Reading (Yagil) and Reading (Yughal
Response to the doubt about reading (yagil) and reading (yughal) |
Content of the Doubt
The enemies of Islam claim that there is a contradiction between the Quranic readings and they cite the following two readings as evidence for this:
It is not for a prophet to take spoils of war .
It is not for a prophet to be taken as booty .
The enemies of Islam claim that the two readings give two different meanings, as the first verse says that the Prophet does not betray anyone, and the second verse says that the Prophet is not betrayed by anyone?!
Response to This Ridiculous Suspicion
Firstly:
For me, I see that both readings give the same meaning, as both readings deny the trait of betrayal from the Prophet Muhammad, for example:
The first reading says:
And it is not for a prophet to take spoils of war .
The word (yaghl) here ☝️ is taken from the verb (ghalla) .
The word (ghal) means: betrayed.
So this reading means that the Prophet does not betray, and it denies the attribute of betrayal from the Prophet himself.
The second reading is as follows:
It is not for a prophet to be taken as booty .
The word (yughalla) here is taken from the verb (aghalla) .
The word “aghalla” means to accuse someone of treason. However, this word is in the passive voice here, and therefore refers to the Prophet himself and not another person. The meaning of this reading is that the Prophet is not to be accused of treason.
The first reading denies attributing the attribute of betrayal to the Prophet, while the second reading also denies attributing the attribute of betrayal to the Prophet himself. Both readings refer to the Prophet himself, not to any other person.
This opinion was mentioned by Al-Baghawi along with another opinion, but I reviewed the opinions and believe that this is the correct and most accurate opinion. This opinion was also favored by Al-Tabari.
By the way, both readings are correct from the Arabic language point of view and give the same meaning. For example:
- I am allowed to say in Arabic:
[A person like Alaa does not lie]
- Also, linguistically, I can say:
[A person like Alaa cannot be lied to]
In both of these expressions, I deny that Alaa himself is a liar. In the first example, I used the active triliteral verb.
The second time, I used the passive quadriliteral verb to give the same meaning.
This is permissible in the Arabic language.
So the two Quranic readings do not differ from each other.
But let’s take a simple example of the contradictory Bible:
- 1 Kings 7:26
Its thickness was a span, and its lip was like the lip of a cup made of lily flowers. It held two thousand baths.
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
- 2 Chronicles 4:5
Its thickness was a span, and its lip was like the lip of a cup made of lily flowers. It could hold and contain three thousand baths.
Note:
Some enemies of Islam practice the fallacy of attribution with me , where they say to me: Look at the words of Sheikh so-and-so or Imam so-and-so, even if they are wrong!
But I reply to them and say:
There is no imam or sheikh who claims infallibility for himself. Every person makes mistakes and right decisions, and we must search for the most correct and right opinion.
As for the wrong opinion, it is not an argument against the Muslim, and there is no Muslim jurist throughout time who has issued a fatwa that he is infallible such that we should follow all of his fatwas.
No, in Islam there is no priesthood or imams appointed by God. Rather, everyone strives according to his ability and capacity, and we benefit from what he does right and avoid what he does wrong.