Explanation of the author's statement: "...3: That interpreting it as 'seizing' is not known in the language, so it is a lie against it, and the Qur'an was revealed in the language of the Arabs, so it is not possible for us to interpret it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "The fourth is that those who interpreted it" not "The third is that interpreting it as 'seizing' is not known in the language, so it is a lie against it, and the Qur'an was revealed in the language of the Arabs, so it is not possible for us to interpret it with what they do not know in their language". This is what is known in the Arabic language: that *istawa* means *istawla* (seized). If it is not known, and the Qur'an is in the Arabic language, it means that it cannot be found in the Qur'an. But they may say to you, "No, this is found in eloquent Arabic speech. Read, if you wish:"
"Bishr has taken possession of Iraq *** without a sword or spilled blood"
And what do we say? We say, to whom does this verse belong? It is unknown. Perhaps they made it up themselves, yes, just as some grammarians fabricate their evidence, yes. And if it is asked, "Where is it from?" he says, "It is from a man of the Banu Dhibah." A man from the Banu Dhibah, yes. So the result is that perhaps they are the ones who fabricated this verse. If it is attributed to an unknown person, then what is attributed to an unknown person is unknown. This is one point. Second, even if we assume it is from a man of pure Arab descent before the language changed, is there evidence? There is no evidence, because we say that *istawa* upon Iraq clearly does not mean that he sat upon it, but rather that he seized it, owned it, and subdued it. This is clear.
The student: ... a known story ...
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. It is known that there was war and conflict in it. And we also say that *istawa* may mean "rose," but it is a metaphorical rising, because physical rising is impossible with regard to this verse. So if evidence indicates its impossibility, it is interpreted as metaphorical rising.
"Bishr has taken possession of Iraq *** without a sword or spilled blood"
And what do we say? We say, to whom does this verse belong? It is unknown. Perhaps they made it up themselves, yes, just as some grammarians fabricate their evidence, yes. And if it is asked, "Where is it from?" he says, "It is from a man of the Banu Dhibah." A man from the Banu Dhibah, yes. So the result is that perhaps they are the ones who fabricated this verse. If it is attributed to an unknown person, then what is attributed to an unknown person is unknown. This is one point. Second, even if we assume it is from a man of pure Arab descent before the language changed, is there evidence? There is no evidence, because we say that *istawa* upon Iraq clearly does not mean that he sat upon it, but rather that he seized it, owned it, and subdued it. This is clear.
The student: ... a known story ...
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. It is known that there was war and conflict in it. And we also say that *istawa* may mean "rose," but it is a metaphorical rising, because physical rising is impossible with regard to this verse. So if evidence indicates its impossibility, it is interpreted as metaphorical rising.