LaoAAaththibannahu AAathaban shadeedan aw laathbahannahu aw laya'tiyannee bisultanin mubeen (surah Naml: 21)

Tafseer Tafheem-ul-Quran by Syed Abu-al-A'la Maududi

(27:21) I will punish him severely, or even slaughter him, unless he presents before me a reasonable excuse' *28

La-u`azzibanahoo `azaaban shadeedan aw la azbahannahoo aw layaatiyannee bisultaanim mubeen

*28) Some people of the modern time say that the hud-bud (hoopoe) does not mean the bird commonly known by this name, but is the name of a man who was an officer in the army of Solomon. This claim is not based on any historical research in which they might have found a person named hud-hud included in the list of the officers of the government of the Prophet Solomon, but they base their claim on the argument that the custom of naming human beings after animals is prevalent in Arabic as in other languages and was also found in Hebrew. Moreover, the, work that has been ascribed to the hud-hud in the following verses and its conversation with the Prophet Solomon, can, according to them, be only performed by a human being. But if one keeps in view the context in which this thing occurs in the Qur'an, it becomes evident that this is no commentary of the Qur'an but its distortion. After aII, why should the Qur'an put the intellect and intelligence of man to the test by using enigmatic language '? Why should it not clearly say that a soldier of the Prophet Solomon's cavalry, or platoon, or communication department, was missing, whom he ordered to be searched out, and who came and gave this news and whom he despatched on such and such a mission? Instead, it uses such language that the reader, from the beginning to the end, is compelled to regard it as a bird. Let us, in this connection, consider the tarts in their sequence as presented in the Qur'an. First of aII, the Prophet Solomon expresses his gratitude to AIIah for His this bounty: "We have been taught the speech of the birds." In this sentence, firstly, the word Lair has been used absolutely which every Arab and scholar of Arabic will take in the meaning of a bird, because there is nothing in the context that points to its being figurative; secondly, if tair implied a group of men and not a bird, the ward language or tongue would have been used concerning it and not speech. 'Then, a person's knowing the tongue of another people is not so extraordinary a thing that it should be specially mentioned. Today there are among us thousands of men and women, who can speak and understand many foreign languages. This is in no way an unusual achievement which may be mentioned as an extraordinary gift of God. Then the Qur'an says, "For Solomon were gathered hosts of jinns and then and birds." In this sentence, firstly, the words Jinn and ins (men) and tair have been used as names for three well-known and distinct species denoted by these words in Arabic. Then they have been used absolutely and there is nothing in the context that may point to any of them being used metaphorically, or as a simile. hecause of which one may take them in another meaning than their well- known lexical meaning. Then the word ins has occurred between the words jinn and Lair which does not allow taking it in the meaning that the Jinn and the tair were, in tact, two groups included in the species of ins (men). Had this been meant the words would have been: ul jinn wat-tair min-al-ins and not min-al- Jinn wal-ins W at-tair. A little further un the e Qur'an says that the Prophet Solomon said this when-during his review of the birds hr found the hud-hud missing. If the fair were human beings and hud-hud also was the name of a man, a word or two should Dave been there to indicate this so that cite poor reader should not have taken the word for a bird. When the group being mentioned is clearly of the birds and a number of it is called hud-hud. how can it be expected that the reader will of his own accord understand them to be human beings'? Then the Prophet Solomon says, "1 will punish him severely, or even slaughter him, unless he presents before me a reasonable excuse." A man is killed, or hanged, or sentenced to death, but never slaughtered. Some hard-hearted person may even slaughter another person out of vengeance, but it cannot be expected of a Prophet that he would sentence a soldier of his army to be slaughtered only for the offence of desertion, and Allah would mention this heinous act of the Prophet without a word of disapproval. A little further on we shall again see that the Prophet Solomon sends the same hud-hud with a letter to the queen of Sheba and tells him "to cast it before her". Obviously, such an instruction can be given to a bird but not at all to a man when he is sent as an envoy or messenger. Only a foolish person will believe that a king would send his envoy with a letter to the queen of another country and tell him to cast or throw it before her. Should we suppose that the Prophet Solomon was not aware of the preliminary social etiquette which even common people like us also observe when we send our servant to a neighbour? Will a gentleman tell his servant to carry his letter to the other gentleman and throw it before him? All these things show that the word hud-hud here has been used in its lexical meaning, showing that he was not a man but a bird. Now, if a person is not prepared to believe that a hud-hud can speak those things that have been ascribed to it in the Qur'an, he should frankly say that he does not believe in this narrative: of the Qur'an. It is sheer hypocrisy to misconstrue plain and clear words of the Qur'an according to one's own whims only in order to cover up one's lack of faith in it.