-
Quran 38:33 – Prophet Suleman (sws) And The Horses
Sad – 38:33
Arabic
رُدُّوهَا عَلَىَّۖ فَطَفِقَ مَسۡحًۢا بِٱلسُّوقِ وَٱلۡأَعۡنَاقِ
What does mashaa mean here? Could it be that he just stroked them and let the go?
-
21 Replies
-
Quran 38:33 – Prophet Suleman (sws) And The Horses
updated 10 months ago
6 Members
·
21
Replies
-
38; 31-33
It is reported that Solomon’s horses, which he had inherited from David or which he was assembling
assembling for a campaign, were displayed before him and that he was so engrossed with them that the sun had set and the time for performing the prescribed prayers had passed (IK, JJ, Ṭ, Ṭs). Until [the sun] was taken behind the veil could also be read, “until they were taken behind the veil,” meaning that Solomon was engrossed with the horses until they left his sight (Ṭs). Bring them back unto me takes the pronoun as a reference to the horses, but some understand the pronoun them (which can also mean “it”) as a reference to the sun, meaning that Solomon asked that the sun be brought back so that he could say his prayers during the proper time (Ṭs). Stroke translates masḥan, which can also mean “rub.” In the interpretation preferred by most commentators, masaḥan stands for the idiomatic expression “he stroked them with his sword,” meaning that, to atone for having been distracted from the remembrance of God, Solomon sacrificed the horses (IJ, IK, JJ, Ṭ, Ṭs) and then offered the meat to the poor as alms (IJ, JJ). Others understand it to mean that he stroked them with his hand out of love for them (IJ, Ṭ), as it would seem unjust for Solomon to slay the horses for his own slip (Ṭ). The most reasonable interpretation, though rarely cited, is that he branded their legs and necks and committed them to God (IJ). The interpretations given above reflect those found in almost all commentaries, with slight variations. But al-Rāzī gives this story a different interpretation. He begins by understanding I have preferred the love of good things over the remembrance of my Lord to mean, “I have loved the love of good things on account of the remembrance of my Lord”; that is, his love of anything in this world is by the Command of God. He then understands the horses to be what were taken behind the veil, meaning that they passed by him until they were out of his sight. Then he ordered that they be returned and rubbed them to honor them and to be sure that they were fit for battle. Although such an interpretation may arise from al-Rāzī’s zealous defense of the infallibility of prophets, it also leads to a more internally consistent interpretation that is not based on accounts whose reliability is questionable.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein; Dagli, Caner K.; Dakake, Maria Massi; Lumbard, Joseph E.B.; Rustom, Mohammed. The Study Quran (pp. 1108-1109). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.
-
-
From a dictionary
-
In recent Q&A Session with Ghamidi Sahab on Questions selected from ASK GHAMIDI Platform:
For answer to your question, please refer to the video below from 1:06:33 to 1:09:22
https://youtu.be/L1WekJ9S9Xs?t=3993-
The ayah says ‘he began to pass over his sword over their legs and necks’. How can Ghamidi sahab say that he didn’t actually do anything?
-
-
Wa Allah hu A’lam.
This way or that way.
Are we right to project 21st century animal rights onto BC era?
Do we have the right to judge the past in its cultural, ethical dimensions.
Is hunting for sport an animal rights issue in today’s ethics?
Is the story supposed to teach a lesson in ethics?
Something to think about!
-
I agree with this- just wondering if the Arabic word طفق means began and did it began and didn’t follow through
-
Stay blessed, always. 🙂
-
آیت میں لفظ ’طَفِقَ‘ اشارہ کر رہا ہے کہ یہ غلبۂ حال ہی کی ایک صورت تھی۔ اِس طرح کی کیفیت نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی وفات کا سن کر حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ پر بھی طاری ہو گئی تھی۔ قرآن نے یہ واقعہ، جیسا کہ اوپر بیان ہوا، سلیمان علیہ السلام کے جوش انابت اور غلبۂ اوابیت کے اظہار کے لیے سنایا ہے اور اِس لحاظ سے یہ بلاشبہ ایک شان دار واقعہ ہے۔ اِس سے دین و شریعت کے اصول و ضوابط اخذ کرنے کی کوشش نہیں کرنی چاہیے۔
Reference: https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/quran?chapter=38¶graph=11&type=Ghamidi
-
They were his Horses anyways. Under his possession. Its obvious he liked them as his own pet animals. Even from Today’s ethics how can it be called Animal abuse if he killed them for food. Nowhere in the Ayat its specified that he killed them for sport.
-
-
Ji jazakomullah
-
Is aayat ko lekar ek dusara geroh ka view ye he ki suleman ne allah ki yaad me horses ke gale & pidaliyo pe mohabbat se hath ko phera, aayat ke ward “an” ko lekar mufassiro ke bich defrenses he, kya ye difference ko hum jese logo ko aap koi tamsil se samja sakte he? Kya ye arebic language ka koi bada masla he, ya isko Urdu language me koi misal se samja sakte he?
-
Siyaq-o-sabaq is sai ibah nhi karta. Aik jaleel-ul-qadar nabi ki namaz qaza hogae un ghoron ki waja sai toh woh khushi kai mahol main un ghoron ko bula kar mohabbat sai hath phairnay lagay? ya phir ghalba e haal ki kaifiyat main un ghoron pai ghussa nikalnay lagay talwar kai war sai? In main dusra moaqaf insani tabiyat sai zayada mutabqat rakhta hai. Pehla moaqaf bazahir zayada acha lagta hai aaj kal kai halat kai lehaz sai laikin insani jazbat kai munafi hai.
-
-
Mean phir baat aayat 31 & 32 par jati he jinko un logo ne yu samja he ki ” jab saam ke waqt horses ko sulema ke samne pes kare to suleman ne kaha is horses ki mohabbat allah ki yaad ke liye he yaha tak wo horses us aad me chup Gaye”jab ye siyak ho to baat ye sahi lagti he ,& aapne jo siyak samja to aapki baat, kyoki farahi school ka baze hi zuban par he, is wajah se is siyak ko bhi bara e karam kuch samja dijiye ga
-
Jab alfaz aur jumla apni zaat main faisla kun na hoo toh phir zaban kai musalma asul kai mutabiq siyaq-o-sabaq uska faisal karta hai.
Us pai aap ghor karain to Ayat 17-25 main hazrat Daud (sws) kai ruju kai waqiyai ka zikar hua hai jis main unhain apni ghalti ka ehsas hotay hi ruju kartay huay bataya gaya hai. Yahan Ayat 17 main unki ruju ki sift kai liya ‘Awab’ (اَوَّابٌ) istemal hua hai Agay saath hi unkai baitay Suleman (sws) ka zikar hua hai aur saath hi unkai liya bh wohi ‘Awab’ (اَوَّابٌ) wali sift aae hai. Ab iska lazmi taqaza hai kai agar koe waqiya Suleman (sws) ka Bayan hoo toh us main bh us sift ki jhalak nazar aani chaiyai, jis main ghalti ka ehsas hotay hi ruju hoo.
Agar kuch dusray ulema ka tarjama liya jaye toh us main aisi koe sift numaya nhi hoti. Balkay bhot sai ulema nai ayat 32 ka tarjuma wohi kiya hai jo Ghamidi Sahab nai kiya hai, jaisay kai Fateh Muhammad Jalandhari, Dr. Israr Ahmed, Molana Mahmud ul Hasan, Molana Muhammad Junaghari. Laikin ayat 33 main unhon nai bh haath phairnay ka zikr kardiay sawaye Dr. Israr Ahmed kai. Is tarah na ayat 32 aur ayat 33 main koe munsbat banti hai aur na hi phir is pooray waqiyai ki ‘Awab’ (اَوَّابٌ) ki sift sai koe munasibat banti hai.
jahan tak ayat 32 aur Ayat 33 kai jumlon ki arabiyat ki ru sai taleef ka sawal hai, us par Molana Amin Ahsan Islahi nai apni raye yun bayan ki hai (us main sai zaruri iqtibas):
’فَقَالَ إِنِّیْ اَحْبَبْتُ حُبَّ الْخَیْْرِ عَن ذِکْرِ رَبِّیْ حَتَّی تَوَارَتْ بِالْحِجَابِ‘۔ ’اَحْبَبْتُ‘ یہاں اعراض یا غفلت کے مضمون پر متضمن ہے اور حرف ’عن‘ اس کا قرینہ ہے۔ ’تَوَارَتْ‘ کا فاعل ’الشَّمْس‘ یہاں محذوف ہے۔ عربی میں معروف و مشہور چیزوں کے لیے فعل بھی اس طرح لاتے ہیں اور ضمیریں بھی۔ فاعل یا مرجع کو قرینہ سمجھ لیتے ہیں۔ یہاں لفظ ’عشّی‘ کی وجہ سے قرینہ واضح تھا اس وجہ سے فاعل کے اظہار کی چنداں ضرورت نہیں تھی۔
’رُدُّوہَا عَلَیَّ فَطَفِقَ مَسْحًا بِالسُّوۡقِ وَالْأَعْنَاقِ‘۔ ضمیر مفعول کا مرجع ’الصافنات الجیاد‘ یعنی گھوڑے ہیں۔ لفظ ’مسح‘ قتل کرنے کے معنی میں بھی معروف ہے۔ اور ’مَسْحًا‘ فعل محذوف کی تاکید کے لیے ہے یعنی ’یَمْسَحُ مَسْحًا‘۔
غلبۂ حال کے واقعات دوسروں کے لیے سند نہیں ہوتے: یہ حضرت سلیمان علیہ السلام کے اس اقدام کی طرف اشارہ ہے جو انھوں نے اس شدید تاثر اور مغلوبیت کی حالت میں کیا۔ انھوں نے فوراً حکم دیا کہ یہ گھوڑے پھر ان کے سامنے حاضر کیے جائیں۔ معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ گھوڑے جب اپنے تھانوں پر واپس جا چکے تھے تب حضرت سلیمان علیہ السلام پر اس احساس کا غلبہ ہوا کہ یہی گھوڑے ان کے لیے خدا سے غفلت کا باعث ہوئے۔ چنانچہ ان کو پھر واپس لانے کا حکم دیا اور ان کی پنڈلیوں اور گردنوں پر تلوار مارنے لگے۔ صاف معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ یہ ایک غلبۂ حال کی صورت ہے۔ لفظ ’طفق‘ اس حقیقت کی طرف اشارہ کر رہا ہے۔ آیت سے صرف اتنی بات معلوم ہوتی ہے کہ حضرت سلیمان علیہ السلام نے کچھ ہاتھ چلائے؛ یہ نہیں معلوم ہوتا کہ انھوں نے تمام گھوڑوں کو ختم کر دیا اور ایسا کرنا ممکن بھی نہیں تھا اس لیے کہ تورات سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ گھوڑے ہزاروں کی تعداد میں تھے۔ غالباً انھوں نے کچھ ہاتھ چلائے اور پھر متنبہ ہو کر اس سے باز آ گئے ہوں گے ۔۔۔ چونکہ یہ واقعہ ان کی انابت اور اوابیت کا ایک یادگار واقعہ ہے اس وجہ سے قرآن نے اس کا ذکر کیا۔
-
-
???
-
???,!!!
-
Maybe some argument could be made in regards to the idea of animal sacrifice in Jewish history. As far as I am aware they did not eat the burnt offering and it was all set aflame.
And at the end of the day, we do kill animals to eat them.
So to say that Suleiman صلى الله عليه وسلم killing the horses as a form of sacrifice is in any way wrong would be slightly illogical
-
umar bhai Is question ko bhi dekhe zara
-
Ji jazakomullah 100 times
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
