-
Quran 7:40 – Why Jamal/Jummal Translated As Camel Instead Of Rope
السلام علیکم
سر سوال ہے کہ بہت سے علماء کا ترجمہ سورہ اعراف آیت 40 کا یہ ہے کہ جب تک اونٹ سوئی کے ناکے سے نہ گزر جائے جب کہ پڑھا تھا کہ قدیم عربی میں دیکھا جائے تو جمل موٹے رسے کو کہتے ہیں جو کشتیوں کو روکنے کے لیے ساحل پر استعمال کیا جاتا تھا
اس بارے رہنمائی درکار ہے
-
5 Replies
-
Quran 7:40 – Why Jamal/Jummal Translated As Camel Instead Of Rope
updated 8 months, 3 weeks ago
4 Members
·
5
Replies
-
You are right. This translation has been preferred by Muhammad Asad, who translates جمل as “twisted rope”.
Asad has cited Zamakhshari and Razi in support of his opinion. For detailed reasoning on this issue and why camel would not be an appropriate translation here, please see Note 32 to Chapter 7 in Muhammad Asad’ translation.
Lane’s Lexicon has also elaborated on the interpretation of this verse in support of “rope” or “cable”, based on opinion of Ibne Abbas and Ali. Pls see attached excerpt of Lane.
-
Dr. Irfan Shahzad Sahab ( @Irfan76 ) can shed some light on the linguistics of this word.
-
We have debated to make it clear that there is only one Qirat of the Quran: Qirat Ammah. In Qirat Ammah it is only Jamal, which means camel. For the word Ropes, the word used in this other Qirat is Jummal, not Jamal, which is not present in the verse. Therefore, there is no way to adopt it, unless one accepts that there are more than one Qiraat of the Quran.
The same idiom has been used by Jesus Christ, as reported:
“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew, 19:23-24)
This gives the meaning of something impossible and therefore an appropriate expression.
-
Given the fact that many classical and early commentaries including Kashshaf and Tafsir al Kabir read it as “rope” (jummal), the issue remains open for interpretation and there should be no dogmatic closure on one interpretation on the mere basis of majority. Please also remember that the insertion of diacritical marks was a human effort, not divinely supervised. So, please leave some room for disagreement.
The biblical rendering as “camel” (Matthew xix, 24, Mark x, 25 and Luke xviii, 25) does not affect this contention.
“One should remember that the Gospels were originally composed in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and that those Aramaic texts are now lost. It is more than probable that, owing to the customary absence of vowel signs in Aramaic writing, the Greek translator misunderstood the consonant spelling g-m-l (corresponding to the Arabic j-m-l), and took it to mean “a camel”: a mistake repeated since, with regard to the above Qur’an-verse, by many Muslims and all, non-Muslim orientalists as well.” ~ Asad
-
Since our principal stance is that there is only one qirat which is Qirat Amma therefore there is no room for another meaning, according to us. It is either this or that. It is not dogmatic, it is necessary outcome of our conclusion after a thorough research that there is only one qirat. Our viewpoint has been elaborated both in books and video series. See Ghamidi saheb essay in his book Maqamaat on variant Qiratat, Dr Shahzad Saleem book, The History of Qur’an. Both have presented their views in video series, available on YouTube
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
