Was Jonah (pbuh) Cast on the Desert Shore or not?

Was Jonah (pbuh) Cast on the Desert Shore or not?

Article:

In one of

his writings, Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out a discrepancy in two

narratives of the Qur’an (relating to the same event) which amounts to a

contradiction in the Qur’an. The narrative relates to the incident of Jonah (pbuh),

when he was swallowed by the fish. A summary of the said discrepancy is as

follows:

In Al-Saaffaat 37: 145, the Qur’an says that Jonah (pbuh) was cast out

on the desert shore, while in Al-Qalam 68: 49, the Qur’an says that if

God had not been kind on Jonah, he would then have been cast out on the desert

shore.

The contradiction, according to Mr. Katz, (and all those who would have a

close look at the above translations of the respective verses) is obvious.

In the following paragraphs, I shall present my point of view regarding the

referred verses and thereby show why, in my opinion, there is no discrepancy in

the two narratives and, therefore, no contradiction in the Qur’an.

However, before I present my point of view regarding the meaning and

implication of the two verses, let us first take a look at the words and

translation of the two verses.

The two verses are given below. Al-Saaffaat 37: 145 reads as:

Then we threw him, gravely ill, upon the barren shore.

Al-Qalam 68: 49 reads as:

Had it not been for the favor of his Lord upon him, he would indeed have

been thrown upon the barren shore, disgraced.

It may apparently seem to lay person — who only scans through the words of

the two verses without the attention that they deserve — that they are quite

obviously contradictory. However, expected, as it should have been, the two

verses have been explained by many of the major commentators of the Qur’an. I am

sure Mr. Katz must have closely considered the explanation given by these

commentators of the Qur’an before writing his article. Nevertheless, he has

unfortunately failed to point out what, in his opinion, is wrong with this

explanation and why, in his opinion, the explanation given by these commentators

is not acceptable to him. Whatever reasons Mr. Katz may have had for ignoring

this explanation given by these commentators, it only seems reasonable that we

should take a brief look at this explanation and see whether it is acceptable or

not.

Al-Zamukhsharee, while explaining Al-Qalam 68: 49, writes in

“Al-Kashaaf“:

The denotative of state, i.e. “wa huwa madhmoom”

(‘disgraced’, or ‘in a state of disgrace’) is the apodosis (completing clause

of a conditional clause) of the protasis (i.e. the conditional clause)

beginning with “law laa” (‘Had it not been’). That is to say

that his [Jonah’s] state was not one of disgrace, when he was thrown on the

barren shore, had he not repented, his state would have been one of disgrace.

Al-Raazi, in his famous exegesis of the Qur’an “Al-Tafsir al-Kabir“,

while explaining Al-Qalam 68: 49 writes:

Had it not been for this [mentioned] favor [of his Lord], he would have

been thrown on the naked shore with the attribute of disgrace. However, due to

this favor [of his Lord], though the “throwing on the barren shore”

was still there, yet it was without the attribute of disgrace. Thus, when the

attribute of disgrace was not there, then he [Jonah] was not thrown on the

barren shore in disgrace.

Abu Hayyaan in his exegesis of the Qur’an, “Al-Bahr al-Muheet“,

while explaining the same verse, writes:

The apodosis of “law laa” (had it not been) is the

complete phrase “la nobidha bil`araa wa huwa madhmoom” (‘he

would indeed have been thrown upon the barren shore, disgraced’), that is, on

the contrary, He [God] threw him [Jonah] upon the barren shore without any

disgrace as is mentioned in “fa nabadhnaahu bil`araa” (‘then

we threw him upon the barren shore’) [in Al-Saaffaat 37: 145]. The

reliance of the apodosis is on the denotative of state, not on the act of

throwing alone. It is conditional with the denotative of state.

Al-Aalusi, while explaining this verse, writes in his commentary of

the Qur’an “Rooh al-Bayaan“:

“wa huwa madhmoom” (disgraced) is a denotative of state

for the subject of the verb “nubidha” (thrown) and on this

denotative of state relies the apodosis of [the protasis] “law laa”

(had it not been). Because the implication is that he was not thrown in

disgrace, although the throwing was still present. This shows that he was not

thrown in disgrace.

Al-Qurtabi, in the explanation of the verse writes in his exegesis

“Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur’an“:

“lanubidha bil`araa wa huwa madhmoom” (he would indeed

have been thrown on the upon the barren shore, disgraced), that is to say that

if he had not been blessed by his Lords favor he would then have been thrown

in disgrace, however, he was thrown in a state of illness, not in a state of

disgrace.

These are the opinions of some of the commentators of the Qur’an. Although my

opinion regarding the meaning of the verse shall follow shortly, nevertheless,

it seems quite strange to me that Mr. Katz should mention the two referred

verses as contradictory and not even give a hint to what, in his opinion, is

lacking in the explanation of these commentators. I would suggest that Mr. Katz

should give at least a brief explanation to that effect, as soon as is possible

for him.

In my opinion, although the opinion expressed by the mentioned commentators

is not incorrect in any respect, the real misunderstanding in the determination

of these verses has actually been a general lack of in-depth understanding of

the usage of verbs in the classical Arabic language. It would therefore be

befitting that before we explain the two verses, a brief explanation be

presented about the usage of simple verbs in the classical Arabic language.

Verbs in the classical Arabic language were used in varying shades of their

meanings. Sometimes the verb may be used to imply only the beginning or the

initiation of the action (relating to that verb), sometimes it may be used to

imply the completion of the action (in that verb) and sometimes, it maybe used

to imply the continuity or the perpetuation of the action (in that verb). Hamiduddin

Al-Farahi, in his book “Al-Takmeel fi Usul al-Ta’weel“¹

writes:

… For instance, the verb can sometimes imply the initiation of the

action, sometimes its continuity or perpetuation and sometimes the completion

of the action.

Explaining the different shades of the meanings that a simple verb may imply,

he further writes²:

1- A verb may imply the initiation [or the beginning] of the action, as is

the case in Fussilat 41: 17, where Allah says: ‘As regard Thamud,

We guided them, but they preferred blindness over guidance’ [the verb “hadaynaahum”

i.e. ‘We guided them’ implies the initiation of the action as if to say: ‘We

opened the door of guidance for them by sending Our messenger to them’] and as

Allah says in Al-Insaan 76: 2: ‘We guided him [man] to the right path,

[now it depends on him] whether he be thankful or unthankful’ [Once again the

verb “hadaynaho” i.e. ‘We guided him’ implies the initiation

of the action of guidance, that is to say: ‘We opened the door of guidance to

the right path for him’].

2- A verb may imply the result of an action. as is the case in Ta Ha

20: 121, where Allah says: ‘Thus did Adam disobey his Lord and stray from the

right path’. Adam’s disobedience was because he did what was against God’s

directive, however he did what he did because he forgot, as the Qur’an says in

Ta Ha 20: 115 that “We made a covenant with Adam, but he forgot and We

found him lacking in steadfastness” [Thus the verb ‘`asaa‘ i.e.

“he disobeyed” actually implies the result of Adam’s action due to

his forgetting God’s directive. That is to say: Adam forgot what God directed

him and thus did that, which resulted in disobeying God].

3- Similar to the second case [mentioned above], is that a verb, or an

attributive noun, may imply an action that has taken place according to the

permission or directive of the agent. As is said: ‘The king made the bridge’,

whereas, actually the bridge was only made [by someone] according to the

directive of the king. Of this category is what follows the pious or impious

actions of man, as Allah has said in Al-Nisaa 4: 155 “But God has

sealed their hearts due to their disobedience”, [that is to say God has

allowed such to happen] …

If the above explanation is fully understood, it would then not be difficult

to understand that the verb “nabadha” in the two referred

verses is actually used in two slightly different implications. In the first

verse (Al-Saaffaat 37: 145), the verb implies the initiation or the

beginning of the action in that verb, while in the second verse (Al-Qalam

68: 49), it implies the continuity or the perpetuation or the permanence of the

action. Thus, keeping this explanation in mind, the the second verse should

actually have been translated in a slightly different manner. In my opinion, a

more accurate translation of the second verse would be:

Had it not been for the favor of his Lord upon him, he would

indeed have been left thrown away upon the barren shore, disgraced.

N. J. Dawood, who seems to be well aware of this usage of the verbs in the

classical Arabic language, has translated Al-Saaffaat 37: 145 in the

following words:

We threw him, gravely ill, upon a desolate shore.

and then has very accurately translated Al-Qalam 68: 49 as:

Had his Lord not bestowed on him His grace, he would have been

abandoned in the open to be blamed by all.

This, in my opinion, is the correct translation of Al-Qalam 68: 49.

I am sure my explanation would be easily understood by all those who have a

good understanding of the classical Arabic language and the style of the Divine

literature — the Qur’an and parts of the Bible.

© Copyright January 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author

1- Al-Daairah Al-Hameediyah, Azamgarh,

India, 1388 AH, Pg. 39.

2- Al-Daairah Al-Hameediyah, Azamgarh,

India, 1388 AH, Pg. 42.