This is a common feature which is clearly noticeable throughout the Qur’an, in places which people describe as either calling for brevity or those that merit expansive elaboration.
Hence, we describe the Qur’an as being concise throughout, because in both situations it does not add anything beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Nor is it possible to express its meaning in either situation with a wording of shorter or equal length. Every single word it uses provides a key to a necessary and intrinsic meaning. Every letter fulfils a purpose.
We should discard altogether any talk about words being ‘added unnecessarily’ or particles being ‘superfluous’.
We should also discard any overuse of the word ‘emphasis’ which means that whenever a word is thought to be ‘surplus’, it is said to be ‘added for emphasis.’
Some people do that without thinking whether the place where it occurs requires or even permits emphasis.
To give such a verdict on the Qur’an, describing it as using such ‘surplus’ words, is to betray ignorance of the fine and highly sensitive measures which constitute an essential element of the Qur’anic style.
When you have discarded all such claims, you should endeavour to fathom its literary merits in the light of what we have said earlier.
If you do not readily understand the purpose of using a particular word or particle, do not jump to any conclusion like those who make claims of the type we have mentioned.
You should say only what is wise and fair, such as:
“God knows best the secrets of His own statements, and we only know what He has taught us.”
Do not be complacent and do not give up trying to discover its merits, saying that eminent literary figures have not been able to fathom it so nor can you. It is often the case that a person of lesser standing may be able to hit on something that has remained unnoticed by a more qualified specialist.
The example of ᶜAbdullāh ibn ᶜUmar is well known. The Prophet once said to a group of his Companions who included such illustrious people as Abu Bakr and ᶜUmar:
“There is a tree which does not discard its leaves. It is like a Muslim. Which tree is that?”
They mentioned several types of tree, but none was the right answer. ᶜAbdullāh was the youngest among them and he felt it to be the date palm tree, but he kept quiet out of respect to his seniors. The Prophet then advised them:
“It is the date palm tree.”
It is, then, your duty to work hard and to pray to God to facilitate you with the acquisition of better knowledge.
It may be that He will give you a breakthrough which will uncover what has remained unknown to others. It is He who “brings the believers out of darkness into the light.” (2: 257.)
Let us take the example of the Qur’anic statement describing God Himself in these words:
“Naught is as His likeness.”
(42: 11.)[This is the nearest and literal translation we can give to this sentence in order to capture its nuances. Most translators of the Qur’an render it as: “There is nothing like Him,” but this is far from adequate.]
Most scholars agree that the particle ‘as’ is ‘tautological’ or ‘redundant’ here. Indeed many say that it is necessarily so.
They feel that making it fully functional leads to a logical impossibility, as it would then negate comparison with God’s likeness, not with God Himself.
Thus, it would lead to admitting that there is, or there may be a ‘peer’ or an ‘equal’ to God. Logicians say that a negation affirms the opposite, while linguists say that negation may apply to what is qualified and what qualifies it as well.
If you say, for example, ‘ᶜAli has no son to help him’, you may mean that he has no sons at all, or that he has a son but that son does not help him.
Similarly, a statement like,‘Ḥasan is not a brother of ᶜAli’, may mean either that Ḥasan has no brothers at all, or that he has a brother other than ᶜAli.
Some scholars say that ‘as’ may be considered as non-redundant if we say that it does not lead to such an impossibility in any linguistic sense.
They say that negation of the likeness of a peer logically implies a negation of peers. They further say that if God has a peer, then that peer has, by necessity, an equal who is the true God Himself.
Each one of any two peers is equal to his peer. Thus, the negation of an equal to a peer is impossible unless we negate parity in the first place. This is the intended meaning.
This interpretation, at best, provides a way out.
It does nothing more than say that ‘as’ in the Qur’anic statement,
‘Naught is as His likeness’,
causes no harm or confusion.
It makes no attempt to show how it is useful and, indeed, necessary. When we consider this interpretation carefully we find that the meaning of the statement is the same whether it is used or not.
Indeed, it only adds an element of pedantry and complication into the sentence. It is akin to someone who says: “This is the son of Mr X’s maternal aunt’s sister”, instead of saying: “This is Mr X”.
In effect this interpretation makes ‘as’ redundant or superfluous, although it claims that it has an emphasising role.
Indeed, there is no emphasis needed here. Besides, to emphasise a negation with a particle indicating likeness is essentially impossible.
page i
Implicit Meanings in Abundance
If we reflect a little we find that this particle is highly significant, forming an essential part of the intended meaning.
GO TO page I