نَعۡلَمُ
Appears 8 times in Quran
Derived Words (4)
Words derived from the stem "نَعۡلَمُ".
Occurrences in Quran
Found 8 verses containing "نَعۡلَمُ".
وَلِیَعۡلَمَ الَّذِیۡنَ نَافَقُوۡا ۚ وَقِیۡلَ لَہُمۡ تَعَالَوۡا قٰتِلُوۡا فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ اَوِ ادۡفَعُوۡا ۖ قَالُوۡا لَوۡ نَعۡلَمُ قِتَالًا لَّاتَّبَعۡنٰکُمۡ ۗ ہُمۡ لِلۡکُفۡرِ یَوۡمَئِذٍ اَقۡرَبُ مِنۡہُمۡ لِلۡاِیۡمٰنِ ۚ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ بِاَفۡوٰہِہِمۡ مَّا لَیۡسَ فِیۡ قُلُوۡبِہِمۡ ۗ وَاللّٰہُ اَعۡلَمُ بِمَا یَکۡتُمُوۡنَ
48:12.
48:12.
Trials and tribulations are intended to distinguish true believers from those weak of faith. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the Hypocrites who had so far remained mixed up with true believers.
The particle au rendered as "and" literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words," or "what is the same thing as" etc.
The expression, Lau Na‘lamu Qitalan, may mean: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we knew that there would be no fighting and that the Muslims would at once run away before their very powerful enemy without giving fight. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged but rather their certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) If we knew how to fight. In this case, the words may be taken to have been spoken ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you." The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 Hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy, who deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina.
48:12.
Commentary:
Trials come to bring about a distinction between true believers and those weak of faith or insincere. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the hypocrites who had so far remained intermixed with the true believers. While professing to be true Muslims, they were, at heart, enemies of Islam; and their passing for Muslims was injurious to the Muslim community. The believers, taking them for true Muslims, remained unaware of the secret machinations by which they sought to injure the cause of Islam. So it was in the interests of Islam that their hypocrisy became unmasked and the Muslims became on their guard against them. On the other hand, just as the exposure of the hypocrites proved beneficial to the believers, similarly the coming to light of their own sincerity and devotion served a most useful purpose. It served not only to disappoint the enemies of Islam who came to realize that with such devoted followers they could make no headway against Islam, but it also opened their eyes to its truth; for it became clear to them that a religion which could inspire its votaries with such selfless zeal and steadfast devotion could not but be true.
The particle او rendered as "and" in the clause, fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy, literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words", or "what is the same thing," etc. It is used here: (1) to explain the meaning of the preceding clause, i.e. fight in the cause of Allah. So the whole sentence would read something like this: "It was said to them (the hypocrites): Come ye, fight in the cause of Allah, which was the same thing as repelling the attack of the enemy." This rendering would go to prove that the Companions of the Holy Prophet waged no aggressive war and all their fighting was undertaken in self-defence. (2) Or the word او (and) is used here in the sense of "at least". According to this rendering, the sentence would mean: "Fight in the cause of Allah; and if you cannot fight in the cause of Allah, at least fight in defence of your own homes and hearths," i.e. your own interests require that you should defend Medina against the attack of the enemy. (3) Or as rendered in the text the word is used in the sense of "and". With this meaning of او, the whole sentence would mean, "fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy."
The expression لو نعلم قتالا translated in the text as, If we knew how to fight, may have three meanings: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we thought there would be no fighting. By using this expression the hypocrites meant that seeing the strength of the enemy, the Muslims would at once run away and there will be no fighting. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged, but certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) Or, as rendered in the text, the expression may mean, if we knew how to fight. In this case, it must be taken to have been used ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you."
The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy, who, at a crucial moment, deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina, saying, "He (the Prophet) has disregarded my advice and has followed the advice of mere lads". Seeing this, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr, father of Jabir, approached him and asked him not to desert the Prophet in that manner, upon which ‘Abdullah replied in the very words quoted by the Quran, i.e. لو نعلم قتالا لا تبعنا کم meaning, "If we knew there would be fighting, we would have surely followed you." At this ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr exclaimed, saying: "God’s curse be upon you. Surely, He Himself will help His Messenger" (Jarir, iii. 104).
c
48:12.
a
48:12.
450
Commentary:
Trials come to bring about a distinction between true believers and those weak of faith or insincere. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the hypocrites who had so far remained intermixed with the true believers. While professing to be true Muslims, they were, at heart, enemies of Islam; and their passing for Muslims was injurious to the Muslim community. The believers, taking them for true Muslims, remained unaware of the secret machinations by which they sought to injure the cause of Islam. So it was in the interests of Islam that their hypocrisy became unmasked and the Muslims became on their guard against them. On the other hand, just as the exposure of the hypocrites proved beneficial to the believers, similarly the coming to light of their own sincerity and devotion served a most useful purpose. It served not only to disappoint the enemies of Islam who came to realize that with such devoted followers they could make no headway against Islam, but it also opened their eyes to its truth; for it became clear to them that a religion which could inspire its votaries with such selfless zeal and steadfast devotion could not but be true.
The particle او rendered as "and" in the clause, fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy, literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words", or "what is the same thing," etc. It is used here: (1) to explain the meaning of the preceding clause, i.e. fight in the cause of Allah. So the whole sentence would read something like this: "It was said to them (the hypocrites): Come ye, fight in the cause of Allah, which was the same thing as repelling the attack of the enemy." This rendering would go to prove that the Companions of the Holy Prophet waged no aggressive war and all their fighting was undertaken in self-defence. (2) Or the word او (and) is used here in the sense of "at least". According to this rendering, the sentence would mean: "Fight in the cause of Allah; and if you cannot fight in the cause of Allah, at least fight in defence of your own homes and hearths," i.e. your own interests require that you should defend Medina against the attack of the enemy. (3) Or as rendered in the text the word is used in the sense of "and". With this meaning of او, the whole sentence would mean, "fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy."
The expression لو نعلم قتالا translated in the text as, If we knew how to fight, may have three meanings: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we thought there would be no fighting. By using this expression the hypocrites meant that seeing the strength of the enemy, the Muslims would at once run away and there will be no fighting. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged, but certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) Or, as rendered in the text, the expression may mean, if we knew how to fight. In this case, it must be taken to have been used ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you."
The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy, who, at a crucial moment, deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina, saying, "He (the Prophet) has disregarded my advice and has followed the advice of mere lads". Seeing this, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr, father of Jabir, approached him and asked him not to desert the Prophet in that manner, upon which ‘Abdullah replied in the very words quoted by the Quran, i.e. لو نعلم قتالا لا تبعنا کم meaning, "If we knew there would be fighting, we would have surely followed you." At this ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr exclaimed, saying: "God’s curse be upon you. Surely, He Himself will help His Messenger" (Jarir, iii. 104).
a
48:12.
523
Trials and tribulations are intended to distinguish true believers from those weak of faith. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the Hypocrites who had so far remained mixed up with true believers.
524
The particle au rendered as "and" literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words," or "what is the same thing as" etc.
525
The expression, Lau Na‘lamu Qitalan, may mean: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we knew that there would be no fighting and that the Muslims would at once run away before their very powerful enemy without giving fight. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged but rather their certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) If we knew how to fight. In this case, the words may be taken to have been spoken ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you." The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 Hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy, who deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina.
قَدۡ نَعۡلَمُ اِنَّہٗ لَیَحۡزُنُکَ الَّذِیۡ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ ۖ فَاِنَّہُمۡ لَا یُکَذِّبُوۡنَکَ وَلٰکِنَّ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ یَجۡحَدُوۡنَ
یعنی خداتعالیٰ کی تکذیب کی وجہ سے تجھے غم ہوتا ہے تجھے اپنی فکر نہیں۔
یہاں فاء کا لفظ ہے جس کے معنے لام کے بھی ہوتے ہیں۔ پس ہم نے ’’کیونکر‘‘ ترجمہ کیا ہے جو زیادہ صحیح ہے۔
15:98; 16:104
The Holy Prophet was full of the milk of human kindness. He was not upset by what the disbelievers said concerning him. He was grieved not because the disbelievers accused him of falsehood but because by rejecting Allah’s Signs they had shut on themselves the door of Divine mercy.
15:98; 16:104.
Commentary:
The verse signifies that the Holy Prophet was grieved at the attitude of disbelievers, not because they accused him of falsehood but because their denial of him meant the denial of the signs of God. Thus the grief of the Holy Prophet was not personal, the cause of his grief being that God was being denied. It pained him to see people denying God. He did not mind denial of himself, but he could not bear to see men rejecting God and His Signs.
g
15:98; 16:104
424
穆圣富於天生的善心。不信的人所说的有关他的种种, 他并不感到难过。他感到伤心的, 不是由於不信的人诬罔他的虚假, 而是由于他们拒绝相信安拉的迹象而把他们自己关在安拉永久仁慈的门外。
2
یعنی خداتعالیٰ کی تکذیب کی وجہ سے تجھے غم ہوتا ہے تجھے اپنی فکر نہیں۔
3
یہاں فاء کا لفظ ہے جس کے معنے لام کے بھی ہوتے ہیں۔ پس ہم نے ’’کیونکر‘‘ ترجمہ کیا ہے جو زیادہ صحیح ہے۔
a
15:98; 16:104.
781
Commentary:
The verse signifies that the Holy Prophet was grieved at the attitude of disbelievers, not because they accused him of falsehood but because their denial of him meant the denial of the signs of God. Thus the grief of the Holy Prophet was not personal, the cause of his grief being that God was being denied. It pained him to see people denying God. He did not mind denial of himself, but he could not bear to see men rejecting God and His Signs.
e
15:98; 16:104
841
The Holy Prophet was full of the milk of human kindness. He was not upset by what the disbelievers said concerning him. He was grieved not because the disbelievers accused him of falsehood but because by rejecting Allah’s Signs they had shut on themselves the door of Divine mercy.
وَمِمَّنۡ حَوۡلَکُمۡ مِّنَ الۡاَعۡرَابِ مُنٰفِقُوۡنَ ۖ وَمِنۡ اَہۡلِ الۡمَدِیۡنَۃِ ۖ مَرَدُوۡا عَلَی النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعۡلَمُہُمۡ ۖ نَحۡنُ نَعۡلَمُہُمۡ ۚ سَنُعَذِّبُہُمۡ مَّرَّتَیۡنِ ثُمَّ یُرَدُّوۡنَ اِلٰی عَذَابٍ عَظِیۡمٍ
پہلی دفعہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی وفات کے بعد منافقوں کے ساتھی قبائلیوں کی تباہی اور پھر ان کی امید گاہ عیسائی عرب قبائل کی تباہی ہوئی۔
The reference particularly is to the five tribes of the desert living near Medina—Juhainah, Muzainah, Ashja‘, Aslam and Ghifar (Ma‘ani. iii. 361). After the death of the Holy Prophet the Hypocrites from among these tribes gathered together and made a raid on Medina (Khaldun, ii. 66).
"Twice" may not refer to the form of punishment but to the period thereof which is explained in 9:126. The word may signify that the Hypocrites would be punished in a period ranging from one to two years, i.e. if the punishment comes twice a year, they will have it in one year; if it comes once, they will have it in two years.
Important Words:
مردوا (persist) is from مرد (marada) which means, he exalted himself; he was insolent and audacious in pride and in acts of disobedience; he was excessively proud or disobedient or rebellious; he was refractory; or he outstripped others in pride or disobedience. They say مرد علی شیء i.e. he became accustomed or inured to a thing and persisted in it. The expression مردوا علی النفاق means, they have become accustomed or inured to hypocrisy and persist in it; or they have become insolent and audacious in hypocrisy. تمرد has about the same meaning. مرد(marida) with different vowel point at the central letter, means, it (a tree, etc.) was or became destitute of leaves (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The reference in the opening part of this verse is particularly to the five tribes of the desert living near Medina, viz. Juhainah, Muzainah, Ashja‘, Aslam and Ghifar (Ma‘ani, vol. iii. p. 361). After the death of the Holy Prophet, the hypocrites from among the neighbouring tribes gathered together and made a raid on Medina (Khaldun, ii. 66).
The word "twice" occurring in the sentence, We will punish them twice, does not refer to the form of punishment, but to the period thereof which is explained in 9:126 below, where the Quran says, do they not see that they are tried every year once or twice? Thus, the word "twice" occurring in the present verse signifies that the hypocrites would be punished in a period ranging from one to two years, i.e. if the punishment comes twice a year, they will have it in one year; if it comes once, they will have it in two years.
1
پہلی دفعہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی وفات کے بعد منافقوں کے ساتھی قبائلیوں کی تباہی اور پھر ان کی امید گاہ عیسائی عرب قبائل کی تباہی ہوئی۔
1250
Important Words:
مردوا (persist) is from مرد (marada) which means, he exalted himself; he was insolent and audacious in pride and in acts of disobedience; he was excessively proud or disobedient or rebellious; he was refractory; or he outstripped others in pride or disobedience. They say مرد علی شیء i.e. he became accustomed or inured to a thing and persisted in it. The expression مردوا علی النفاق means, they have become accustomed or inured to hypocrisy and persist in it; or they have become insolent and audacious in hypocrisy. تمرد has about the same meaning. مرد(marida) with different vowel point at the central letter, means, it (a tree, etc.) was or became destitute of leaves (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The reference in the opening part of this verse is particularly to the five tribes of the desert living near Medina, viz. Juhainah, Muzainah, Ashja‘, Aslam and Ghifar (Ma‘ani, vol. iii. p. 361). After the death of the Holy Prophet, the hypocrites from among the neighbouring tribes gathered together and made a raid on Medina (Khaldun, ii. 66).
The word "twice" occurring in the sentence, We will punish them twice, does not refer to the form of punishment, but to the period thereof which is explained in 9:126 below, where the Quran says, do they not see that they are tried every year once or twice? Thus, the word "twice" occurring in the present verse signifies that the hypocrites would be punished in a period ranging from one to two years, i.e. if the punishment comes twice a year, they will have it in one year; if it comes once, they will have it in two years.
1213
The reference particularly is to the five tribes of the desert living near Medina—Juhainah, Muzainah, Ashja‘, Aslam and Ghifar (Ma‘ani. iii. 361). After the death of the Holy Prophet the Hypocrites from among these tribes gathered together and made a raid on Medina (Khaldun, ii. 66).
1214
"Twice" may not refer to the form of punishment but to the period thereof which is explained in 9:126. The word may signify that the Hypocrites would be punished in a period ranging from one to two years, i.e. if the punishment comes twice a year, they will have it in one year; if it comes once, they will have it in two years.
وَلَقَدۡ نَعۡلَمُ اَنَّکَ یَضِیۡقُ صَدۡرُکَ بِمَا یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ
6:34; 11:13.
6:34; 11:13.
The Holy Prophet was not grieved because the disbelievers mocked at him but because they associated other gods with Allah. His grief was due to his jealous love for God on the one hand and to his sincere solicitude for his people on the other.
6:34; 11:13.
Commentary:
The verse does not mean that the Holy Prophet was grieved because the disbelievers mocked at him but because they associated other gods with God, as referred to in the preceding verse. His grief was due to his jealous love for God, on the one hand, and to his sincere solicitude for his people, on the other, because he knew that by rejecting him they were incurring the displeasure of God and courting their own destruction.
c
6:34; 11:13.
a
6:34; 11:13.
1799
Commentary:
The verse does not mean that the Holy Prophet was grieved because the disbelievers mocked at him but because they associated other gods with God, as referred to in the preceding verse. His grief was due to his jealous love for God, on the one hand, and to his sincere solicitude for his people, on the other, because he knew that by rejecting him they were incurring the displeasure of God and courting their own destruction.
c
6:34; 11:13.
1526
The Holy Prophet was not grieved because the disbelievers mocked at him but because they associated other gods with Allah. His grief was due to his jealous love for God on the one hand and to his sincere solicitude for his people on the other.
وَلَقَدۡ نَعۡلَمُ اَنَّہُمۡ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ اِنَّمَا یُعَلِّمُہٗ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِّسَانُ الَّذِیۡ یُلۡحِدُوۡنَ اِلَیۡہِ اَعۡجَمِیٌّ وَّہٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِیٌّ مُّبِیۡنٌ
تفصیل کے لئے دیکھئے تفسیر کبیر جلد چہارم صفحہ ۲۴۱۔
Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions who, according to the allegations of the disbelievers, helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Qur’an—Jabr, a Christian slave, ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of Al-Huwaitib Ibn-e-‘Abdul-‘Uzza and Abu Fuqaih who was known as Yasar and ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Aus bin Rabi‘ (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of ‘Ammar, Suhaib, Salman, ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of Sergius, a Nestorian monk, have also been mentioned in this connection. In fact, the Qur’an here makes reference to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Holy Prophet is alleged to have received help in composing the Qur’an which is mentioned in 25:5-7, and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from a certain Christian slave convert to Islam, and which was incorporated in the Qur’an to which this verse refers. Now with regard to the second objection, did the slave in question read the Arabic version of
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?
1
تفصیل کے لئے دیکھئے تفسیر کبیر جلد چہارم صفحہ ۲۴۱۔
1904
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?
1578
Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions who, according to the allegations of the disbelievers, helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Qur’an—Jabr, a Christian slave, ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of Al-Huwaitib Ibn-e-‘Abdul-‘Uzza and Abu Fuqaih who was known as Yasar and ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Aus bin Rabi‘ (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of ‘Ammar, Suhaib, Salman, ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of Sergius, a Nestorian monk, have also been mentioned in this connection. In fact, the Qur’an here makes reference to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Holy Prophet is alleged to have received help in composing the Qur’an which is mentioned in 25:5-7, and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from a certain Christian slave convert to Islam, and which was incorporated in the Qur’an to which this verse refers. Now with regard to the second objection, did the slave in question read the Arabic version of
فَلَا یَحۡزُنۡکَ قَوۡلُہُمۡ ۘ اِنَّا نَعۡلَمُ مَا یُسِرُّوۡنَ وَمَا یُعۡلِنُوۡنَ
10:66.
11:6; 16:24; 27:75; 28:70.
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that if disbelievers, out of perversity and waywardness, refuse to listen to the Divine Message, why should the Holy Prophet grieve over their disbelief and rejection of truth, when God knows their open plans and secret designs, and He is quite able to bring these plans to naught.
d
10:66.
e
11:6; 16:24; 27:75; 28:70.
b
10:66.
c
11:6; 16:24; 27:75; 28:70.
3263
Commentary:
The verse purports to say that if disbelievers, out of perversity and waywardness, refuse to listen to the Divine Message, why should the Holy Prophet grieve over their disbelief and rejection of truth, when God knows their open plans and secret designs, and He is quite able to bring these plans to naught.
b
10:66.
c
11:6; 16:24; 27:75; 28:70.
وَلَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنَا الۡاِنۡسٰنَ وَنَعۡلَمُ مَا تُوَسۡوِسُ بِہٖ نَفۡسُہٗ ۖ وَنَحۡنُ اَقۡرَبُ اِلَیۡہِ مِنۡ حَبۡلِ الۡوَرِیۡدِ
86:5.
Commentary:
Wonderful is God’s creation of the universe, but much more wonderful is the creation of man. The fact that man is master of his conduct and is responsible for his decisions is here put forward as another argument to support the inevitability of the Resurrection. In fact man’s life on Earth is "the seedbed of an eternal future".
b
86:5.
3869
Commentary:
Wonderful is God’s creation of the universe, but much more wonderful is the creation of man. The fact that man is master of his conduct and is responsible for his decisions is here put forward as another argument to support the inevitability of the Resurrection. In fact man’s life on Earth is "the seedbed of an eternal future".
وَاِنَّا لَنَعۡلَمُ اَنَّ مِنۡکُمۡ مُّکَذِّبِیۡنَ