يَمْسَسْ

19:21.

See 2:118.

Commentary:

The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).

Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.

Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).

There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).

4:105.

Important Words:

یعلم (distinguish) is derived from علم which ordinarily means, he knew, but is also used in the sense of distinguishing. Ibn Jarir says under this verse that the expression لا علم عبد الله من عمر means, لاعرف ھذا من ھذا i.e. that I may distinguish ‘Abdullah from ‘Umar. The word is used in this sense in 2:144 and 2:221 also. In fact, God, being Omniscient, does not stand in need of knowing a thing, for everything is ever known to Him. It is only distinguishing between two things that is meant. Even, however, if علم is taken here in the sense of knowing, the expression may be explained by the fact that knowledge is of two kinds. One kind of knowledge consists of knowing a thing before it comes into existence; and the other kind consists of knowing it when, and as, it actually comes into existence. Here it is the latter kind of knowledge that is meant.

Commentary:

Elsewhere (in 3:166 below) it is said that Muslims inflicted upon disbelievers an injury double of what they themselves suffered. This refers to the Battle of Badr, when seventy Meccans were killed and seventy were taken prisoner, thus making a total of 140. In the Battle of Uhud, on the other hand, seventy Muslims were killed, but none of them were taken prisoner. Thus Muslims had inflicted on the disbelievers a double injury in the Battle of Badr compared with what they themselves suffered in the Battle of Uhud. Counting, however, only those killed in the two battles, the loss to Muslims and disbelievers has been spoken of in the present verse as similar. Or the verse might be taken to refer to the nature or quality of the misfortune, which was alike in both cases. In that case, verse 166 below might be taken to refer to quantity and the present verse to quality.

The word "days" is used both for the "days of success" and the "days of misfortune". Here either of these may be taken, but preferably the latter.

The words, And such days We cause to alternate, mean that even believers sometimes suffer reverses. If it were not so, then there would be little credit in being a believer. No effort is required to find or see the sun, and so one deserves no reward for it. In matters of faith, therefore, there is always present an element of secrecy, and only those who are seriously and earnestly desirous of knowing the truth discern and accept it. Hence, they become deserving of reward in the sight of God. The words also implied a prophecy that the reverse at Uhud was to be followed by victory for the Muslims; and so it actually came to pass.

The words, Allah may distinguish those who believe, signify that misfortunes are also intended to make the faith of true believers evident to all. When believers endure trials with patience and steadfastness and do not swerve from the path of faith, their sincerity becomes evident. Trials also serve to distinguish true believers from hypocrites. If there had been no trials, the hypocrisy of men like ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy and his associates would have remained undetected and unknown.

The word شھداء (witnesses) does not here mean martyrs, for a true Muslim is always a martyr if killed in the cause of God. Moreover, there is no sense in saying that the reverse at Uhud was meant to take martyrs from among Muslims. Here, therefore, the word means witnesses. The Faithful bear witness to the truth of Islam by their steadfastness and by the noble example they set in times of misfortune. They are eloquent witnesses to the truth of Islam.

The word unjust at the end of the verse signifies that in view of the facts stated above, it is unjust to find fault with Islam on the basis of such reverses.

2:208, 266; 3:16, 163; 5:3, 17; 9:72; 57:21, 28.

Commentary:

As stated above, the Muslims returned from Badras-Sughra after having made great profit by trading at the annual fair held there. This is hinted in the word "bounty". The words, no evil had touched them, mean that there was no fighting, the Meccans having failed to appear.

10:108.

Commentary:

It is his own actions that are the cause of all harm that befalls a man. The words, if Allah touch thee with affliction, therefore, do not mean that God is the cause of affliction. They are meant to convey the idea that God being the first cause of all things, everything that happens in the universe is in a way attributable to Him. The expression is also intended to hint that it is God alone Who can remove man’s afflictions.

Happiness indeed comes from God, Who is the real source of all good. This is why, when speaking of happiness coming to man, the Quran uses the expression, He has power to do all that He wills.

6:18; 39:39.

Commentary:

This verse sheds light on the fact that good and evil are of two kinds. There is a kind of good or evil which comes into being under the general divine law. It is subject to the laws of nature and therefore can be brought about or averted, through the efforts of man himself by defying or obeying the laws of nature, as the case may be. But there is another kind of good or evil which is brought about only by the special decree of God. By saying this the verse hints that God’s dealings with the Holy Prophet are subject to God’s special decree. This is why all the schemes and machinations of his enemies proved utterly futile.

3:48; 19:9.

Commentary:

The incident referred to in this and the preceding verses took place in a vision, and in a vision or dream a person experiences different kinds of sensations at different occasions. Sometimes his feelings and talk in the dream are subject to and under the effect of the dream that he sees while at another time they are not, and he feels and talks as he would feel and talk if he were awake. For example, if in a dream a person is glad over the death of his son, his feelings will be regarded as under the effect of the dream because in his state of wakefulness no sane person would be glad over the death of his son. So if the words spoken by Mary when she saw the angel in her vision were under the effect of the vision, then they would signify that when the glad tidings were given to her about the birth of a son she had a pleasant surprise whether God would work such a miracle as to give her—a virgin—a son. But if the words be regarded as a natural expression on her part when the tidings of the birth of a son were given to her then they would signify that she was completely perplexed and horror-struck at the thought that a son should be born to her—a virgin. In the former case hers would be a very pleasant surprise at the great favour that God was going to do her and in the latter case it would be an expression of bewilderment indicating the horrified state of her mind.

The words 'no man has touched me' show that Mary thought that the glad tidings about the birth of a son to her meant that the child would be born to her without contracting a regular marriage, otherwise there was no sense in her denying having known any man. The words, 'neither have I been unchaste' show that whereas in the previous clause she had denied having known any man lawfully i.e. in a married state, these words refer to her denial of having known any person unlawfully i.e. outside legal wedlock. In her reply to the angel she seemed to be thinking of the circumstances of her life in the Temple and of her vow of celibacy which obviated the possibility of her having any offspring. If she thought that the promise made in the preceding verse referred to the birth of a son as a result of her conjugal relations in some future time, as some commentators of the Quran think, then there was no occasion for her to express any surprise.