-
Quran 24:11-25 Specifics About The Incident
al-Bayan Ayah 11:
Which slander is being referred to here? The Qur’an has not mentioned it but it is evident from various narratives that it refers to the mischief worked up by the Hypocrites to defame ‘Ā’ishah (rta) at the time of the battle of Bani Mustaliq. Most of its details found in the narratives invoke serious question. However, the context and the way in which the Qur’an has mentioned this incident and referred to its various characters shows that the matter related to slander against some such personality. Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:
… It is evident from books of history and biographies that the only thing that happened was that in 6 AH, the Prophet (sws) was returning to Madinah from the battle of Bani Mustaliq. ‘Ā’ishah (rta) was traveling on a separate camel. During the journey, the caravan stopped at a place to spend the night. Before the caravan departed, ‘Ā’ishah (rta) had gone out to relieve herself. During this time, the army was ordered to march ahead. The caravan departed and her camel-driver also walked off with them thinking that she was sitting in the camel-cubicle. When ‘Ā’ishah (rta) returned she found no option in the dark of night but to stay there until God created some way out for her. Safwan (rta), a companion of the Prophet (sws) was given the task of walking behind the caravan to detect anything that may have been left behind. When in the morning he reached the place where the caravan had stopped and saw ‘Ā’ishah (rta) there, he spontaneously uttered: …. إِنّا للّٰہِ. Ultimately, he made her sit on her camel. She climbed on it while he took hold of the camel’s bridle and led away the animal. Finally, they reached the caravan. It was not something extra-ordinary for such an incident to have taken place during a caravan journey. However, the Hypocrites worked great propaganda on the basis of this small incident. (Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i Qur’an, vol. 5, 382)
The Qur’an has rejected this propaganda by using the word إِفْك, which means an absolute falsehood and a fake blame. God did not deem it appropriate to describe the nature of the incident or to mention its characters. This is because the addressees of those times were aware of all the details and the later ones did not need to be informed of a filthy blame.
.
In this surah a lie is mentioned. We realise from ayah 20 onwards that this lie was to do with accusing chaste women. We also realise from surah Ahzab ayahs 33 and 60 that it was to do with accusing wives of the Prophet SAW. However Aisha RA is not specifically mentioned. So when this lie is so important that ‘a big torment’ would visit us if we propagate it, surely we should know what lie it was. The primary addressees of the Quran knew what it was but it seems we have to use ahadith to know exactly what it was. Even Ghamidi sahab saw it fit to include in his tafsir.
-
6 Replies
-
Quran 24:11-25 Specifics About The Incident
updated 3 years, 1 month ago
3 Members
·
6
Replies
-
Allah didn’t like mention it specifically in His book, allusion suffices then and it did now.
This has nothing to do with explaining a verse with Hadith it is about details given in Hadith of an incident mentioned in Quran like salah whose details are present outside.
-
The allusion sufficed then because the people were there and they knew exactly what it was alluding to. For us we have to use ahadith to understand what was going on because of course we’re not there when it’s being revealed. And where do we know it was against Aisha رضي الله عنها except from ahadith?
-
With regards to the general question of the relationship between Qur’an, Sunnah, Hadith, established history and previous scriptures:
The way it helps me to think about this issue is that, let’s say we are watching a movie. Along with the movie we are also provided with the director’s commentary. In the commentary we will not find all the details of the movie. For that the source of information is the movie itself. The commentary will cite the relevant scenes. In that sense the movie is complementing the commentary. But in order to understand the philosophy of the movie and the wisdom of particular scenes, there is no option but to consult the director’s commentary. So it like a guardian (muhaimin) over the movie. The commentary is the last word (mizan and furqan) in understanding a particular scene, not what we are understanding just by watching the movie itself.
This is I think what the scholars of Farahi school try to emphasize when they approach Qur’an. To my understanding, what they are not saying is that the Qur’an is a closed book and there is nothing outside of it in order for us to understand its text. Obviously there are tons of things outside of Qur’an. Arabic language is outside (pre-requisite) of Qur’an, established history (history of the bani Israel etc) is outside of Qur’an, seerah of Rasulullah is outside Qur’an. But whatever is outside of it has to be seen through the lens of its text and context. Qur’an will have the last say about a particular concept or incident.
-
But the Quran was revealed to a certain people to talk about the situations they were facing which is made clear when specific situations like badr are mentioned.
So to get the real message we should have to immerse ourself in what occurred in those times and that’s only from ahadith
-
There is no argument regarding that. Yes, we have to go to those extra-Qur’anic sources to know the details. But history, whether it is in the hadith+seerah literature or in the Old+New Testaments, is something which needs interpretation. Qur’an is a commentary on the religious history of mankind, which started with Adam and ended with the life of Prophet Muhammad. Think of how 4:157-159 is a commentary on the last few days of Isa (a.s.)’s mission. For the details we have to consult the New Testament no doubt. But without Qur’an’s guidance we will start drawing our own conclusions about what to make of the ending of his mission. Whatever approach we would take regarding the history prior to Qur’an, will be the same approach regarding the history contemporaneous or later to it.
-
-
of course from hadith.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
