Whistling in the Dark

Exercises in “Islamic Lexicography”

Jochen Katz

For some time now, Sam Shamoun and Bassam Zawadi have been involved in a discussion on the question of whether Muhammad was assured of his (eternal) salvation and of Allah’s forgiveness of his sins. Their exchange can be viewed on these pages (1-Conclusion, 2, 3, 2-Appendix, 4). I am happy to leave the bulk of the theological discussion to them. But in his most recent instalment, in the appendix to his main article, Bassam Zawadi made a really bad linguistic argument which I could not resist responding to.

In a nutshell, Zawadi argues that the same word in the Qur’an ('assa), usually translated as “may” or “perhaps” actually means “certainly” or “definitely” in some verses in the Qur’an. As ludicrous as this sounds at first sight, let’s examine the argument that Zawadi puts before us. He writes:

My guess is that the dictionary actually speaks of “possibility” rather than “probability”. Moreover, if Zawadi isn’t even certain how he should spell the name of the author of this dictionary, how much confidence can we have that he understood the text? Having gotten these trivia out of the way, let us now turn to the substance.

Frankly, I have the suspicion that Zawadi’s summary of the dictionary entry is not quite “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Why? If there is any language that uses the same word to express “possibility” and “certainty”, i.e. the same word means both “perhaps” and “certainly”, this is bound to produce an enormous number of misunderstandings in daily communications. It would be incredibly impractical to use such a word at all. It is nearly like claiming a word could mean both “left” and “right” or “up” and “down” or “square” and “circle” or “yes” and “no”. Even though in most languages many words have a range of meanings, this range does not usually include meanings that are nearly self-contradictory.

There are several points to be made. Occasionally even dictionaries contain errors and misunderstandings. More likely, however, is that this word takes a certain meaning in a very precise context (e.g. within a certain idiomatic expression). Dictionaries are usually produced on the basis of textual evidence. The question is: What is the textual basis, what is the context in which this word indicates certainty? This MUST be stated precisely so that we can determine if the above Quran verse fits this context. Otherwise, a comment like the above is virtually useless. Therefore, if Bassam Zawadi wants to appeal to this dictionary, or any other, he needs to produce the full entry on the word so that we can examine what it says, and in which context it supposedly indicates certainty.

As it stands, the above “summary” is an empty and useless claim.

Apparently, Zawadi was intuitively aware that the above claim wasn’t worth much, all by itself, and thus he sought to substantiate this claim with a number of “proof texts”. He states:

It seems that Zawadi has not even understood what he is doing, or trying to do. These citations are completely irrelevant to this discussion for several reasons.

First, obligation and certainty are different concepts. Remember that Zawadi claimed 'assa indicates or at least can occasionally indicate certainty (because he wants the verse in question to mean that Allah not only perhaps but definitely forgave the sins of Muhammad).

However, obligation does not produce certainty. This can be illustrated very easily. The five daily prayers are an obligation on every adult Muslim. Does every adult Muslim perform the obligatory prayers? Certainly NOT! (This also is a kind of certainty, but the opposite of the obligation.) Okay, maybe asking about every Muslim is asking too much. So then: Does the average Muslim faithfully observe his obligatory five daily prayers? Probably not! Then let’s be more specific: Did Bassam Zawadi faithfully perform all five daily prayers on every day during the last year? Possibly yes, but probably not. Given his zeal for Islam, I consider it likely that he performed them on most days during the last year, but I still consider it unlikely that he was able to do all of them on every single day. Clearly: Obligation does not imply actuality, obligation does not produce certainty.

Therefore, even if the above quotations could prove that the word 'assa implies some kind of obligation (on whom?), it fails to prove Zawadi’s case that 'assa indicates certainty since obligation does not imply certainty.

This observation alone renders Zawadi’s proof texts irrelevant and useless for this discussion. However, it is going to get worse. S. 48:1-2 and S. 9:18 are simply too different for one to try and reason from the latter to the former. Here are the two texts in a couple of translations:

Note the difference: In S. 48:2, Allah is the subject, Allah may (or may not) DO something. In S. 9:18, the subject is/are (a group of) believers and a statement is made about the possibility of them BEING something. Compare:

48:2 – subject: Allah,                        verb: forgive                                 [action]
9:18 – subject: these/they [Muslims], verb: “be among the rightly guided” [status]

Given that the two verses are so very different in structure, on what basis does Zawadi think that an observation on S. 9:18 can simply be transferred to explain a very different phrase in S. 48:2? That is certainly not obvious. Zawadi needs to present a proper argument.

Based on the English translations alone, we see that there are considerable problems for simply reasoning from S. 9:18 to S. 48:2. It becomes even worse when we look at the Arabic text. But that will actually be so bad and fatal to Zawadi’s argument and so embarrassing for Zawadi as an Arab and apologist for Islam that it deserves a section of its own. I will save that for last, making it the final point and climax of my rebuttal.

Despite the prestigious names of Al-Qurtubi and Al-Tabari connected with the claim that “'assa from Allah is an obligation” or “every occurrence of 'assa in the Qur'an is an obligation”, I fail to see any obligation in the last phrase of S. 9:18. Since the discussion of that matter is too lengthy, and ultimately irrelevant to Zawadi’s argument here, I may deal with that in a separate article as time permits.

Zawadi then tries to make an argument from the English usage of the auxiliary verb “may”:

Zawadi’s original claim was that the word “may” may also indicate “certainty”. But the certainty in the above verse is found in the word “certainty”, not in the word “may”. Zawadi is right in saying that the “may” indicates ability. Because Luke wrote up his account of the life and teachings of Jesus, the reader is thus enabled to know the truth of the Christian message. But ability is really not so different from possibility (i.e. poss-ability). Similar to the discussion of obligation above, ability and possibility do not automatically produce actuality. Therefore, this example again fails to substantiate Zawadi’s case. The English word “may” can indicate a wish, a possibility, or ability, but it does not indicate certainty.

Ironically, Zawadi is his own best refutation, i.e. the person of Bassam Zawadi is the best refutation of the claim of Bassam Zawadi. Luke wrote his gospel account so that his readers may know for sure that what they have been taught is true:

However, seeing that he still is a Muslim, it is clear that Zawadi did not become certain of its truth. Zawadi was enabled to know the certainty of the truth of the Gospel, but he did not turn that ability into a personal reality. It remained only a possibility for him, while for other readers it has become a certainty.

That is exactly the common use and normal meaning of “may” – indicating possibility.

However, one thing is certain: Zawadi has so far not made any progress in proving his hypothesis that “may” indicates certainty.

Zawadi continues:

Since Zawadi questions even Sam Shamoun’s knowledge of English (later on in the same appendix), I have to ask him in which dictionary he found the verb “to explain off”. Did he perhaps mean “explained away”?

I searched hard in Zawadi’s article, but I could not find any refutation of the verses used by Sam Shamoun in his article, nor was I able to find those alleged other verses, supposedly guaranteeing paradise, listed in Zawadi’s article. The only verse Zawadi quotes and discusses in this regard is S. 9:102, which we will examine shortly.

Furthermore, notice how ironic and self-refuting Zawadi’s formulation “indicating certainty” actually is. Certainty comes through clear unambiguous statements, but “indicating” speaks of something that is veiled, ambiguous, unclear. An indication is a hint, but not clear evidence. Zawadi is clearly squirming and trying to affirm something that is fundamentally unclear in the Qur’an. But as stated above, the theological discussion on this matter I will leave to Sam Shamoun; I will focus here on the linguistic argument.

Well, then, let’s now turn to Zawadi’s only verse from the Qur’an that he offered as proof for certainty:

It is amazing how much ignorance and faulty reasoning Zawadi was able to pack into these few lines, and still call it “definite proof”.

Let us first clarify the historical background. The slaughter of the Banu Qurayza took place in Spring 627 AD (cf. this chapter in Muir’s biography of Muhammad). But Surah 9 was “revealed” as one of the last surahs near the end of Muhammad’s life. Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi writes in his introduction to Surah 9:

The Campaign of Tabuk is dated to October 630 AD (source), i.e. about 3.5 years after Muhammad’s slaughter of the Banu Qurayza. Does Zawadi want to make us believe that Abu Lubabah was tied to the mosque for 3.5 years, waiting for his pardon for the sin of “betraying Muhammad” by indicating to the besieged Banu Qurayza that Muhammad would slaughter them if they should surrender?

Moreover, Tafsir Al-Jalalayn clearly says that this verse was revealed about a group of people whose sin was that they “stayed behind” (instead of going to war against the unbelievers) and who tied themselves to the walls of the mosque as a sign of their repentance. But in the Banu Qurayza story, there was only one man, Abu Lubabah, not a group of people, who tied himself to a pillar of the mosque. And at that time, Abu Lubabah did not have a problem with having “stayed behind”. So, all of this doesn’t fit. Zawadi was again too hasty in his conclusions (cf. Haste makes Waste). He saw the name Abu Lubabah and the words “tied … in the mosque” and then he thought he knows it all and doesn’t need to look up the details.¹ Zawadi exposed both his ignorance and his sloppiness with these claims.

There are several more details which Zawadi got wrong. To mention just one that is quite significant, Zawadi claims that [based on this Qur’an verse] “Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself” but Ibn Ishaq reports it this way:

Note also that the Sirat does not mention any Qur’an verse given for Abu Lubabah in the incident of the Banu Qurayza. It claims that (somehow) “that the forgiveness of Abu Lubaba came to the apostle at dawn” but not that this information is found in the Qur’an. Also, Abu Lubabah was not satisfied with the news that God had allegedly forgiven him, he demanded to be untied by Muhammad himself. All of this is contrary to Zawadi’s claims.

In fact, even Zawadi’s own quote from Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, although referring to a different incident, explicitly says, “they swore that only the Prophet would untie them, which he did when this [verse] was revealed” which didn’t hinder Zawadi to claim otherwise.

And it would have been so easy to avoid that mistake. Zawadi would just have had to follow the link to (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 9:102, Source) that he himself provided, then switch in the drop-down menu from “Tafsir al-Jalalayn” to “Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs” and click “Display” to read:

Although the entry in the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn is not explicit on this, the same site offers, just two clicks away, two other classical commentaries, “Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs” and “Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi”, which both explicitly state that this refers to “the Battle of Tabuk” (and has therefore nothing to do with the attack on the Banu Qurayza). There is really no excuse for Zawadi’s ignorant claims and shoddy research.

Okay then, it was another incident, and Zawadi is hopefully duly embarrassed about that blunder, … but having clarified this and adjusting the argument to these different historical circumstances, does the proposed argument then become solid? Does it help Zawadi to extract certainty from “may be”?

As stated in the paragraph by Maududi that was quoted earlier, this part of Sura 9 is a scathing attack and condemnation of those Muslims who stayed at home and did not take part in the military campaign of Tabuk. These people are denounced as hypocrites and threatened with severe punishment and in the end hell-fire (cf. S. 9:81-90, 93-96, 98, 101) – without any “maybe” attached to it. No wonder some Muslims who had not joined Muhammad’s jihad against the unbelievers in this particular campaign really became fearful. They recognized that doom was pronounced on them. And they apparently felt they needed a public acceptance of their repentance and re-instatement in the community by Muhammad himself. Thus they tied themselves up in the mosque and asked to be untied by Muhammad as a sign that they were forgiven. That is the context of S. 9:102, pronouncing on them:

After they were faced with SURE condemnation and hell-fire in the earlier verses, the new announcement “it may be that Allah will turn to them in compassion” was already great relief. There was hope after all. Perhaps they could draw some consolation or even “certainty” from the last phrase “surely, Allah is Most Forgiving”, but not from the sentence before it. It is formulated as “may be” and no amount of denial is going to change that. More than the “may be” from Allah in the Qur’an verse, it was the action of Muhammad to untie them which brought them relief.

Zawadi had argued that

But that exactly is not true. He did not untie himself because the Qur’an verse had provided that assurance, but they needed the physical sign and demanded that Muhammad untie them as a sign of that forgiveness. The mere “revelation” was not enough, it needed Muhammad’s personal and physical action to convey that assurance to them.

In the final analysis, Zawadi has not provided any substantial evidence (from the historical context) to prove that the word 'assa conveys certainty.

Al-Hilali & Khan render S. 9:102 in this way:

The word “perhaps” doesn’t sound like these translators saw a certainty in this clause. And the final phrase is a generality about Allah without being specifically applied to the people in question. Again, there is no assurance in this verse.

Compare these three statements:

The first formulation conveys full certainty of forgiveness. The second can still be understood as certain although it is projected into the future and the forgiveness is therefore not yet reality.² Adding the word “perhaps”, however, takes away the certainty that was present in the other formulations, it certainly doesn’t add any assurance.

The situation is no different in Arabic. Why would Allah add 'assa in order to add an element of certainty? It makes no sense. In order to give assurance of forgiveness, he simply would have had to leave this word out. That is what Zawadi has to explain. How does the word 'assa add certainty which had been missing if this word had not been added?

Zawadi did not invent this explanation, it is a classical interpretation in Islam:

The very fact that Ibn Abbas (and other commentators after him) felt the need to explain such a common word proves that this is not the natural understanding of the term. This revealing comment is itself evidence that 'assa USUALLY simply means “perhaps”, “it may be that”. It is merely a claim that if this word is used in connection with Allah, THEN it implies a requirement, obligation, or duty on Allah to actually do what he only expressed in the form of a possibility.

Even if famous names like Ibn Abbas, Al-Qurtubi or Al-Tabari are connected to it, it still remains a claim without proof. I have yet to see a proper linguistic basis for this interpretation. So far, this presents itself as merely special pleading seeking to force a meaning on the word which it doesn’t have.

There is a clear reason why “Allah” / Muhammad had to add “perhaps” to the statement. The Quran contains many definite statements. Allah could easily have made it definite if he wanted, but he constructed it as indefinite for a purpose. He safeguards his own sovereignty with it. He is not bound by anything. He has the ultimate freedom to do whatever he wants. He does not restrict his free will with promises, he may not want to fulfil later on. He is not “accountable” to anyone, just as the following verses prove:

If it had been a specific statement like “Allah has forgiven person A, B and C for not participating in the battle of Tabuk” there would not have been much of a problem, but the author of the Qur’an tries to speak indirectly and general and that forces him to be vague. Because this verse is formulated in such a general manner, it therefore had to be vague and not offer more than a possibility. Look at S. 9:102 again:

Doesn’t that apply to a vast number of people? In particular, doesn’t that hold true of most religious people in just about every religion? Most people have done some good deeds and some bad deeds, so there is a mixture of good and bad deeds in their life. And most sincere religious people acknowledge that they have sinned and they have confessed those sins.

Following this “general description” with a statement like “Allah will definitely forgive them and make Paradise their abode” would have been detrimental to Islam. It would have declared a general forgiveness for nearly all people, regardless of their religion. Therefore the author had to add the “maybe”, to safeguard his sovereignty and freedom of decision in the final judgment. The “perhaps” allows him to add further aspects and conditions into the equation, particularly the condition of future obedience of these people, instead of handing them a free pass.

Even if Muhammad wanted to let these particular people know that they are forgiven and reinstated, his urge to couch everything in a lofty general language forced him to be vague and make his pronouncement contingent by adding “perhaps”.

And this holds not only for this verse, but for many other passages as well resulting in a religion where believers have no assurance and certainty in regard to forgiveness of their sins or their eternal destiny. And that is a fearsome situation.³ How are Muslims to deal with that fundamental insecurity? I do not envy them.

However, interpreting an explicit “perhaps” or “it may be that” as conveying certainty is like whistling in the dark, to suppress the fear that keeps on gnawing at your soul.

In the final analysis, there is a clear reason why this verse HAS TO contain a “perhaps” in regard to the promised forgiveness. The generality forces its vagueness. Ibn Abbas and other Muslims have so far only asserted that 'assa conveys certainty when connected with Allah but have not provided real linguistic textual evidence for this interpretation which runs contrary to the normal and established meaning of the word.

Zawadi closes his argument with this paragraph of compliments:

I can very confidently leave the judgment to the reader whether or not Bassam Zawadi was able to present a convincing argument to support his claim that 'assa conveys certainty in (at least) some passages of the Qur’an, and in whom they think ignorance has been found.

In my view, there is nothing left of Zawadi’s hypothesis. Every argument in support of it has been found wanting.

However, EVEN IF Zawadi had been able to successfully establish that 'assa occasionally conveys certainty, it still would have been absolutely futile, because he made another enormous mistake which renders his whole argument irrelevant.

Zawadi’s Self-Destruction

Let’s go back to the beginning and recall Zawadi’s main claim which he seeks to prove.

Responding to Sam Shamoun’s discussion of S. 48:1-2, Zawadi wrote:

The bold red color emphasis in the above paragraph is mine, and this color symbolizes the embarrassment and red face of Bassam Zawadi when he realizes the blunder he committed here.

No question, there are plenty of places in the Qur’an where the word 'assa is rendered as “may” in English translations. S. 9:18 and 9:102 were listed by Zawadi himself as proof texts, even though these passages did not really help his case when examined closely.

However, there is no 'assa in the Arabic text of S. 48:2.

Therefore, going on and on about 'assa in order to establish a certain meaning for it is utterly futile because this verse does not even contain the word 'assa.

Zawadi, a native speaker of Arabic, an Arab Islamic apologist who regularly boasts that he reads the Qur’an in its original language and therefore understands it much better than all those infidel critics who do not have a clue, … this very same Zawadi simply ASSUMED that the word “MAY” in the English translation quoted by Sam Shamoun MUST HAVE come from 'assa. And then Zawadi wrote and published an article about the correct interpretation of S. 48:1-2 without bothering to read it in Arabic even once. Consequently, he is merely punching the air and missing his target by more than a mile.

Against this background, Zawadi’s closing paragraph acquires a whole new flavour and meaning: 

That is what I call self-destruction. As mentioned above, Zawadi is his own best refutation.

Further reading:

Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to Zawadi's appendix: Revisiting the Uncertainty of Muhammad's Salvation