اِلَیۡکِ

2170

Commentary:

According to this verse the birth of Jesus took place at a time when fresh dates are found on palm-trees in Judaea. That season evidently is in the months of August and September but according to the view generally accepted by Christians, Jesus was born on 25th December which day is celebrated all over the Christian world every year with great fervour. Now this Christian view is contradicted not only by the Quran but also by history and even by writers of the New Testament itself. Writing about the time of Jesus’ birth Luke says: "And there were shepherds in the same country (Judaea) abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flocks (Luke 2:7, 8). Commenting on this statement of Luke Bishop Barns in his book, Rise of Christianity, on page 79 says: "There is, moreover, no authority for the belief that December 25 was the actual birthday of Jesus. If we can give any credence to the birth-story of Luke, with the shepherds keeping watch by night in the fields near Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus did not take place in winter, when the night temperature is so low in the hill country of Judaea that snow is not uncommon. After much argument our Christmas day seems to have been accepted about A.D. 300". This view of Bishop Barns is supported by writers of the articles on "Christmas" in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Chambers Encyclopaedia. In Encyclopaedia Britannica we have:

The exact day and year of Christ’s birth have never been satisfactorily settled; but then the fathers of the Church in A.D. 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely chose the day of the winter solstice which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people and which was their most important festival. Owing to changes in man-made calendars, the time of the solstice and the date of Christmas day vary by a few days (15th edition, vol. 5, pp. 642 & 642A).

Chambers Encyclopaedia says: In the second place the winter solstice was regarded as the birthday of the sun, and at Rome 25th December was observed as a pagan festival of the nativity of Sol-invictus. The Church, unable to stamp out this popular festival, spiritualized it as the feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness.

These statements of the two Encyclopaedias are further supported by Peake’s "Commentary on the Bible". In this book on page 727 Peake says: "The season (of Jesus’ birth) would not be December; our Christmas day is a comparatively late tradition found first in the West." Thus recent historical research into the origins of Christianity has established the fact beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was not born in December.

How in the light of historical research into the origins of Christianity and Luke’s statement that Jesus was born at a time when "there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:7-8) the belief ever came to be entertained by Christians that Jesus was born in December, seems very surprising indeed. According to this statement of Luke, Jesus certainly was born in summer when shepherds abide in the field in Judaea, keeping watch over their flocks at night which is only possible in summer. The incident referred to in Luke very probably took place in the month of August or September when fresh dates are found on palm-trees in Judaea. This is the time when according to the Quranic verse under comment Jesus was born and when his mother Mary was directed by God to "shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will cause fresh dates to fall upon thee". Thus the Gospel of Luke inadvertently has lent wonderful support to the Quranic view about the birth of Jesus having taken place in the month of August or September which is the season of fresh ripe dates in Judaea. Moreover, there is ample and very reliable historical evidence also to show that Jesus was born in the month of August or September. In his "Dictionary of the Bible" Dr. John D. Davis, under the word "year" writes that dates become ripe in the Jewish month of Elul; and in Peake’s "Commentary on the Bible" (page 117) we have that the month of Elul corresponds to the months of August-September. Furthermore Dr. Peake says, "J. Stewart (When did our Lord actually live?) arguing from an Angora temple inscription and a quotation in an old Chinese classic which speaks of the Gospel story reaching China A.D. 25-28 puts the birth of Jesus in 8 B.C. (Sept. or Oct.) and the crucifixion on Wednesday in A.D. 24."

From the above statements of the two Encyclopaedias supported by quotations from the "Commentary on the Bible" by Dr. Arthur S. Peake, M.A., D.D., the fact becomes quite clear that Jesus was born in the Jewish month of Elul which corresponds to the months of August-September when dates ripen in Judaea, and not on 25th December as the Christian Church would have us believe. And that is the view expressed by the Quran.

One more fact in this connection demands careful examination. Sometime before Jesus’ birth Joseph had taken Mary to Bethlehem, a town about seventy miles to the south of Nazareth, the native place of Joseph and Mary. Luke states that Joseph did so because with Quirinius as governor of Syria, Augustus Caesar had ordered that all should go to Bethlehem to be enrolled in the city of David (Luke 2:1-4). But history does not support this statement of Luke. No census was ever taken in the year of Jesus’ birth nor was there any governor of Syria of this name at that time. According to Josephus, one of the greatest of all Jewish historians, the first census ever to be taken was held seven years after Jesus’ birth and the governors of Syria ten years before his birth till Herod’s death were Stiplus Wardus, Sentiris and Titnis (Enc. Brit. under "Chronicle").

It seems incredible that in the face of such reliable historical evidence Luke should have invented this story of the census. There must have been some very compelling reasons for him to do so. It appears that in a desperate search for an excuse to explain why Joseph and Mary undertook such a long and arduous journey to Bethlehem in the latter’s extremely weak state of health and her pregnancy, Luke seems to have stumbled over the fact of a census having taken place in that town which, in fact, had been held seven years after the date that he has assigned to it. He deliberately predated the census by seven years in order to show that both the events—the census and Jesus’ birth, took place at the same time. Writing history about seventy or eighty years after the actual event he perhaps thought that this historical anachronism would not be detected after such a long time. Thus by placing the census, which had occurred seven years later, in the year of Jesus’ birth Luke persuaded himself to believe that he had succeeded in explaining away the fact as to why Joseph had exposed his ailing wife to the rigours of a long and hard journey to Bethlehem in the advanced state of her pregnancy.

But the difficulty still remains that if, as history shows, there had been no census at the time of Jesus’ birth, then why Luke was so anxious to invent the whole story of the journey to Bethlehem and why it was undertaken. In fact the difficulty was of Luke’s own creation. It was this, that while narrating the account of the immaculate conception of Mary he had stated that great and wonderful miracles had begun and had continued to appear till Jesus’ birth. He feared that if no valid reason were given of this journey of Joseph and Mary, then they would be legitimately accused of being weak of faith and people would naturally say that after having witnessed so many miracles at the time of the conception they were still afraid of public criticism and scandal-mongering and that in order to hide the fact of conception and later birth they had left Nazareth. But the hard reality was there that they had undertaken the journey to Bethlehem, a far-off place. Luke probably thought that people would rightly ask that if immediately after the conception miracles and Divine signs had really begun to appear, then where was the necessity for Joseph to conceal Mary’s pregnancy and the subsequent birth of Jesus, and if there existed no such necessity why did Joseph and Mary undertake that hard and fatiguing journey in the state of her extremely delicate health? Thus the invention of great miracles having taken place at the time of the conception forced Luke to forge the event of the census and also the story that he had undertaken the journey to Bethlehem in order to attend it. But he need not have invented or predated the fact of the census. The whole thing was quite simple and could have been easily explained. Luke could easily have written that Mary had miraculously conceived a child while in the temple and was afterwards married to Joseph who himself was quite convinced of her chastity as he had seen a vision to that effect (see 3:47). But because he feared that he would not be able to convince others of this fact, and because he was afraid of scandal-mongering on the part of the people, therefore, he had to take Mary to a far off place before her pregnancy had become too patent to be concealed any longer. But this he would not do because in that case the whole story of great miracles having attended Mary’s conception would have gone to pieces. This is how the whole difficulty arose and one invention led to another.

It may be added here that the whole-trouble of fixing the date of Jesus’ birth seems to have arisen from a confusion of the date of Mary’s conception. The pregnancy of Mary seemed to have taken place sometime in November or December and not in March or April as the Church historians would have us believe. When after four or five months’ conception, pregnancy became too obvious to be concealed any longer, Joseph was prevailed upon to take Mary to his house in the month of March or April of the next year. Thus Christian historians mistake the date when Joseph took Mary to his house for the date of her actual conception which had taken place four or five months earlier. As recent research into the origins of Christianity has proved that Jesus was not born in December but in August-September, therefore the conception could not have taken place in March or April. So the Quranic view that Jesus was born in August or September is based not only on historical facts but is also quite in accordance with Luke’s own narrative and therefore is the only safe and sensible conclusion.

It also appears from the present verse that Mary was lying in a sheltered place in the upper part of the hill and the date-palm was standing on the slope and therefore she could easily reach to its trunk and shake it. That the territory of Bethlehem abounded in date-palms is clear from the Bible (Judges 1:16) and from "A Dictionary of the Bible" by Dr. John D. Davis, D. D.

Moreover, the fact of Mary having been guided to a fountain, as mentioned in the preceding verse, in order to drink of its water and wash herself, points to Jesus’ birth having taken place in the month of August or September because in the icy cold weather of Judaea in December Mary could not have washed herself in the open.

2835

Commentary:

The verse shows that the Queen of Sheba was a very powerful monarch and possessed great material resources and also commanded the affection, cooperation and willing obedience of her subjects and was the final arbiter of their destinies.

The power and glory of Saba’ was at its height in about 1100 B.C. The period of the Queen’s rule continued up to 950 B.C., when she is believed to have submitted to Solomon. With her submission was fulfilled the Biblical prophecy, viz. "the Kings of Sheba and Saba’ shall offer gifts" (Psalms 72:10).

2882

Commentary:

The preceding seven verses had spoken of Moses’ mission and by implication had referred to the mission of the Holy Prophet and in fact to the mission of every Prophet of God. From this verse, however, begins the actual story of Moses.

Whereas Moses was cast into the river by his mother to escape being killed by the people of Pharaoh, the Holy Prophet’s mother had to entrust him, while yet a child, to the care of a poor wet-nurse, to whom all the well-to-do families of Mecca had refused to entrust their babies on account of her poverty.