Q. 17/36:
A little thinking suggests that the above translation of the divine commandment cannot be right as it is in effect asking every Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or other to follow the knowledge he or she has. Similarly, it leaves no room for preaching Islam to non-Muslims as the injunction is obligating them to follow only the knowledge they have. Furthermore, it is prohibiting going after any pursuit without any knowledge. However, such pursuing humans do not do practically, therefore, it is a redundant commandment. A detailed analysis is as follows.
_____________________________________________
The Original Qur’anic Injunction Under Observation
17/36: وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Some Conventional Translations
| Sahih International: | And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. |
| Pickthall: | (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. |
| Yusuf Ali: | And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge. |
| Shakir: | And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge. |
| Mohsin Khan: | And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. |
| Muhammad Sarwar: | Do not follow what you do not know. |
| Arberry: | And pursue not that thou hast no knowledge of. |
NOTE:
In the above translations the commentators have counted لَيْسَ … بِ an idiom where بِ has no literal meaning, but is used only to make a statement forceful. However, it is regrettable that the exegetes and translators did not bother to check: if the prepositional meaning of بِ is not counted there, the divine regulation turns out to be wrong, even nonsensical. It sounds nonsensical as it is forbidding to pursue something without ANY knowledge, which people do not do. The practical problem is not pursuing something without knowledge but pursuing it with wrong knowledge.
The Core Problem And Cause
The translated commandment does not represent that it is from the WISE God!
If you read the whole verse, وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا , it is God’s crucial commandment as to what kind of pursuit humanity should engage in, as well as it is the fundamental rule with which everyone’s acts will be judged on the Day of Reckoning. The Qur’an says that there will not be injustice to the slightest degree to anyone on that day, so this rule of judgment has to be flawless. But the conventional interpretations quoted above do no reflect this quality in it.
Such elusive improprieties get into Qur’anic commentaries because of the following trends among the commentators:
The Qur’an underscores that لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ meaning “for Him are the best names.” Its one implication is: when it comes to law, God is the best lawgiver. However, Quranic commentators are usually not conscious of this merit of God while commenting on His prescribed laws. It is also disappointing that, though Western scholars presented their so-called enlightenment thoughts with competing reasons, Muslim scholars never developed an academic culture of presenting God as the best guide and lawgiver. At the most, they glorified His book by showing many of its verses to be the literary masterpieces — which is practically unattractive to most nonbelievers, even to rational Muslims, as this literary beauty does not demonstrate that the Qur’anic rules are upright and superior in merit.
Further, in their interpretive works, most of them use the grammatical rules and dictionary meanings without thinking that there could be some errors and missed angles in them because they are human products after all, and were developed (discovered) way after the revelation of the Qur’an.
Coming back to verse 17/36 (from the general attitude of the commentators): A critical examination of the above translations reveals that the interpreters have erred in counting “لَيْسَ … بِ” an idiom there while لَيْسَ and بِ have been used in their literal meanings. The commentators’ very high thinking of Arabic grammar blinded them so much that they did not even check whether that grammar rule is applicable there.
The Problems In Detail
A) The “translated ruling” sounds very unfitting of God.
The conventional interpretation is:
Do not follow that you have no knowledge of.
i.e.
Follow only what you have knowledge of.
The above translation has the following inconsistencies in terms of a divine decree:
(1) The injunction “Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge” is obviously asking everyone — Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, and other — to act according to his or her personal knowledge, which is unthinkable!
NB! Since the injunction is asking not to follow that of which one has no knowledge, the fundamental question is what is meant by “the knowledge one has“. There is no denying that one acquires knowledge after one’s birth gradually. And most of it comes from others, and some from personal observation, experience, and thinking. The sum of all these pieces of information forms the knowledge one has, and it is called personal knowledge.
(2) “Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge” is obligating people to pursue only the knowledge they have, therefore, is forbidding them to pursue any new information. Therefore, it leaves no scope for preaching Islam to those who do not know about it.
(3) Instead of realizing “personal knowledge” in the translation, Qur’anic commentators consider “knowledge” as facts opposed to conjectures or superstitions. This is the baseline definition of knowledge, and validates all religious and irreligious orientations because people of every orientation recognize their pertinent knowledge as fact and not conjecture. For example, Atheists are positive that their denying God is not grounded on their conjecture but the fact that there is complete lack of evidence for God. Similarly, all sects among Muslims have firm understanding that they are following the truth and not conjectures.
(4) When you ask someone to avoid assumptions, you plainly say it. And you do not say: do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. If you say the latter, your message will not be conveyed because many assumptions appear as factual knowledge. For example: atheists count their assumption — belief is blind in all religions including Islam — as fact. This they infer from the practice of those born in Muslim families and not from Qur’anic teachings.
(5) The commentators have given the examples of Muslim affairs only in their elaborations. This could be because of their perception that the addressees of the above commandment are Muslims. However, this perception cannot be right. First of all, this commandment was given at Mecca where the addressees were mostly non-Muslims. Secondly, the pre- and post-contexts of the commandments from verse 22 to verse 38 are addressing people in general. Thirdly, there is not a single injunction among these commandments that is for the believers alone.
Summing up:
The conventional translations reflect that God is not good at phrasing laws and judgments. It also belies His claim that His directives are unequivocal (مُبِينٌ).
B) The translation is incongruous in the linguistic context.
The above command is followed by words in red letters as below:
وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا
Shakir:
And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these shall be questioned about that.
Yusuf Ali:
And pursue not that of which thou hast not knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing, or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
A court of law is supposed to judge according to the wording of the law. And the wording of the above alleged divine decree — do not follow that of which you have no knowledge — is obviously asking everyone to pursue what he or she has the knowledge of. Then, what gives God the right to question an Atheist or a Christian or any other person who has been following his or her knowledge? Is it fair to first ask people to pursue their knowledge, then question their such pursuance?
Some interpreters consider the two sections of the verse as separate decrees, and they explain إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا as: every act of hearing, or seeing, or heart will be inquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). This interpretation also conflicts with the rules of justice:
(a) When I go outside, this is not in my control to see and hear so many things that I do not like. Then, why would I be accounted for these sights and hearings?
(b) Why will a person’s only sights, hearings, and thinking be questioned — and not his or her words and actions?
C) The translation conflicts with the Qur’anic cross-references.
Let us look at other places in the Qur’an about what humanity should pursue, and how our faculties of sight, hearing, and reasoning are related to these pursuits. Some of these are as follows:
90/4,10: لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ فِي كَبَدٍ … وَهَدَيْنَاهُ النَّجْدَيْنِ
Surely, We created human being into struggle … and We showed him the two highroads (of right and wrong).
76/2: إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ … نَّبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا
Verily, We created human being … that We may test him. Therefore, We made him hearing and seeing.
7/179: وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ … الْإِنسِ ۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا ۚ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ ۚ أُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ
Surely, We have scattered a great many … human beings for Hell. For them are hearts with which they do not [open-mindedly] try to understand. For them are eyes with which they do not [critically] observe. For them are ears with which they do not [critically] listen. They are like cattle; nay, they are more deviated! They are the heedless (of God’s admonitions).
From the verses above it is clear that God has given us the faculties of sight, hearing, and reasoning as means to differentiate right from wrong so that we can pursue the right and avoid the wrong. In other words, these faculties have been given to differentiate all kinds of right and wrong, and not only facts from assumptions.
A Fitting Translation
The above inconsistencies in the conventional translation based on the phrasal meaning of “لَيْسَ … بِ” call for a translation considering لَيْسَ and بِ as independent words:
وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَـٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا
And do not pursue that about which there is nothing for you in accordance with [the rules of] knowledge. Verily, the hearing and the sight and the heart (mind), each of these shall be questioned about that (pursuit).
OR
And do not pursue that about which there is nothing for you in line with the [critical] knowledge on it. Verily, the hearing and the sight and the heart (mind), each of these shall be questioned about that (pursuit).
Nota Bene:
(i) In English, “in accordance with knowledge” is not spoken; rather there should be some modifier for knowledge. However, in some languages such an expression is common, and it means in line with the rules of knowledge, in line with the critical analysis, in line with the factual information, and the like.
(ii) It is huge misconception that critical evaluation can be done by highly educated people only. If truth be told, it is a fact of human life; even unlettered people critically evaluate options in their worldly affairs all the time.
The above translation removes all the inconsistencies present in the conventional one, and represents it as the flawless, comprehensive divine commandment to all humanity. In the first section of the verse (in black), God is asking to go after only those pursuits whose uprightness one can judge by applying the rules of knowledge (with regard to the amount of knowledge and the intellectual capability one has). Then, in the second section of the verse (in red), He is warning that, on the Day of Judgment, it is the individual who will have to justify his/her takes with points from his/her personal critical listening, judicious observations, and unbiased thinking. In other words, if anyone pleads on the Day of Judgment that he or she followed what was conveyed to him/her by the religious scholars or asserted by the scientists, his/her argument shall be rejected. This way, the two sections of the verse are coherent and consistent.
On Semantics involving Construction “… لَيْسَ … بِ/بِهِ”
The issue in this article is whether “لَيْسَ … بِ” always works as a phrase in a sentence (where بِ has no prepositional meaning but it places emphasis) or لَيْسَ and بِ can also function as independent words at many instances. The former rule has been adopted by the Qur’anic commentators in general. However, this rule does not lead us to make a fitting interpretation of verse 17/36. By contrast, if لَيْسَ and بِ are considered independent words there, the translation becomes perfect and befits the wise God.
The technicalities that go against the position that “لَيْسَ … بِ” always function as a phrase are as follows:
1) It might have been difficult to realize in former times, but today we know well that idioms are not used in lawmaking or judgment. Therefore, it is not believable that God, who gave humans this sensibility, did not know it Himself.
2) When the Qur’an was revealed, there was no book on Arabic grammar: the grammatical rules were discovered way later on. As a result, if this semantic tool gives to some Qur’anic injunction a meaning that reflects a fault in it, should the translation be considered the true representation of the divine pronouncement? Can grammarians be considered infallible? Can they not err in discovering a grammatical rule or its range of application?
3) There is no rule in Linguistics that if there exists a phrase, its individual words cannot be used in their literal meanings. For example, bring up, in English, is a phrase which means to raise a little one until it is fully grown. Does the existence of this phrase prevents us from using bring up in the literal meanings of the words?
4) When other prepositions such as عَلَىٰ , مِن , فِي have been used with لَيْسَ in their prepositional meanings in the Qur’an, why can بِ not be used in its propositional meaning with لَيْسَ there?
5) Where “لَيْسَ … بِ” functions as an idiom, the grammatical construction of the clause or sentence is as follows:
لَيْسَ , then اسم of لَيْسَ , then بِ , then خبر of لَيْسَ
i.e.
لَيْسَ (negative being verb) + subject + بِ + complement
NB:
Arabic grammar does not use the term complement but خبر (predicative).
However, in a clause containing a verb-to-be it is essentially a complement.
For example:
95/8: َأَلَيْس اللَّهُ بِ أَحْكَمِ الْحَاكِمِينَ
88/22: لَسْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِ مُصَيْطِرٍ
46/32: وَمَنْ لَا يُجِبْ دَاعِيَ اللَّهِ فَلَيْسَ بِ مُعْجِزٍ
For easy understanding of this rule of grammar, one may note the construction of the following parallel sentences in English:
David is a teacher.
David is not a teacher.
Is David a teacher?
Is David not a teacher?
The Characteristics of the Grammatical Construction
where “… لَيْسَ … بِ” functions as an idiom:
First: the خبر (predicative) is a subject complement — another label (position or attribute) for the subject. That is, they signify the same person or thing. And if you interchange the positions of the subject and the complement, the meaning would remain the same though the order of words may sound awkward. For example: She is intelligent and Intelligent is she convey the same meaning.
In verse 95/8, أَحْكَمِ الْحَاكِمِينَ (the best of judges) is the complement of اللَّهُ (God), and so they both signify the same person; and if you interchange their positions, the sentence “Is the best of judges not God?” means same as “Is God not the best of judges?“. Similar is the case of the prophet and an overseer in verse 88/22, and also of deniers of the prophet’s calls (which is the implied subject of لَيْسَ ) and مُعْجِزٍ in verse 46/32.
In these examples the difference is: in verse 95/8 the complement (the best of judges) is forcefully asserted by the use of the double negatives أَلَيْسَ , while in verses 88/22 and 46/32 the complements (overseer and thwarter respectively) are forcefully negated by the single negative لَيْسَ . However, the commonality is that there is a complement after بِ .
Second: before the emphatic بِ , there is no essential word(s) other than the subject. In 88/22 عَلَيْهِمْ (over them) is a non-essential piece and is giving an additional information there: if it is removed, the remaining portion لَسْتَ بِمُصَيْطِرٍ (you are not an overseer) stands fully meaningful.
Third: the complement comes right after the emphatic particle بِ .
Fourth: لَيْسَ is a verb to be, though negative.
The Comparison of the Construct of Verse 17:36
لَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Here, the following inconsistencies are noticeable when compared with the grammatical construction in which “لَيْسَ … بِ” functions as a phrase:
First: عِلْمٌ is not a subject complement in either the conventional or the suggested translation.
In conventional translations, since لَيْسَ is a verb for third person, لَكَ (in second person) cannot be its subject. Rather, the subject has to be in third person. And that third-person subject is pursuit as implied. In this case, pursuit and knowledge are signifying two different things. Even in conventional translations, لَكَ (translated as you there) and knowledge signify two different things; one is a person while the other is an abstract object. Also, their positions, in both the translations, cannot be interchanged conveying the same meaning of the clause.
Second: The خبر (predicative) is not after the emphatic particle بِ , but after an additional word هِ . As a result, the emphasis is technically on هِ , and not on عِلْمٌ .
Third: As explained above, the subject of لَيْسَ is pursuit (implied). Therefore, لَكَ is another essential expression other than the subject there.
Fourth: In conventional interpretations, لَكَ is translated as subjective you which sounds strange. كَ is objective you and there is an additional preposition لَ with it. Therefore, the compound word لَكَ means for you, to you, before you, in your eye, and the like. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you cannot be the subject of the third-person verb لَيْسَ .
Fifth: Instead of a being verb, لَيْسَ is considered a possession verb “have” in conventional translations.
6) لَيْسَ and بِ as separate words (not connected in a phrase) give better meaning wherever the linguistic construct is different from “لَيْسَ + subject + بِ + complement” in the Qur’an:
(i) 3/66: لِمَ تُحَاجُّونَ فِيمَا لَيْسَ لَكُم بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Translation Considering لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
why do you argue in that about which you have no knowledge.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
Why do you argue in that about which there is nothing to you in line with
the [critical] knowledge on it. …………… [بِ = in line with; هِ = its, of it, on it]
By rule, any verse must not be interpreted out of context. And the context of the above verse is some disputed matters surrounding Abraham (peace be upon him). Jews and Christians give one narrative while the Qur’an gives another. Now the question is: which narrative is right? Jews and Christians argue that the Torah is way older book, so it is more credible. It cannot be denied that a history recorded closer to event(s) is more reliable than that which is recorded further in time. It should be noted here that the Jews and Christians do not recognize the Qur’an to be God’s book. Most of them believe that Muhammad pirated materials from Biblical literatures and wrote this book. In this situation, if the Qur’an tells them that they have no knowledge of Abraham, would this not be a laughable comment in their eyes? Therefore, the conventional translation sounds inappropriate.
When there is dispute which divine book is genuine, the only way to judge the truth of a narrative described in those books is to critically analyze it. Let us take an example. The Torah says that Hagar was a slave woman. Therefore, God did not count her son (Ishmael) Abraham’s seed, and disqualified him for being appointed as a prophet due to his low birth. Leaving aside the issue whether Hagar was a slave woman or not, a critical analysis exposes that this story is perverted because it cannot be true that all-knowing God denied a biological fact that Ishmael was the seed of Abraham. Similarly, the narrative characterizes God as racist in His works of creation and blessing — an another unbelievable exposition. If this strength of critical analysis is realized, it is evident that the above verse is referring to it for judging the truth surrounding Abraham. And the verse is telling the Jews and Christians that they have no standing on the ground of critical analysis of their story. This Qur’anic argument is pertinent and sound. Therefore, the second translation above befits the verse well.
(ii) 5/116: مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
It was not mine to say that of which I had no entitlement.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
It was not mine to say that of which there was nothing for
me in line with the [rules of] entitlement. …………….. [بِ = in line with]
Above is a piece of the witness statement that Jesus (peace be upon him) will make while testifying on the Day of Judgment in the Court of God. There is no denying that a court deposition by someone conversant with laws has the overtones of legalities. Jesus being a prophet of God knows divine laws well, and thus will testify referring to the legal technicality about an entitlement and his prophetic obligations. This virtue is not present in the conventional translation which sounds as if the testifier is an ordinary person — not an ambassador of God. Therefore, the second translation is far better, as well as befits a prophet of God.
(iii) 11/46: فَلَا تَسْأَلْنِ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Translation Considering لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
So do not ask Me for that about which you have no knowledge.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
So do not ask Me for that about which there is nothing to you in line with
the [rules of] knowledge on it. ……… [بِ = in line with; هِ = its, of it, on it]
The above pronouncement has the wording that God told Noah (peace be upon him) when he requested Him to save his drowning son in the Deluge. The conventional translation, mentioned at first above, may convey to many that prophet Noah was dumb; he had no knowledge about what to request for and what not to. To the contrary, the suggested translation has the connotation that Noah on seeing his son drowning got emotionally overwhelmed, and thus erred in requesting for his life which was not in line with the rule of divine punishment for the disbelievers. This was not his regular state of mind: he requested for him only when he was witnessing the scene of his dying (in the Deluge), and never before.
(iv) 24/15: تَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِكُم مَّا لَيْسَ لَكُم بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Translation Considering لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrasae:
You were uttering with your mouths the matter about which
you had no knowledge.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
You were uttering with your mouths the matter about which
there was nothing to you in line with the critical information on it.
Above, the context was of a severe allegation on a wife of Muhammad (PBUH) that quickly spread around by word of mouth. A news inherently is a new information (knowledge), so it was not appropriate to remark that people should not have passed it to others just because it was not known to them beforehand. Rather, the right thing was to ask people for the critical evaluation of the news, which was a sever blame on a woman, before passing it to others. Therefore, the second translation is more fitting.
NB! Before the revelation of the above verse, the prophet had already investigated and arrived at the conclusion that the allegation was not credible. Therefore, God did not advise for investigation by the concerned authority (the prophet); He simply rebuked common people for not making a critical evaluation of the allegation before disseminating it.
(v) 22/71: يَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَ مَا لَيْسَ لَهُم بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Translation Considering لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
They worship besides God that about which He has not sent down authority, and
that about which they have no knowledge.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
They worship besides God that about which He has not sent down authority, and
that about which there is nothing to them in line with the [critical] knowledge on it.
Above, the Qur’an is pointing to the absence of two kinds of supports for the Arab’s worshiping of deities under God. According to the conventional translation:
One was the absence of God’s revealed authority for these deities.
Another was the total absence of their knowledge about these deities.
Above, the translation of the second point is surprising:
(i) Plain common sense tells us that, when the Arabs were worshiping them as their gods, they must have had enough knowledge about them from their point of view. So commenting total absence of their knowledge about them sounds strange.
(ii) The second reason “total absence of their knowledge about these deities” makes the first reason “there was no divine authority for them” redundant. Therefore, it raises question on God’s wisdom of mentioning the redundant first point.
By contrast, the other translation clarifies that they had no evidence of their divinity on the ground of the critical evaluation of the information on them. If God’s book is not available, critical evaluation is the only way at hand to judge a deity. Therefore, it is the second translation that represents the verse well.
(vi) verses 29/8 and 31/15:
29/8 : إِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا
31/15: إِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
If they (the parents) strive to make thee to associate with Me that about which
you have no knowledge, obey them not.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
If they (the parents) strive to make thee to associate with Me that about which
there is nothing to you in line with the [critical] knowledge on it, obey them not.
If I do not know something, it is no justification that I should reject it flatly. People accept and pursue new knowledge all the time.
When we are born, we have no knowledge. Then, we learn things with the passing of time. During this process, we learn a great deal from our parents. Therefore, if they press a grown son or daughter to associate a deity with God, the right thing is to critically analyze it because pursuing a wrong faith shall be disastrous in the hereafter. Moreover, there is so stark difference between the characters of real God and that of false god(s) that a critical evaluation by any grown person can lead him or her to the truth.
Thus the second translation above is fitting. It is also guiding how to act at such occasions: saying no to parents by giving them good reason; parents do not deserve rude denial from their grown children. This has also been exemplified by the story of Abraham in the Qur’an. The Qur’an asks people to be very respectful to their parents.
(vii) 40/42: تَدْعُونَنِي لِ … أُشْرِكَ بِهِ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِهِ عِلْمٌ
Translation Considering لَيْسَ … بِ A Phrase:
You are calling me to … associated with Him that about which
I have no knowledge.
Translation Counting لَيْسَ … بِ Independent Words:
You are calling me to … associate with Him that about which
there is nothing to me in line with the [critical] knowledge on it.
Above is a statement of a prophet. Though God gives His prophet special metaphysical knowledge, he does not make his case on divinity in his dawah work (preaching) by referring to his special knowledge but by producing due evidence and arguments. Therefore, the second translation is better fit.
To the contrary, in the conventional translation the prophet is negating deities on the ground of his personal information or understanding. This makes prophet’s work dictatorial and non-educational.
Summing up:
(a) In each of the above verses, the clause having لَيْسَ is not making an emphatic statement but constructing an argument. Therefore, لَيْسَ … بِ should not be counted a phrase there because it is for the former, not for the latter.
(b) The usage of an idiom or phrase is not interrupted by additional word(s), but there is بِهِ عِلْمٌ instead of بِعِلْمٍ . This extra هِ is also giving a clue that لَيْسَ … بِ has not been used as a phrase there.
(c) An extra هِ has not been used with حَقٌّ in verse 5/116, لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ . What does it indicate? Since the area of عِلْمٌ (knowledge) is very extensive, an extra هِ has been used with it (بِهِ عِلْمٌ) to relate to a section of it. For example, the issue of a deity cannot be settled by the knowledge on politics or family laws. This is not the case of حَقٌّ ; its field is limited. Therefore, simply بِحَقٍّ has been used.
This palpable fact that بِ has been used in each of the above examples to relate with a section of knowledge does indicate that it has been used there in its prepositional meaning. In Arabic language, the function of a preposition is to relate one thing with another.
***************