A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Appendix B/22
[Sidenote: A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir.]
22. In the next verse—"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in that which God hath enjoined upon him"—he wrongly translates Faraza as enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. Faraza means he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic Dictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr. Lane quotes this very verse.[1] Such unions were made lawful not only to Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of a special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these verses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure his own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely said that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.
The word "Amr," translated "command" and "behest," in XXXIII, 37 and 38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar passage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),—God's foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same is the case with the word "Qadr" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60, and LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated decree.
Footnotes edit
- ↑ "(T.A.) he made [a thing] lawful, or allowable, to him (Jel in XXXIII, 38, and Kull in page 275 and T.A.) relating to a case into which a man has brought himself (Kull): this is said to be the meaning when the phrase occurs in the Kur:" An Arabic-English Lexicon, by Edward William Lane, page 2375.