تفسیر تطبیقی عذاب نشدن اخراج کنندگان پیامبر از مکه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
آیات 76-77 اسراء، به مکیان مشرک هشدار داده است که اخراج رسول اسلام از سرزمین خویش به نابودی زودهنگام اخراج کنندگان خواهد انجامید و این سنتی خدایی است که درباره رسولان پیشین نیز جاری بوده است. از دیگر سو، مشرکان مکه به عذاب هایی از سنخ عذاب های مشرکان پیشین، گرفتار نگشتند، گرچه در نهایت سبب ترک مکه از جانب پیامبر شدند. آیات 76-77 سوره اسراء به مکیان مشرک هشدار داده است که اخراج پیامبر اسلام از سرزمین خویش به نابودی زودهنگام اخراج کنندگان خواهد انجامید و این سنتی خدایی است که درباره رسولان پیشین نیز جاری بوده است. از دیگر سو، مشرکان مکه به عذاب هایی از سنخ عذاب های مشرکان پیشین گرفتار نگشتند، گرچه در نهایت باعث ترک مکه از جانب پیامبر شدند.مفسران برای حل این چالش، قتل مشرکان در جنگ بدر را مصداق عذاب اخراج کنندگان پیامبر قلمداد کرده اند. تحقیق حاضر این رویکرد رایج را نقد می کند، با این استدلال که هلاکت زودهنگام اخراج کنندگان پیامبر اسلام به هلاکت پیشینیان تشبیه شده است و در گفتمان رایج سوره های مکی، نابودی پیشینیان با عذاب آسمانی است. راهکار پیشنهادی این مطالعه روا دانستن تخلف از وعید بر خداوند، براساس اخلاق عرب، است، چنان که نقل است که عرب رجوع از وعده نیک را نکوهیده می داند، اما رجوع از وعده عقاب را بزرگواری می شمارد. مفسران در مواضع فراوان دیگر نیز تحقق تهدیدهای دوران مکی را در قتلگاه بدر انگاشته اند؛ اما، با اخلاقی دانستن تخلف از وعید، حاجت به این مدعای تکلف آمیز منتفی می شود.A Comparative Interpretation of the Withholding of Punishment for the Expellers of the Prophet from Makkah
On the other hand, the Makkan polytheists were not subjected to punishments akin to those of earlier polytheists, even though they ultimately caused the Prophet to leave Makkah. Commentators have attempted to resolve this challenge by interpreting the killing of the polytheists in the Battle of Badr as the manifestation of the punishment for expelling the Prophet. This study critiques this common approach, arguing that the swift destruction of the Prophet’s expellers is likened to the annihilation of previous communities, and in the prevalent discourse of Makkan chapters, the destruction of prior peoples typically involves heavenly punishment. The proposed solution in this study is to consider God deviating from His promise (of punishment) (khulf al-waʿīd) as permissible based on Arab ethics. It is reported that while Arabs condemn the retraction of a promise of good, they view the retraction of a promise of punishment as an act of nobility. In numerous other instances, commentators have interpreted the fulfillment of Makkan-era threats as occurring on the battlefield of Badr; however, by ethically legitimizing divine deviation from a promise of punishment, the need for such strained claims is eliminated.
Introduction
According to verse 76 of the al- Isrā Chapter, the polytheists of Makkah intended to force the Prophet to leave their land. However, the verse warns that if they were to expel the Prophet, they would remain in that land for only a short time. Following this, verse 77 of the same chapter states that this is the unchanging tradition of God concerning previous prophets as well. The al- Isrā Chapter is a Makkan chapter, and at the time of the revelation of these verses, the expulsion of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) from Makkah had not yet occurred. However, the polytheists ultimately did force the Prophet to leave Makkah for Medina, yet the promised punishment did not befall them. Thus, the doubt is that the Quran’s prediction regarding the future course of history has proven to be incorrect because according to the known history of Islam, punishments similar to those described in the Quran regarding previous peoples did not befall the polytheists of Makkah. In other words, the question arises as to why the unchanging tradition of God regarding the destruction of communities that expel their messenger was not fulfilled in the case of Quraysh.
Exegetical Approaches to Resolving the Challenge of the Prophet’s Expellers Not Being Punished
Based on this study, commentators have employed the following four approaches to solve this challenge:
Denying that the Prophet was expelled by the Makkans.
Interpreting the term “al-ard” (the land) in verse 76 of the al-Isrā Chapter as referring to the land of Medina.
Interpreting “al-ard” as referring to the Arabian Peninsula as a whole.
Claiming that the punishment of the polytheists was realized in the Battle of Badr.
Among these, the most commonly held position among commentators is the fourth. However, this study considers all four approaches subject to criticism and rejects them. The first approach is unacceptable because, in other parts of the Quran, the expulsion of the Prophet is explicitly attributed to the Makkans. For example, verse 13 of the Muḥammad Chapter refers to Makkah as “your town which expelled you,” and verse 40 of the at-Tawbah Chapter mentions a specific time when the disbelievers of Makkah had expelled the Prophet. The second approach is also untenable because the al- Isrā Chapter is a Makkan chapter, and without credible evidence, it is implausible to link its verses to the Medinite period and deviate from the principle of temporal and contextual continuity of the chapter. The third approach is likewise unacceptable, as the verse discusses the polytheists’ intent to expel the Prophet from his place of residence, and according to Islamic history, the polytheists sought only to expel the Prophet from Makkah, not from the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula. Finally, identifying the Battle of Badr as the fulfillment of the promised punishment for the expellers does not align with the context of the revelation of the al- Isrā Chapter because according to the Quranic discourse in Makkan chapters, the destruction of earlier peoples occurred through heavenly punishment. Furthermore, the promised destruction of the Prophet’s expellers is likened to the destruction of the expellers of earlier messengers, and both are presented as part of a single divine tradition.
Proposed Solution: Ethical Justification for Deviation from the Promise of Punishment
The solution proposed in this study to address the aforementioned challenge is the permissibility of deviating from the promise of punishment. Historical reports mention that Abu Amr b. al-Ala asked Amr b. Ubaid about Muslims who commit major sins. Amr responded that, just as God fulfills His promise of reward, He also fulfills His promise of punishment. Abu Amr, in refuting this view, remarked that among the Arabs, reneging on a promise of reward is considered blameworthy, while retracting a promise of punishment is seen as an act of magnanimity. Both sides of the debate on whether deviating from a promise of punishment is acceptable or not are ultimately in pursuit of a moral conception of God; one views deviation from a warning of punishment as contrary to truthfulness, while the other does not consider it untruthful, instead perceiving the pardoning of punishment as a virtue.
The Impact of Ethically Justifying Deviation from Promises of Punishment on the Interpretation of Other Threats of Punishment
Among commentators, the claim that the promises of punishment during the Makkan period were fulfilled at the Battle of Badr is not limited to the interpretation of verse 76 of the al- Isrā Chapter. Rather, this claim appears as a recurring pattern in the interpretation of numerous verses revealed in the Makkan period. It seems that some have assumed that the broad scope of threats in the Quran during the Makkan period must have been realized in the fate of the disbelievers, and in seeking a concrete instance, they found no better option than the killings at Badr. This approach is open to critique, as the context of many verses indicates that the intended threats were not about death in battle but rather warnings of a divine punishment akin to that faced by the people of Noah, Lot, or Jethro. Allowing for the possibility of deviation from divine promises of punishment offers an alternative interpretive approach, one that can more broadly play a significant role in unraveling challenges in Quranic exegesis.
Conclusion
The proposed solution in this study to address the challenge of why the expellers of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) were not punished is the ethical justification of God’s deviation from His promises of punishment because according to Arab ethics, withdrawing a promise of punishment is not blameworthy but rather a sign of magnanimity. Thus, the fact that the Makkan polytheists were not subjected to divine punishment cannot be taken as evidence that the Quran’s predictions about the course of future history were inaccurate. Moreover, some exegetes have extensively referred to the Battle of Badr in relation to other threats made during the Makkan period, presenting the battlefield of Badr as the fulfillment of the promised punishments. Ethically allowing for deviation from divine promises of punishment offers a viable alternative to this forced interpretive approach.
تبلیغات
