Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashta, Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir, to Questions from Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fiqhi"
Answer to a Question
No Word is Redundant in the Quran Without Meaning
To: Drmusab Al-froukh
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
Question: How valid is this statement?
A discussion took place between a scholar of Nahwu (grammar) and a scholar of Balaghah (rhetoric)—Ibn al-Athir—regarding the particle (أنْ) in the saying of Allah (swt):
فَأَصْبَحَ فِى ٱلْمَدِينَةِ خَآئِفاً يَتَرَقَّبُ فَإِذَا ٱلَّذِى ٱسْتَنصَرَهُۥ بِٱلْأَمْسِ يَسْتَصْرِخُهُۥ قَالَ لَهُۥ مُوسَىٰٓ إِنَّكَ لَغَوِىٌّ مُّبِينٌ * فَلَمَّا أَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ بِالَّذِي هُوَ عَدُوٌّ لَهُمَا قَالَ يَا مُوسَىٰ أَتُرِيدُ أَنْ تَقْتُلَنِي كَمَا قَتَلْتَ نَفْساً بِالْأَمْسِ
"And he became as one in fear in the city, watching. And at once the one who had sought his help the day before cried out to him [again]. Musa said to him, 'Indeed, you are an evident, deviant person.' * And when he intended to strike the one who was an enemy to both of them, he said, 'O Musa, do you intend to kill me as you killed someone yesterday?'" (QS Al-Qasas [28]: 18-19)
The grammarian said: The first (أنْ) is redundant (za'idah), and if it were removed and said: "فلمّا أراد أن يبطش", the meaning would be the same. Do you not see the saying of Allah (swt):
فَلَمَّا أَنْ جَاءَ الْبَشِيرُ أَلْقَاهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ
"And when the bearer of good news arrived, he cast it over his face." (QS Yusuf [12]: 96)
Grammarians have agreed that (أنْ) occurring after لما and before a verb is redundant. How did Ibn al-Athir respond? Ibn al-Athir said in response to the grammarian: Grammarians have no authority in matters of eloquence and rhetoric, nor do they possess knowledge of their secrets merely by being grammarians. Undoubtedly, they found that (أنْ) appears after لما and before the verb in the Noble Quran and in the speech of the eloquent, so they thought the meaning with its presence is the same as if it were omitted; thus, they said: "This is redundant." This is not the case. Rather, if لما occurs followed by (أنْ) and then the verb, it is evidence that Musa’s (as) haste to kill the second person was not like his haste to kill the first; rather, there was a delay in extending his hand. Therefore, the Quran expressed this by saying: (فَلَمَّا أَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ) by adding (أنْ) after لما. If the verb occurs after لما with the omission of (أنْ), it would be evidence that the action was immediate. Ibn al-Athir concluded his discussion by saying: "These are subtleties not taken from grammarians, because they are not their concern."
My question: Is what Ibn al-Athir said accurate? If not, is there redundant speech in the Quran?
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
It seems there is something not fully exhausted in what Ibn al-Athir said and what his interlocutor said in that discussion... The matter, as I see it, is as follows:
The noble verse (فَلَمَّا أَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ بِالَّذِي هُوَ عَدُوٌّ لَهُمَا) contains two matters that must be understood: (أن يبطش) and (فلما أن):
As for the first, which is the particle of nasb (أن) entering upon the present-tense verb (mudari'), it is a particle of masdariyah, nasb, and istiqbal: It renders what follows it into the interpretation of a masdar (infinitive). For example: (يُرِيدُ اللهُ أَنْ يُخَفِّفَ عَنْكُمْ) is interpreted as "Allah intends the lightening [of burdens] for you." It puts the mudari' into the nasb case. As for it being a particle of istiqbal (future), it is because it makes the mudari' purely for the future—and this is true for all particles that cause nasb in the mudari'. However, the mudari' without a particle of nasb remains open to both the hal (present) and istiqbal (future). Based on the meaning of the particle of nasb above, the meaning of (أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ بِالَّذِي هُوَ عَدُوٌّ لَهُمَا) suggests that Musa (as) did not initiate the strike immediately, but rather began to think, because the text is (أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ) and not "أراد يبطش". If it were the latter, it would have been open to both hal and istiqbal, meaning either immediacy or thinking before making a decision, thus needing a qarina (contextual indicator) to prefer one over the other. As for (أَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْطِشَ), it is specifically for istiqbal and not hal, meaning after a period of some thought, however brief.
As for the use of (أن) after (لما), it signifies a linguistic addition, because (لما أن أراد) is, in terms of linguistic formulation, like (لما أراد), but it is added for a meaning: namely, to emphasize the deliberation in the striking. That is, it emphasizes what follows it—(أن يبطش)—which is the emphasis of the lack of immediacy in striking, but rather through thinking and deliberation, however minimal.
Thus, the first (أن) in the noble verse—(أن أراد)—is redundant in terms of linguistic formulation but exists for a meaning: to emphasize the deliberation in the striking mentioned afterward in (أن يبطش). It is not said that emphasis (tawkid) requires the emphasizer to come after the emphasized in time or formulation—such as:
فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ
"then produce a surah like it" (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 23)
which is temporal emphasis as explained below, or ("جاء جاء علي" or "لا، لا أبوح بالسر") which are emphasis in formulation. While this is true, it does not apply if the emphasis is of the "synonymous emphasis" (tawkid mutaradif) type. In such cases, it is permissible for both to appear together without the condition of priority or posteriority. For example, you say ("أتى جاء علي"), where ("أتى", "جاء") are from the door of synonymous emphasis, and priority/posteriority does not apply here. Similarly, (فلما أن أراد) signifies deliberation and delay—meaning not immediate—and likewise, that which follows it (أن يبطش) is a mudari' verb in the nasb case, and the nasb makes it purely for the future, i.e., not immediate. This is of the door of synonymous emphasis. Therefore, (أن) in (فلما أن أراد) can be said to be linguistically redundant but for a meaning, which is the synonymous emphasis to (أن يبطش), meaning that Musa (as) did not strike the opponent immediately but delayed and thought about the matter.
As for whether there are redundant letters in the Noble Quran: if what is meant is "redundant without a meaning," then I do not see that. There are no redundant letters in the Quran without meaning. I have mentioned this in my book (At-Taysir fi Usul at-Tafsir - Surah Al-Baqarah), where it says regarding the interpretation of the noble verse:
فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ
"then produce a surah like it" (QS Al-Baqarah [2]: 23)
It states: "There is no repetition or redundancy in the Quran without a meaning. Therefore, everything that appears in the Quran as if it were repetition or redundancy is, in reality, for an additional meaning, such as (مِن) here; it provided an additional meaning, which is tawkid (emphasis), namely the emphasis of the previous challenge."
However, if what is meant is "redundant for a meaning," then this exists. For example, the saying of Allah (swt) in Surah Al-Baqarah: (فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ). Here, (من) might be called linguistically redundant, but it is not without meaning. Rather, it signifies temporal emphasis for a preceding matter. This means that this challenge was revealed before this verse, and then it came now to emphasize the previous challenge. By contemplating the verses of the Book, it becomes clear that this challenge was revealed previously in Makkah in Surah Yunus (as):
أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِثْلِهِ
"Or do they say, 'He invented it?' Say, 'Then produce a surah like it'" (QS Yunus [10]: 38)
Surah Yunus is Makkan, while Surah Al-Baqarah is Madinan, meaning it came after Yunus. Thus, the verse in Al-Baqarah serves as an emphasis for the verse in Yunus before it, by the addition of (من) in the Al-Baqarah verse compared to the Yunus verse. Thus, it provided emphasis for what preceded it and was not without meaning.
This is how I understand that there is no redundancy in the Quran without meaning. And Allah is Most Knowing and Most Wise.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashta
04 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1444 AH Corresponding to 30/09/2022 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's page (may Allah protect him) on Facebook
Link to the answer from the Ameer's page (may Allah protect him) on the Web