has forbidden this act in the Qur’ān. The relevant Qur’ānic verse uses very emphatic language. The Almighty says: Heed not every despicable ( mahīn ) swearer ( h ̣ allāf ). (Q 68:10) Whoever takes to swearing an ...

  Rhetorical Aspect and Intricacies of Oath   If these oaths are arguments, then why has this not been plainly mentioned? We need to appreciate that there are different levels and various kinds of argumentative discourse. There are some contended issues to which humans are not psychologically attracted to. There could be some other issues for which they do not feel an aversion. The problems of physics, mathematics or the history of earlier nations are such examples. In this case, the arguments are better put plainly. However, sometimes we need to argue for issues which have a psychological aspect. In such issues, both the addressor and the audience develop a kind of inclination or reluctance, deterrence or condescension, and insistence or importunity. In these matters, it is considered necessary to argue at different levels. One employs different styles of expression with varied degree of clarity, intricacy, sharpness and persuasion. At times, one feels it necessary to cha...

  Causes of Obscurity of the Correct View   What I have mentioned regarding the views of the scholars in the preceding chapters makes it clear that my view is not novel. However, some aspects of this approach have not been open to the earlier scholars. They did not stick to it fully, letting it off their hands on one occasion, and mixing it with other theses at another. I will now proceed to explain the causes of their failure to understand and adhere to it fully, so that their excuses can be identified. First, at many places, the muqsam bihī by nature is a glorious thing. The Qur’ān, the Mount Ṭūr , the city of Makkah , the sun, moon, stars, time, night and day, all have some aspects of glory. In such cases, the earlier scholars did not need to explain that the oaths are argumentative in nature. They considered taking an oath by the glorified and dignified things as common practice. Whenever they found a muqsam bihī containing various significations, they attached to ...

  Evidence from the Qur’ān   It has been sufficiently proved that the basic purpose of an oath is to ratify a statement. It has also been established that gloriousness of the muqsam bihī is not a necessary characteristic of the oath. This is an additional thing obtained only when the oath is taken by God and His sha‘ā’ir . It has also been explained that sometimes oaths are brought merely as evidence. These premises make it clear that the oaths of the Qur’ān upon which objections have been made are the oaths brought to furnish proofs and bring evidence from the facts mentioned as the muqsam bihī , for the claims made in the muqsam ‘alayhi . Someone may, while admitting that oaths are basically brought for bearing witness to a fact, claim that oaths have been widely used for the sake of glorification of the muqsam bihī . This change in its usage has grown to be a reality. The real essence of the oaths (i.e. evidencing a muqsam ‘alayhi by force of evidence provided by the ...