Between
Grammar and Rhetoric (Balāghah):
A Look at Qur'ān 2:217
Mustansir Mir
I.
The Problem
The Qur'anic verse 2:217 raises a problem which has been exercising the
minds of Muslim scholars. The problem has to do with the case-ending of
the phrase wa'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi in the verse. As Abū Hayyān
says: wa qad khabata 'l-mucribūna fī icrābi wa 'l-masjidi
'l-harāmi.[1] Rudi Paret calls the verse "rough,"[2]
and, although he does not explain where the roughness lies, he probably
has in mind the aforementioned problem and the attempts of earlier
writers to come to grips with it. In this paper we shall argue first,
that the traditional attempts to solve the problem have not been very
successful and, second, that a more satisfactory alternative explanation
of the problem does exist. In doing so, it will be suggested that the
traditional views on the above-mentioned verse are indicative of a
general weakness of the traditional approach to Qur'an interpretation.
II.
Traditional Solutions
The
problematic phrase occurs in the first part of the verse. For purposes
of reference, we shall divide that part into the following units:
-
yas'alūnaka
cani
'l-shahri 'l-harāmi qitālin fīhi
-
qul qitālun fīhi
kabīrun
-
wa saddun
can
sabīli 'llāhi
-
wa kufrun bihī
-
wa'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi
-
wa ikhrāju ahlihī
minhu
-
akbaru
cinda
'llāhi
The
issue is: What is the genitive case-ending of al-masjid in E due
to, or which is the same thing, to which preceding phrase is E joined by
conjunction? We shall begin by reviewing some of the answers given by
traditional scholars.[3]
Tabarī:
Tabarī solves the problem by supplying the preposition can
before al-masjid al-harām, and gives the underlying construction
(ta'wīl al-kalām) as: wa saddun can sabīli 'llāhi wa
kufrun bihī wa cani 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi wa ikhrāju
ahli 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi . . . akbaru cinda 'llāhi
mina 'l-qitāli fī 'l-shahri 'l-harāmi.[4] Simple as
this explanation is, it raises a problem which Tabarī neither
discusses nor alludes to. It makes cani 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi
the silah of sadd, a masdar (in C), can
sabīli 'llāhi becoming the mawsūl, with wa kufrun bihī interposed
between the two. But this violates the well-known rule of grammar that
nothing may come between a silah and a mawsūl. It may also
be asked why, in the Qur'ānic construction itself, al-masjid al-harām
succeeds wa kufrun bihī instead of preceding it, for its precedence
would have made the verse problem-free?
Zamakhsharī: As if sensing the objection that might be made to Tabarī's
explanation, Zamakhsharī, in his paraphrase of the verse, transposes D
and E: . . . yacni, wa kabā'iru qurayshin min saddihim
can sabīli 'llāhi wa cani 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi
wa kufrihim bi 'llāhi wa ikhrāji ahli 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi . . ..[5]
This, however, is not a fresh solution, for the received sequence of the
phrase-units in the verse remains unexplained, as in Tabarī's.
Farrā': Farrā' holds that E (wa'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi) is joined by
conjunction to al-shahr al-harām in A. In other words, the
question asked was about the Sacred Months and the Sacred Mosque both.
Thus, the sequence of B-D could be explained in one of the two ways: (i)
Qitālun fīhi in B is the mubtada', whereas the khabar is made up of
kabīr in B and of C and D.[6] In other words, fighting during
the Sacred Months is not only a great sin in itself, it is also
equivalent to keeping people from the path of God and disbelieving in
Him.[7] (ii) Qitālun fīhi kabīrun (B) is a complete sentence,
containing both thc mubtada' and the khabar; wa saddun can
sabīli 'llāhi is a mubtada', and so is kufrun bihī, the khabar of each
(= kabīr) having been omitted since thc context points to it. In other
words:
qitālun fīhi kabīrun
wa saddun can sabīli 'llāhi kabīrun
wa kufrun bihī kabīrun[8]
Farrā's explanation of the syntax of thc verse is open to several
objections: (1) An ordinary reading of thc verge suggests that the
question asked was about fighting during thc Sacred Months, not about
fighting in the Sacred Mosque; (2) on (i), fighting during the Sacred
Months would constitute disbelief in God, which is obviously wrong; and
(3) on (ii), it would follow that expelling the believers from the
Sacred Mosque would be a graver sin than disbelieving in God, another
unacceptable conclusion.
Rāzī: Rāzī takes up the cudgels on Farrā's behalf, making three points.
First, it is quite conceivable that people had asked the Prophet (peace
be on him) about fighting in the Sacred Mosque as well. To fight in the
Sacred Mosque was held to be as heinous as to fight during the Sacred
Months, and so the question could pertain to both. Second, if (i) makes
fighting during the Sacred Months tantamount to disbelief in God, then
this, too, is understandable. For the word qitāl in qul qitālun fīhi
kabīrun, being indefinite, is not the same as the indefinite qitāl in
the preceding yas'alūnaka cani 'l-shahri 'l-harāmi
qitālin fīhi.[9] This being so, it is conceivable that at
least one kind of qitāl - that which aims at uprooting Islam - is kufr.
Third, if, on (ii), it follows that expelling the believers from the
Sacred Mosque is a graver sin than disbelief in God, then there is a
sense in which this is true: to expel the Prophet (peace be on him) and
the Companions from the Kacbah constitutes not only disbelief
- for only disbelief could have motivated one to do so - but unwarranted
persecution as well, and this double act of disbelief and persecution is
surely graver than the single act of disbelief.[10]
Rāzī, while showing great ingenuity in responding to the objections
against the interpretation presented by Farrā', does not vindicate the
syntax of the Qur'an itself. With E taken to be mactūf
on al-shahr al-harām in A, the verse comes to have a highly
convoluted structure. And Rāzī's attempt to equate fighting during the
Sacred Months with disbelief in God, or to establish that the double act
of disbelief and persecution is worse than the single act of disbelief,
is a sleight of hand, and not a very good one at that.
Abū Hayyān: Abū Hayyān prefers to make al-masjid al-harām
the mactūf of the pronoun in bihī.[11] The
objection (made by Basran grammarians) that for the catf
on a genitive pronoun (damīr majrūr) to be valid, the preposition
should, as a rule, be repeated with the mactūf (that
is, the wording should have been wa bi 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi) is
refuted by Abū Hayyān on the strength of a number of
illustrations from thc Qur'ān and the classical Arabic poetry.[12]
But there remains the objection that the resulting notion of "disbelief
in the Sacred Mosque" appears to make little sense,[13] and
that one has to resort to tortuous interpretation to make it meaningful.
None of the four writers discussed above - Tabarī, Zamakhsharī,
Farrā', and Abū Hayyān - offer a completely satisfactory
explanation of the problem raised by the Qur'anic verse 2:217. [14]
The interpretations of Tabarī and Zamakhsharī make sense in
themselves, but they ignore the sequence of the phrase-units in the
verse. Farrā's explanation hardly makes a case for Qur'ānic eloquence;
it is, to use Abū Hayyān's words: mutakallafun jiddan wa yabcudu
canhu nazmu 'l-Qur'āni wa'l- tarkību 'l-fasīhu,
and Rāzī goes to needless lengths to defend it. Abū Hayyān's own
explanation, which requires one to swallow the phrase "disbelief in the
Sacred Mosque," is no less mutakallaf. Of all these interpretations, the
one by Zamakhsharī would make the most sense - if the Qur'ān had
actually used the sequence of phrases suggested by Zamakhsharī. Is some
other explanation possible?
III. An Alternative Solution
The
real problem, thus, is not the case-ending of masjid in E, but phrase D
(wa kufrun bihī), for no matter how one explains the case-ending of E,
one still will have to explain the location of D in the verse. The task,
therefore, is to explain why D has been placed between C and E. Is D an
intrusion? It seems that D is not an intrusion, and that its peculiar
location in the verse is quite significant. A brief general observation
is offered before explaining the phenomenon.
The treatment of the Qur'ānic verse 2:217 shows that the traditional
scholars regard the question of the relationship between A and B-G
essentially as a question of grammar, whereas it is, in fact, a question
of balāghah. The are are concerned with establishing proper syntactic
relationships between the various phrases of the verse - they try to
identify antecedents, the two terms of a conjunctive phrase (mactūf
and mactūf calayh), and so on - but it does
not occur to then to ask whether the apparently unusual construction of
the verse is meant to highlight a point which an ordinary, grammatically
more acceptable construction would fail to highlight.[15] In
the paragraph that follows an attempt will be made to explain the role
of D in the verse by highlighting four points. [16]
First, D (wa kufrun bihī) stands to C, E, and F to the relation of cause
to effect. Thus the verse is saying that the acts of preventing people
from taking the path of God (saddun can sabīli 'llāhi),
preventing them from entering the Kacbah (wa'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi),
and expelling its residents [17] (wa ikhrāju ahlihī minhu)
can be committed only by those who have no faith in God. The word kufr,
though it may be said to signify, in its present context, the disbelief
that is opposed to belief in Islam, really is quite general and
signifies the absence of any meaningful belief in God. The verse is thus
saying that God-fearingness in any degree, and a belief in God that is
genuine in any degree, would be sufficient to keep one from committing
such acts, but that the Quraysh, in committing them, are providing
evidence of their utter faithlessness, or rather of the utter
meaninglessness of whatever belief they have in God. That D bears to the
three acts, C, E and F, the relationship of cause to effect is borne out
clearly in the case of C and E and implicitly in the case of F, by
several other Qur'anic verses. For example, the verse 8:36 says that
those who disbelieve spend their wealth to prevent people from taking
the path of God: inna 'lladhīna kafarū yunafiqūna amwālahum li-yasuddū
can sabīli 'llahi. The verse 48:25 reads: humu 'lladhīna
kafarū wa saddūkum cani 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi.
The verse 5:2, addressing those who believe - that is, those who have
not committed kufr - says that their faith keeps them from stopping a
rival people from visiting or entering the Kacbah (yā ayyuhā
'lladhīna āmanū . . . lā yajrimannakun shana'ānu qawmin an saddūkum
cani 'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi).[18] D is thus a
key phrase in the verse.
Second, D is a parenthetic remark, which means that, essentially, the
verse is supposed to be read as if D were not there. If we leave D out
for the moment, the verse presents no problem. Besides, the omission of
the preposition can before al-masjid al-harām becomes
very meaningful. For it implies that keeping people from the Sacred
Mosque (E) is so intimately connected with keeping people from the path
of God (C - or, to put it differently, the latter act is such a clear
instantiation of the former - that the same preposition which governs
sabīl Allāh is considered still operative and thus governs al-masjid al-harām
as well.
Third, to recognize the intimate connection between C and E is to
recognize the significance of the interposition of D between C and E. By
first establishing a close connection between C and E, and then
deliberately breaking that connection through the insertion of D between
them, the Qur'an accomplishes something that a more "regular"
construction would not: it creates the right psychological moment for
focusing the reader's attention on the root-cause of the three criminal
acts mentioned in the verse (C, E, and F).
Fourth, the interposition of D is justified not only from the
psychological, but also from another viewpoint. Unlike the other verses,
cited above, in which the cause - disbelief - is cited first and the
effect - preventing people from taking the path of God, and so on -
later, in the verse 2:217 the cause is sandwiched between the several
effects. The unusual arrangement is due to the fact that, of all the
verses that deal with this theme in the Qur'an, the verse 2:217 alone is
satirical. "O yes," the verse says, addressing the Quraysh, "if you want
to know why you are led to commit these acts, then here is why: you have
no faith in God!" We should think of the phrase as written in
parentheses and punctuated with a sardonic exclamation mark:
They ask you about fighting during the Sacred Months.
Say: Fighting during them is a great sin. But keeping others from the
path of God (and disbelieving in Him!) and the Sacred Mosque and
expelling its residents from it is a much greater sin in the eyes of
God.
Seen in this light, the placing of D between C and E no longer appears
to be jarring or intrusive. Not only D seems to be appropriately
located, any other sequence of the phrase-units in the verse - whether
it is (with the necessary pronominal and other adjustments made) - B, D,
C, E, F, or B, C, E, F, D, or B, C, E, D, F would fail to underscore
effectively the importance of the root cause - disbelief - of the acts
condemned in the verse, and would also fail to convey the force of the
satire intended.
IV.
Concluding Note
In
the opening paragraph, a general weakness of the traditional approach to
Qur'an interpretation was referred to. The weakness was hinted at in
Section III. Here are a few more words about it.
The yoke of grammar lies heavy on traditional Qur'an interpretation.
Knowledge of Arabic grammar is of course essential for interpreting the
Qur'an and its syntax, and an inability to follow discussions of the
Qur'anic grammatical issues in traditional works can be very costly. But
in reading those works, for example, Abū Hayyān's Al-Bahr
al-Muhīt, one sometimes feels that the grammatical
categories have become an end in themselves. [19] I have
tried to show, with reference to a single Qur'anic verse and hence on a
very small scale, that grammar has its limitations, and that there are
situations where considerations of balāghah may override those of
grammar, lending power to the discourse. Precisely where considerations
of balāghah should take precedence over those of grammar is not easy to
decide. In general, however, a seeming departure from the normal rules
of grammar should alert one to the possibilities of balāghah. "This is
the unkindest cut of all," says Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play
about the man. Irrespective of whether the use of the double superlative
was or was not known in Shakespeare's time, Caesar's remark has, in the
particular context in which it is uttered, a force and logic of its own,
and even if Shakespeare were writing today, it is unlikely that one
would wish his Caesar to use the grammatically correct single
superlative. The question to be asked in connection with wa kufrun bihī
in the verse 2:217 is: Does the position of D in the received
arrangement of the verse carry any significance, and whether that
significance would be lost if D were placed differently? To this
question the answer is: yes.
Notes & References
[1] Abū cAbd Allāh Muhammad ibn Yūsuf, known as Abū
Hayyān, Al-Nahr al-Mādd min al-Bahr, on the margin of his
Al-Bahr al-Muhīt, 8 vols., (Riyadh: Maktabāt wa Matābac
al-Nashr al-Hadīthah, 1389?/1969?), 2:146.
[2] Rudi Paret, "The Qur'an - I," in A F L Beeston et al., eds.,
Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 205.
[3] It should be noted that the verse gives rise to a number of other
problems also. While these do not have a direct bearing on our
discussion, some of them will be mentioned and treated briefly later in
the paper.
[4] Abū Jacfar Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī,
Jāmic al-Bayān can Ta'wil Āy al-Qur'ān, 30 vols.
in 12 (Cairo: 1373/1954), 1:347.
[5] Abu'l Qāsim Mahmūd ibn cUmar al-Zamakhsharī, Al-Kashshāf
can Haqā'iq al-Tanzīl wa cUyun al-Aqāwīl, 4 vols.,
(Beirut: Dār al-Macrifah, n.d.), 1:131.
[6] Or, the three (kabīr C, and D) make up khabar bacda
khabar. Fakhr al-Dīn Abū cAbd Allāh ibn cUmar al-Rāzī,
Al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, 32 vols., (Cairo: 1353- t381/1934- 1962), 6:34.
[7] As for F and G, they make up a new sentence, F being the mubtada', G
the khabar. The pronoun in minhu in F in this case will have a specific
referent: qitālun fīhi in B.
[8] Ibid. 6:34. As for F and G, they will again make up a new
sentence (see previous note). But in this case the referent of the
pronoun in minhu will be the entire combination of qitālun fīhi (in B),
C, and D.
[9] The argument here is that, having occurred in the verse already, the
word qitāl in its second occurrence (that is, in qul qitālun fīhi
kabīrun) ought to have been definite. For more details, see Rāzī,
6:32-33.
[10] Ibid., 3:35.
[11] Abū Hayyān, Al-Bahr al-Muhīt, 2:148.
Abū Hayyān not only prefers this construction, he regards it to
be the one intended, though the only support he offers for it is the
rather subjective statement: li-anna wasfa 'l-kalāmi wa fasāhat
al-tarkībi taqtadī dhālika (ibid).
[12] Ibid., 2:147-48.
[13] Shihāb al-Dīn al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Alūsī, Rūh al-Macāni,
30 vols. in 15, (Beirut, n.d.), 2:109.
[14] Many other scholars accept one or the other of the explanations
given by these four commentators.
[15] We have noted above the problem of the separation of a silah
from its mawsūl: those who take E to be governed by the
preposition can in C, have to explain why D stands wedged
between C and E. Traditional writers do address this question, but their
solutions to it continue to make grammatical heavy weather. Thus
attempts have been made to explain the wāw between saddun can
sabīli 'llāhi and kufrun bihī in such a manner as to make the two an
integral unit, so that the issue of D's being an intrusion is avoided.
The said wāw could, for example, be taken as the wāw of explication (li
'l-tafsīr) (cf. Rāzī, 6:34: . . . anna 'l-sadda can
sabīli 'llāhi wa 'l-kufra bihī ka 'l-shay'i 'l-wāhidi fī 'l-macnā
fa ka'annahū lā fasla.) It has also been suggested (ibid.) that
D, though it really belongs after E, has been placed before it because
of the greater significance attached to it (li fart al-cināyah).
The problem with the first explanation is that it is an explanation of
convenience. After all, why should C and D alone should be held to be
identical? Why not E and F as well? The problem with the second
explanation is that it is too vague and lacks substance. What, in the
present context, does fart al-cināyah consist in, and
precisely why does it necessitate putting D between C and E?
[16] In making these points I shall devote too much attention to B
(which is a preliminary and brief answer to the question asked in A), or
to G (which is khabar of B-F).
[17] The word ahl has been used in two senses in the verse: (1)
residents and (2) those to whom Kacbah rightfully belongs, or
who have a legitimate claim to it.
[18] See also the verses 4:167; 8:34, 36; 16:88; 22:25; 47:1, 32, 34.
[19] Of course, the traditional writers do not completely neglect
balāghah in interpreting the Qur'an; far from it. It is somewhat
excessive pre-occupation with grammar to which I have tried to draw the
attention.
|