ROOT ل س ن

2:76; 4:47; 5:42.

Commentary:

The clause, who twist their tongues while reciting the Book, alludes to an evil practice of some Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet. They would recite a passage in Hebrew in such a manner as would deceive the hearers into believing that it was the Torah that was being recited. The word "Book" used thrice in this verse means "a passage in Hebrew" in the first place and "the Torah" in the last two. The passage is spoken of as "the Book" because the Jews tried to make it appear as such.

2:76; 3:79; 5:42.

2:105.

Commentary:

The verb یقولون (they say) is used in Arabic both for words of mouth, and for what one expresses by one’s condition or conduct (see 2:31). In this verse, the expression has been used of the Jews in both these senses, viz. "They say with their tongues that they have heard and obeyed, but their conduct shows that instead of obeying they disobey and defy."

The expression غیر مسمع (without being heard) gives a number of meanings: (1) mayest thou not be made to hear, i.e. mayest thou not hear by reason of deafness; (2) mayest thou not hear any speech or news which thou wouldst like or which may please thee; (3) may not what thou sayest be accepted, or may not thy invitation be accepted and thy call responded to; (4) mayest thou not be obeyed; or (5) the expression may mean, though it was not certainly intended by the Jews, mayest thou not hear anything offensive or unpleasant.

For the expression راعنا (ra‘ina) see note on 2:105.

The Jews used the aforesaid ambiguous expressions in order (1) to conceal what evil thoughts they entertained about the Holy Prophet; (2) to make Muslims imitate them and use analogous expressions while addressing the Holy Prophet; and (3) to taunt Muslims with regard to matters affecting their religion, saying to them in effect, "We speak to your Prophet jestingly and abuse him in ambiguous words; if he had been a true Prophet of God, he would have certainly come to know of this."

3:87, 88; 4:48.

Commentary:

Of all the Israelite Prophets, David and Jesus suffered most at the hands of the Jews. Jewish persecution of Jesus culminated in his being hung on the cross, and the hardships and privations to which David was subjected by these ungrateful people are reflected in the deep pathos of his Psalms. From the agony of their hearts did David and Jesus both curse them. The curse of David resulted in the Israelites being smitten by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed Jerusalem and carried the Israelites into captivity in 586 B.C.; while, as a result of the curse of Jesus, they were visited by terrible afflictions by Titus, who captured Jerusalem in about 70 A.D., devastated the city and profaned the Temple by causing swine to be slaughtered there—an animal hated and abhorred by Jews.

13:28; 74:32.

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that a Divine Messenger should receive his revelation only in the language of his people. What it means is that the major and fundamental part of his revelation must be in the tongue of his people, otherwise the conveying of his Message to those who are its first recipients would become difficult. Occasionally, however, a Prophet may receive a revelation in a foreign tongue. In fact, such exceptional revelation would serve as a divine sign or miracle.

It is wrong to infer from this verse, as the Rev. Mr. Wherry and other Christian writers have done, that the Message of the Holy Prophet was confined to the Arabs. Such an assumption is forcefully belied by other verses of the Quran in which the Prophet is clearly and unequivocally declared to be a Prophet sent for the whole world (7:159; 34:29). Not only does the Quran claim a universal mission for the Holy Prophet, but the Prophet himself also claimed to be a Messenger for all mankind. For instance, he is reported to have said, بعثت الی الاسود و الاحمر i.e. I have been sent to the black and the red, meaning the whole of mankind (Bihar). Similarly, he said, بعثت الی الناس عامة i.e. I have been raised for all mankind (Bukhari). According to yet another hadith he is reported to have said, ارسلت الی الخلق کافة i.e. I have been sent to the whole creation (Mishkat).

Incidentally, this verse proves that Arabic is the mother of all tongues, because the fact that the Holy Prophet was sent to the whole of mankind shows that the language which the Wise God made the vehicle of His Message, must, in one way or another, be the mother of all languages. This was actually proved to be the truth by Ahmad, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (see "Minan-ur-Rahman").

The fact that the words, Then Allah lets go astray whom He wills, have been placed after the words, that he might make things clear to them, shows that it is only after the truth is brought home to men that they become deserving of punishment for rejecting it. Thus, although all non-Muslims are technically called disbelievers or Kafirs, yet all of them will not go to Hell; for, as the verse shows, only those disbelievers become deserving of punishment who reject the truth after it has been made clear to them. Mere technical disbelief does not render one liable to punishment.

Important Words:

یلحدون (they unjustly incline in making this insinuation) is derived from لحد. They say لحد المیت i.e. he buried the corpse. لحدالسھم عن الھدف means, the arrow deviated from the target. الحد الی فلان means, he inclined towards such a one. They say الحد فی الدین i.e. he deviated or swerved from the right way with respect to religion; he impugned religion. الحد فی الحرم means, he desecrated the haram and violated its sanctity. The Quranic expression لسان الذی یلحدون الیه means, the tongue of him unto whom they incline (Lane & Aqrab).

اعجمی (foreign) is derived from عجم (‘ajama) which means, he bit it: and he chewed it. عجم (‘ajuma) means, he had an impotence or an impediment or a difficulty in his speech or utterance and a want of clearness, chasteness, or correctness therein. They say اعجم الکلام i.e. he made the speech or language to want or be without or to have a quality the contrary of clearness, perspicuous-ness or distinctness or to want or be without chasteness or correctness. اعجم الکتاب means, he dotted the book or pointed it or he removed its want of clearness by means of diacritical points. The Arabs say, اعجم البابi.e. he closed the door. عجم means, foreigners as meaning others than Arabs; such as are not Arabs, especially Persians. عجمی signifies one who is of the race of the عجم though he may be chaste or correct in Arabic speech. قوم اعجم means, a people not of the Arabs. اعجم means, one having an impotence or impediment or difficulty in speech though he may be clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking a foreign language; and not clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking Arabic though he may be an Arab; and اعجمی signifies the same, (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions from whom disbelievers alleged the Holy Prophetreceived help in composing the Quran. According to some reports, it was a Christian slave named Jabr, who read the Christian Scriptures while making swords. The Prophet used to go and sit with him. According to another report, it was ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of al-Huwaitib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Uzza, who knew the previous Scriptures and had embraced Islam and held firmly to the Faith. According to yet another report a slave named Abu Fuqaih who was also known as Yasar and was a Jew assisted the Holy Prophet in preparing the Quran. He was subjected to much persecution for his adoption of Islam and probably died sometime before the Hijrah. Again, ‘Abdullah bin Muslim al-Hadrami is reported to have said that his two Christian slaves named Yasar and Jabr, natives of ‘Ain at-Tamar, followed the trade of sword-cutters at Mecca. They used to read the Gospels while engaged in their work. When the Holy Prophet passed by their shop and saw them reading the Gospels he would stop there for a while. A report says that when one of them was asked whether he taught Muhammad the Bible he replied, ‘No, but he teaches me.’ Ibn ‘Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet gave instruction in Islam to a Roman slave named Bal‘am. The Quraish taunted the Prophet that he learned many things from him. The same is said of ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Ausa bin Rabi (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of sundry other persons have also been mentioned from whom the Prophet was alleged by the Quraish to have received help, among them being ‘Ammar and Suhaib. The names of Salman, the Persian, and of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of the Nestorian monk, Sergius, who according to Mas‘udi is the well-known Buhairah, have also been mentioned in this connection.

From the verse under comment, it appears that Meccans accused the Prophet of receiving help from a certain person in preparing the Quran and the verse answers the allegation by saying, But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear. The Christian critics say that this answer is irrelevant, for, as Arnold says: "admitting they were foreigners, they might nevertheless supply him with material" (Sherr’s Commentary of the Bible). It was the necessary material or subject matter, they allege, with which the foreigners supplied the Prophet and to say in reply that the tongue of the person who was alleged to teach him was not Arabic betrayed the irrelevancy of the answer. But these reverend gentlemen seem conveniently to ignore the patent fact that this was not the only objection with which the Quran was assailed. It has not hesitated to mention many other similar objections of disbelievers and has refuted them thoroughly. If the Quran could successfully rebut so many other objections of disbelievers, it could answer this one also. In fact it has adequately done so even in the verse under comment, but the reverend gentlemen themselves have not been able to understand the answer. Moreover, if the reply given in the Quran was so manifestly irrelevant as Christian critics pretend to find it, why did not the Meccans of the Prophet’s times who first made this objection, failed to detect this manifest irrelevancy and why did they not express their dissatisfaction with the answer? But not the slightest reference is to be found in any tradition to this so-called irrelevancy of this answer of the Quran. If Meccans had signified their dissatisfaction with this answer and had pointed out its absurdity and irrelevancy, the traditions would have mentioned it as they have mentioned so many other incidents calculated to impugn the Quran and render its position apparently indefensible.

The fact is that these critics themselves have not understood the objection. The traditions quoted above bring to light two objections of the Meccans. One was that Christian and Jewish slaves who had been converted to Islam secretly helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Quran. They furnished him with the necessary material which was subsequently rendered into Arabic. The other was that he listened to certain non-Muslim slaves while they recited the Gospels and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from them.

Thus Meccans made two objections. One of these the Quran has answered in this verse, while the other has been answered in vv. 25:5, 6, 7. This second objection along with its answer runs thus: And the disbelievers say, It is nothing but a lie which he has forged and at which other people have assisted him. But they have been guilty of a great injustice and have uttered an untruth. And they say: These are legends of the ancients; he has got them written down and they are dictated to him morning and evening, Nay, He Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth has revealed it. He truly is Most Forgiving and Merciful. The difference between these verses and the verse under comment is quite manifest. In the verse under comment disbelievers refer to a single man as having taught the Holy Prophet, while in Surah 25, it is not one man but many who are alleged, by disbelievers, to have assisted him in writing the Quran. To both these allegations different answers suiting the nature of the allegations have been given. Thus it is clear that Meccans had made two distinct and separate objections and both these have been answered in the Quran at different places, and traditions support this conclusion. It was with regard to several of the slave converts to Islam that it was alleged that they furnished material to the Prophet. To this allegation of the Meccans, chapter 25 refers in the words, at which other people have assisted him. From the same chapter it also appears that those who were alleged to have assisted the Prophet were Muslims, for the passage in question says: They are dictated to him morning and evening. Now it is an historical fact that while at Mecca Muslims assembled in the morning and evening in the house of Arqam for prayers and sat round the Holy Prophet with doors closed in order to avoid interference by disbelievers. Disbelievers alleged that the meetings were held to compose the Quran in secret, when the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity would tell the old histories of their religions, and the Prophet would have these accounts written down by his Companions. This is how disbelievers declared the Quran to be a forgery which was prepared by many persons, incidentally admitting by implication that a work of the unique excellence of the Quran could not be prepared by one man. Some Christian critics even in our own time have identified themselves with this allegation and have the hardihood to suggest that the letters with which some of the chapters of the Quran begin are the initial letters of the names of the Companions who composed them.

The objection gives rise to two inevitable questions: (a) whether those slave converts who were alleged to have assisted the Holy Prophet in writing the Quran were so learned and intelligent as to teach the Prophet what they were alleged to have taught him and (b) whether the Quran is a human production.

It is not difficult to find answers to both these questions. It does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand that those who helped the Prophet in producing and preparing the Quran and to whom he was indebted for what the Quran contained could not believe it to be the word of God and could not, for his sake, undergo willingly those inhuman cruelties and tyrannies which they suffered at the hands of disbelievers. Could these accomplices of the Holy Prophet in forging the Quran possibly endure the most cruel persecution for believing in a book which they themselves had fabricated? Are these Christian critics unaware of the persecution which these so-called forgers of the Quran bore without wavering and flinching?

With regard to the second question, viz. whether those great truths which are alleged to have been taught to the Prophet by the slave converts could possibly have been taught by them, the Quran says that what are spoken of as 'the legends of the ancients' and what are represented as being taught by the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity are not legends but great truths and mighty prophecies which have been made by Him 'Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth, and which it is beyond the power of any mortal to foretell'.

Now, if the objection mentioned in the verse under comment was the same as had been quoted and answered in 25:5-7 (which by common consent was revealed before the present Surah) viz. that some other persons had supplied the Prophet with material, the same convincing answer should have been given here also. But the answer given here is quite different from the one given in chapter 25. This shows that the objection referred to in the verse under comment has not been understood by these critics of the Quran. The present verse does not refer to the objection that a certain man provided material for the Quran. It refers to the second allegation of disbelievers viz. that the Prophet incorporated into the Quran what he heard from the Christian slave when the latter read the Gospels at his shop. The tradition says that there were two Christian slaves, Jabr and Yasar, who worked as sword-cutters at Mecca and read the Gospels at their shop and, when the Prophet passed by them, he used to stop there and listen to them. But on closer scrutiny it appears that really there was only one slave, Jabr, who was alleged to teach the Prophet. Another tradition, to which reference has already been made, supports this view and gives the name of Jabr only. Yet another tradition tells us that only one of the two Christian sword-cutters was asked whether he taught the Prophet, and he replied that, far from his teaching the Prophet, it was the Prophet who taught him. This not only shows that it was only one slave who read the Gospels, but also throws light on the purpose for which the Prophet sometimes stopped at his shop. He did not stop there to learn but to teach the man whom he considered to be religious-minded.

It has now been clearly established that the Quran refers to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Prophet is alleged to have received help in preparing the Quran which is mentioned in chapter 25 and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from Jabr and incorporated in the Quran.

This second objection has been answered in the verse under comment. The verse purports to say that the tongue of him to whom they attribute the teaching of the Prophet being اعجمی i.e. foreign and defective, he could not impart to the Prophet in his faulty Arabic those great and eternal truths for explaining which the possession of sound and deep knowledge of Arabic was essential.

Other pertinent questions which arise here are, did the slave in question read an Arabic version of the Gospels and were the Gospels translated into Arabic in the Prophet’s time and were the Arabic versions so common that even slaves read them while working at their workshops? The original language of the Gospels was, according to Muslims, Hebrew, and according to Christians, Greek. If the existence of an Arabic version of the Bible in the time of the Prophet cannot be proved, it would follow that the slave in question read either a Hebrew or a Greek version. But if he read a Hebrew or a Greek Gospel, the question arises, how was the Prophet able to understand him, since he did not know either of these languages? Hence in order to understand the significance of the verse under comment, it has to be seen whether the Gospels had been translated into Arabic at the time of the Holy Prophet. That they had not been translated into Arabic is clear from the following facts:

Up to the time of the Prophet translations of the Gospels had not been made in any language. It was in the 13th or 14th centuries of the Christian era that the Gospels first began to be translated into other languages. The study of the Commentaries of the Quran by Muslim scholars also shows that Arabic versions of the Bible were not available to them, because when in their Commentaries they quote the New or the Old Testament they make very serious mistakes. They ascribe to these books stories which are not found in them. This clearly shows that Arabic versions of the Bible did not exist in their time, otherwise they would not have made such blunders.

Traditions also show that in the time of the Holy Prophet the Gospels were to be found only in Hebrew or Greek. In Bukhari we have the following about Waraqah bin Naufal; "He had become Christian in the days of ignorance and he used to write the Gospels in Hebrew." True, another tradition gives Arabic in place of Hebrew, as the language in which Waraqah wrote the Gospels but preference must be given to the tradition quoted from Bukhari because if the Arabic versions of the Bible could be available in the days of the Prophet many Muslims would have read them. But no such scholars of the Bible among early Muslims were to be found. We are even inclined to the view that the reporter had, by mistake, substituted the word "Hebrew" for "Greek" in the above tradition, because only Greek versions were current in those days and Hebrew versions had almost ceased to exist. That the Christian Scriptures had not been translated into Arabic by the time of the Prophet receives further support from the fact that even the Jewish tribes of Medina had not translated the Torah into Arabic by that time, and whenever he needed a reference to this book, he consulted ‘Abdullah bin Salam, a great Hebrew scholar. This view is also supported by the following testimony of a well-known Christian writer, Dr. Alexander Souter, M.A., LL.D., who writes in his book, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament" (Second Edition, 1925 p. 74), under the head, 'Arabic Versions': "These come partly and directly from Greek, and partly through Syriac and partly through Coptic. Mohammad himself knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest manuscript goes no further back than the 8th century. Two versions of the Arabic are reported to have taken place at Alexandria in the 13th century." In short, there is no doubt about the fact that the Gospels had not been translated into Arabic at the time of the Prophet and those who had to consult them used the Greek or Hebrew version.

Thus it is clear that when Jabr, the Christian slave, read the Gospels, he must have read the Greek or the Hebrew version. And how could the Holy Prophet benefit by listening to a book in a language which he did not understand? The fact seems to be that when disbelievers saw the Prophet standing at Jabr’s shop they imagined that he must have learnt something from him. The Quran removes these doubts by saying, the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue plain and clear, meaning that the man from whom the Prophet was alleged to have received material for the Quran must have read the book in Hebrew or Greek because his "tongue being foreign" he could not explain to the Holy Prophet in his defective Arabic those great truths which the Quran comprises. But the Prophet knew only Arabic and so he could not follow him, much less incorporate in the Quran what he heard from him.

In short, disbelievers brought two distinct charges against the Prophet. First, that he listened to a Christian slave while the latter read the Gospels at his workshop, and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from him. Secondly, that he received help from those slaves who had been converted to Islam from Judaism and Christianity and who met him in secret in the house of Arqam. Both these objections have been separately answered by the Quran, the first in the verse under comment and the second in 25:5-7.

It would be of some use to mention here the following facts which are relevant to the objections stated above.

1. The Quran has either abrogated or improved upon the teachings of former Scriptures. The Holy Prophet must have derived the knowledge of the teachings of those Scriptures from the same source—from God—from which he had derived the knowledge of the new teachings of the Quran which have supplanted previous Scriptures.

2. It has condemned some of the fundamental teachings of Christianity and has improved upon others. There is no known Christian sect with which it has not disagreed on one point or other. Now it is for Christian critics to say to which sect that man who is supposed to have "taught" the Holy Prophet belonged and how he could teach him things which were against his own beliefs. Certainly the Prophet’s so-called helpers could not have helped him in abrogating the teachings of their own religious Scriptures.

3. It has corrected many Biblical statements. For instance, it declares that Aaron did not take part in the worship of the calf. It clears David, Solomon and Noah of the sinful acts ascribed to them in the Bible. These are facts to the truth of which even Christian writers have had to bear witness today when more than 1350 years have passed since these truths were, for the first time, proclaimed by the Quran. Surely, no Christian slave could teach the Prophet these historical truths.

4. The Quran has made some very important prophecies with regard to some of the events mentioned in the Bible. No Jewish or Christian sect had any knowledge of them. But their truth has now come to light. For instance, the Quran states that God preserved the body of Pharaoh so that it might be a sign for the generations to come. No Christian slave could impart this knowledge to the Prophet.

5. It appears from the traditions that the Holy Prophet used to visit Jabr’s shop in the fourth or fifth year of the Call, when he was boycotted by Meccans. But chapters 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the Quran which deal with Jews and Christians had been revealed before that time. Ibn Mas‘ud who was one of very early converts to Islam says that chapters 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 belong to the early Meccan period (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). All these Surahs abound in facts relating to Jews and Christians. How could the Prophet know these facts if the source of his information was the Christian slave, Jabr, the sword-cutter of Mecca?

6:145.

Commentary:

The opening sentence of the verse may have two interpretations: (a) "and say not on the basis of the falsehood which your tongues utter that this is lawful and this is unlawful"; (b) "and say not about the things which your tongues have falsely declared as lawful or unlawful that this is lawful and this is unlawful". The words "your tongues" mean, "the tongues of the chiefs of people", because it is the leaders who first utter lies; the common people only follow and imitate them.

The verse means to say that it is the exclusive prerogative of God to declare things lawful or unlawful and that if disbelievers do not desist from declaring things lawful or unlawful at will, they will end by forging lies against God. The words, those who forge a lie against Allah do not prosper, embody an infallible criterion by which the truth of a Prophet of God can be tested. A false claimant is a forger of lies against God and such a one can never succeed in his mission.

26:85.

Important Words:

لسان (renown) is derived from لسن (lasina) which means, he was or became extremely eloquent or perspicuous in speech.لسن فلانا (lasana) means, he was more eloquent than such a one; he got the better of him in speech. لسنه العقرب means, the scorpion bit him. لسان means speech, tongue, style; language; information; news, tidings; renown or reputation. لسان العرب means, the classical language of the Arabs. لسان القوم means, the spokesman of the people. لسان الصدق means, good or lasting reputation, renown or remembrance. When a noun is prefixed to the word صدق governing it in the genitive case, it gives the idea of everlastingness. عنب صدق means, a perfectly delicious and liked grape, complete in all the qualities of the best kind (Lane & Aqrab).

علیاً (high) is derived from علا. They say علا الشیء i.e. the thing became high. علا الرجل means, he overcame the man and overpowered him. علا الدابة means, he rode the beast. علا فی الارض means, he behaved proudly and insolently in the earth. علا فی المکارم means, he acquired noble qualities. علی means, high; noble; hard and firm (Aqrab & Lane). See also 4:35.

Commentary:

Divine mercy has two manifestations:(a) mercy shown to a person irrespective of the fact as to who he is and what his beliefs and actions are; (b) mercy shown by God to His beloved ones and His Elect on special occasions. The latter class of mercy may be called God’s special mercy. The verse under comment speaks of this latter kind of mercy, meaning that God did not bestow upon Isaac and Jacob any particular favour out of His limitless and immeasurable mercy but made them, as it were, the very possessors of Divine mercy itself.

According to the different significations of the words علی and لسان and صدق the words, We bestowed on them a true and lasting renown, would mean, (1) that they acquired good reputation and were to be remembered with respect, affection and love by their contemporaries and future generations; (2) that their talk was full of wisdom and intelligence and was free from all sort of bitterness, obscenity, falsehood and hatred (3) that they were fearless in the expression of their beliefs and were hard upon disbelievers and untruthful persons; and (4) that their good works constituted and continued as so many monuments and memorials to their good name.

44:59; 54:18.

Important Words:

لداً (contentious) is derived from لد (ladda) which means, he was violent or vehement in contention; in dispute; in litigation. لدہ means, he overcame him or opposed him violently in contention or altercation; in dispute; in litigation. لداً is the plural of ألد which means, a man violent or vehement in contention; in dispute; in litigation; or difficult therein, and vehement in war: or a contentious or litigious and tenacious adversary who will not incline to the truth (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

26:14.

Commentary:

Moses seems to have suffered from an impediment in his tongue. He does not appear to be an eloquent speaker. But it is not eloquence alone that makes a man a successful preacher. More than that it is conviction in the truth of one’s mission and one’s zeal for that mission and readiness to suffer for it that greatly make up for the deficiency of fluency. Moses possessed these things in full measure. This is why, in spite of the weakness of which he himself was conscious, he made a very effective and convincing speech before Pharaoh and his court.

Important Words:

For تلقونه (you received it) see 2:38.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that the evils mentioned above are moral sins which are, unfortunately committed light-heartedly, but which produce very grievous results. Every sin is a deadly poison which a true believer must avoid. The wages of sin is death. This is the supreme lesson which this verse teaches.