A Comment on the
Meaning of "Yawm"
In one of my articles, titled "The Length of God's Days", I had given evidence of the fact
that the word "yawm" in the Arabic language does not only mean the 24
hour interval of time that we call a "day", but is also used for a 'time
period', a 'time interval'. Later on, I also posted my
point of view regarding a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) which was being
related to the meaning of the word "yawm", as used in the Qur'an.
A few days back, I received a letter from a
brother, which contained some comments on my article: I gave a brief reply to the letter
and subsequently received a couple of more letters on the subject. The letters and my
responses to these letters are presented below for the benefit of those who are interested
in the topic.
A Combined Response to the
Second and the Third Letters
Home
Page
Use this
“Home Page” link only if you have opened this page by following an
external link
The First Letter
Assalaam Alaikum,, I understood what you
were saying about the Meaning of “YAWN” But could you Answer this,, if your are
truthful…
“Your Lord is God who created the
heaven and the Earth in Six DAYS.” Surah 54:7
Look at this CONTRADICTION,
EVEN your SCHOLARS SAY it is DAYS, JUST LOOK
BELOW FROM the WEB SITE BELOW, from http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay11.html
Ibn Taymiyya now goes into a lengthy
discussion of the authenticity of the hadith, which he just stated was authentic according
to al-Haakim. He attempts, through various arguments and demonstrations by way of similar
cases, that this hadith is weak because al-Haakim is not as strong as some other scholars.
Let us examine here some of his arguments.
And on page 172, para 506 Ibn Taymiyya says,
in support of his reasoning for weakening the sahih hadith of al-Haakim:
“Muslim has narrated that 'Allah has
created soil on Saturday'. And some people who have more knowledge than him disputed that,
like Yahya ibn Ma'een and Bukhari and others and they clarified that this was wrong
and it was not the words of the Prophet (saws). And the proof is with them, because it has
been proved by the Book and the Sunnah and the Consensus [ijma'a] that Allahu
ta'ala has created the heavens and earth in six days and His last creation was Adam and
his creation was on Friday. And this hadith that has been disagreed upon indicates that He
created that in seven days. And it has been narrated a more authentic isnaad than
this that the beginning of creation was on Sunday.”
Regarding Ibn Taymiyya's Statement
regarding the hadith of Yahya bin Ma'een
It is important to note that in the footnote
on this paragraph, by Dr. Rabi'a bin Hadi 'Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in
the Islamic University of Madinah al-Munawwara, says, “I could not find the words of Yahya
bin Ma'een about this hadith after I researched it.”
The professor gives another footnote about
this, saying: “al-Bukhari in al-Taarikh al-Kabeer, 1/1/413/414,
in the biography of Ayyub ibn Khalid, 'and Isma'il ibn Ummayya narrated from
Ayyub ibn Khalid al-Ansaari from 'Abdullah ibn Raf'i from Abi Hurayrah (ra)
from the Prophet (saws) said, “khalaq-Allahu at-turbata yawm as-sabt” -
[“Allah created soil on Saturday”]'. And some of them relate it from Abi
Hurayrah from Ka'b and that is more authentic”
Finally, Dr. Rabi'a bin Hadi 'Umayr
al-Mudkhali gives a third footnote, saying: “I did not find a hadith marfu'
that is an exact quote that the beginning of creation was on Sunday. But there are aathar
from Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud and Abdullah ibn Sallaam that have been
mentioned by Ibn Jareer in his Tareekh, 1/47. And the athar of Ibn
'Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud, in it there is Isma'il ibn Abdur Rahman as-Saddi,
trustworthy? but he was accused of being Shi'i. And regarding the athar of Ibn
Sallaam, in its isnad Abu Ma'ashar, Najeeh bin Abdur Rahman as-Sindi is
ATED in SIX DAYS, IS this straight FROM the BIBLE… HA HA ,,
weak [da'eef] and in it 'Abdullah
ibn Saalih. I did not know who he is, and I think he is the writer of Layth,
and if he is then he is weak [da'eef]….”
All your objections are primarily based on
narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) and the interpretations of or ascribed to Muslim
scholars.
I have already posted
my comments on narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). And as far as the opinion of
Muslim scholars is concerned, they were all humans and prone to human errors.
Please let me know if anything requires
further elaboration.
Regards
The Second Letter
I understand that certain interpretations by
classical scholars were restricted by their limited scientific knowledge.. for example, ibn
Sireen's interpretation that the world [is] flat, although ibn Taymiyah
declared it to be contrary to that ….
So you admit “yawm” can be
translated as literal day as this is the strongest “Tafseer” ,, And do
you think it contradicts science NOW…??
BUT, playing hide and seek with the tafseer
and evidences such as the hadith that I showed Excerpt below) is not on…
The professor gives another footnote about
this, saying: “al-Bukhari in al-Taarikh al-Kabeer, 1/1/413/414, in the
biography of Ayyub ibn Khalid, 'and Isma'il ibn Ummayya narrated from Ayyub
ibn Khalid al-Ansaari from 'Abdullah ibn Raf'i from Abi Hurayrah (ra)
from the Prophet (saws) said, “khalaq-Allahu at-turbata yawm as-sabt” -
[“Allah created soil on Saturday”]'. And some of them relate it from Abi
Hurayrah from Ka'b and that is more authentic”
… so this proves That it is a day,, BUT,
What I want to know is, that, CAN it be restricted to a literal earth day “24 hour
interval” or can it suggest 7 days of 7 periods, can you show any modern interpreters
of repute who have understood it this way, because, after all the Tafseer provides us with
what is meant by the Qur'an. and we cannot bring and define by ourselves, but, bring
forth the scholars..
The Third Letter
Do you know this is pure Apologetic
rhetoric, you know as well as I do, that ascriptions of statement are what Mohammad (saws)
said … and u say it could be wrong??,
when Muslim quotes this narrative, it is not
the Prophet (pbuh) who told him in person about it, it was Suraij and Haroon, whom Muslim
believed to be trustworthy, who told him that such and such person told them and so on…
upto the Prophet (pbuh). In view of this fact, it is quite obvious that the referred
statement could not be said to a statement of the Prophet (pbuh), but a statement ascribed
to him. If it really was the Prophet (pbuh) who said it, its truth shall be known to the
world, sooner or later, but if it was wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) [simply
because of a misperception or a misunderstanding on the part of JUST ONE narrator], the
statement loses all its importance.I, therefore, do not agree with Mr. Katz
when he says that such and such was the understanding of Mohammad [pbuh]. It was not the
understanding of Mohammad (pbuh), but the understanding ascribed to Mohammad (pbuh), with
a chance, obviously, that the ascription is wrong.
A Combined Response
to the Second and the Third Letters
"The Doubter" [as he has preferred to
call himself], writes:
Do you know this is pure Apologetic rhetoric,
you know as well as I do, that ascriptions of statement are what Mohammad (saws) said …
and u say it could be wrong?
I am quite surprised by this statement. I do
not understand why I have not been able to make my point clear regarding hadith or
interpretation of Muslim scholars in my previous letter. What I have tried to show in my writing regarding the narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is
quite simple. I fail to understand why is it so difficult to understand. "The
Doubter" has quoted the following words from my article:
It was not the understanding of Mohammad
(pbuh), but the understanding ascribed to Mohammad (pbuh), with a chance, obviously, that
the ascription is wrong.
I think these words and the paragraphs that
precede it are not difficult to understand. I have simply tried to make the point that for
a narrative to be taken as absolutely accurate, it is not sufficient that truthful and
honest people narrate it. Many other factors, most of which are not even determinable are
also of equal importance. We, from our everyday life experiences, know quite well that
every statement narrated by a truthful, honest and dependable person is not necessarily a
correct one. For a narrative to be correct, besides issues like general integrity and
honesty of the individual, the accuracy of his understanding and comprehension of the
particular narrative [while hearing it], the soundness of his memory with regard to the
particular narrative and his unblemished [oral or written] presentation of the particular
narrative [while narrating it to the next person in the chain] are also of utmost
importance. I am sure, "The Doubter" and everyone else will agree with me that
the case is really so. We can by no means be certain about the correctness or otherwise of
the ascription of a particular narrative to the Prophet (pbuh) under these circumstances.
That is the very reason why, in my opinion,
all narratives, even if they have been reported by people of impeccable character,
integrity and honesty should not only be considered in the light of the Qur'an and
the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), but also in the light of common sense. Any narrative
reporting anything against the Qur'an, the Sunnah or common sense, even if reported
by highly truthful and honest people is wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). I would
like to ask "The Doubter" to provide me with the basis relying on which he is so
sure that the saying [under consideration] is correctly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). I
am sure that if he has any communicable and comprehendible basis of this certainty, I will
also be able to understand these basis and the problem shall stand resolved without much
discussion. Till such time, I have no option but to repeat again that "It is not the
understanding of Mohammad (pbuh) but the understanding ascribed to Mohammad (pbuh) that
has been reported in the narrative under consideration. This ascription, obviously, may or
may not be correct".
I really can't help it if my arguments
are labeled as "Apologetic rhetoric".
As far as "Tafseer" is
concerned, it is only the understanding or the interpretation of one or more individuals.
This understanding and interpretation is not Divine. There is chance of it being
incorrect. Keeping this in view, let us now consider the following statement of "The
Doubter":
... can you show any modern interpreters
of repute who have understood it this way, because, after all the Tafseer provides us with
what is meant by the Qur'an. and we cannot bring and define by ourselves, but, bring
forth the scholars..
I would like to remind "The Doubter"
that I have not given any interpretation in my article. I have only cited the linguistic
sources which point out the fact that it is not necessary to take the "yawm"
to imply the 24-hour interval of time, we call a "day". I do not need to and nor
am I greatly interested in establishing my point of view on the basis of citations from
those who have written tafseer. Why should I do that? Why should I not rely on the
more dependable linguistic sources, especially when the particular issue relates to the
understanding of language? The important thing in academics and research is not whether a
number of people agree with or ascribe to your point of view, rather the important thing
is whether you have based your point of view on sound reasoning or not. It, therefore,
would have been better if "The Doubter" had concentrated on pointing out the
mistake in my arguments rather than establish that the particular meaning of "yawm"
has not been mentioned by any of the earlier interpreters of the Qur'an. In any case,
just to satisfy those who are not used accepting purely academic arguments, I present
below the words written by Abul A`ala Maudoodi, while giving his interpretation of
Al-A`raaf 7: 54. He writes, in his exegesis of the Qur'an "Tafheem
al-Qur'an" (Urdu):
"In this verse, the word "day"
could either be the 24-hour day which people call a "day" or it is used here to
simply imply a "period" of time...."
Amin Ahsen Islahi, in his exegesis of the
Qur'an, "Tadabbur-e-Qur'an", while explaining the same verse,
writes:
"In 'Fi Sittate Ayyaam' the
word 'ayyaam' is not used for the 24-hour days, it is rather used for
Divine days..."
Ibn Kathir, in his exegesis of the
Qur'an, "Tafseer Ibn Kathir", while explaining the same verse,
writes:
"They [i.e. interpreters] differ in the
implication of these "ayyaam", regarding whether each of the six days is
like these [i.e. 24-hour] days as seems to be more apparent or each of the six days is
like a thousand years, as is also mentioned in the Qur'an."
This excerpt from Ibn Kathir's
exegesis is a clear evidence that even in his days, there were people who did not take the
word "days" as used in these verses to imply 24-hour days.
Al-Qurtabi in his exegesis of the
Qur'an, "Al-Jami` li Ahkaam al-Qur'an" while explaining the
same verse writes:
"The implication of 'Fi Sittate
Ayyaam': that is days of the hereafter, each day as long as one thousand
years .... And it is also said that it refers to normal worldly [24-hour] days."
These are only a few references, which
should suffice as evidence to the fact that all Muslim commentators have not taken these
"six days" to imply six "24-hour" days. There has been a difference of
opinion in this regard.
Now, if the interpretation of days as
24-hour intervals is contradictory to scientific information, all that anyone can say is
that this "interpretation" is contradictory to scientific information. The
Qur'an could only have been said to be contradictory to scientific information if
there was no other implication of the word "days" except the "24-hour
interval" days. This is exactly the point that I have refuted, on the basis of
authentic linguistic sources, in my original article.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Home
Page
Use this
“Home Page” link only if you have opened this page by following an
external link