- Ibrahim broke the Idols and then lied about it, how true is this concept?
- He placed the axe on the shoulder of the big idol to shift accountability, right?
- Also, he gave false evidence to the priests, right?
- Then he blamed the chief idol, you agree?
- He recognized the idols - they can work, think, act and quarrel, right?
- Ibrahim is such a dishonest prophet! Right?
Lets find out the truth!
Ibrahim(pbu) is one of the most prominent prophets of Islam. Allah(swt) addressed him as 'friend'. He is the chief architect to build the original Kaba. The religion Islam inherited so many things directly from him. Many scholars say that he founded the religion Islam in the first place. The very ritual of animal sacrifice at the time of Id-ul-Adha is based on the incidence pertaining to Ibrahim(pbu). Most of the rituals of annual Hajj is based on commemorating prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Other than our very own prophet Muhammad(pbuh), he is the only prophet who we Muslims mention in each prayer. We seek to Allah(swt) to bless us as He blessed the followers of prophet Ibrahim(pbu).
Ironically, many Muslims derive immense pleasure when they knowingly and unknowingly denigrate such a great prophet. These Muslims derive satisfaction when they claim that this great prophet practiced wrong doings. Due to our sheer ignorance, these Muslims see many of our prophets as cheat, liar, supporter of idolatry, instigator of shirk and guilty of many other crimes.
Did Ibrahim(pbu) tell lies?
Most of the Muslims have come to accept that Ibrahim(pbu) used to tell lies. They believe that according to records, he told lies in three major occasions! They gather false or weak Hadith to support their ignorant claims, they gather endorsement by contemporary scholars who also think Ibrahim(pbu) told lies. Most Muslims accept the pronouncement of these scholars on its face value and never question if such a great prophet could ever do such a crime. These Muslims read one or two incorrect translations and think well, the Quran says Ibrahim(pbu) lied. Whereas, in reality the Quran never said that Ibrahim(pbu) lied. It is these scholars of Islam who are acting dishonestly and falsifying the truth. They are suggesting that telling occasional lies are accepted norm of Islam. Prophets did it!!!! The Quran specifically tells in verse 3:161 that no prophet could act dishonesty.
3:161 No prophet could (ever) act dishonestly if any person acts dishonestly he shall, on the Day of judgement, restore what he misappropriated..... (Yusuf Ali's translation)
We know the incidence of Idol breaking by prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Time and again we have heard stories of how he broke the idols with an axe, sleazy details of how he placed the axe on the shoulder of a big idol. Then when he was questioned, how he told the audience that he did not break the idols, rather the big idol broke the smaller ones!
These scholars invented various sections and sub sections of self made injunctions to declare that under certain circumstances it is permissible to tell lies! You will find lengthy writing by such scholars whereby they justify and mystify Ibrahim's lies. They will argue with you saying how could Ibrahim(pbu) tell the truth in front of the audience who would have killed him if he told the truth! So according to them it was OK when he resorted to falsification for the sake of truth!
Will someone answer if he could not tell the truths in front of an audience why was he a prophet in the first place? What kind of a prophet was he who preached falsehood and lies rather than the Truth? Was he preaching Islam mixed with falsehood and lies, because he was afraid of crowds?
Analysis of verse 21:63
Verse 21:63 is the only place in the Quran where the events leading to Ibrahim(pbu) breaking the idols are described. First let us critically analyze the verse and understand the meaning of each of the words in the sentence.
Qala: He said
Bal: But, of course, by all means, indeed, rather
F'alahu: (passive participle) someone did it
Kabiruhum: The big one of them
Haza: This
F'asaalu hum: Ask them, question them
In: If
Kaanu yantiqun: They can speak, they can talk,
It is very important to note that there is a small punctuation mark signifying pause (waqf) in the sentence right after 'Qaala bal f'aalahu'. According to Arabic grammar, the meaning of the punctuation (waqf) is much like comma (,) usage in English. This sign alone or in combination of circle or other word means a very brief pause. The reader may pause here briefly, but is recommended to continue with the sentence. The sign simply demarcates one part of the sentence from the other in bringing out the meaning. If this sign means absolutely nothing, why is it inserted here? Why is the sentence not like another sentence where the sign is not at all there? Obviously, the insertion of the sign bears some significance. Strangely enough, the under-mentioned scholars refuse to pause or acknowledge the presence of this punctuation mark, rather they want to pause at a different place of their choice.
Samples of Incorrect Translations
Here are some examples of famous commentators who became victims of wrong translation. If you do not see names of other familiar commentators of the Qur-an here, most likely they have translated this verse correctly.
Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:
(Abraham) said: "Nay, this one, the biggest of them (idols) did it. Ask them if they can speak!"
Yusuf Ali:
He said: "Nay, this was done by this The biggest one! Ask them if they can talk."
Rashad Khalifa:
He said, "It is the big one who did it. Go ask them, if they can speak."
J.M. Rodwell:
He said: "Nay, that their chief hath done it; but ask ye them, if they can speak."
T.B. Irving:
He said, "Rather the biggest one of them did it. Ask them if they are able to speak up."
Ahmad Ali:
"No", he said, "It was done by that chief of theirs. Ask him in case they can speak."
Muhammad Sarwar:
I think the biggest one of them has broken the smaller ones. Ask them if they are able to speak.
N.J. Dawood:
'No', re replied, 'It was their chief who smote them. Ask them if they can speak.'
Muhammad Asad:
He answered: "Nay, it was this one, the biggest of them, that did it; but ask them [yourselves] - provided they can speak."
Pickthall:
He said: But this, their chief hath done it. So question them, if they can speak.
Ibrahim did not reply saying "No"
When Ibrahim(pbu) was asked whether he broke the idols, his reply was very tactful. Neither did he say 'Yes', nor did he say 'No'. His answer was passive "someone did it." This "someone" could be him, another person or the big idol or just anybody. There was no dearth of truth that someone truly did it. Instead of asking him, he wanted the audience to ask the victims directly. Let the victims testify if they can. The audience realized that these idols that they think as their gods, couldn't even protect themselves! How on earth these idols can be their gods! They realized futility of idol worshipping.
Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan, Ahmad Ali, Asad, Dawood and Rodwell used the word "No" or "Nay" - to mean that Ibrahim(pbu) flatly denied that he broke the idols. In the Arabic verse 21:63 there is no word that would mean "Nay". So how on earth these commentators found this negation? What are they trying to justify? The verse does not say Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol. If he said "No" - that is a lie, if he said the biggest idol broke it, that is another lie. So it is a lie upon a lie. Some commentators made him lie once, some twice. But all of them made him guilty of several other offences in addition to telling lies. How did the scholars commit such a major mistake? The answer is simple:
1st , they ignored the punctuation sign,
2nd, they changed the position of words in the Arabic verse,
3rd, they changed the grammar of the Arabic verse,
4th, or they blindly followed the interpretation of Ibn Kathir et. al., without critically analyzing the verse
5th, and most likely these scholars were influenced by the oft-repeated story of Ibrahim telling lies
All the commentators translated the verse as: Bal haza kabiruhum fa'lahu. According to them the meaning of this transposed verse is:
Rather/No, This big one of them did it.
This translation is grammatically not correct to the Arabic words. Fa'lahu, a passive participle, does not mean "did it" - rather "someone did it".
Why a wrong interpretation?
The wrong interpretation evolved due to a "minor" mistake made by earlier scholars. This small mistake slowly gathered more dirt as time passed by. Ibn-Kathir and some other tafseer understood it in the wrong way. Yusuf Ali, Rodwell and Pickthall understood it that way without applying reasoning. The later day commentators simply followed them blindly. The result is that these contemporary commentators changed the words of Allah! Close attention to the verse 21:63 reveals that there is no word that would mean "No" or "Nay". We all regard Ibn-Kathir as a great commentator of the Quran. However, he was no more than a human being - he was subject to err like any other human being. Contrary to the verse 3:161, the conventional interpretation of the idol-breaking incidence suggest prophets can act dishonestly. It would be wrong to ascribe unquestionable authority on Ibn Kathir et.al. It would be wrong to perceive him as infallible. If his commentary goes against teachings of the Quran, we must give importance to the Quran and not his or any other commentary.
The Quran does not say Ibrahim(pbu) used an axe to break the idols. He could have broken those fragile idols by hand, by smashing them on the floor or by striking them with any object. Use of an 'axe' was probably invented to bring in some ferocity in the prophet's temper and action. The Quran does not say the infamous 'axe' was placed on the shoulder of the biggest idol. This is another invention of the story-tellers. Benefit of doubt may be given to the use of an 'axe' , but Ibrahim never ever placed the axe on the shoulder of the biggest idol.
Just a Lie? Or More Serious Offence?
In order to validate the conventional understanding and one weak (false!) Hadith, should we still accuse Ibrahim(pbu) of false statement? Is this just a lie or is there other serious offence in here? Many people incessantly tried to justify that Ibrahim could tell lies, or it is permissible to tell lies under certain circumstances. The moment we put the word "No" in Ibrahim's(pbu) mouth, we are making him culprit of several other grave offence as under:
1. Ibrahim(pbu) is telling an outright lie. A lie is a lie is a lie.
2. When Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol, he is avoiding accountability by blaming a third person (object).
3. When asked if he broke the idols, Ibrahim(pbu) is giving a false deposition in front of the gathering.
4. By admitting that the biggest idol broke the smaller ones, Ibrahim(pbu) is standing a false witness.
5. Ibrahim(pbu) being a staunch critique of idol worshipping, at least at that moment admitted that biggest idol has ability to act and do things that idols cannot do. This is nothing but supporting idolatory.
Will any civilized society and nation of past and present accept false witness, false deposition, lies, shifting accountability etc as acceptable practice? Is any of this acceptable practice in Islam? Does Islam teach us these crimes? If you commit any of these crimes, will Allah forgive you? You tell me.
By Abu Samad, Nayeem Akhtar, M.D. (abusamad@hotmail.co
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. When he said he was Saqeem, which can be translated as weak or ill (37:89).
2. When he said that the big idol had destructed the other idols (21:63).
3. When he advised Sareh to say she was his sister when she met the tyrant.
By stretching the meaning of lie one may consider the above three as lies, however none of them really go under that meaning of lie that is condemned.
A review of verses 6:76-79 shows that Ibrahim (pbuh) had a very unique and effective approach in preaching. He would orchestrate a situation in order to illustrate the false beliefs of his people and let them come to conclusions themselves. Instances one and two above are also part of this:
Ibrahim says he is ill (or weak) to excuse himself from the ceremony that people were at, in order to have an opportunity to break the idols. When some one is not in a mood to attend a ceremony he can simply say that he is not feeling well meaning that his mood is not befitting with the ceremony. This is not saying the truth in an exact way but is also not a total lie.
In the second instance Ibrahim (pbuh) says something that is not true (i.e. the big idol destructing the other ones), but every one else also knows that it is not true. He knows that every one knows this is not true and every one knows that he knows that no one considers this to be true! This is not a lie. This is a sarcastic and at the same time a powerful way of showing people how baseless and ridiculous their belief is.
As for the third instance, the wording of the Hadith itself suggests that Ibrahim (pbuh) intended the truth, but not all the truth and not the exact truth. Sareh was in deed his sister in Islam (1). All that happens is that it was not revealed that here 'sister' does not mean literal sister, and it was not revealed that she was also his wife. There are times that we should be ready to sacrifice our lives for the sake of the truth and in these times we are not to lie about ourselves and our beliefs. However there are also life threatening situations where no sacrifice is needed or even applicable. I do not think that the Almighty expects us to say the truth and then die as the result in these situations. Verse 16:106 of the Qur'an even allows denying the faith (while holding it in the heart) if that can save one's life (like the story of Ammar ibn Yasir).
**********
In summary, although the Hadith may fulfill the conditions of technically correct (Sahih) chain of narrators, there seems to be evidences that cause some concerns about its attribution, in its exact words, to the prophet (pbuh).
Disregard of the degree of the authenticity of the Hadith, it does not attribute any inappropriate things to Ibrahim (pbuh). The word 'lie' in the Hadith should be interpreted in its very general and stretched definition. In none of the three occasions Ibrahim (pbuh) really expressed a condemnable lie and in all of them his expressions were for for the sake of a bigger cause.
Farhad Shafti
