Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring - Part Two: Difference between revisions

Following on from [[Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring - Part One|part one]], in this part we look at the different interpretations of the phrases:

And

The main questions are what does wajadaha mean in these phrases, are the things found being described figuratively, from whose point of view is the story told, and is the story meant to be a fictional fable or an historical account?

Immediately after Dhu’l Qarnayn finds the sun setting in a spring, wajada is used again:

The “wa” prefix just means “and”. Nobody would suggest that wajada means a mistaken perception here. It is rather unlikely that the same word would have been used both in this and in the preceding phrase unless it means to say that both these things were actually found by Dhu’l Qarnayn.

The same argument applies to verse 18:93 where the same structure is used as in 18:86 and 18:90.

Here again, the words following wajada are clearly meant to be a description of what happened in real history, not a mistaken perception or an opinion of what something looked like.

A third example of wajada appears in the story of Moses preceding that of Dhu’l Qarnayn.

This verse has a similar structure to those in the Dhu’l Qarnayn story, beginning with “hatta itha” (although instead of balagha, the next word in this instance is “ataya”, translated “they came”, and has the sense of coming directly and quickly according to Lane’s Lexicon<ref>Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyQuran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000051.pdf Volume 1 page 14] - StudyQuran.org</ref>). As with the other examples, wajada clearly means an objective discovery rather than an illusionary perception or a matter of opinion. We can also notice that a similar grammatical structure follows wajada here as in the Dhu’l Qarnayn episode: someone finds a thing doing something. This is the two objective compliments, ditransitive usage of wajada with a noun and predicate mentioned in Lane’s Lexicon (see quote above) when wajada means to know something by direct experience.

The fourth important example, verse 24:39, is highly problematic for any claim that wajada can mean a false perception:

The word for word translation has:

Let us look at the two verses below:

The verb raa meaning “he saw” is used at the start of both verses in reference to the sun (“watara” means “And you will see”). If verses 18:86 and 18:90 had used raaha (“he saw it”) instead of wajadaha, perhaps there would be a slight case for claiming that a mistaken perception or an opinion of what it looked like is meant, and certainly if it was then followed by a correction as in this verse:

The Qur’an has many similes, in which the prefix ka- is added to a noun to which something is being compared to create the meaning “like”. Ka- combined with anna, which means “that” as in “I think that” is used to mean “as if”. The word kaannaha, meaning “as if it”, could have been used with raaha in 18:86 in a similar way to verses 27:10 and 28:31, which both have the phrase:

In another example we have:

If this pattern had been used in verse 18:86 it would have meant a mere appearance. It could have had something like the phrase, “raaha kaannaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hamiatin” (“he saw it as if it set in a spring of murky water”). It is already clear that the actual words used do not have this meaning.

Another way of supporting the claim that the entire story is the point of view of Dhu’l Qarnayn is to use the last two Arabic words of verse 18:83 to suggest that this is meant to be merely how Dhu’l Qarnayn remembered it:<ref>[http://www.faithfreedom.com/anti_islamic_claims/zulqarnain.html The polemics, and not Zul-Qarnain, are in murky waters!] - Faithfreedom (''not to be confused with the [http://www.faithfreedom.org/ original FaithFreedom] site by Dr. Ali Sina'')</ref>

The second phrase is “qul saatloo AAalaykum minhu thikra'''n'''”, and in the word-for-word translation says, “Say, ‘I will recite to you about him a remembrance”. The word minhu literally means “of him” or “from him”.

In the next example, in a historical narrative about Jesus, we have all the words from the phrase in 18:83. Talawa (natloohu) is translated “we rehearse”, “AAalayka” is “to thee”, “mina” is “of”, and “'''al'''ththikri” is “the Message” (literally, “of the rememberance”).

Two more historical narratives are introduced with talawa (translated “rehearse” and “Recite”):

We can already see that it is unlikely that 18:83 means that Allah is commanding Muhammad to recite from another man’s mistaken recollection. Now we look at the word thikra'''n'''. Lane’s Lexicon defines this word as “A reminding”, or “causing to remember” and “An admonition”.<ref>Lane’s lexicon - [http://www.studyQuran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000136.pdf Volume 3 page 970] - StudyQuran.org</ref>

Two highly relevant examples of its usage in the Qur’an occur in Sura al-Kahf. Immediately preceding the passage about Dhu’l Qarnayn we have one about Moses and a servant of Allah, whom Moses follows.

The words translated as “concerning it” in this verse are the same as in 18:83, “minhu thikra'''n'''”. Here minhu is literally “of it” or “from it”. The reminder cannot be a recollection coming from the mind of the things which Moses might ask about. It is the servant’s reminder ''about'' the things which Moses asks. That is what the phrase means here and in 18:83. All of the major English translations understand it this way.<ref name="IslamAwakened"></ref>