The Interruptions to Speakers
The verse 082:002 provides a principle of public etiquette. Anyone addressing public to deliver some important or complicated speech when interrupted, nuisance-questioned or hackled knows the value of this Prohibition. It highlights this rule as of a Universal Application.
It was revealed after the Holy Prophet s.a.w was talking to disbelieving leaders of the Quraish tribe. He was interrupted by a blind person named Abdullah bin Omme Makhtum by asking a question. He ignored the interruption, continued talking and received the important lesson in this revelation. This Soorah quelled all possible criticism although the blind man could not see himself ignored.
M Zafrulla Khan applied this verse to “The Prophet’s visitor” and not to the Holy Prophet s.a.w, and added, “Grieve not over his having turned away for how couldst thou have known that the one with whom thou wast engaged would purify himself.” Malik Ghulam Farid in his Note 3250 wrote that the he s.a.w “and, in reality, through him, his followers” were provided a great rule for the human village and all were taught to “have regard for the tender susceptibilities of the poor and humble” among them.
The critics have claimed that it was the Holy Prophet s.a.w who had frowned and turned aside. They implied that this Soorah was a ‘divine reproach or rebuke’ administered to the Holy Prophet s.a.w. Innuendos suggested in translating this section far exceeded than what actually had taken place there. Insinuations on the underlying facts reflect the fertility of the minds of those who have criticized. “(The Prophet) frowned and turned away.” Many others have said much the same. “And how would you know? He might have sought to purify himself. Or he might have received admonition.” – “And how can you know that he might become pure (from sins)?”- Examples of could’a should’a would’a include the following.
He (s.a.w) “Should have repented.”
He (s.a.w) “Should have recalled him and treated him more gently.”
He (s.a.w) “Did not chide the intruder but just disliked.”
And although approval-clad but really a back-handed criticism added the following also.
He (s.a.w) “Would be the last person to give permanence to a reproval of his own act. ”
‘The source of his (s.a.w) revelation was other than his own mind.”
The Interruptions to Speakers
The Interruptions to Speakers
The verse 082:002 provides a principle of public etiquette. Anyone addressing public to deliver some important or complicated speech when interrupted, nuisance-questioned or hackled knows the value of this Prohibition. It highlights this rule as of a Universal Application.
It was revealed after the Holy Prophet s.a.w was talking to disbelieving leaders of the Quraish tribe. He was interrupted by a blind person named Abdullah bin Omme Makhtum by asking a question. He ignored the interruption, continued talking and received the important lesson in this revelation. This Soorah quelled all possible criticism although the blind man could not see himself ignored.
M Zafrulla Khan applied this verse to “The Prophet’s visitor” and not to the Holy Prophet s.a.w, and added, “Grieve not over his having turned away for how couldst thou have known that the one with whom thou wast engaged would purify himself.” Malik Ghulam Farid in his Note 3250 wrote that the he s.a.w “and, in reality, through him, his followers” were provided a great rule for the human village and all were taught to “have regard for the tender susceptibilities of the poor and humble” among them.
The critics have claimed that it was the Holy Prophet s.a.w who had frowned and turned aside. They implied that this Soorah was a ‘divine reproach or rebuke’ administered to the Holy Prophet s.a.w. Innuendos suggested in translating this section far exceeded than what actually had taken place there. Insinuations on the underlying facts reflect the fertility of the minds of those who have criticized. “(The Prophet) frowned and turned away.” Many others have said much the same. “And how would you know? He might have sought to purify himself. Or he might have received admonition.” – “And how can you know that he might become pure (from sins)?”- Examples of could’a should’a would’a include the following.
He (s.a.w) “Should have repented.”
He (s.a.w) “Should have recalled him and treated him more gently.”
He (s.a.w) “Did not chide the intruder but just disliked.”
And although approval-clad but really a back-handed criticism added the following also.
He (s.a.w) “Would be the last person to give permanence to a reproval of his own act. ”
‘The source of his (s.a.w) revelation was other than his own mind.”
Related Posts
None