Microsoft Word Elmi Mecmue 28

Prıncıples of Hamîduddîn al-Farâhî’s Exegesıs of the Qur’an and Interpretatıon of Surah al-Fil
  
237 
inflicting the heavenly and worldly creatures upon targets.
97 
Evidence is in the 
following verse: 
“Haven’t you seen/considered what Allah did to Âd tribe?”
98
 
This verse depicts the annihilation of the Âd tribe. Same meaning is also present 
in the verse of the Surah of al-Fil (The Elephant). 
Understandably, “tarmihim” at the fourth verse of the Surah of al-Fil (elephant) 
cannot be addressing the people of Mecca. Because in this verse, a sort of stone called 
“siccil” is mentioned. If throwing of the stones pertains to the people of Mecca; then 
it would not be necessary to include “siccil”. Saying only “tarmihim bi hejaratin” 
would suffice then. It is understood that in Persian, “Siccil” is something that consists 
of stone and mud.
99
  In Arabic there are various words for “sand” and “stone”. 
However, only “siccil” addresses a particular meaning. The fact is “siccil” is a type 
of stone which is not available around Mecca and its neighborhood. Taberi says that 
the “siccil” came from the sky.
100
 Then where could have people of Mecca brought 
these stones, to throw? 
Historical tribes have been destroyed either by a painful screaming sound (loud 
sound) or demolishing and turning upside-down of settlements (urban areas) or 
raining stones. Among these, the most pre-dominant one is raining of the stones and 
it is referred to throughout the Quran many times.
101
 
The ruining of the tribes is a miracle. Lut’s tribe destruction was referred to by 
“hijaratan min siccil”; the same is utilised to address the Companions of The 
Elephants. Lut’s tribe was destroyed by a miraculous destruction; which is raining of 
the stones. Why wouldn’t the same be valid for the Companions of The Elephants? 
2. Proof of Rumours: Farâhî states that the rumours about companions of the 
elephant root from Ibn Ishak and that Ibn Ishak accepts rumours from The Jewish and 
non-reliable resources.
102
 And, Nesim Islâhî claimed that Imam Malik once called 
Muhammad b. Ishak “dajjal”.
103
 
Above rumours let us think that there is a hostility based on hatred between Imam 
Malik and Muhammad b. Ishak. Because Muhammad b. Ishak was the most 
knowledgeable scholar to know Ansaab philosophy in Medina, he used to claim that 
Imam Malik is a freed slave and Imam Malik rejected this. Hence the two hated each 
other. Imam Malik has written the “Muwatta” and Ibn Ishak said; “bring it to me so 
that I can sort out the fact and fiction in his work”. Upon hearing this, Imam Malik 
                                                 
97
 Nadvî, Nakdi Farâhî, p. 38. 
98
 Fecr (89), p.6. 
99
 Râğıb al-Isfahânî, Mufradât al-Fâzı’l-Qur’an, revision: Saffan Adnan Davûdi, Damascus, 2002, the 
word “siccîl”. 
100
 at-Taberî, Jâmi ‘al-Bayân fî Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, XXX, p.81. 
101
 Hicr, 15/73,74; Ankebût (29), p.40. 
102
 al-Farâhî, Macmû’âyi Tafâsîr-i Farâhî, s. 383; al-Farâhî, Tafsir-i Nizâmi’l-Qur’ân, p. 45. 
103
 Tahkîkât-ı İslâmî, pp. 62-63; İbn İshak, Sîretü İbn İshak, (Preface) 

---

Ass. Prof. Hayrettin Öztürk
  
238 
said, “He is one of the dajjals”. He is carrying on the rumours from the Jews.
104
 
Muhammad Hamidullah in his prefaces to Ibn Ishak; evaluates this rumour and states 
that Imam Malik’s condemning of Ibn Ishak was not because of hadith. On the 
contrary, he was rejecting him due to the fact that the prophet’s wars-related rumours 
and Khayber, Kurayza and Nadir wars-related information which he transfers, were 
received from the Jews. Ibn Ishak was trying to bring them to light. However, he was 
not claiming that the information was reliable.
105
 
Shibli Nu’maani argues that Muhammad b. Ishak, who is one of Tabiins, is an 
authority in hadith discipline, that scholars trust him on seyar and magazi, that Buhari 
narrated from him, that much of historical information today is available with the 
effort of him. However he also argues that there is not a consensus among hadith 
scholars about his reliability as a source that Imam Malik was against him that he 
included narrations on Khayber and other facts from the Jews that converted to Islam 
later on. Therefore, he is not a reliable source on this subject.
106
 Apart from that, many 
others say that he is reliable. Many known hadith scholars such as Shu'ba, Sufyaani 
Sawri, Sufyaan bin Uyeyna, Yahya bin Said, Hammad bin Zayd, Hammad bin Seleme 
have received and transferred hadith from him.
107
 Nesaai and Ibni Maaje’s Sunans as 
well have rumours transferred through his channel.
108
 Imam Buhari states that he 
could not find anyone who distrusts Muhammad b. Ishak.
109
 Muhammad b. Ishak is 
considered reliable by many hadith scholars and hadiths transferred through him are 
present on many reliable books of hadith. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider 
him unreliable just because a few people consider him unreliable. 
3. ‘Abd al-Muttalib’s asking for his camels: In this claim; Farâhî found it strange 
that he asked for his camels instead of speaking for Kaaba.
110
 However, if when 
considered carefully, Ibn Ishak’s rumour indicates that ‘Abd al-Muttalib was not alone 
at the mentioned meeting. At this meeting, ‘Abd al-Muttalib was accompanied by 
Bani Bekr's leader Yaamer b. Amr b. Nufaase and Huzeyl's leader Huwaylid b. Vasile. 
They offered Abraha one third of all goods of Tihaame for him to go back without 
demolishing Kaaba.
111
 
Also, ‘Abd al-Muttalib's poem shows that
112
 he tried to change Abraha’s mind and 
he tried to convince him to go back, he says: “O…Commander of Ethiopia! If the house 
                                                 
104
 Nadvî, Nakdi Farâhî, p. 15. 
105
 Nukuş, Lahor, Rasul no, volume. 11, İbn İshak; Sîretü İbn İshak (Preface), p. 380; İbn İshak, Sîretü 
İbn İshak, Preface. 
106
 Nu’mânî, Mavlânâ Şiblî, Sîratü’n-Nabî, Dârü’l-Musannifîn, Azam Garh, 1983, I, p. 23-24. 
107
 Nukuş, p. 386; İbn İshak, Sîretü İbn İshak, ( Preface) 
108
 İbn İshak, Sîretü İbn İshak, ( Preface) 
109
 İbn İshak, Sîretü İbn İshak, ( Preface) 
110
 al-Farâhî, Macmû’âyi Tafâsîr-i Farâhî, p. 384. 
111
 İbn Hishâm, es-Sîretü’n-Nabaviyye, I, pp. 81-82; at-Taberî, Jâmi ‘al-Beyân fî Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, XXX, 
195; al-Azrakî, Kâ’be ve Mekke Tarihi, p. 144  
112
 İbn İshak, Sîretü İbn İshak, p. 41. 

---