F:\E\ISLAMICUS\2020\n0. 1\New folder\A HEBREW SKOPOS.pmd Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 29 A HEBREW-SKOPOS APPROACH TO TRANSLATING MUQAÙÙA‘ÓT IN THE QUR’ÓNIC OATHS ALAlDDIN AL-TARAWNEH Assistant Professor, Department of Translation, Faculty of Arts, Zarqa University, P.O. Box 132222, Zarqa 13132, Jordan e-mail: aaltarawneh@zu.edu.jo In Qur’Én translations, the muqaÏÏa‘āt offer their audience a fertile ground for debate because of the absence of unanimous agreement on their meanings and function in the original Arabic text. To address the problem, this article presents a different approach to interpret the muqaÏÏa‘āt in Arabic and then attempts to convey this meaning in the translation of the Qur’Én. The new translation is more intelligible than the current transliterations or ambiguous statements found in many versions. This aim is fulfilled by considering the translation studies (TS) perspective through its grounding in the skopos theory. Moreover, the Hebrew language, despite the rejection of early and recent Muslim scholars, is deemed pivotal to the elucidation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. It highlights the role of muqaÏÏa‘āt in discharging the function of a thematic summary of what is to follow in a particular chapter (as introductory remarks to the entire content of a chapter). Hebrew evidences that translators of the Qur’Én should go beyond the literalist approach and Muslim scholars should deter inaccuracies driven from personal and intuitive attempts and contemplate resources beyond the Qur’Én. Keywords: MuqaÏÏa‘āt, Qur’Én, Skopos, Translation Studies (TS), Hebrew, literalist approach. The Qur’Én incorporates numerous ambiguous verses and many scholars have attempted to personally overcome their indeterminacy. Such instances are found in the muqaÏÏa‘āt (disjoined letters), also known as fawātiÍ (openers). These muqaÏÏa‘āt offer Muslims a fertile ground for debate. The situation becomes extremely confusing when these verses 30 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... are seen from the lens of Qur’Én translation because the ambiguity is exported to an audience whose native language is not Arabic and who seek clear information about Islam and the Qur’Én. Unfortunately, the muqaÏÏa‘āt have never been paid their due attention in Qur’Én translations because of the absence of unanimous agreement on their meanings and function in the original Arabic text. Hence, only speculations made on personal opinions exist. In this context, the present article presents a different approach to interpret the muqaÏÏa‘āt in Arabic and then attempts to convey this meaning in the translation of the Qur’Én. In so doing, the translation is likely to sound more intelligible than transliterations or ambiguous statements. Those who use Qur’Én translations, whether or not they are Muslims, try to achieve a viable understanding of the text; however, this aim is not fulfilled through transliteration and/or statements such as the muqaÏÏa‘āt are only known by Allāh. The Qur’Én urges people to seek knowledge‘… Are those who know equal to those who do not? Only those who have understanding are mindful (Al- Qur’Én:XXXIX:9). This paper presents the translation studies (TS) perspective through its grounding in the skopos theory that considers all translation to bean aim-oriented task. The objective of the article is to provide an intelligible translation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt for readers of English translations of the Qur’Én. The paper contends that the current translations of the muqaÏÏa‘āt circulated in many Qur’Én translations are inefficient and are inconsistent with the Qur’Énic siyāq (context), particularly the siyāq al-naÎÎ (textual context). It argues that the muqaÏÏa‘āt have not been paid their due attention in the Qur’Én’s commentaries per se, as well as in the English translations of the sacred text. The paper also argues that Hebrew is pivotal to the elucidation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt although many early and recent Muslim scholars reject this premise and claim that the Qur’Én is a pure Arabic text that is free from any foreign linguistic elements. Therefore, this article explores the role that may be performed by the Hebrew language in the postulation of a logical and sound interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt in the Qur’Én and in Qur’Én translations. This proposition is not arbitrary or built on speculations. Rather, evidence is provided to support this quest. The translations used in the discussion are selected on the basis of a question asked of many Islamic institutions located in English-speaking countries (See note 47). The instances of the muqaÏÏa‘āt are extensive and they cannot all be included in the present exploration. The scope of this article is thus limited to the muqaÏÏa‘āt Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 31 found in the Qur’Énic oaths (five cases). The article begins by exploring the background and the main concepts required for the discussion: defining the muqaÏÏa‘āt, introducing the skopos theory, providing an overview of Qur’Én translations, highlighting the meanings and functions of the muqaÏÏa‘āt from the perspective of Muslim scholars, and acquainting readers with Qur’Én translators and orientalists. Subsequently, the article builds the connections between Hebrew, Arabic, and the Qur’Én, which leads to the central discussion and the conclusions. The MuqaÏÏa‘āt These letters form the opening āyāt (verses) of 29 sūrahs (chapters) in the Qur’Én and contain fourteen different letters that are considered to be an integral part of any chapter. The letter(s) can stand independently or as a part of the initial āya (verse). As written text, the letters are orthographically joined like a word(s) even though they are treated independently when the verse is recited. Thus, each letter is pronounced as if it were unconnected to the others. The signification of the muqaÏÏa‘āt remains a mystery; indeed, these verses are usually known as the enigmatic letters of the Qur’Én and have frustrated and intrigued Muslims since the revelation of the Qur’Én. This inscrutability applies also to the original text, and not only to the translations of the Qur’Én. In fact, the search for an interpretation of such letters in Qur’Én translations results in transliterations and/or statements such as these letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’Én and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings1. In the same vein, Qur’Én commentaries offer explanations such as the individual letters in the beginning of some chapters are among those things whose knowledge Allah has kept only for Himself2. Over time, scholars have tried their best to penetrate the fog that surrounds the meaning of these letters but unfortunately, the general agreement is that they are mysterious3. Muslim scholars, Qur’Én translators, and western orientalists have made numerous assumptions about the intended function(s) of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. The limitations of space do not allow an extensive explanation of this topic, and only a few of the hypotheses can be mentioned. To start with, Muhammad Asad admits in his translation of the Qur’Én, The Message of The Qur’Én, that the intended function of the muqaÏÏa‘āt has confused commentators from the earliest times. No evidence exists of the Prophet ) explaining their purpose or of the Companions having 32 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... ever asked him for any interpretation4. He adds that the Companions and their immediate successors regarded the muqaÏÏa‘āt as abbreviations of certain words relating to Allāh, and they tried to discover the meanings of the assumed contractions without success because all such interpretations are highly arbitrary and, therefore, devoid of any real usefulness5. Asad concluded that the muqaÏÏa‘āt represent the inimitability and the wondrous nature of the Qur’Én that is beyond the human perception6. His comment that the muqaÏÏa‘āt were not open to debate since the time of the Prophet ) is striking because this absence of questioning is not observed in the ×adīth (the prophetic tradition). Put differently, it could be argued that the muqaÏÏa‘āt were not strange to the Companions (for more elaboration on this point, see Hebrew and Arabic). According to another famous Qur’Én translator Yousuf Ali, the muqaÏÏa‘āt (in his words, the abbreviated letters) represent a case of mysticism: a Muslim has to believe in them despite the dictates of reason, and their interpretation is only known to Allah7. However, in a bid to offer a probable interpretation, Ali links the muqaÏÏa‘āt to the verse that follows. In other words, Ali makes meaning based on personal interpretation to establish the relationship between the letter(s) and the textual context (the words immediately after the muqaÏÏa‘āt)8. According to this article, this opinion would certainly be plausible if the proposed minor modification is applied. The present paper views the textual context as not limited merely to the words that follow the muqaÏÏa‘āt; it posits that the mysterious letters pertain to the context of the entire chapter in terms of the main theme(s) (see the discussion). The Qur’Én: English Meanings by ØaÍīÍ International is another well-known Qur’Én translation. It refers to the muqaÏÏa‘āt as a revelation made to all but known only to Allāh9. Abdel Haleem, a famous Qur’Én translator, asserts the existence of various interpretations of the muqaÏÏa‘āt10. One of the readings claims that they indicate that the Qur’Én consists of such letters that signify their own language; however, people who received the letters could not decipher them. He adds another possible interpretation of a stylistic nature and proposes that these letters are used as exclamatory devices to attract the listener’s attention just like an emphatic ‘No!’ or ‘Indeed!’ at a start of a poem in the manner of the voice of the archangel Gabriel who used this unusual way of calling attention, highlighting the fact that these letters are nothing like normal speech11. Just like the innumerable other postulations, this opinion represents an attempt but does not yield decisive Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 33 meaning. Nevertheless, there is fair ground to accept this view, but with a modification that limiting the muqaÏÏa‘āt merely to the exclamatory functionis implausible, as will be discussed in the later segments of this paper. It is pertinent, at this juncture to record some opinions of Qur’Én exegetists besides Qur’Én translators: Ibn Kathir elucidates that the knowledge of the muqaÏÏa‘āt is reserved only with Allāh as nothing was reported by any of the many Companions such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmān, and ‘Óli (R.A.).12 He also adds that the scholars did not agree on one opinion or explanation regarding this subject13. Al-Tabari’s commentary on the Qur’Én lists many ideas with regard to the muqaÏÏa‘āt. He starts by suggesting that the letters are used either as names for the Qur’Én, titles for chapters, as a secret of the Qur’Én, or to denote the greatest name of God14. He indicates that the letters (his personal opinion) were intentionally made discrete by Allah Who did not join them together to signify many meanings, and not just one15. Another exegetist, Alsha rāwi, does not support the quest to discover the meaning of these letters because Allāh intentionally made them discrete16. The subject of the muqaÏÏa‘āt was also tackled by non-Muslim orientalists. The German scholar The odor Nöldeke states that the initial letters heading 29 chapters of the Qur’Én make no sense17. He asserts that these letters did not belong to Muhammad’s text, and may represent the initials of those who were engaged in inscribing the oral revelation of the Qur’Én (monograms). Through negligence, they may have become incorporated into the final form of the Qur’Én. Nöldeke concludes on the meaning of the muqaÏÏa‘āt that None of the efforts in this direction, whether by Muslim scholars or by Europeans, have led to convincing  results (ibid). George Sale, the British orientalist, regards muqaÏÏa‘āt as peculiar marks in the Qur’Én that function to conceal several profound mysteries18. He remarks that the meaning of these letters can be estimated by investigating their numerical value through the Jewish Kabbala art of Gemtria19. Palmer, another British orientalist, did not adopt a specific hypothesis to explain muqaÏÏa‘āt; however, his views lie between Nöldeke’s theory (monograms) and the prevailing opinion of Muslim scholars (Allah alone knows what muqaÏÏa‘āt mean)20. It may be noted that scholars, Muslims or not, do not agree about the function of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. If an opinion must be adopted, it would be the majority’s attribution of the knowledge of the letters solely to Allah. In fact, those who were the closest to the Prophet( ), the direct 34 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... source of revelation, summarised this dilemma. In the words of Óbu Bakr (R.A.), the Companion of the Prophet ) and the first Caliph: In every divine write (kitab) there is [an element of] mystery - and the mystery of the Qur’Én is [indicated] in the openings of [some of] the surahs21. Moreover, Abdel Haleem emphasises the same point by saying that all the attempts to explain the muqaÏÏa‘āt are just speculations and this is why statements such as ‘God [Allāh] knows best’ are frequently found after any interpretation is asserted22. This article proposes a perspective that is distinguished from all the assumptions mentioned above regarding what the muqaÏÏa‘āt are and why they are inscribed in the Qur’Én. The community where the Qur’Én was revealed was made of believers (Jews and Christians) and non believers (idolaters). Both groups spoke Arabic but the former additionally know other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic (their scriptures were written in them) which are very similar23. The latter group was aware of languages beyond Arabic but did not use them in everyday verbal intercourse24 because of their connections with their community (Jews and Christians) and because of their profession as traders (oscillating between Arabia and the territories of the Persian and Byzantine Empires at different points of time)25. Having established the linguistic awareness of the community at that time, the message of the Qur’Én is of an inclusive intent: We have not sent you [Muhammad] but to be a mercy for mankind (Al-Qur’Én, XXI:107). Therefore, it is proposed that the muqaÏÏa‘āt are special exclamatory remarks to attract the specific attention of the Jews and Christians of that time. Building on this theory, the interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt should not follow the personal logic of a translator or a commentator. It should rather be rooted in the language of origin of these letters. This point about the source language must be stressed by the fact that the muqaÏÏa‘āt are not found in usual Arabic as it was known in the past or as it is known in the present26. As discussed above, many interpretations of the muqaÏÏa‘āt as they occur in the Qur’Én per se have been suggested, and none of the readings is well-supported. Most explanations are based merely on personal efforts and do not offer adequate evidence. Thus, translations of the muqaÏÏa‘āt are executed through transliterations as may be seen in many current Qur’Én translations. That said, the present study proposes a novel way to disambiguate the muqaÏÏa‘āt and to solve its mystery by resorting to investigating the role that may have been performed by Hebrew at the time of the Qur’Én’s original inscription. This opinion may evoke the disagreement of many, but not all, Muslim scholars who reject Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 35 the biblical account of the Israelites in general, and of Hebrew in particular, as aids through which to explain the Qur’Én and the muqaÏÏa‘āt27. The MuqaÏÏa‘āt in the Qur’Énic Oaths The scope of the muqaÏÏa‘āt is extensive as they encompass 29 chapters, an expanse that is too vast to be recounted here. Thus, this article does not treat all the muqaÏÏa‘āt in the Qur’Én. The scope of this study is restricted only to the muqaÏÏa‘āt found in the Qur’Énic oaths as indicated in the title as an initial step to instigate further research. The muqaÏÏa‘āt are used five times in the Qur’Énic oaths and these will be discussed in later sections. The present study limits itself to the oaths because of the few instances of the muqaÏÏa‘āt that may be suitably delved into given the limits of the paper’s word count. Further, the approach proposed in the present paper to muqaÏÏa‘āt translation is applicable to other instances. In other words, the application of the interpretation and translation techniques28 would remain identical, so oaths are used as a sample for the present study whose results can be deemed representative. The language of the Qur’Én encompasses a stylistic diversity: strong and dramatic language is employed, evocative similes and vivid imagery abound, dialogues and oaths are combined with a direct divine address to the prophet Muhammad ( ), to believers, and to nonbelievers29. The Qur’Én contains copious oaths ascribed to Allāh (Q. IV:65), the prophet Muhammad ) (Q. XV:72), the Qur’Én (Q. L:1), creatures (Q. LIII:1, Q. XCV:1), natural phenomena (Q. LXXXI:18), places (Q. XCV:2-3) and other phenomena. Such pledges lend force and seriousness to an utterance. This style was very common and is believed to be akin to the rhymed prose of pre-Islamic soothsayers30. The context is pivotal to the understanding of the oaths in the Qur’Én because some of them imply nouns described by an active participle. This practice is common in Arabic: the meaning is understood by the listener or the reader without any felt need for the omitted noun31. For instance, Sūrat al-Øāffāt (Q.XXXVII) begins with an oath wa- Øāffāti. Al-Øāffāt is plural and its root is Îf (row, line, lineup, queue, to line up). Usually, the term is translated as By those lined up in rows or By the aligners aligning; however, it is understood to denote angel seven without the addition of a specific noun as the verses that follow are taken into account. The determination of the instances of oaths that include the 36 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... muqaÏÏa‘āt for discussion in this paper is not arbitrary. A review of some books dedicated to Qur’Énic i‘rāb (parsing) reveals specific cases where oaths are combined with the muqaÏÏa‘āt32. These occurrences are found in chapters Yā-Sīn (Q.XXXVI), Øād (Q.XXXVIII), Al-Úukhruf (Q.XLIII), Qāf (Q.L), and finally, Al-Qalam (Q.LXVIII). Hebrew and Arabic The connection between Arabic and Hebrew must be established before discussing the muqaÏÏa‘āt in the Qur’Énic oaths to justify why and how Hebrew may be utilised as a basis for the interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. Hebrew, like Arabic, is a Sematic language, though the two languages do not share identical features. Hebrew comprises 22 letters while Arabic has 28 letters. Hebrew alphabets are pictographic: each letter represents a picture (as examined in the archaeological records of ancient Semitic inscriptions). Pictographs have names and convey a meaning whose relationship to the pictograph is established by function, and not by appearance33. For instance, the Hebrew letter (Fig. 1) (‘shin’) is a pictograph of teeth (the appearance) (Fig. 2) and the functional meaning thereof is teeth, sharp, or press (chewing)34. The same pictographic process is applicable to Arabic which shares the same Semitic roots and was evolved from other Sematic languages like Syriac and Aramaic, including Hebrew35. Fig. 1: Fig. 2 Shin However, Arabic and Hebrew unlike in terms of the meanings of the letters that form the two alphabets. If an Arabic dictionary is consulted for a letter, there would be no separate entry stating the meaning(s) of the particular letter. Conversely, Hebrew letters are accorded independent entries that record all the possible meanings, direct or indirect, of the letter as it stands alone. In fact, every Hebrew letter signifies a direct meaning based on its pictogram, and an indirect connotation on the basis of its use by the users of the language. For example, the Hebrew letter (Fig. 3) (beth) means house or tent (direct), and healthy, fat, to scatter, to blow, to sew, to turn, or to bring (indirect)36. Fig. 3: Beth Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 37 Apart from this distinctive feature of Hebrew, languages tend to have foreign linguistic elements imported from other tongues. The foreignness of some linguistic elements found in languages results from the linguistic interactions between users of different languages. This type of inter communication causes loan words that are adopted from one language (the donor) and added and incorporated into another with no or very little modification37. For example, the Arabic word istabraq (thick silk) is originally Persian but it found its way into Arabic and is used by Arabs. The concept of istabraq was a totally foreign notion with no extant word that could reference this unfamiliar object. Thus, Arabic speakers had to coin new vocabulary or to just use the readily available istabraq without any modification.37. Another example is the English word Abracadabra which bears great similarity to the term used in Arabic (ābrakadābra). This Aramaic origin word is used in magical texts or in spells cast by wizards in medieval Europe and signify There has come to what was spoken38. Borrowing or lending words is a natural phenomenon that does not degrade a language or value one language over another. In fact, borrowing enriches languages and provides a new word-stock for a variety of purposes. By linking the distinctive meaning of Hebrew letters and the foreign elements found in languages, it may be said that the Qur’Én correspondingly contains words that originated in non-Arabic languages, particularly Hebrew. This assertion does not discredit the status of the Qur’Én. In fact, the task of interpreting some of the verses in the Qur’Én is difficult, especially if the commentator is not familiar with the linguistic and poetic Arabic protocols used before the advent of Islam, the Al-Jāhiliyyā (the pre-Islamic period)39. While the language of the Qur’Én was not strange to Arabs, the way this language was employed was unique. To cite just one example, Ibn ×ayān draws the Qur’Énic word firdaus (garden) in an attempt to interpret the Qur’Én by making use of Arabic poetry40. He states that this word is not Arabic and is derived, in his words, from the Roman language, meaning Latin or Greek. He mentions several potential significations such as garden, paradise, grapes or valleys full of trees. By resorting to several pre-Islamic poetic verses, he settles on the meaning of garden. It is believed that at the time of the revelation, Arabic was a hybrid language that drew its vocabulary from varied roots, particularly the Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic41. This historical truth underscores the present assumption of the muqaÏÏa‘āt having Hebrew origins that permeated into the text of 38 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... the Qur’Én. The Qur’Én is indeed the first book ever written or compiled in the Arabic alphabet.42 Since Arabic is a phonetic language whose written form is correlated with the pronunciation of the words, the muqaÏÏa‘āt were transcribed into Arabic letters during the process of the compilation of the Qur’Én. This transcription was executed by combining all the sounds of the muqaÏÏa‘āt into Arabic as individual letters or words. But when they are recited, they are treated as independent sounds, which is unusual for Arabic. To illustrate, two Qur’Énic verses (Q II:1) and (Q XCIV:1) start with the same word م however, they are not ;ال read in the same manner because the former is a muqaÏÏa‘āt and read as ‘alif lām mīm, while the latter is an ordinary word read as alam (as the initial word in a rhetorical question). Moreover, the unique treatment of the muqaÏÏa‘āt is highlighted by the prophet Muhammad ( ) as he demonstrated the rewards of reciting the Qur’Én: for every letter that is recited exists a reward; ‘alif lām mīm is not a letter with a reward, but three letters with three rewards43. In sum, since the objective of Qur’Én translations is to communicate its message clearly rather than to create an ambiguous rendering, muqaÏÏa‘āt are to be addressed as if they are components that hold meanings whenever a translation is initiated. The Qur’Én and Qur’Én Translations A Qur’Én translation cannot equal the Qur’Én. It is a fact that translations of the Qur’Én are merely its interpretations in different languages. It must also be acknowledged that the Qur’Én is sacred only in Arabic. It is worth remembering here that the eloquent Arabs to whom the Qur’Én was revealed were unable to produce anything similar to this holy text. This quality of being unmatched renders translation a complicated task if the rendition intends to imitate the original text. Fischer remarks: A Koran translation is no easy task. The renowned Arabists, scholars such as Reiske, Sacy, Fleischer, De Goeje, Nöldeke and Goldziher, among others, have avoided it, at least partially because they knew of its great difficulties44. The belief that the Qur’Én is the literal word of Allah in Arabic prevents many translators from taking anything other than the literal approach to the Qur’Énic text, causing numerous unintelligible and ambiguous occurrences in the target language45. One such case pertains to the muqaÏÏa‘āt. These letters are already complicated in the original text, but their inscrutability is exacerbated by the general resistance to venturing into this scholarship. This reluctance probably dates hundreds of years back as the majority of Muslim scholars such as Al-Shāfi‘i, Ibn Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 39 Jarīr or Abu ‘Ubaidah did not accept the idea that the Qur’Én contains foreign elements46. Therefore, the present paper attempts to provide a translation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt rather than a transliteration from the TS perspective. This process begins with the interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt in the original text and then communicating those interpreted ideas into English. However, some points and concepts concerning the topic at hand must be clarified through TS. In the TS approach, the same text can have varied translated versions into the same target language (TL) to meet specific objectives or to serve particular audiences. This view forms the core of the functionalist school of TS. According to this viewpoint, translation is a process of communicating meaning as understood within its context rather than delivering linguistic correspondence, which is the principal objective of the linguistic school of thought in TS. In other words, the functional school regards translation not as a match of linguistic items between two languages, but as the meaning that is understood within a context and by means of extra-textual resources. Out of this school emerges the skopos theory to help translators accomplish this mission to transfer meaning from one linguistic universe to another. Etymologically, the word skopos is borrowed from Greek and indicates  the sense of purpose or aim. In TS, this word becomes a technical term denoting a type of translation commissioned for a specific purpose. Hans J. Vermeer introduced the notion of skopos in the late 1970s, asserting that the final shape and form of a translation in the TL is governed by the skopos assigned to it. Put differently, Vermeer views translation as an action, and every action has a purpose47. The work ability of skopos vests in supplying information about the target text in terms of the function it is intended to serve, the expected audience, time, place and other relevant details. Having received the requisite information, the translator then determines suitable approaches or techniques to fulfil this aim. Skopos does not propose that a specific mechanism should be adopted by the translator. Any means of translation is justified as long as it serves the skopos assigned to the translation task. Besides, a text may be translated in myriad ways depending on the number of skopoi (plural) assigned to the commission translation commission. The muqaÏÏa‘āt, as has previously been noted, offer fertile ground for controversy in terms of their vastly different possible interpretations. The situation is different for the translation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt because Qur’Én translations offer transliterations and/or statements such as ‘Only 40 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... Allāh knows what they mean’.In this context, the skopos of this paper is to interpret the muqaÏÏa‘āt as found in the oath instances through the consideration of the Hebrew language and to place the outcome of such deliberation as a translation that may be served to English speakers. This task necessitates the provision of a new method of interpretation to extract the meaning of the original and to subsequently transform the obtained signification into English. Interpreting and Translating the MuqaÏÏa‘āt This article is an attempt to establish an understanding of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. This perception is built by making use of Hebrew to penetrate the controversial meaning of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. It is a fact that many efforts have already been made in this regard but such efforts do not prevent the continuance of further endeavours. The present study proposes a new insight that is supported by evidence to mitigate the influence of personal explanations that are found in many extant instances. Some Hebrew dictionaries are consulted to effect the interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt and to determine the meaning of the corresponding letter in Hebrew. In other words, as the muqaÏÏa‘āt represent separate and independent letters when they are recited, these letters have equivalents in Hebrew. The meaning of the Hebrew equivalents is researched to their semantic potentials and they are compared with the Qur’Énic siyāq (context). Siyāq performs a fundamental role in building the comprehension of the Qur’Énic meaning and therefore, in the translation of such signification. Siyāq al-naÎÎ (textual context) is particularly of great importance to the present paper. It denotes the linguistic parts that appear before and after a given termor phrase and that influence and limit the meaning of that word or expression48. Put succinctly, words may have shades of meaning when they stand alone as they are read in dictionaries; however, their meanings become more specific once they are used in phrases or sentences. The application of componential analysis (CA) to isolate the semantic component of a word thus becomes vital. The present attempt to decipher the meaning of the Hebrew letters and to limit the shades of meaning takes into account the context or the recurrent theme of the entire chapter rather than merely the surrounding words or phrases. The article uses three Qur’Én translations to highlight the current status of the muqaÏÏa‘āt. These translations were not selected randomly. Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 41 A question was posed to a number of Islamic institutions and their responses were analysed to choose the three49: The Qur’Én: A New Translation by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur’Én: English Meaning by ØaÍīÍ International, and Translation of the Meanings of the Nobel Qur’Én in the English Language by Al-Hilali and Khan. Further, as described above, it was decided to investigate the instances of the muqaÏÏa‘āt is used in the oaths. Cases of the MuqaÏÏa‘āt in the Oaths Yā-Sīn (Al-Qur’Én:XXXVI) Yā-Sīn is the first chapter that contains the case of an oath where the muqaÏÏa‘āt are used. The muqaÏÏa‘āt are yā and sīn and the chapter is named after them. They are written as one word standing alone as the first independent verse. They are translated as follows in the translations adopted here: a. Yā-Sīn50. b. Yā-Sīn (these letters represent one of the miracles of the Qur’Én, and none but Allāh (Alone) knows their meanings)51. c. Yā, Seen (the letters) yā and seen52. These ‘translations’ are merely transliterations and sometimes a short note added to them. Reading the translation does not communicate anything valuable other than a sense of mystery. That said, the proposed new insight through Hebrew letters described in detail above divulges that Yā and sīn correspond respectively to the Hebrew letters, (Fig. 4) (yud) and (Fig. 5) (sāmikh). Without any context, (Fig. 4) (yud) could mean: hand, handle, place, power, strength, share, portion, make or throw53. Similarly, the letter (Fig. 5) (sāmikh) could be: support, rely on, trust in, aid, assist or encourage. These are numerous possibilities and therefore, the thematic context becomes crucial. We see in (Q.XXXVII:2) an oath (surely made by Allāh as these are His literal words) made by the Qur’Én; and the one being addressed is the prophet Muhammad as seen in (Q. XXXVI:3). In other words, the context is: I, Allāh, swear by the Qur’Én, the Book of wisdom, that you, Muhammad, are indeed one of the messengers who follows the right way (preaching monotheism) and so on. The subject matter and the main theme of this chapter refer to 42 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... the antagonistic attitude adopted by the disbelievers toward Muhammad ( ) and his message. Moreover, Allāh consoles the prophet and exhorts the believers to remain steadfast on the path of Allāh to be rewarded in the after life54. This being the case and in light of the possible semantic meanings, it can be suggested that yā and sīn respectively mean power/ authority and support. In other words, the muqaÏÏa‘āt can be interpreted as divine support. This reading supports the view that the muqaÏÏa‘āt act like thematic summaries of the entire chapter. Fig: 4 Fig: 5 yud sāmikh Øād (Al-Qur’Én:XXXVIII) The second chapter considered for this paper and containing an oath is Øād. The muqaÏÏa‘āt in this chapter pertains to one letter, Øād, which occursas a part of the first verse, and the entire chapter is named after it. In orthographic and oral representation, the letter stands alone and the three English translations read: a. Øād By the Qur’Én with its reminding55. b. Øād [These letters (Øād etc.) represent one of the miracles of the Qur’Én and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]. By the Qur’Én full of reminding56. c. Øād. By the Qur’Én containing a reminder57. The same comment as made in the previous case is applicable here. The translation yield no meaning except to underscore the enigma. The signification of Øād is not attainable whether it stands alone or is placed within a context. However, the riddle is solved by resorting to Hebrew. Øād in Arabic is equivalent to the Hebrew letter (Fig. 6) (tsādi). Without a context, (Fig. 6) (tsādi) could mean fishing-hook, side (of something), hunting, chasing, righteousness, humility. Of course, the context of the occurrence of the term would influence the final and most plausible meaning. An important matter with regard to oaths in Arabic must be highlighted before an interpretation is proposed. An oath consists of the adāt al-qasam (participle), the ism al- qasam (the name by which an oath is made), and the jawāb al- qasam (the answer to the oath). To illustrate, wallāhi la’drussana (I swear I will study) is an oath; wa is Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 43 the participle, allāhi is the name of the oath), and la’drussana is the answer. In (Q.XXXVIII:1), the oath only consists of the participle and the name, and the answer is omitted, and yet the oath is clearly understood: it [the Qur’Én] is miraculous58, or it is the true book59. Returning to the context, Allāh begins the chapter with an oath made on the Qur’Én, a book that serves as a reminder to the people. The arrogance and defiance of the disbelievers form the subject matter and the overall theme of this chapter: they do not want to heed the preaching of the prophet ( ), whom they consider to be inferior. Other stories such as David and Solomon are mentioned to underline the theme of power and authority and how they affect people, who should repent and recall what they are meant to be. Besides, the chapter contains the story of the Devil who arrogantly refused Allāh’s commands and thought he was superior to humans. The idea of humility and cautioning against arrogance form the recurrent themes of the chapter60. Thus, in accordance with the Hebrew equivalent letter the meaning of Øād could be held as humility; and again, the letter Øād would perform the function of summarising the chapter’s theme. Fig: 6 tsādi Al-Zukhruf (Q. 43) In the third chapter, Al-Zukhruf, the muqaÏÏa‘āt are represented by two letters that are orthographically joined but separated in oral recitation. These letters are Íā and mīm which occur together in an independent verse. They are found in the above mentioned translations as follows: a. Ha Mim61. b. ×ā-Mīm. [These letters represent one of the miracles of the Qur’Én and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]62. c. ×ā, Meem (ØaÍīÍ International, 2004, p. 487)63. Again, only a transliteration is offered. Using Hebrew, Íā and mīm are found to be equivalent to (Fig. 7) (Íet) and (Fig. 8) (mīm) respectively. The meanings of (Fig. 7) (Íet) include fence, wall (protection), string, life, divide. On the other hand, (Fig. 8) (mīm) could be understood as water, waves, mighty, perfection, completion. Of course, these significations 44 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... embody semantic options in the absence of a context. A consideration of the context would limit the meanings to “water” and “divide” because as has been previously asserted, one of the assumptions concerning the muqaÏÏa‘āt pertains to their underlining of the inclusiveness of the message of the Qur’Én, particularly for the Jews and Christians. Thus, the muqaÏÏa‘āt are created in Hebrew to attract the attention of these groups and they function as thematic representations of the entire chapter that follows. The chapter Al-Zukhruf’s theme concerns mischiefs, stubbornness and superstitions of people and the message that Allah never held back from sending His prophets. It also mentions the destruction of the wicked who opposed any religion prescribed by Allah, and the chapter specifically recounts the history of the Pharaoh and Moses. Having mentioned the theme and taking into consideration the function of inclusiveness of the muqaÏÏa‘āt, “water divide” may be posited as an allegory, just as the many others used in the Qur’Én, to the biblical narrative of the Exodus (crossing the Red Sea by parting the water). ×ā and mīm may then be interpreted to allude to the Exodus (the splitting of the sea). Fig 7: Fig 8: Íet mīm Qāf (Al-Qur’ān:L) In terms of its structure, the fourth chapter qāf which is almost similar to case 2, Øād. It encompasses an oath and a one-letter of muqaÏÏa‘āt, qāf. The letter is not independent; it is a part of the first verse, and the entire chapter is named after it. In writing and reciting, this letter is separated and is translated in the following manner by the three selected translations: 1. Qaf. By the glorious Qur’Én64. 2. Qāf [These letters (Qāf, etc.) exemplify one of the miracles of the Qur’Én and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]. By the glorious Qur’Én65. 3. Qāf. By the honoured Qur’Én66. As usual, the translations offer merely transliterations and sometimes append a statement void of any meaningful interpretation. Nevertheless, Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 45 Hebrew can help provide an explanation of qāf’s denotation. The Hebrew letter (Fig. 9) (quf) is equivalent to qāf and its dictionary meaning includes back of the head, circle (repetition), revolution (of the sun), sun, horizon, growth or holiness. Before beginning the interpretation, the context of the oath in the first āya (Q. L:1) must be considered: it consists of adāt al- qasam (participle) and ism al- qasam (the name by which an oath is made) but the answer is omitted. The answer is expected to be understood based on the basis of the verse that follows. The context covers the theme of the afterlife, particularly the idea of resurrection after death (a dead body turning into dust and scattered bones to be reassembled after years to be raised up as a living body). Accordingly, arguments about the possibility of the resurrection are made, and the records of deeds are presented before everyone, and Hell and Heaven are described67. Generally speaking, the theme of after life and resurrection are central to this chapter and considering the Hebrew meaning based on this context, the meaning of qāf can be assumed in the sense of growth and revolution, or the idea of resurrection. Fig 9: quf Al-Qalam (Al-Qur’ān:LXVIII) As in Øād, the fifth chapter, Al-Qalam, contains an oath in its first verse and demonstrates one of a muqaÏÏa‘āt consisting one letter, nūn. However, unlike Øād, the entire chapter is not named after the muqaÏÏa‘āt. Orthographically and orally, this letter is treated independently, and it has been translated as follows: 1. Nun. By the pen! By all they write!68. 2. Nūn [These letters (Nūn, etc.) denoteone of the miracles of the Qur’Én and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]. By the pen and by what they (the angels) write (in the Records of men)69. 3. Nūn. By the pen and what they inscribe70. Repeating the same pattern, neither the context nor the transliteration defogs the meaning of this letter, which may again, be reasonably interpreted through the intervention of Hebrew. The Hebrew letter equivalent to Arabic nūn is (Fig. 10) (Nun). Without context, it may 46 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... symbolise fish, continue, offspring, heir, perpetuation, emergence, propagate or shine. To elucidate the context, the chapter presents as aconsolation to the prophet who was accused of being mad by disbelievers. The disbelievers also tried to intimidate him and sought to make him compromise with them71. In light of the context, the most suitable meaning is continue, meaning that you, Muhammad, should continue in your mission no matter the resistance you face as you are the divine representative chosen to propagate the message of Allāh and to make His religion flourish. As a result, Nūn is interpreted as keep propagating the message  or keep up. Fig 10: Nun Conclusion The present paper has described seen how many scholars regard the muqaÏÏa‘āt to be mysterious and ambiguous phenomena in the Qur’Én and has alluded to the vast numbers of assumptions that have been made about their meanings and functions. The majority of the extant scholarship tends to attribute the knowledge of the muqaÏÏa‘āt solely to Allāh, believing this to be the best resolution to the disagreements on the muqaÏÏa‘āt’s problematic nature in terms of interpretation. This attitude has led Qur’Én translators, academics, and exegetists to largely neglect other possibilities of understanding the text of the Qur’Én. The scholars have particularly disregarded the potential role of Hebrew in the elucidation of some parts of the Qur’Énic text. Indeed, the present article ignites a small spark in this regard that may develop into a full-fledged research interest. Adopting the linguistic intervention of Hebrew would offer two-fold benefits for Arabic and non-Arabic ones: Hebrew would help the former group understand the muqaÏÏa‘āt in their own language, and the latter would be able to obtaina more logical understanding from the Qur’Én translations. In other terms, the translation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt is examined in this paper from the aim-oriented perspective: the skopos to offer a translation that makes sense in English. The handling of the subject of this study is sometimes controversial as many early and current Muslim scholars have refused to admit the intervention of foreign languages inattempting a more comprehensive understanding of the Qur’Én. It must be noted, however, that elements of borrowed linguistic terms are used in religious Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 47 rituals every day, including the word āmīn (Amen), which is of Hebrew origin and means so be it72. In addition to natural and human linguistic interactions, the inclusiveness of the message of Islam helps to pave the way for the assumption that the muqaÏÏa‘āt were deliberately comprised of non-Arabic origins to attract the attention of the Jews and Christians and to specifically address these groups of people. The examination conducted in this paper yields the understanding that the muqaÏÏa‘āt may be genuinely and reasonably held to discharge the function of a thematic summary of what is to follow in a particular chapter. In other words, both the placement and the signification of the muqaÏÏa‘āt (as introductory remarks to the entire content of a chapter) match the principal theme of the chapter in which they are used. This approach evidences that Hebrew may be linguistically influential in arriving at cogent, bolstered and determinate interpretations of the muqaÏÏa‘āt rather than conjectures made on hypothetical and personal bases. The value of Hebrew is attained by considering the role of the siyāq in accentuating the exact sense of the Hebrew meanings, or the CA. Put succinctly, Hebrew, the siyāq and the componential analyses are combined in this study to offer very strong evidence that the muqaÏÏa‘āt are Hebrew in their linguistic origins and that they act to provide overviews of the themes of the chapters they head. Therefore, translators of the Qur’Én should not restrict their efforts to the literalist approach in the mistaken belief that such a method would maintain respect for the Qur’Én as the literal word of Allāh. Indeed, it is highly recommended to contemplate resources beyond the Qur’Én to avoid illogical statements from appearing in Qur’Én translations and to deter inaccuracies driven from personal and intuitive attempts at effecting translations. Many speculations regarding the interpretation of the muqaÏÏa‘āt already exist; why should we not add the linguistic possibility of Hebrew as a means of understanding them as long as the requisite evidence can be tendered? The Qur’Én consists of many verses that urge Muslims to seek knowledge and truth. More research, on this proposal or others that endeavour disambiguation, is thus mandated. The absence of such scholarship would help to refute the claim that Islam and the Qur’Én encourage the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of understanding. Acknowledgement: This research is funded by the Deanship of Research in Zarqa University, Jordan 48 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... Notes and References 1. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’an: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p.4. 2. Ibn Kathir Ismail, Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Edited by Safiur Al-Mubarakpuri, Riyadh, Darussalam, 2003, p. 102. 3. Mainiyo, Attahir and Shuni, Muhammad, “An Analysis of the Mysterious Letters of the Qur’an,” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2014, No. 3, V. IV, p. 53. 4. Asad Muhammad, The Message of The Quran. Gibraltar, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 1322. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid, p. 1323. 7. Ali Y Abdullah, The Holy Quran - English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1989, p. 134. 8. The problem in this approach is that it opens the door for limitless interpretations because meaning is to relatively seen in various forms based on the reader's background. In other words, there is no clear methodology by which meaning is generated. 9. International ØaÍīÍ, The Qur’an: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 2. 10. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’an: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 4. 11. MuÍyÊ Al-din Alddarwish, I‘rab al-Qur’an wa Bayanuh. Alepo, Dar al-irshad lillshu‘un al-jami‘iya, 1980, p. 293. 12. Ibn Kathir Ismail, Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Edited by Safiur Al-Mubarakpuri, Riyadh, Darussalam, 2003, p. 102. 13. Ibid, p. 103. 14. Al-Ùabari AbË Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarir, The Commentary on the Qur’an. Translated by Madelung W.F. Jones, A, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 83-85. 15. Ibid, p. 88. 16. Alsha‘rawi MuÍammad, Tafsir al-Sha‘rawi. Cairo, Akhbar Al-yawm, 1991, p. 108. 17. Nöldeke Theodor, The Qur’an: An Introductory Essay by Theodor Nöldeke. Edited by N.A. Newman, Pennsylvania, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1992, p. 21. 18. Sale George, The Koran. London, William Tegg and Co, 1877, pp. 42-43. 19. This art calculates the numerical value assigned to each letter in Hebrew, then the calculations are used to explore the relationship between words and ideas. 20. Palmer Edward, The Sacred Books of the East. Translated by Friedrich Müller, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1879, p. lxi. 21. Asad Muhammad, The Message of The Quran. Gibraltar, Dar Al-Andalus, 1980, p. 1323. Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 49 22. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’an,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, No. 1, V. XX, p. 4. 23. Suaeed Sajah, Muqatta’at in the Qur’an: The Wider Semitic Context, p. 6 https:/ /www.academia.edu/18497638/Muqattaat (accessed on August 15, 2019). 24. Beeston A. F. L, “Languages of Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Arabica, 1981, No. 2, V. III, p. 179. 25. Shahid Irfan, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century. Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks, 1995, p. 270. 26. Nöldeke Theodor, Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf BergstrÉßer, and Otto Pretzl, The History of the Qur’Én. Edited and translated by Wolfgang Behn, Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 271. 27. Al-Ùayar msa‘id, “TafsÊr al-Qur’Én bil-Isra‘iliyat: NaÐra Taqwimiya,” majalat m‘had al-imam al-shaÏibi lilldirasat al-qur’Énia, 2011, No. 1, V. XIV, pp. 30-31. 28. Interpretation and translation may sound alike, however, in this article the former deals with only one language (monolingual) whereas the latter is concerned with two different languages (bilingual). The first thing is to provide an interpretation then a translation into a different language (translation is an interpretation in a different language). 29. McAuliffe Dammen, Encyclopaedia of the Qur’Én. Leiden, Brill, 2001, p. 2. 30. Hawting, G.R, “Oath.” In Encyclopaedia of the Qur’Én, 2001, p. 261. 31. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’Én,” Journal of Qur’Énic Studies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, No. 1, V. XX, p. 52. 32. The books which were consulted are as follow: 1. MaÍmËd SulaimÉn, I‘rÉb Al-Qur’Én Al-qarÊm. 2. MuÍyÊ Al-dÊn, IrÉb Al-Qur’Én Wa BayÉnuh. 3. MuÍammed Al-Ùayib, Al-Qur’Én Al-qarÊm 33. Benner Jeff A, The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible: Hebrew Letters, Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context. College Stationm, TX, Virtualbookworm.com Publishing, 2005, p.20. 34. Ibid, p. 32. 35. Islahi Ahsan A, Pondering Over the Qur’Én. Translated by Kayani, Mohammed, Kuala Lumpur, Islamic Book Trust, 2009, p. 99. 36. Klein Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. Jerusalem, CARTA, 1987, p. 62. 37. Al-Sayuti jalaluddin, Al-itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’Én. Beirut, Resalah Publishers, 2008, p. 290. 38. Stewart Devin, “The mysterious letters and other formal features of the Qur’Én in light of Greek and Babylonian oracular texts.” In New Perspectives on the Qur’Én: The Qur’Én in its historical context 2, by Gabriel Said Reynolds, 323- 348, London and New York, Routledge, 2011, p.341. 39. Al-Sayuti jalaluddin, al-itqan fi ‘ulum al-Qur’Én. Beirut, Resalah Publishers, 2008, pp. 239-240. 40. Ibn Hayan MuÍammad bin yusif, Al-BaÍr Al-MuÍÊt fi Al-tafsÊr. Beirut, Dar Al- fikir, 2010, p. 232. 50 Hebrew-Skopos Approach to MuqaÏÏa‘āt... 41. Luxenberg Christoph, The Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran: A contribution to the decoding of the language of the Koran. Berlin, Schiler, 2007, p. 327. 42. Al-Sayuti jalaluddin, al-itqan fi ‘ulum al-Qur’Én. Beirut, Resalah Publishers, 2008, p. 53; [JÉmi‘ al-Tirmidhi, Eng. Tr. by Abu Khaliyl, Vol. V Hadith#2910, Darussalam, Riyadh, 2007, p. 242] 43. Luxenberg Christoph, The Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran: A contribution to the decoding of the language of the Koran. Berlin, Schiler, 2007, p. 66. 44. Abdul-Raof Hssan, Qur’Én Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis. London, Routledge, 2010, p. 22. 45. Al-Sayuti jalaluddin, Al-itqan fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’Én. Beirut, Resalah Publishers, 2008, p. 288. 46. Vermeer Hans, “Skopos and commission in translational action.” In The Translation Studies Reader, by Lawrence Venuti, 191-202, London and New York, Routledge, 2012, p. 198. 47. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’Én,” Journal of Qur’Énic Studies, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, No. 1, V. XX, p. 47. 48. The question was: ?What are the most three Qur’Én translations being in use within your institutions? The number of the institutions which responded was 56 and all of them are based in English speaking countries. 49. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’Én: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 281. 50. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’Én: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p. 588. 51. International Øahih, The Qur’Én: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 431. 52. On this occasion and others, the meaning of Hebrew letters are taken from the following three Hebrew dictionaries: 1. Benner, The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. 2. Feyerabend, Hebrew-English Pocket-Dictionary. 3. Haralick, The Inner Meaning of the Hebrew Letters. 53. Al-Mehri A.B, The Qur’Én: With Surah Introductions and Appendices. Birmingham, The Qur’Én Project, 2017, p. 377. 54. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’Én: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 290. 55. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’Én: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p. 609. 56. International ØaÍīÍ, The Qur’Én: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 448. 57. MaÍmud S. YaqËt, I‘rab al-Qur’Én al-Qarim. Alexandria, Dar al-ma‘rifa al- jami‘iya, 1991, p. 3969. 58. Al-tayib M. al-ibrahim, i‘rab al-Qur’Én al-qarÊm: al-muyasar. Beirut, Dar Al- nafa‘is, 2001, p. 453. Hamdard Islamicus Vol. XLIII, No. 1 51 59. Al-Mehri A.B, The Qur’Én: With Surah Introductions and Appendices. Birmingham, The Qur’Én Project, 2017, p. 397. 60. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’Én: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 316. 61. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’Én: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p. 660. 62. International ØaÍÊÍ, The Qur’Én: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 487. 63. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’Én: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 340. 64. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’Én English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p. 521. 65. International ØaÍÊÍ, The Qur’Én: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 448. 66. Al-Mehri A.B, The Qur’Én: With Surah Introductions and Appendices. Birmingham, The Qur’Én Project, 2017, p. 469. 67. Abdel Haleem M.A.S, The Qur’Én: English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 384. 68. Al-Hilali Muhammad T., and Khan M., Muhammd, The Nobel Qur’Én: English Translation of the Meaning and Commentary. Madinah, King Fahd Complex, 1983, p. 774. 69. International ØaÍÊÍ, The Qur’Én: English Meanings. London, Al-Muntada Al- Islami, 2004, p. 582. 70. Al-Mehri A.B, The Qur’Én: With Surah Introductions and Appendices. Birmingham, The Qur’Én Project, 2017, p. 551. 71. Feyerabend Karl, A Complete Hebrew-English Pocket-Dictionary to the Old Testament. Berlin, Schöneberg Langenscheidt, 1905, p. 20.