Does the Qur'an err when it mentions "mulook" (normally translated as 'kings') in the House of Israel before the time of Prophet Moses? We bring to you the answer to this question in the light of exegetical traditions traced back to the Holy Prophet, his companions and other early Muslims, analysis of the relevant Qur'anic verse, original, meanings of the word 'mulook' and historical context including Biblical testimony.
Refuting Missionaries on Qur'an and Kings in Israel Before Moses
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة
و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين
1- Introduction:
Christian missionaries have
gathered up many articles attacking Islam in an attempt to hinder people from
understanding Islam. Upon examination however, we come to realize that the
scholarship of such people is lacking serious weight, integrity and
understanding not only of Islamic sciences and principles, but Biblical
knowledge as well. It seems that the
goal of missionaries is to whrite as much clogged information as possible so
that readers might consider quantity a sign of credibility and
scholarship. This is certainly not the
case with educated people who are willing to take their time and seriously
analyze the claims from a rational point of view. One of such unfounded attacks on the Quran is
a so called inconsistency that deals with the usage of the word
“kings” when it comes to the Children of Israel.
Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا
قَوْمِ اذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنبِيَاء
وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكًا وَآتَاكُم مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَدًا مِّن الْعَالَمِينَ
This is commonly translated as:
“Remember Moses said to his
people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when
He produced prophets among you, made you kings (mulook), and gave you
what He had not given to any other among the peoples.” (Qur’an 5:20)
Islamophobes like Jochen Katz
allege that author of the Qur’an erred here for there were no kings/monarchs
from amongst the people of Israel before the time of Moses, may Allah bless
him.
It is certain that this argument
sprouts merely from the reading of the translations of the Islamic Scripture.
2- The actual word used and
its meanings:
The word “mulook” comes from the
word “malak” which means “owning” or “possessing.”
John Penrice writes:
مَلَكَ : To possess, have power or dominion over;
to be capable of able to obtain … مَلِك : One who possess, a king; Plur. مُلُوك …[1]
This is to show that original
meaning of “malik” is “one who possess” and as the monarchs are in a way
the possessors of the destiny of the whole nation it is usually used for them.
3- Meanings of the word put
in the verse:
Following points may be
considered while keeping in mind the above stated origins and primary meanings
of the word.
1- There is a clear contrast in
the wording used to refer to the prophethood and “kingship” /”possessive
attribute” of the people of Israel.
Statement about Prophets is “He
made prophets from amongst you” which carries the sense that not all of
them were blessed with prophethood rather only a few were, and others were
required to follow them. But when it comes to “kingship”/”ownership” it is
said, “and made you the mulook” which means that all of them were
kings. Without a doubt not all people are prophets and without a doubt not all
people are monarchs. But in the case of
the children of Israel, Allah has favored them and blessed them with wealth and
provisions like He did not bless anyone before; hence they have been given
ownership and kingship:
يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ
اذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتِيَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأَنِّي فَضَّلْتُكُمْ عَلَى
الْعَالَمِينَ
“O Children of Israel! Remember
those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favored you above
all other people;”[2]
This textual observation itself is a strong
suggestion that unlike spiritual authority the temporal power of otherwise only
ordinary nature is mentioned here. This point helps us understand the true
meaning when we put this reported statement of Moses in the historical context
as elaborated below.
2- With point 1 in mind it is
easy to understand the explanation to the word given by earlier Muslim
commentators that “malik” (plur. “mulook”) refers to the one who has a wife and
owns servants.
عن ابن عباس رضي
الله عنهما، في قوله عز وجل ... {وجعلكم ملوكا} قال: المرأة والخادم
Ibn Abbas said about the word
of Allah, ’And made you kings’: “[It means] having a wife and a
servant.”[3]
Similar meanings were given by
Hasan al-Basri, Mujahid and other early authorities.[4]
It implies making them a people
having the luxury of an honorable family life, along with servants helping them
in their daily routines.
3- In fact a similar
interpretation is attributed to the Holy Prophet- may the peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him.
قال
ابن أبي حاتم: ... عن أبي سعيد الخدري، عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:
"كان بنو إسرائيل إذا كان لأحدهم خادم ودابة وامرأة، كتب ملكا"
Ibn Abi Hatim said: Abu
Sa’id al-Khudri narrated from the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him: “With the Children of Israel, a person who had a servant,
an animal and a wife was counted as a king.”[5]
Though the chain of authorities of this narration is weak, it is supported
by another narration:
عن زيد
بن أسلم: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم:
"من كان له بيت وخادم فهو ملك"
Zayd bin Aslam narrated: The
Messenger of Allah- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “One who
has a house and a servant is a king.”[6]
Before we go on to give evidence
for similar usage without any direct connection to the verse, it needs to be
highlighted that these narrations pose a serious question for disbelieving
skeptics who try to question Islam with such points. If Prophet Muhammad –peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him- was the author of the Qur’an and if he actually meant to say
monarchs in this verse why would then he explain the word in quite different
terms, as shown?
4- Word “mulook” meaning
other than kings/monarchs:
Independent of the verse, there
is evidence of the word “mulook” to simply mean sovereignty in personal affairs
and ownership in general. It is even used for command over one’s own self.
1) Following hadith is good
example:
أبا عبد الرحمن الحبلي،
يقول: سمعت عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص وسأله رجل، فقال: ألسنا من فقراء المهاجرين؟
فقال له عبد الله: «ألك امرأة تأوي إليها؟» قال: نعم، قال: «ألك مسكن تسكنه؟» قال:
نعم، قال: «فأنت من الأغنياء» ، قال: فإن لي خادما، قال: «فأنت من الملوك»
'Abd al-Rahman al-Hubuli
reported: I heard that a person asked 'Abdullah b. 'Amr b. 'Aas saying: Are we
not amongst the destitute of the emigrants? Abdullah said to him: Have you a
spouse with whom you live? He said: Yes. ‘Amr again asked: Do have a place to
live in? He said: yes. ‘Amr said: Then you are amongst the rich. He said: I
have a servant also. Thereupon he (Abdullah b. 'Amr b. 'As) said: Then you are
amongst the kings (mulook).[7]
2) The missionaries might make an
objection here saying that the Muslims are using their own meanings, carrying
no weight in the argument. Responding to
this, we will look at the usage of the world from non Muslims at the time of
Prophet Muhammad –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him-as well as the usage
of the word in the Bible:
Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, the infamous
member of a Jewish tribe around Madinah, who spent his time inciting the
Quraish against the Muslims and calling for the murder of the Holy Prophet–peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him-, on learning about the killing of the
chiefs of the pagans in the Battle of Badr said:
هؤلاء
أشراف العرب وملوك الناس
“Those were the nobles of Arabia, the kings of the people
(mulook-ul-naas).”[8]
We know that the Quraish were not
monarchs however Ka’b understood that they were highly regarded by the rest of
the Arabs and they were prosperous due to their guardianship over the Ka’bah.
3) In the Arabic translations of
Bible’s Book of Revelation the same word is used:
وَجَعَلَنَا
مُلُوكًا وَكَهَنَةً
This is given in the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible.
“And has made
us kings and priests ...”[9]
According to Christian exegetes
here “kings” simply means those who control themselves in the spiritual sense,
yet Arabic translators use this word, “mulook”, testifying that it can mean other than
monarchs.
Matthew Henry writes:
“As kings, they govern their
own spirits, conquer Satan, have power and prevalency with God in prayer, and
shall judge the world.”[10]
4) In fact in the Jewish history
there is evidence of reference to ordinary leaders or chieftains as kings.
“In Palestine almost every
chieftain bore this title.”[11]
All this shows that the meaning
of the root of the word i.e. possession and ownership defines its different
usages and there is no reason to take exception to any meaning unless the
context belies it.
5- The Historical Context:
Having proved that the meanings
understood by classical Muslim scholars are indeed true to the actual word and
its usage, we now find its relevance with the true historical context of the
statement.
As the context of the Qur’anic
passage shows the statement of Moses was made when the Jews had just left Egypt
and they were yet to enter the cities in the land of Canaan.
The Jews had lived a life of
misery and suppression in Egypt under the Copts. Now as they, with God’s leave,
left Egypt they enjoyed freedom from the bondage, a secure family life and
material prosperity. Their family life had actually become quite secure even in
the wilderness as compared to what transpired with them under the brutal pharaohs.
(See, Qur’an 2:49 and Exodus 1:15-22) As life in wilderness brought to them the
security of family, in a way it became a house for them, for what is house
except a place bringing security and a certain degree of protection.
In Egypt the Israelites were in
bondage, through the Exodus they became masters of their own destiny and even
had some people to work for them. Jochen Katz in his overstretched rebuttal
to Bassam
Zawadi forgets the plain narratives of his own ‘Holy’ Book in his passion
to attack the Islamic Scripture, The Glorious Qur’an.
In description of the Exodus
Bible reads;
“Now the
children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked
from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. And
the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so
that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the
Egyptians.”[12]
It is therefore wrong to assume
that Jews left Egypt is the state of destitute.
Then in Exodus 12:37 after giving
the number of the Israelites who left Egypt and the distance they traveled, it
continues;
“A mixed
multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds—a great deal of
livestock.”[13]
i.e. there were
non-Jewish people with them who accompanied them.
In the same
chapter among the Passover restrictions we find the following instruction;
“No foreigner
shall eat it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have
circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not
eat it.”[14]
Had the Jews no
servants there wasn’t any need to give these instructions. In fact it appears
the “mixed multitude” that went with them were their servants. In their
commentary to Exodus 12:38 “mixed multitude” Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz
Delitzsh write;
“According to Deut
29:11, they seem to have occupied a very low position among the
Israelites, and to have furnished the nation of God with hewers of wood and
drawers of water.”[15]
Israelites lived and managed
things together as tribes. When Moses- may Allah’s blessings be upon him-
prayed for water for the Children of Israel he was instructed to smite a rock with
his staff and from it gushed twelve springs- one for each tribe (Cf. Qur’an
2:60, see Darayabadi’s commentary for historical evidence on number of holes in
the rock corresponding to the number of tribes). Therefore, if some foreigners
drew water for them it meant they served all of them. In contrast to apt
slavery in Egypt this was a huge change in the living standards of all
of the Children of Israel.
These facts testify the
historical truth behind the use of the word “mulook” in the particular sense
mentioned.
6- The Best Translation of
the Verse and Other Translations:
In the light of all these details
we can safely conclude that the best English rendering of the meanings of the
verse is given in Saheeh International translation. It reads;
“And [mention, O Muhammad],
when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon
you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors
and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.”
Likewise Muhammad Asad translates
it as;
“And, Lo, Moses said unto his
people:" "O my people! Remember the blessings which God bestowed upon
you when he raised up prophets among you, and made you your own masters,
and granted unto you [favours] such as He had not granted to anyone else in the
world.”
It is however important to note
that even though some well-known translators have used the word “kings” or
“princes” in the translation, they did not mean monarchs.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali used the word
“kings” but in his short commentary note he said; “From the slavery of Egypt
the Children of Israel were made free and independent, and thus each man became
as it were a king.”
In the same way Abdul Majid
Daryabadi used the word “princes” in his translation yet in annotations he
remarked, “i.e., masters of your own selves. A ملك is not necessarily a king. He may be anybody possessing
dominion, authority, or even independence.”
7- Summary and Conclusion:
1) The difference in the way
Qur’an describes the blessings of prophethood and temporal ownership itself
suggests that “mulook” does not mean monarchs; it rather refers to freedom and
luxury of possession.
2) The original meaning of the
word “malik” is about possession alone and its variant degrees define the title
for each level.
3) The meaning of the word
“malik”/”mulook” taken by earliest commentators was used independently but in
the same sense, see the narration about ‘Amr b. Al-‘Aas from Sahih Muslim.
4) The Israelites gathered riches
as they left Egypt and they even had servants from other nations during the
Exodus when Moses- may Allah bless him- made that statement.
5) Most precise translation of
the verse is,
“And [mention, O Muhammad],
when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon
you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors
and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.”
Thus we see that all objections
to the meanings of the verse are unworthy of any attention and we find Islamophobes
forgetting their own scriptures while attacking Islam. Truly venom, jealousy
and spite know no bounds!
LET ME TURN THE
TABLES!
One can quote scores of errors in
the Bible but just for taste we talk of a few here.
In Numbers 21:3 we read, And
the Lord listened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites, and
they utterly destroyed them and their cities. So the name of that place was
called Hormah.”
But then in Judges 1:17 “And
Judah went with his brother Simeon, and they attacked the Canaanites who
inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. So the name of the city was called
Hormah."
A more clear translation is, “They
put a curse on the city, destroyed it, and named it Hormah.” (Good News Translation)
If the city was named Hormah much
later how can the city be so called at the time of Moses, may Allah bless him- the
supposed author of the Book of Numbers? Not only this, do the Christians
actually believe that Moses lived to see Canaanites delivered to Israel?
Given the Christian idea of inspiration one
wonders whether the Holy Spirit - part of the Triune Christian Godhead- failed
or forgot to inspire the truth on these issues. At the very
least it proves the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have not been safe from adulteration.
According to the prophecy in Ezekiel 26: 7-12 Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar were to attack Tyre and verse 12 says '
They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise:' but
even though they attacked and laid the siege for 13 years, they could NOT take the spoils
and thus God promised him the Land of Egypt as wages for the trouble they did
undergo at Tyre. Gill and Adam Clarke in their commentaries agree that
Nebuchadnezzar lost the spoils of the rich city of Tyre because of the timely
arrangements of the people of the city. In the commentary of Robert Jamieson,
A. R. Fausset and David Brown, it is clarified that “many nations” in Ezekiel
26:3 refers to the composition of the Army of Nebuchadnezzar. This proves
that the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:12 failed. Did God fail to do what he promised or he inspired these historic blunders?
Christians should be the last
people to even think of raising questions about the Qur’an at least as long as
they believe in Bible as an inspiration from God.
Indeed Allah knows the
best!
-- by Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel K. Al-Romaani
[1] A
Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, Darul Ishat, Karachi, 1998, p.140
[2] Qur’an 2:122
[3]
Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 3214. Al-Hakim graded it as Sahih according to the
conditions of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Al-Dhahbi agreed with him.
[4]
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an, Al-Resala
publications, Beirut 2000 vol. 10 pp.162-163
[5]
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Dar al-Taybah, Beirut 1999 vol.3 p.73
[6]
Al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 10 p.161 Narration. 11626
[7]
Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Hadith 7102
[8]
Sirat Ibn Ishaq, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1978 vol.1 p.317
[9]
NKJV, Rev. 1:6
[10] Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible, by Matthew Henry, [1706], at sacred-texts.com, Last
Access on November 29, 2012 6:51 pm GMT
[11] Jewish
Encyclopedia, Art. King, Last Access on November 29, 2012 6:52 pm GMT
[12]
Exodus 12:35-36
[13] Exodus 12:38
[14] Exodus 12:43-45
[15] Biblical
Commentary on the
Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78], at sacred-texts.com,
Last Access on November 29, 2012 6:53 pm GMT
Mashallah ! thank you .
ReplyDeleteVery impressive. May Allah reward you with jannatul firdaus. Amen.
ReplyDeleteMansha Allah Good work brothers....Indeed the truth has come.....Allah is great. Islam is the truth.
ReplyDelete