Dear ilker,
As salaam alaikum,
From my humble view, I find broadly 'two' aspects of the verse 47:35 that underpin such an understanding given by that popular translation. The 'context' and 'syntax' of the whole passage. In effect, I see such an understanding loosely related to the aspect of Quranic prohibitions taking the form of repeated 'la.'
"
So do not weaken and (nor) call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds." (Qur'an, Muhammad 47:35)
Firstly, I see the '
context' of such a passage as given by verses 47:4 and 47:20. As also rightly noted by you, 3:139 which resonates a similar sentiment is in the context of 'fighting' (3:140,143,146). With 47:4,28,32,33; one would note that the believers had to take heed of the instructive injunctions from God and His Prophet (pbuh) into 'fighting' (47:4) lest their deeds get obliterated. This is also resonated in 47:4 (
falan yudhwila a'malahum) as well as in 3:195.
Secondly, in my humble opinion, supported with such a context above, I see the '
syntactical' aspect of the whole verse emphasizing on the theme of continuous striving. Being on the upperhand, God being on their side, the believers had nothing to fear at the warfront. Thus, they were not to falter (8:15-16) but strive strenuously against their combatants (47:4) even if it meant some dying in the long run (3:157), for whom a deserved reward still awaits (3:169-171). Therefore, calling for peace in such an environment (battlefield) wouldn't sound appropriate. The only qualifying contexts would be those of surrender (2:192-193), conquer after war (8:67), amnesty (9:6, 60:10), calling off fighting (peace by the enemies themselves) - 8:61, for those non-enemy (60:
, etc.
Therefore, on one hand, given such 'context' and 'syntax,' the believers were not to waver in their stand to fight their enemies given their upperhand (3:123-4) and God being with them (8:64-66). If they die, their deserved fate is still reserved for them (3:158) and thus were also not to '
call for peace' unless such peace is sought from the other side in the first place (4:90-91) or after the war lays its burdens (47:4). Calling for peace disrupts such a harmonious theme (of persistent struggle) that seems to be developed within the passage.
On the other hand, I see the particle 'la' that oftenly appears with certain quranic prohibitions to have a function of '
emphasis' and '
reinforcement' in certain religious negative imperatives. The recursive nature of particles and clauses has a strong effect to emphasis in literature as you may agree. In the Qur'an, one would only observe how in effect for example the repeated clause in chapter 55 spiritually and thoughtfully captivates, '
So which of your Lord's marvels will you deny?' (55:13).
However, the 'la' is not a must that it is repeated. I trust that the 'context' in which and 'significance' of whatever is prohibited serves to play part to its usage. You may for instance find a list of persons outlined in 68:10-13 that one is not supposed to obey. The negative imperative uses particle 'la' only at the beginning of the injunction. In chapter 31, while verse 18 starts with 'wa la,' with another 'wa la' intermediating, prohibiting whatever follows, verse 19 which is in the positive does not carry the previous 'la' effect.
In 5:2, a series of prohibitions is made with subsequent 'wa la' in the first part. However, a positive injunction is made in the middle (
wata'awanu 'alal birri) then a negative one imparted in the end (
wa la ta'awanu 'alal ithmi). The positive injunction is obvious from the context and grammatical structure of the phrases. Verse 5:8 also illustrates a similar case with the distinction between the negative and positive phrases re-emphasized by the scriptural indicator recital pause mark (ج).
In my opinion, while in 47:35 the '
tahinoo' can ultimately lead to '
tadoo' to '
salmi' and in this case the believers are not to succumb to both, I see the two not necessarily twinned and one cannot necessarily occur simultaneously with the other. Thus, I find a repeated 'wa la' unnecessary. However, in 3:139, '
tahinoo' is twinned to '
tahzanoo.' They even almost mean the same thing and therefore would also occur simultaneously. It only serves to emphasize as the 'wa la' is. Anyway, Allah knows best.
With 6:150, 75:31 and 20:112, I think a similar case is illustrated. Even without the 'la' one would use 'context' to arrive at the intended meaning. Thus, the 'la' is used for its contextual emphasis given the nature of the commands.
In 10:62, 12:60, 20:123, 21:40, 3:88 and 7:34 (also 16:61), given the grammatical construction of the clauses, the opposite meaning would result without the 'la.' Thus, it grammatically calls for presence.
For 9:55, a similar case is illustrated in 3:116, 63:9 and 26:88. In addition, 34:37 also employs the negation though first uses 'ma' then 'la'. However one would note that the same text of 9:55 is repeated in 9:85 except for the 'la' and interchange of the introductory 'fa' with 'wa,' though arriving at the same meaning. This would only prove the function of 'la' as that of emphasis in the text of the former.
In 22:67, the 'context' and 'syntax' would warrant an understanding that sees the two clauses as independent, as the opposite has been seen in 47:35 above using the same two aspects. With the scriptural Quranic text, there's even an indicator recital pause mark (ج) which not only introduces a different clause independent of the preceding instruction '
falaa' but also as an imperative addressing the Prophet (pbuh) directly as opposed to an indirect address to the disbelievers in the first clause.
In 2:42 and 11:47, the context is similarly used to infer the intended meaning as that one carrying the introductory 'la' effect even in the absence of an accompanying 'la.'
You ask:
In summary, what do you think is the correct translation of 47:35 when you look similar ayat in the Quran ? Does Allah(swt) want us to call for peace when we are superior, or doesn't he ? From my humble perspective, 47:35 doesn't instruct believers to call for peace in the context of '
qital' (fighting) even if they have the upperhand. Rather, it encourages them to strive (without call to peace) unless their combatants vouch for such peace, or the war lays it's burdens, especially where their enemies are the ones who had incited them into defence, retaliation or fight in the first place.
As regards the employment of 'la' in the general negative imperatives, I trust that context and semantics of the qur'anic text giving such instructions would harmoniously dictate the intended meaning. On the whole, it is used for 'emphasis.'
Hopefully that helps in some small way.
Regards,
Athman.