3. Typically read
So let them not approach, the textual justification for reading
lā taqrabū rather than
lā yaqrabū follows. The Traditionalist’s reading of this verse (provided here by Saheeh International, which is typical) is as:
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Ḥarām after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allāh will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allāh is Knowing and Wise. The underlined portion of the verse above indicates that part of the text which is rendered by the form I verb
qaraba — to approach, draw near. There are 11 instances of the form I of this verb in the Qur’an (
2:35,
2:187,
2:222,
4:43,
6:151,
6:152,
7:19,
9:28,
12:60,
17:32,
17:34). All instances are preceded by the negative particle
lā. In 10 of the 11 instances we find
qaraba + lā + the jussive mood, and one case (
12:60)
lā is followed by the imperfective. In all cases it provides a direct warning against approaching something or, as in the case of
12:60, provides a statement of limitation of access to something. The verse at
9:28 is immediately conspicuous because only here has the Traditionalist pointed the text not in the second person (
approach you not), but in the third person (
let them not approach) — the difference here being merely that of placing two dots below the stem rather than above it — such dots not being intrinsic to the text in any case. However, this pointing of the verb here at
9:28 — one which is conspicuously anomalous across all other instances of this verb — requires that we accept a form of imperative in this single instance found nowhere else in the text. The force which is imputed to this word by the Traditionalist’s reading is ‘
let them not approach’. This type of exhortation certainly exists in the Qur’an (e.g. ‘
let not such-and-such think that[...]’). But this convention, where it occurs — and
especially where it appeals to a third-person plural subject — is a rhetorical device, and operates as an
exhortation, or as
strong advice. (Consider, for example,
51:59 — ‘
so let them not seek to hasten Me!’) It nowhere operates as a literal imperative (there is no expectation that the hearer will literally prevent such-and-such from thinking anything whatever — although it is recommended that they comply). But at
9:28, the Traditionalist’s pointing of this one word requires that we accept a form of imperative found nowhere else in the Qur’an: it requires that the reader take this rhetorical construction directed to a third-person plural subject as a binding, literal imperative upon himself. In summary, in order for the Traditionalist’s pointing of this word to be valid, it requires — in this single instance — firstly, that we allow that, while all remaining instances of this verb are negative constructions which treat of second-person subjects, here it does so with a third-person subject; and secondly, that — in a case unique to the entire Qur’an — a negative jussive exhortation treating of a third-person plural subject has a literal imperative force binding upon the hearer. I do not accept this as a rational or reasonable position. The case I accept, is that this word is as I have translated it — ‘
approach not’ — which reading does not require aberrant handling of the verb under discussion (given an otherwise uniform set across the Qur’an), and does not require that we impose upon the Qur’an a uniquely anomalous instance of a rhetorical device as a literal, binding imperative. During the final editing phase of this work, I was sent an objection to this thesis which, despite the objection’s obvious weaknesses, I will address here. The critic (who referenced his own fluency in Arabic in support of his argument) asserted that the verb cannot refer to the believers since God addresses the believers directly in the beginning of the verse (the idea being that some sort of tautology results when an address to a particular party is followed directly by an imperative to the same party). However, the Qur’an is full of such constructions (
9:23 and
9:119 being merely two which are close to hand). Additionally, the critic’s point is not only incorrect in its assertion, it is also at least partly wrong in its premise, since the verb at
9:28 as read by him implies an imperative to those addressed in any case for who is to prevent ‘
those who ascribe a partnership’ from approaching ‘
the inviolable place of worship’ if not those addressed in the verse?
