In verses 13 and 14 of Sūrah Muhammad, the verbs of singular subjects are plural. Generally, singular subjects need singular words and plural subjects plural ones. Kindly clarify this?
(Waqar Elahi, Rawalpindi)
Before an attempt is made to answer your questions, I would like to allude to a few tips which, if kept in consideration, might prove useful in studying and analyzing the Qur’ān.
Firstly, it must be realized that the Qur’ān has been revealed in the most exquisite and impeccable diction of the Arabic language. The verses of the Qur’ān have been set in the highest possible literary style and in the most subtle literary construction. Among many other literary features of the Qur’ānic Arabic, a very distinctive one is its brevity. This is often achieved by means of the literary device called ellipsis (hazf) in which words which are understood to be implied are suppressed so that the desired meaning is conveyed in as minimum number of words as possible.
Secondly, it is worth observing that a great percentage of linguistic patterns and styles are common to almost all the languages. The easiest way to comprehend what has been said in a foreign language is to look for similar styles in one’s own language. Consequently, the literary device of ellipsis mentioned before is not just confined to the Arabic language; it is found in almost all the languages and a little deliberation will reveal its presence in one’s own language.
Thirdly, it is to be noted that the grammar of a language is only a secondary tool to understand the language and it only supplements the primary one, which is comprehending the language through the direct method. The meaning which a sentence directly conveys without analyzing its syntactical construction should be understood in the light of common sense. However, the meaning which is finally thought to be implied must also be supported by the rules of syntax.
0
To appreciate the verse 13 of Sūrah Muhammad, consider the sentence: ‘after Pakistan had won the match, Lahore became a happy place’. Without going into any grammatical analysis, the meaning which directly emanates from this sentence is that the event had made the the inhabitants of Lahore happy. In other words, by refering to Lahore the people of Lahore have been implied. Rhetorically, the sentence would be analyzed as one in which by mentioning the adverbial object (zarf) ie ‘Lahore’, the contained adverbial object (mazrūf) ie ‘the people of Lahore’ have been implied. Syntactically, the sentence would be analyzed as one in which the adjunct (mudhāf) ie ‘people’ has been suppressed. A little deliberation will show that the linguistic style adopted in verse 13 of Sūrah Muhammad is similar to the one discussed in this example: The antecedent of the verb ahlaknāhum is not qaryah (city) but the adjunct (mudhāf) ie ahli qaryah (people of the city) which is plural and being very apparent has been suppressed. Incidentally, though the word qaryah in the verse is singular, the addition of the particle ka ayyin, which in grammatical parlance is called ‘ka ayyin khabriyah’, has given the whole expression a plural sense. The translation of the first part of the verse in the following words will, perhaps, make the point more clear: ‘And many a city did We destroy... ‘
The answer to your second question also pertains to understanding a particular type of ellipsis, which can be appreciated if the following verse of Sūrah An’ām is analyzed as an example: Wa lahu mā sakana fil laili wan nahār. A mention of the opposites lail (night) and nahār (day) points to the fact that a verb opposite in meaning to sakana (to stop) like taharraka (to move) has been suppressed before nahār. Consequently, the correct translation of the verse would be: to him belongs that which stops in the night and that which moves in the day. A study of the first part of the verse about which you have inquired (47:14), similarly, reveals that a sentence which is opposite in meaning to the last part of the verse ie ittaba’ū ahwā a hum has been suppressed. If this suppression is disclosed, the verse would read something like this: ‘afa man kāna ‘alā bayyinatin min rabbihi kaman zuyyina lahu sū u amalihi wa [man ittaba’u huda allah ka man] ittab u ahwā a hum’. The antecedent of the verb wattaba’ū is actually the man in the suppressed part of the verse. The verse can be translated thus: Is the one who is on a manifest evidence from his Lord equal to one whose foul deeds seem fair to him? and are the ones who who follow their own whims equal to those who follow divine guidance? It should be clear that the conjunctive particle (mausūl) man comes both for singular and plural nouns. Consequently, the plural verb ittaba’ū has rightly come for a plural subject man. For examples, in which man has been used in the plural sense, please look up 10:42 and 20:36.