Relationship with Preceding and Succeeding Su#rahs
In su#rahs
Qa#ri‘ah (No. 101) to Humaza
(No. 104), it is pointed to the Quraysh that they have remained
so possessed with the love of wealth and children that they have grossly
failed to fulfil the rights of Allah as well as their own fellow beings.
In spite of this, they still claim to be the heirs of Abraham (sws) and
Ismeal (sws) and the custodians of the Baytulla#h
built by them. In this particular su#rah
and its dual counterpart, Su#rah
Quraysh, which succeeds it, they are cautioned that they have been
blessed with peace and sustenance not because of their own efforts or because
they were entitled to them, but because of the Prophet Abraham’s invocation
and the blessings of the House which he built. Therefore, instead of showing
vanity, it is their obligation to worship the Lord of this House, who fed
them in hunger and secured them against every kind of danger, as is indicated
in Su#rah Quraysh:
Hence, they should worship the Lord of the House, who
fed them in hunger and provided them with peace in fear. (106:3-4)
Central Theme
The only difference between the two
su#rahs is that in Su#rah
Fi#l an event bears witness to the Power
and Might of Allah which saved the Baytulla#h
from a great enemy, while in Su#rah
Quraysh, the Quraysh are reminded of the fact that it is their
association with the Baytulla#h
which accounts for the favours of peace and sustenance.
At the time when Abraham (sws) had
settled his son Ismeal (sws) in Makkah, the land was not only scarce
in food resources but was in a constant state of strife as well. Abraham
(sws) had earnestly prayed to the Almighty to bless the land with peace
and sustenance and the Almighty had granted him his wish. The progeny of
Abraham benefited from both these favours because of Baytulla#h
only, but later on pride and vanity made them indifferent to these blessings.
They are warned against their ingratitude at many instances (as in this
su#rah) in the Qur’a#n.
In the su#rahs of this last
group, Su#rah Balad also discusses
some important aspects of this attitude and can be consulted for details.
Sequence
In this su#rah,
the Quraysh are reminded of a significant event of their history.
The Almighty had helped them decidedly in combating the forces of Abrahah
who attacked the Baytulla#h
with a sixty thousand strong army to demolish it. It was not easy for
the Quraysh to face such a big army in the open whose vane guard
consisted of elephants. They had therefore sought refuge in the nearby
mountains, and had defended the holy land by hurling stones at the advancing
enemy. This defence was indeed very frail and feeble, but the Almighty
transformed it into a powerful outburst which totally destroyed the enemy,
and their dead bodies were feasted upon by kites, vultures and crows.
Meaning
Have you not seen how your Lord dealt
with the people of the elephant? Did He not foil their treacherous plan?
And sent down against them swarms of birds? (1-3)
You pelted them with clay stones.
And Allah made them like straw eaten away. (4-5)
Explanation
(Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the People
of the Elephant?) (1)
The addressed words alam tara (Have
you not seen?) are grammatically singular in nature but they are mostly
used in the Qur’a#n
to address plural entities, as if directed to every person individually
in a group of people. Here the addressees are the Qu#raysh.
They are reminded about their recent past and asked whether they had forgotten
how their Lord had dealt with the People of the Elephant. It should be
kept in mind that the event which is being referred to had taken place
the same year the Prophet (sws) was born. Therefore, there must have been
people at the time of revelation of this su#rah
who had witnessed it or had at least heard so much about it by so many
people that it had become for them no less than a directly observed reality.
The words alam tara, therefore, seem very appropriate.
The Qur’a#n
has not mentioned any details regarding the People of the Elephant,
such as their description, their origin and the purpose of their march.
The reason for this brevity is that the addressed people knew these details
very well. Only their introduction by the words Ash@a#bu’l-Fi#l
(People of the Elephant) was enough to indicate that Abrahah, the
Abbysinian ruler of Yemen, whose troops also consisted of elephants
was being referred to. It was the first time that the Arabs had encountered
elephants in a war and to express the grimness of the event they remembered
it by this name.
Whether there was only a single elephant
or several, is a question in relation to which both meanings can be construed
from the words of the Qur’a#n.
But since the world Ash@a#b
(plural) is used and not Sa#h@ib,
which is a singular word, it is more likely that there was more than one
elephant. The Ah@a#di#th
also reinforce the fact that there was a whole battery of elephants with
the army, which tremendously increased its strength and awesomeness.
Though some historians have regarded
Abrahah as a tolerant ruler, yet he does not deserve such a high
opinion if his life is studied. He seems to be an opportunist, a traitor
and highly prejudiced Christian. He had betrayed the ruler of Abyssinia
and had actually used his army to bring Yemen under his own control. History
bears witness to his traitorship: it is not possible to enlist all the
details, yet it is a historical fact that after assuming control of Yemen,
he not only killed its Jewish king but also ruthlessly exterminated Judaism
from the land.
His prejudice for Christianity made
him obsessed with the idea of converting the Arabs to Christianity. To
execute his scheme, he built a grand cathedral in S~an‘a#, the capital
of Yemen. He wrote to king Negus of Abyssinia, for whom he was deputising
in ruling Yemen, that he had built a unique cathedral towards which he
intended to divert the Arabs to offer their pilgrimage and to demolish
the Baytulla#h. He then made
up a story that an Arab had violated the sanctity of the cathedral by relieving
himself in it, only to justify an attack on the Baytulla#h.
Considering the traditional bravery and courage of the Arabs it is very
unlikely that something like this might have happened. Even if the episode
is assumed to be true, a person’s individual misdeed is not enough to justify
the exaction of revenge from a whole nation and to go as far as razing
down the Baytulla#h. It is quite
evident that only to inflame the Arabs and to gain the support of king
Negus that this lie was given a lot of air. He finally launched an attack
on Makkah with a sixty thousand army supported by nine or ten elephants.
(Did He not foil their treacherous plan.) (2)
The Almighty aborted the scheme of
Abraha which has been termed Kayd (an intrigue) by the Qur’a#n
because to justify a vicious move a ridiculous allegation was invented,
as is indicated before. However, there are also some other reasons for
calling this scheme an intrigue. Imam Fara#hi#
(d: 1930) mentions them in his exegesis:
1. He (Abrahah) had attacked the Baytulla#h
during the forbidden months because he believed that in these months the
Arabs refrained from war and bloodshed.
2. He had tried to enter Makkah when its inhabitants
and other Arabs were performing the rites of H~ajj.
3. He had specially intended to launch his offensive
during the stay of Mina when the Arabs would either be busy in offering
sacrifice or would be returning home totally exhausted. (Fara#hi#,
Majmu#‘ah-i-Tafa#si#r,
1st ed., [Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1991], p. 386)
To foil this evil contrivance, what the
Almighty did is deduced thus by Imam Fara#hi#:
1. He did not let them penetrate beyond the valley of
Muh@assar.
2. The Arabs used the stones of this valley to bombard
their enemy, as shall be described later.
3. He let loose a H~a#s@ib
( a stone hurling wind) on the enemy, which totally destroyed them.
(Fara#hi#,
Majmu#‘ah-i-Tafa#si#r,
1st ed., [Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1991], p. 387)
Many eye witnesses have reported this
H~a#s@ib
and historians like Ibn Hashsha#m
have recorded their observations. Imam Fara#hi#
has also discussed these testimonies in detail. I shall restrict myself
to two examples only. The famous poet Abu#
Qays while mentioning the power and glory of the Almighty refers to
this H~a#s~ib
in the following way.
Fa ursila min rabbihim ha#s@ibun@
Yaluffuhum mithla laffi’l-qazam
(Then the Almighty unleashed a H~a#s~ib
on them which enwrapped them like rubbish.)
Similarly S~ayfi#
Ibn ‘A%mir has referred to a H~a#s@ib
and a S~ayf (This is also similar
to a H~a#s~ib,
differing only in intensity):
Falamma# aja#zu#
batna nu‘ma#na ruddahum
Junu#du’l-ila#hi
bayna s~a#fi
wa ha#s@ibi#
(As soon as they advanced beyond Batni Nu‘ma#n,
the forces of the Almighty alighted among the Ha#s@ib
and Sayf and destroyed them)
(And sent down against them swarms of birds?) (3)
This is a metaphorical description
of the final state of devastation and helplessness of Abrahah’s army.
The Almighty totally ravaged them and not a single sole survived to gather
the dead; They remained scattered in the battlefield. The Almighty sent
forth on them carnivorous birds, which tore and ate their flesh and cleansed
Makkah from the stink of their remains. ‘Sending forth birds on
the enemies’, is a commonly found metaphorical depiction of the state of
utter decimation of the enemy in the odes and laudatory compositions of
the Arab poets. They often extol their armies by saying that when they
attack the enemy, meat eating birds fly with them as if they knew that
after the enemy is completely destroyed they would get a chance to satisfy
their hunger. In the old Testament, the tale of Da#‘u#d
(David) and Ja#lu#t
(Goliath) is narrated. It says that when the two faced each other in
combat and David effectively answered all the conceited remarks of Goliath,
Goliath, replied irritably: ‘I shall feed the kites and crows with your
meat today’. But David by the Almighty’s help turned the tables on Goliath.
The word ‘Aba#bi#l’
does not mean the swallows (the birds called Aba#bi#l).
It means a pack of horses and also implies a swarm of birds. Grammarians
differ whether the word is singular or plural. Some say that it is a plural
word which has no singular, and some hold that it is the plural of Ibba#latun.
In the opinion of this writer, it is used here for the birds who had gathered
to feed on the slain army of Abrahah.
Arsala alayhim refers to the
utter state of helplessness of the People of the Elephant that no one even
remained to bury the dead: the birds feasted on the dead bodies with complete
freedom.
(You pelted them with stones of clay. And Allah made
them like straw eaten away.) (4-5)
In the end, it is indicated how the
Almighty’s help had aided the believers in destroying their foes. The Quraysh
are addressed and told that while they were hurling stones on the enemy,
the Almighty transformed this weak defence into a strong one and it became
so effective that it virtually made their enemies like straw devoured away.
Our commentators generally maintain
that the Quraysh did not face the attacking enemy and their leader
‘Abdu’l-Mut@t@alib
took them away to seek refuge in the nearby mountains. They left the Baytulla#h
in the custody of the Almighty, believing that He who is the Lord of
the House shall Himself protect it. In their consideration, the subject
(Fa#‘il) of the verb Tarmi#
is Tayran Aba#bi#l,
ie the birds had destroyed Abrahah’s army by flinging stones on
them. There is a general consensus on this view, but owing to various reasons
it seems absolutely incorrect. Some of them are:
(1) There is no doubt that the Quraysh
had gone off in the mountains but this does not imply at all that they
had completely withdrawn themselves from its defence. They had adopted
a special war strategy owing to their own weak position. Instead of facing
a huge army in an open battle field, they took refuge in the mountains
and tried to impede the enemy attack by adopting the tactics of guerrilla
warfare. A similar strategy was adopted by the Muslims in the battle of
Ah@za#b
(trench) when they defended the Holy land of Madi#nah
by digging a trench around it.
It would have been disastrous for
them to engage the enemy in open warfare, for even if they had tried their
best, they could not have raised an army beyond twenty thousand, which
was totally insufficient to fight a sixty thousand strong army aided with
a battery of elephants. The Almighty helped them according to His principle
that when a believer does his utmost in discharging his duty, he is aided
by Divine Help.
(2) The claim that the Quraysh
offered no resistance is not only against historical facts, but also
against the sense of honour and pride of the Quraysh. All historians
agree that whichever routes the army of Abrahah traversed, the respective
Arab tribe did not let them through without offering some opposition. They
tolerated the humiliation of defeat than letting the enemy through easily
with such an evil motive. The only exception were the Banu#
Thaqi#f, who did not display the sense
of honour shown by all the other tribes. Abu#
Righa#l a tribesman of the Banu#
Thaqi# revealed to the advancing army
the way to Makkah. As a result, of being dishonourable, the Banu#
Thaqi#f were completely disgraced in the
eyes of the Arabs and lost their respect. Abu#
Righa#l met an equally dreadful
fate: for a number of years, the Arabs pelted stones at his grave. It should
be realised that when small tribes fought so gallantly, how could have
the Quraysh acted in such a dishonourable way by letting the opponents
achieve their goal unchecked? If they did what is generally maintained,
why was only Abu# Righa#l
condemned for a similar crime? The Quraysh have always been famous
for their sense of honour, as has been mentioned before. Even in trivial
affairs they had never shown any weakness which could stain their honour;
how could they disgrace and dishonour themselves in an affair upon which
depended their religious as well as their political supremacy? After loosing
the Baytulla#h, what else did
they have to live for? This view, therefore, cannot be accepted.
(3) Those who hold this view -- and
actually diparage the Quraysh by doing so -- maintain that the su#rah
conveys somewhat the following message: ‘The Almighty Himself is the
Guardian of His House. Even if its custodians run away He Himself shall
protect it. So when the Quraysh retreated to the mountains, the
Almighty employed the Aba#bi#l
to defend His House. The Aba#bi#l
destroyed the enemy by hurling stones at them.’ If this is the lesson
the su#rah conveys, then it
is totally against the laws of the Almighty. It is against His principle
that His people should sit in their houses, whilst He alone should win
the battle for them. If this were true, then why were the Children of Israel
punished for a similar attitude when they were left to wander for forty
years in a desert. They had only said:
Go there, you [O Moses!] and your Lord, we will sit here.
(5:124).
According to the law of the Almighty which
is clear from the Qur’a#n, He
helps only those who set out to fulfil their obligations, however small
in number they may be and however limited their resources may be. Consequently,
the responsibilities the Qur’a#n
has imposed on us Muslims in Su#rahs
Baqarah, Tawbah and H~ajj as
regards the protection and liberation of Baytulla#h
are that we should first do all we can and then the Almighty will help
us. It is not that He will send his help if we do not strive our utmost.
The Quraysh procured the Almighty’s help because they did all they
could. The Almighty reinforced their weak defence by unleashing on the
enemy a raging stone hurling wind which reduced them to nothingness. In
the battle of Badr too, the Almighty lent His invisible hand of
help when circumstances were no different as far as the defence of the
Muslim army was concerned. The Almighty had transformed a handful of dust
thrown at the enemy by the Prophet (sws) into a storm. The Almighty Himself
explained the nature of this event in the Qur’a#n:
And you did not hurl the stones on the enemy, but it
was Allah who had hurled them. (8:17)
(4) A look at the prayer ‘Abdu’l-Mut@t@alib
had uttered while he was invoking the Almighty’s help shows that its
words are overflowing with faith in the Almighty. They are the words of
a person who is very disturbed and worried over a situation, yet he is
very hopeful of the Almighty’s help. There is not the slightest indication
that these words were uttered by someone who had run from the battlefield.
Those who have derived this meaning from the prayer can only be lauded
for their ‘subtle’ sense of appreciation. If ‘Abdu’l-Mut@t@alib
had retreated in the mountains and prayed to the Almighty, it does
not mean that he had withdrawn from the defence of the Baytulla#h.
A little deliberation shows that some of his words have the same grace
of confidence in the Almighty as the prayer the Prophet (sws) had uttered
admist the battle of Badr. ‘Abdu’l-Mut@t@alib’s
prayer is like a glorious martial song which has the scent of faith
and trust in it. Consider how effectively it invokes the Almighty’s help:
O Lord! A man protects his family, so protect Your people.
Let not their cross and their strength overpower You. If You want to leave
our Qiblah at their mercy, then do as You please.
After such a display of honour and integrity,
can someone be regarded as a deserter?
Therefore, in the consideration of
this writer, the view that the Quraysh had not faced the enemy,
and that the birds had destroyed the enemy by flinging stones at them is
totally baseless. The subject (Fa#’il)
of the verb Tarmi#, in this writer’s
opinion, is the tribe of Quraysh who are addressed by the words
Alam tara at the beginning of the su#rah.
This verb is not at all appropriate for birds. The birds can drop stones
held in their beaks and claws, but this cannot be termed Rami#.
This verb can only be used when ‘the drop’ has the power of an arm, a string
or a wind behind it. Even the commentators who hold the general view have
also felt its inaptness. They had to ‘make up’ the interpretation that
the birds dropped stones of the size of peas, which passed through the
bodies of the elephant’s bodies. By this interpretation, they were able
to demonstrate the effectiveness of the process, but in reality this cannot
be termed Rami#.
The word Sijji#l
is the Arabianised form of the Persian word Sang-i-gil. Its
English equivalent in the opinion of this writer is ‘pebble’. It has been
indicated before that the Arabs had a weak defence. The battle could have
been termed hotly contested if it was fought by swords and spears and the
two armies were arrayed in a battle field, and if the enemy had elephants,
the Quraysh at least had horses. This, as pointed out before, was
not possible; so they opted to retreat in the mountains and impede the
enemy advance by hurling stones at them. Obviously, this was a weak defence
and just to show the weak nature of defense, the words Bih@ija#ratin
min sijji#l are used by the Qur’a#n.
(And Allah made them like straw eaten away) (5)
This verse expresses how the might
and power of the Almighty turned the tables on Abrahah’s army. Since his
people had striven to their utmost, He according to His law helped them,
and made their enemy like straw eaten away. To call something by the fate
it shall finally meet is a common linguistic style of Arabic: Ka‘as@f
mim ma’ku#l being an example.
It should be noted here that act of
Rami# (throwing) has been related to
the people addressed, but rendering the enemy into ‘straw eaten away’ has
been attributed to the Almighty’s power. The reason is that it was not
possible for the Arabs alone to destroy their enemy. The Almighty helped
them by unleashing a ravaging stone hurling wind on the enemy, after the
Quraysh themselves had started flinging stones on them in the valley
of Mah@assar. This Ha#s@ib,
as has been indicated before, was reported by many eye witnesses. It has
also been mentioned earlier, that the Quraysh had adopted similar
tactics in the battle of Ah@za#b
and then too ‘a wind’ was sent to help them.
Only one question now remains. If
the actual fact is that the forces of Abrahah were destroyed by the stone
hurling of the Quraysh and by the Ha#s@ib
sent by the Almighty, and not by the birds, who had only come to eat
away the dead, then the verses should have had the following order: Tarmi#him
bih@ija#ratim
min sijji#l. Fa ja‘alahum ka‘as@ifim
ma’ku#l. Wa arsala ‘alayhim
tayran aba#bi#l
(You pelted them with clay stones. And Allah made them like straw eaten
way. And sent down against them swarms of birds.). In the opinion of this
writer, the people who have raised this question are not aware of a certain
rhetorical styles of Arabic. In this style, just to project the consequences
– good or bad – of a certain event, they are listed before expressing all
the details. To express the swiftness in the acceptance of prayers, this
style has been adopted by the Qur’a#n
at many places. The following verses of Su#rah
Nu#h clearly testify to this:
Nu#h cried:
O my lord! they have disobeyed me and followed those whose wealth and children
only increased their loss; they contrived big evil schemes and seduced
their nation by saying: do not ever renounce your gods; forsake not Wadd
nor Suwa#‘ neither Yagu#th
nor Nasr [and O my Lord!] they have misled many and You only
increase the wrongdoers in their wrong doing. Hence, because of their sins
they were overwhelmed by the flood and cast into the fire. And they found
none besides Allah to help them.
And Nu#h said:
O Lord! Leave not a single disbeliever in the earth. If you spare them
they will mislead thy servants and beget none but wicked and ungrateful
ones. (71:21-27)
If one reflects on the above verses, it
becomes clear that just after the Prophet Nu#h
(sws) had uttered the first sentence of his prayer, the fate of his
nation has been depicted while the remaining prayer has been deferred,
though obviously they would have met this fate after the whole prayer.
The reason for this is that only to show the speediness in the acceptance
of the prayer a certain sentence has been placed earlier. Likewise, in
the present su#rah, just to
depict the dreadful fate of the foes of Abrahah, the mention of
sending down birds against them is made before the mention of their destruction.
Since the central theme of the su#rah
revolves round recounting the favours of the Almighty on the Quraysh,
rhetorical principles dictate that the dreadful fate of the enemies be
portrayed first.
My mentor, H@ami#du’l-Di#n
Fara#hi#,
has dealt at length with the various aspects of this su#rah.
Brevity has restricted me to omit many of his views which are very important
as regards the explanation of the su#rah.
Among other details which offer a fresh insight into the su#rah,
he considers the H~ajj ritual of Rami#-i-Jamara#t
as a symbolic representation of the Rami#
‘done’ by the Quraysh on Abrahah’s forces. I advise the
readers to go through his interpretation of the su#rah
as well, which will also bring out the very delicate difference between
his views and the ones held by his humble pupil.
(Translated from ‘Tadabbur-i-Qur’a#n’
by Shehzad Saleem)
|