Muhammad
Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings
An enquiry into Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 69:44
Dr. Rashad Khalifa and the Qur’an-only movement is well
known to promote anti-hadith claims. What may be less known is that Dr. Khalifa
and his followers went beyond simply alleging the falsity of hadith. They argue
that anything outside of the Qur’an is false. From their point of view the
Prophet Muhammad only received the Qur’an and the only purpose of the prophet’s
mission was to deliver the holy writ. One
of the arguments constructed against hadith was to argue the Prophet was forbidden
from “issuing any religious teachings” based on a unique reading of Surah Haqq
69:44. Our purpose is to analyze Dr.
Khalifa’s interpretation of the said verse.
The Final Testament, the translation of the Qur’an according
to Dr. Khalifa has a number of unique
claims. One of these claims is found in Surah Al Haqqah. The subtitle to 69:44-52 reads “Muhammad
Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.” Dr. Khalifa writes this above the
verse in arabic Wa law taqawwala ʿalaynā baʿḍa
l-aqāwīl which he translates to mean “ Had he uttered any other teachings.” The notion that the Prophet Muhammad was
forbidden from teaching would sound puzzling to people unfamiliar with Dr.
Khalifa’s claims. As early as 1985 Dr. Khalifa used the said verses in Surah
Haqqah to proclaim “Qur’an is the only utterance by Muhammad to be upheld as
THE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING” (Muslim Perspective May 1985, pg 3) Dr.
Khalifa repeats this assertion in the appendix to the Qur’an entitled ‘Hadith
and Sunnah: Satanic innovations’ where he states “The prophet Muhammad was
enjoined, in very strong words, from issuing any religious teachings besides
the Quran”(Appendix 19.) The translation
of Dr. Khalifa is below:
[69:44] Had he uttered any other teachings.
[69:45] We would have punished
him.
[69:46] We would have stopped the revelations to him.
The subtitle to the above verses is “Muhammad Forbidden
from Issuing Any Religious Teachings.” Dr.
Khalifa obviously wants us to understand the four verses above according to the
subtitle. We are to understand that God
is reassuring believers about limitations to the Prophet’s mission. If the
Prophet stated “any other teachings” then God will punish him. God will also stop
revelation to the Prophet because he uttered any other teachings, outside the Qur’an.
So the only things the Prophet ever taught was
the “Qur’an.” We can thus disregard any
hadith that contradicts the Qur’an. (Dr. Khalifa tells us to dismiss all of the
hadith anyways.)
What does it mean when Dr. Khalifa writes, per subtitle “Muhammad
Forbidden from Issuing Any Religious Teachings”? Does he meant that the Prophet cannot teach
anything, including Qur’an? Maybe Dr. Khalifa meant “any other teachings” as he
translated 69:44. But in that case even a traditional Sunni-Shia would argue
that all their hadiths are in line with the Qur’an and not “other teachings.” We will give Dr. Khalifa some leeway and assume
the editor did not fix his poorly written English. Instead, we will take the subtitle
to imply what he stated in appendix 19 and the May 1985 issue of his newsletter;
that “only the Qur’an is a source of religious teaching.”
A comparative translation process will help us critique the
Final Testament. “Had he uttered any other teachings” is how Dr. Khalifa translates
the above verses. I will limit our analysis to three translations
which include a popular modernist, a
traditional and an orientalist. Here is Muhamad Asad :
69:44 Now if he
[whom We have entrusted with it] had dared to attribute some [of his own]
sayings unto Us
69:45 We would
indeed have seized him by his right hand
69:46 and would
indeed have cut his life-vein
Yusuf Ali:
69:44 And if the
messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name
69:45 We should
certainly seize him by his right hand
69:46 And We
should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart
N.J Dawood:
69:44 Had he
invented lies concerning Us
69:45 We would
have seized him by the right hand
69:46 and severed
his heart‘s vein
As we see above Dr. Khalifa has serious competition. The traditionalist, modernist and orientalist
appear to be saying the same thing. Yet, they are saying something somewhat
different from Dr. Khalifa. Let us summarize
what we read. If the prophet lied against God then the prophet would have a
consequence. The consequence would be a punishment in which the prophet is seized
by the right hand and a life giving vain is cut. The punishment is more harsh than Dr. Khalifa’s
translation. But more importantly the reason for the punishment is completely
different. The majority of translations render
the passage of 69:44 so that the reader is reassured by God that the prophet
cannot lie. But Dr. Khalifa renders the
passage so that the Prophet could not teach or apparently say anything outside
of the Qur’an! Who is more correct?
At this point we need to look at each individual verse,
starting with 69:44. “Teaching” is Rashad’s rendering of the word “taqawwala.”
The arabic Taqawwala implies a verbal rendering of “words” in English. It would
be like saying “ I am wording this document correctly.” Word-for-word Qur’an
translations write “fabricate” which although
correct in context( as we will see) is not the literal meaning of taqawwala. A
literal word for word meaning of the verse 69:44 would be: “If he uttered anything
against us..” The understanding of this
passage that the Prophet is forbidding from making a lie against God is
universally understood. Classic Tafsirs of Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn,
Tafsir Qummi all have 69:44 taqawwala as meaning fabricate. Modern tafsirs
including reformist and non-muslims also share view. I was unable to find an exception to this, outside
of Dr. Khalifa. Even Edip Yuksel renders the passage, “Had he attributed
anything falsely to Us.”(Reformist translation.) Moreover, the term “teaching” is found throughout
the Qur’an but not in 69:44! So a layman who comes across this verse for the
first time would conclude at the least that Dr. Khalifa was being very
non-literal with his usage of terms. We will have more to say on “taqawalla” and
“teaching” momentarily.
69:45 is rendered by Dr. Khalifa as “We would have
punished him.” The other translations do not use the term punishment, a word
that occurs many times in the Qur’an. Dr.
Shenaz’s word for word translation (available on islam awakened.com) renders
the passage “Certainly We (would) have seized him by the right hand.” There is no word for punishment in the literal
translation, although it is certainly implied. To say that the Prophet would be punished is a
fair assertion of what the verse is conveying. But why does Dr. Khalifa not translate the plain
meaning of the passage ,that the prophet “would be sized by his right hand”? Is Dr. Khalifa worried about upsetting his followers with the actual
quranic language? We will explore this question momentarily.
The next verse 69:46 is also rendered in an interesting
way by Dr. Khalifa, “We would have stopped the revelations to him.” But our orientalist,
modernist, traditionalist contingent stated something much more vivid, that the
Prophet would have his life cut from him! Dr. Shenaz’s literal translation
reads, “Then certainly We (would) have cut off from him the aorta.” To say that “revelation would stop” as Dr.
Khalifa interprets is not completely wrong.
But at the same time it is not a bad take of the verse!
If the prophet is
killed by Allah s.w.t. then of course the divine revelations would stop! But the verse says NOTHING about divine
revelations. The cessation of revelations
would be a natural outflow of the prophet’s demise. Is this the point of the
Qur’ans teaching that the prophet would be punished?(and for teaching?) If the prophet died, not only would revelation
stop, but the prophet would not be able perform any worldly activity. So why did Dr. Khalfia write “revelations would
stop” when he could have more correctly wrote the prophet’s life would end? Again,
why did Dr. Khalifa choose to not give the plain meaning of the verse again?
Was he also worried about his followers reaction here as well?
We can test how accurate Dr. Khalifa’s translation by
examining it’s self-consistency. How does Dr. Khalifa render the verb “taqawwala”
elsewhere? If Dr. Khalifa is correct in redarning
“taqawwala” as “teaching” then we would expect it to be translated as such consistently,
provided of course that it fits the appropriate the context. We find the verb taqawwala in one other place
of the Qur’an;Surah Tur. This is Dr. Khalifa’s translation of 52:33 “Do they say,
"He made it all up?" Instead, they are simply disbelievers.” So we
see that Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “made it all up.” This implies
that the prophet would not lie. Translating surah Tur 52:33 to imply fabrication
is consistent with what the other translators said on 69:44 but inconsistent
with that Dr. Khalifa said on the same verse!
Why did Dr. Khalifa choose to
translate taqawalla in surah Tur as implying fabrication but translate the same
word as “teaching” in surah al Haqqah? One would be hard-pressed to find a translation
of Surah Tur:33 implying “teaching.”
Dr. Khalifa translates taqawalla as “teaching” in Surah
Haqqah but as fabrication in Surah Tur. Why the inconsistency? Do we have any
contextual reasons for the discrepancy in translating two verses? Let us briefly
summarize the purport of each of the respective passages. The prophet Muhamamd
faced many allegations during his 23 year career as a messenger of God. The
idolaters denied his prophethood in the strongest terms. Surah 52:29 has the Prophet remind people
that he is "neither a soothsayer, nor crazy." The Qur'an was
responding to allegations that the prophet was not of sound mind and that he
was performing some sort of magic on people. The disbelievers also accused him
of being no more than a poet due to the beauty of the Qur'an recitation.(
52:30.) The Qur'an also mentions that
the disbelievers advised each other to wait for the prophet's death (and the
prophet challenged them to wait with him! 52:31.) As a respons to the
idolaters allegations, the Qur'an asks
them " Do they say, "He made it all up?"(52:33) The Qur'anic
arabic uses the term "taqawlla" which Rashad translates as "made
it all up. One could literally render the passage perhaps as "or do they
say he said words.." but the literal wording here would not be correct to
the context. Taqawalla has been understood here as fabricating something, or
attribute words falsely to something just as it has for Surah Haqqah 44. The point is that Dr. Khalifa decided to
translate "taqawwala" as fabricate in response to the allegations
made against the prophet.
What is context of the passages in Surah Haqqah that we
have been discussing? 69:40 has the
quran tell us that Muhammad is an "honorable messenger." The next verses then tells us allegations made against the
prophet, that he was a poet(69:41) and a soothsayer (69:42) The Qur'an counters these allegations by
stating that it is a "revelation
from the Lord of the universe"(69:43.)
The Qur'an challenges the disbelievers assertions though in the next verse, If the prophet fabricated something against
God (or merely taught outside re:Rashad) then would be punished (69:44-45.)
Whatever the meaning of the next 3 verses (44-46) both Dr. Khalifa and the
other translators see the verses in a response manner.
The context of for the usage of the arabic “taqawalla” in
Surah Tur and in Surah Haqqah is similar. The Qur’an uses the term as part of a
response to the allegations of the disbelievers. In both surahs the
disbelievers allege that the prophet is poet or magician of sorts. The Qur’an
responds to the allegations in Surah Tur by asking a question “Has he made it
all up?” and in Surah Haqqah by issuing a challenge that if the prophet “made
up” the revelations then the Prophet would be punished. So there is no
contextual reason why Dr. Khalifa would provide two different translations of
the same word. Dr. Khalifa’s translation
is thus inconsistent and wrong.
Returning to 69:45-46, why did Dr. Khalifa refuse a
translation with the plain meaning of the text? Let us summarize the verses. In
response to the prophet engaging in the inappropriate action of 69:44( teach-Rashad,
Fabricate-everyone else) the prophet would be sized by the right hand(69:45.)
and have his life cut off (69:46.) But Dr. Khalifa only translates the two
verses to say the Prophet would be punished (69:45) and revelation would be cut
off(69:46) not his life! Why did Dr.
Khalifa not want the readers to know serious consequences for the prophet
should he complete the inappropriate action of ‘taqawalla’?
Most people would not have a problem with the Qur’an’s
assertion that the Prophet would be killed if he attributes lies to God. In
fact this challenge creates faith for believers because we can be assured that
other claimants of divine authority would meet the same fate. ( We hold back from
mention their names:) ) But if the threat was not fabrication but merely
teaching something outside the Qur’an (which Rashad claims) then what do we
make out of the meaning? Suppose the Qur’an
said;” If the Prophet teaches something else( as Rashad claims per his
translation) then We would seize him by the right hand and kill him.” Does it
not seem harsh that God would kill a prophet so violently for merely teaching something
outside the Qur’an? Dr. Khalifa knew
that his own followers would cry injustice against God so in order to support
his horrible translation of 69:44 he had to translate the next two verses in an
equally horrible way. To create one crime, Dr. Khalifa had to commit two other
crimes.
The claim that the Qur’an per 69:44 is forbidding the Prophet
from “uttering any other teachings” is not completely incorrect against the actual
Arabic. But this holds true only if this passage is read out of context. The
notion that any other teachings are forbidden can be a valid implication from
the plain meaning of 69:44. But the prohibition against other teachings would
not be the actual meaning of the passage itself. In several of our other
studies we pointed out how Dr. Khalifa uses language so loosely tied to the actual
Arabic that it is difficult to even call it even “non-literal” or “correct.”
Often, Dr. Khalifa would provide a translation based on a possible conclusion one
could surmise from a verse but lacking in complete alignment with the plain
meaning. In the context of the immediate
passages of the Qur’an as well as other verses throughout the Qur’an, the notion
that 69:44 prohibits “any other teaching”
is problematic due to the inconsistency of translation and other divine assertions
concerning the role of the Prophet.
Leaving aside the poorly written subtitle, we assume Dr.
Khalifa has 69:44 imply the Qur’an is the “only source of religious teachings”
(per what he said elsewhere.) We wonder
the Prophet was able to teach and not able to teach according to Dr. Khalifa.
Rashad could argue that Prophet was not allowed to teach anything because even
in his translation the Prophet was ordered to “teach scripture” (2:151) meaning
the Qur’an. Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet was forbidden from teaching religious
doctrines outside the Qur’an. But what does that mean? Would the prophet be
prohibited from teaching basic ethics? A
Qur’an only person may argue that the Prophet could teach anything that was “consistent”
with the Qur’an. But how are we to define what is acceptable terms of
consistency for Dr. Khalifa’s adherents? (Not even their translation is consistent!) If we say 69:44 implies such teachings forbidden
that are outside of quranic notions such as reincarnation, blood atonement then that may solve the problem of Dr. Khalifa’s
meaning temporarily at least.
So Dr. Khalifa may argue that the Prophet is only to
teach Qur’an (not teach outside it.) But
how according to Dr. Khalifa did the prophet “teach scripture”? The prophet was forbidden from being able to
explain the Qur’an based on Dr. Khalifa’s own teachings and translation such as
Surah 75:16-19. If Dr. Khalifa’s
translation of the passages of Surah 75:16-19 and Surah 69:44-46 are both
correct then we must conclude the following: The Prophet is forbidden from
explaining the Qur’an and teaching anything outside the Qur’an. If the prophet was forbidden from teaching anything
outside the Qur’an and explaining the Qur’an then what in the world was God
ordered the prophet to teach?
Perhaps a student of Dr. Khalifa would argue that the Prophet
was ordered to teach the Qur’an by recitation.
In other words, the Prophet Muhammad was ordered to teach Qur’an recitation to
people in the same way that the Qur’an was preserved by Muslims across the
globe via oral tradition over 1400 years. A traditional rendering of Surah 75:16-19 implies that the Prophet received
the Quranic revelation and the act of verbal recitation was paramount to the
revelatory process. It would follow naturally
then that the Prophet taught the Qur’an in the same way to the companions and
so on. History records this. But Dr.
Khalifa would not be able to make this argument either. In the first case Dr. Khalifa implicitly dismisses the Qur’ans verbal
recitation as a means of preservation because it contradicts his FABRICATED
notion that the Prophet wrote the Qur’an. ( We explained this in bulk in other places.)
More importantly, there is no place in Dr. Khalifa’s own translation for the
notion that the Prophet taught the Qur’an verbally. Dr. Khalifa rendered Surah 75:16-19 to imply
that the Prophet was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an. Thus, there is
nothing in Dr. Khalifa’s rendering of the 3 passages imply the possibility of
Dr. Khalifa teaching the Qur’an even by recitation. Thus there is no Quranic
basis for the Prophet to teach the Qur’an by recitation.
If the Prophet is unable to A) explain the Qur’an B)
teach anything outside the Quran and C) teach recitation of the Qur’an, then
what exactly was the prophet ordered to teach? Would Dr. Khalifa believe the Prophet
“taught” the Qur’an by mere repetition of Quranic ayats? The mere repetition of words is not “teaching”
by anyone’s definition. To end the discussion, Dr. Khalifa and his adherents
assertion; that the Prophet is not able to explain the Qur’an; is incoherent.
No comments:
Post a Comment