بَشَرٌ

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).

62:7.

2:285; 3:130; 5:41.

Commentary:

The claim of Jews and Christians to be "the sons of God and His beloved ones" is found in 2:81, 112; 3:25; 62:7.

The clause, Why then does He punish you for your sins, contains a double argument against the preposterous claim of the People of the Book. If they are truly the sons of God and His beloved ones, why do they commit sins which is a sign of filth and uncleanness? One springing from God and beloved of Him must certainly be above this, for God loves not those who are filthy and commit sins. Again, if they are really the sons of God and His beloved ones, why do they suffer torment and punishment while a divine being must be above such weakness?

6:15; 12:102; 35:2; 39:47.

11:28; 23:25.

Important Words:

فاطر (Maker) is the active participle from فطر. They say فطرہ i.e. he clove, split, rent or cracked it; He (God) created it, or produced it or brought it into existence, namely, for the first time, it not having existed before; originated it; commenced or began it. فاطرالسموات means, the Originator or Creator of the heavens. Ibn ‘Abbas says, "I did not know what was the meaning of فاطرالسموات until two Arabs of the desert came to me, disputing together respecting a well, and one of them said, انا افطرتھا i.e. 'It was I who originated or began it.' " فطرالعجین; means, he made the dough into bread, or baked it, without leavening it, he kneaded the dough and made it into bread or baked it immediately (Lane & Aqrab). From the Quran it appears that there are four stages of creation: (a) the stage when nothing existed and the process of creation began for thefirst time, nothing having existed before; (b) the stage when matter had come into existence but had not yet taken a definite material form; (c) the stage when, as the result of combination, matter began to acquire diverse properties, the consummation of this process being known by the name of the law of nature; and (d) the last stage when, in accordance with the law of nature, the process of procreation or repetition in creation began, viz. man was born out of man and grain out of grain, etc. The attribute of فاطر (Maker) points to the second stage.

Commentary:

The verse gives the creation of the heavens and the earth as an argument to prove the Divine origin of the teaching given to the Prophets. The Prophets are here represented as saying to their opponents: "It is by the command of Allah that we preach. We say nothing of our own accord. How can you entertain doubt about the fact that God can send down revealed guidance? He is the Creator of heaven and earth, and it is unreasonable to think that, after having created man, He should have left him without guidance. Equally, it is inconsistent with reason to think that, whereas God has made ample provision for the material welfare and advancement of man by creating heaven and earth, He should have neglected to provide for his spiritual welfare."

The words, He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term, refute an objection of disbelievers that God was too dignified and exalted to invite humble beings like themselves to Him. They are told that it is indeed inconsistent with the dignity of God to call humble beings to His aid, but it is not at all below His dignity to come to their help. Nay, such an act is quite in keeping with His supreme dignity. God had therefore sent His Messengers that, through them, He might satisfy the moral and spiritual needs of man and grant him a new and higher life.

The expression, you are but men like ourselves;…Bring us then some clear proof, contains another objection of disbelievers that, if God at all was to have raised Messengers, they should have been beings befitting His dignity and not weak and humble men like themselves. The answer is given in the succeeding verse.

18:111; 41:7.

3:165; 6:125.

Commentary:

This verse constitutes a reply to the objections of disbelievers mentioned in the preceding verse.

The reply is to the effect that a Messenger of God who is sent for the guidance of men and to serve as a model or exemplar for them must be a man like themselves; for, without being a human being like themselves, he could not be a model for them. If he were a "co-partner" of God or a so-called "son" or an angel or any other superhuman being, he could not be a model for men. So God chooses of His servants whom He pleases. There is none to set limits to His powers and choice.

The words, And it is not for us to bring you a proof except by the command of Allah, do not mean that the Messengers of God could not adduce a proof in support of their claim. They are meant only to answer the demand of disbelievers that the Prophets should prove their power and superiority over them. They are told by the Messengers that power and victory all come from God and that, as human beings, they (the Messengers) possess no superiority over them.

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?

Important Words:

لاھیة (forgetful) is derived from لھا. They say لھا عنه i.e. he became diverted from it so as to forget it (Lane). See also 6:33.

أفتأتون (Will you then accede to) is derived from أتی. They say أتیته i.e. I came to him or it. أتی الشیء means, he did the thing; أتی البینة means, he advanced the proof. أتی بالذنب means, he committed the offence. آتیته علی الامر means, I agreed with him or in regard to the affair. أفتأتون السحر means, do you approach or come to, or accede to or yield to magic (Lane & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The main objection of disbelievers against every Prophet has always been that he is an ordinary man like themselves. This objection has also been mentioned in 14:11; 23:25, 34; 26:155; 36:16 & 64:7. It has been answered in 12:110; 14:12; 16:44-45 & 17:96. Here this objection is answered in v. 8 below.

It is strange that while on the one hand the disbelievers say that there is nothing in the Holy Prophet above an ordinary man, on the other they concede that he is a magician i.e. he possesses superior intellect. Divine Prophets are called magicians because their teachings produce a magical effect on the listeners. The verse implies an admission on the part of disbelievers that the Quran does possess a fascinating power and it is difficult for an unprejudiced and fair-minded person to reject its teaching.

14:12; 41:7.

2:47,224; 11:30; 29:6; 84:7.

Commentary:

The Holy Prophet is here commanded to say to the disbelieving Christian people that, even after having disclosed so many secrets of the unknown and having made great prophecies about the ultimate triumph of his cause and the downfall of Christian nations, he cannot claim to be a son of God or to have been endowed with Divine powers. He is but a human being and his greatest merit lies in his being the bearer of the Divine Message. If disbelievers too desire to be blessed with revelation, they should also give up associating false gods with Allah. Then will God bestow His favours upon them and lay open to them the treasures of heavenly secrets.

The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that the recitation of the last ten verses of this chapter makes one secure against the spiritual onslaughts of the Dajjal. This shows that the Dajjal and Gog and Magog are one and the same people—Christian nations of the West; the Dajjal representing the evil aspect of their religious propaganda and Gog and Magog their material and political predominance.

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.

7:61; 11:28; 17:95; 34:44.

17:96.

Commentary:

The disbelievers have always suffered from a superiority complex and therefore have always rejected Divine Messengers on the plea that they cannot accept the lead of one who is "only a man like ourselves."

The verse incidentally implies that belief in the existence of angels was entertained from time immemorial. As far back as Noah’s time his opponents wanted to see angels descending on them. See also 11:28.

17:17.

21:9; 25:8.

Commentary:

It is indeed very strange that the one fact which really goes in favour of Divine Messengers has been advanced by disbelievers throughout the ages as an argument against them, viz. that they were mortals like themselves who ate and drank and were subject to all the demands of nature. All the Messengers were rejected on the basis of this foolish plea. The rejecters never paused to ponder over this simple fact that the object of the raising up of Messengers was that they should have served as a model for men, and how could one who was not human and therefore immune from human weaknesses and frailties, could be a model for human beings? Only a man could be a model for men.

The second reason that has always led disbelievers to reject Divine Messengers is that they (the disbelievers) "have been afforded ease and comfort in this life." Instead of being grateful to God for His manifold favours upon them those very Divine blessings make disbelievers so arrogant and defiant that they reject God’s Messengers.