Topic: Bashr

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).

Commentary:

The word مثل (case) is used to express resemblance, which may be of different kind and different degrees. Sometimes, the thing likened is equal to that to which it is likened, sometimes the former is superior to the latter, and sometimes the latter is superior to the former. So it is not necessary that the thing likened to another should be equal, or ever similar, to the latter in all respects. The likeness between Adam and Jesus referred to in this verse, may, therefore, not be stretched too far.

In the verse the word 'Adam' primarily stands for man, i.e. the sons of Adam generally. Jesus is thus declared to be like other mortals who have all been created from dust (40:68), and so there can be no divinity about him. If, however, the word 'Adam' be taken to refer to the progenitor of the human race, then the verse would be taken to point to the resemblance between Jesus and Adam in being born without the agency of a male parent. In this case, the fact that Jesus had a mother would not affect the likeness which, as stated above, need not be complete in all respects.

The words, then He said to him, "Be" and he was, show that the command refers not to the birth of Jesus (for the fact of his creation has already been mentioned in the words خلقه i.e. He created him, occurring in the preceding part of the verse), but to his death. The use of the word کن (Be) in relation to death should not sound odd, for, according to the teaching of Islam, death is not the end of life but simply a change, the beginning of a new life. The meaning in this case would be that after having created Jesus and having allowed him the prescribed lease of life in this world, God caused him to die and took his soul away to the next world. The expression, "Be" and he was, may also refer to the creation or birth of Jesus in the sense that, after giving him the human form in the womb of his mother, God said to him "Be", i.e. become quickened with life, whereupon he became alive. Again, the reference may also be to the spiritual life, i.e. after creating Jesus in the form of a man, God called upon him to become a Prophet, which was the ultimate end of his creation, and consequently he became a Prophet. Whatever the interpretation, the verse constitutes a clear refutation of the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus on the plea of his unusual birth.

As for the creation of man from تراب (dust), we shall give a suitable note when we come to the verses directly dealing with the subject.

5:117, 118.

Important Words:

ربانیین (solely devoted to the Lord) is the plural of ربانی which is a relative noun derived from رب (Lord) just as لحیانی (long-bearded) and شعرانی (having long hair) are derived from لحیة (beard) and شعر (hair) respectively. Keeping in view the different meanings of رب (see 1:2 and 3:65) the word ربانی would mean, one who devotes himself to religious service, or applies himself to acts of devotion; one who possesses knowledge of God; one who is learned in religious matters; a good or righteous man; a worshipper of the Lord; a teacher of others who begins to nourish people with the small matters of knowledge or science before taking the great ones; a learned man who not only practises what he knows but also instructs others; one of high rank in knowledge; a lord or master; a leader; a reformer (Lane, Sibawaih & Mubarrad).

The expression ماکان له (it is not possible for him) is, according to Arabic idiom, used in three senses: (1) it does not become him; as in the hadith ماکان لا بن ابی قحافة ان یصلی بین یدی رسول الله صلعم i.e. it does not become the son of Abu Quhafah, (i.e. AbuBakr) to lead the Faithful in Prayers in the presence of the Prophet of God (Bukhari); (2) it is rationally impossible for him to do so; or, it does not stand to reason that he should have done so; (3) he cannot possibly do so, i.e. it is physically impossible for him to do so. It is in the second sense that the expression has been used in this verse. See also 2:35.

Commentary:

It is quite inconceivable that a man whom God has raised as a Prophet and to whom He has given a revealed Book for the guidance of men should teach them to take him as God beside Allah. Such a supposition would imply a serious reflection on God Himself Who chose for His Messenger a man who undid the very work which he had been commissioned to do, and who, instead of calling upon men to worship God, set himself up as God and called upon them to adore him. Such a thing can never occur. A Prophet would always exhort men to become the devotees of God only.

The words, because you teach the Book and because you study it, show that it is the duty of all those who succeed in acquiring spiritual knowledge to impart it to others and not to let men grope in the darkness of ignorance.

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?

22:75; 39:68.

36:16; 67:10.

Commentary:

In this verse, the Quran gives the reason why there are differences in religion. Differences spring from ignorance, from a lack of true estimation or true understanding, as indicated by the words, they do not make a just estimate of Allah. Indeed, those who say that Allah has not revealed anything to any man make a very poor estimate of His attributes. To hold such a view about God is highly derogatory to His glory and most inconsistent with His attributes.

As regards religious beliefs, there were two classes of men in the days of the Holy Prophet. Firstly, there were those who denied revelation in toto. According to them, there had never been any revelation in any age. Secondly, there were those who believed that there had been revelation in the past, but that God had sent no revelation in their own age. To the first-mentioned class belonged the مشرکون (Idolaters), i.e. those who ascribed co-partners to God and worshipped idols. To the second class belonged the People of the Book. As the words, Allah has not revealed anything to any man, may mean: (1) that God has never revealed anything to any man; or (2) that He has not revealed anything to any man in the present age, so they may be ascribed to both idol-worshippers and the People of the Book. In the foregoing verses only the former were addressed, but now the latter have also been included in the address.

As regards the People of the Book, the Quran specifically states: Say, Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for the people, though you treat it as scraps of paper which you show while you conceal much, i.e. you have split up the Book of Moses into parts, disclosing one part and concealing the other which contains prophecies and signs of the advent of the Holy Prophet. You deny the Quranic revelation, but your own Book contains evidence of its truth which you suppress.

The above reply, however, could not satisfy the idol-worshippers who did not believe in the Book of Moses or, for that matter, in any revealed Book. The Quran, therefore, gives them a rational answer. It says, And you have been taught that which neither you nor your fathers knew. This is an argument which is meant to prove the Divine origin of the Quran rationally and is meant not merely for the People of the Book but also for idol-worshippers. The argument may be put thus: "If this Book (the Quran) has not been revealed by God, then who embodied in it such wise and comprehensive teachings as were known neither to you nor to your forefathers—teachings which it was beyond your power to produce ? Such teachings could not proceed from a man. Only God could give such teachings."

The last words of the verse, i.e. leave them to amuse themselves with their vain discourse, do not mean that you should abandon preaching to disbelievers. The meaning is, "Tell them and make clear to them that the Quran is the Word of God, for it is superhuman and full of wisdom; but if they still persist in ridiculing it, then leave them alone while they thus amuse themselves." This injunction is similar to the one given in 6:69 above.

23:25.

26:112.

Important Words:

بادی الرأی (to all outward appearance) is made up of two Arabic words بادی and الرأی. The word بادی has two possible derivations. It may be derived from بدأ (bad’a) which means, he or it began or he or it came into existence. بدأ به means, he began with it; he made it to be the first. Or the word بادی may be derived from بدأ (of which the aorist is یبدو) which means, it appeared or it showed itself. According to these two different roots the word بادی would mean: (1) that which or he who is first or that which or he who begins; (2) that which or he who appears. And the word الرأی means sight or perception or opinion. So the compound expression بادی الرأی would mean: (1) at first thought or on the first opinion; (2) at the appearance of opinion or according to the appearance of opinion, which may mean either inconsiderately or insincerely (Lane, under بدا & بدأ).

Commentary:

The Arabic expression بادی الرأی (to all outward appearance) is capable of three interpretations according to the rules of Arabic grammar. First, it may be taken as referring to the words ونراك (and we see). In this case, the verse would mean that the followers of Noah appear to us to be the meanest of us at first thought or on the first opinion, i.e. so far as our opinion is concerned we consider them to be mean. If, however, there is any hidden good in them, it may be known to Noah only.

Secondly, the expression بادی الرأی may be taken to refer to the words اراذلنا (the meanest of us). In this case the verse would mean that the followers of Noah were apparently low and mean.

Thirdly, the expression بادی الرأی may be taken as qualifying the words اتبعك (have followed thee). In this case the verse would mean that those who have accepted Noah have done so only outwardly or without proper thinking i.e. their faith was either insincere or inconsiderate, being based on mere cursory thinking.

To sum up, the words اراذلنا بادی الرأی mean: (1) the followers of Noah are mean to all outward appearance; or (2) their faith in Noah is insincere; or (3) their faith is the result of only superficial thinking.

The words, We see in thee nothing but a man like ourselves, mean, "There is nothing extraordinary in your outward appearance to distinguish you from us. You are just a human being like any other mortal. When therefore, there is nothing extraordinary in your outward appearance, how should we know that inwardly you have been endowed with exceptional powers which have helped you to gain access to Divine presence, while we cannot ?"

This is the common objection raised by the opponents of the Prophets. The enemies of Noah purported to say that if he possessed some special inward power from God, that ought to have caused some difference in his outward appearance and as a result of it he should have acquired knowledge of some worldly sciences also, but they saw no evidence of this. How could they then believe that his internal powers were different from, and superior to, theirs. In support of this argument the opponents of Noah might possibly have shown to him pictures of their holy men having extraordinary exteriors, such as the Hindu saints are believed to possess, for instance, a number of heads and several hands. In olden days, men could not conceive that a Prophet was like ordinary mortals in appearance. So the enemies of Noah, arguing that the outward must correspond with the inward and that there must be harmony between the two, raised against him the objection that if he was really a true Prophet, his outward appearance must have been different from theirs. Silly though the argument is, it must have won endorsement from the contemporaries of Noah.

The enemies of Noah further reinforce their argument by saying that while he himself possessed no special powers, and was a mortal like themselves, his followers were even worse than him. What success could he achieve, they asked, with adher-ents who, to all outward appearance, were the meanest of the society? The enemies of Noah thus argued that neither his own personal qualities nor those of his followers gave him the appearance of "superiority" over them.

The words, we believe you to be liars, embody the result of the arguments brought forward by Noah’s opponents, which is that he was a liar, for he had asserted his truth and superiority without any basis or proof.

It is a pity that men test the claims of a heavenly Messenger by their self-devised standards and, when he does not satisfy those standards, they deceive themselves with the idea that they had weighed up his claims dispassionately and with an open mind and had found them to be false. Even in the present age when man has made great progress in knowledge, science and culture and has known many Prophets, he presumes to test the claims of God’s Messengers’ not by criteria laid down by Him but by his own false standards.

12:51.

12:52.

Important Words:

متکا (repast) is derived from وکأ. They say, واکأعلی یدیه i.e. he leaned upon his hands or arms. اوکأه means, he set up for him a thing upon which to recline. اتکأ means, he sat leaning upon one of his sides; he leaned or rested his back or his side against a thing; he leaned or reclined upon a thing; he reclined upon a cushion. They say اتکأنا عند فلان i.e. we ate a repast with such a one. متکأ means, a place in which one reclines: a chamber or sitting room; that upon which one leans or reclines in eating, drinking or talking; food or repast, so called because high people used to recline when they sat to eat (Lane & Aqrab).

حاش لله (Allah be glorified). حاش is derived from حشی which means, he breathed short or he panted for breath or was out of breath. حاشاه منھم means, he set him aside as excluded from the description of the company or party; he excluded him from them, i.e. made an exception in regard to him. حاش لك means, far art thou from being included among those of whom I speak. حاش لله means, I ascribe unto God remoteness from every imperfection or freedom therefrom; generally implying wonder or admiration. The expression may be rendered as "How far or how free is God from every imperfection!" It is also used in the sense of معاذ الله i.e. I seek protection by God (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that when Potiphar’s wife heard of what the women in the city were saying about her infatuation for Joseph, she thought they really believed her to be guilty though outwardly they talked in such a manner as to show that they sought to exculpate her. So in order to remove their suspicions, she invited them to a feast. Tables were laid and a knife was provided for each of them. When all the guests were assembled, she asked Joseph to come out and serve them, but hardly had they cast a glance over his face when his innocent look and angelic appearance made them convinced of the purity of his conduct and all their suspicions so far as Joseph was concerned were dissipated.

The expression, cut their hands, may mean that when the women looked at Joseph, they were so struck with his saintly appearance that in a state of forgetfulness some of them happened to cut their hands with the knives they had. Or the sentence may be taken as figuratively expressing their wonder and amazement. The Arabic expression عض الانامل (biting the finger ends) is also used to express surprise, and, as sometimes the whole is used for a part, therefore the word "hands" may be said to have been here used for "finger-ends." According to the Talmud, oranges were served to the guests and the women inadvertently cut their hands owing to their being engrossed in looking at Joseph (Jew. Enc. & Talmud).

Incidentally, the verse shows that the word "angel" can also be used for a righteous and holy man. The verse also throws interesting light on the social customs of those days—the laying of cushioned seats and the use of knives, etc.

16:44; 21:8.

Commentary:

It is clear from this verse that only men, not women, can become Prophets. In fact, men and women have their specific spheres of work, the office of prophethood being outside the sphere of women. All other spiritual favours and blessings, however, are as open to women as to men.

The verse also warns disbelievers that their present pomp and power should not deceive them into thinking that they will indefinitely continue to enjoy these things. The time was fast approaching when their power and glory would depart and the people would see the truth and accept Islam. Their days would end in adversity and degradation, unlike those of the believers, whose condition would continue to improve, though sincere believers always enjoy perfect peace of mind even in adversity.

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.

7:13; 38:77; 55:15.

Commentary:

In this verse by the word "angels" is meant the whole of creation, because angels constitute the first link of all creation and, as such, a command given to them really applies to the whole of creation. The verse purports to say that man has been given a sort of sovereignty or power over creation as a whole which has been made subservient to him; and angels have been bidden to bring about the results of human actions according as they are good or evil. In this respect the command is general. But when the command pertains to the time of a particular Prophet of God when a special Divine decree comes into operation, angels are bidden to help the Prophet of the day who, as it were, becomes the spiritual Adam of his time. Angels then help the Prophet against his opponents and render null all their schemes and machinations against him. In this connection it is significant that, whereas elsewhere the Quran speaks of the command of God to the angels to submit to "Adam," in the present and the following verses the word used is "man." For an explanation of the words, from dry ringing clay, from black mud wrought into shape, see v. 27.

7:13; 17:62; 18:51.

Commentary:

The verse may be understood to mean that the arch-enemy of truth who opposed Adam spoke of the latter as if saying: "Here is a poor and humble fellow who justifies, and indeed glories in, the submission of all others to him. He and his comrades are a party of mental slaves who take pride in imitating others. But my nature rests high on the firm rock of freedom and independence. How then can I, his superior, bring myself so low as to obey his orders and carry out his wishes?" This dialogue, however, is no real talk between God and Iblis but only an allegory, the sense being that the new order which was to be inaugurated by Adam was regarded by his chief opponent and those of his way of thinking as contrary to their sense of pride and their conception of freedom and, consequently, a source of humiliation for them. Satan, therefore, refused to give it his allegiance considering the old order to be better than that introduced by Adam. It is this sense of the comparative values of the two orders that is meant to be expressed in the terms طین (clay) and نار (fire) expressed in 38:77. For an explanation of dry ringing clay, from black mud wrought into shape, see under v. 27.

12:110; 21:8.

Commentary:

Disbelievers laboured under the misconception that the Holy Prophet was an ordinary man like themselves, so there was little to fear from his rejection. The present verse warns them that all the previous Prophets were also ordinary mortals but they succeeded in their mission and their opponents met with complete discomfiture and destruction. So they too would invite their ruin if they rejected him.

The words, So ask those who possess the Reminder, contain a sound rebuke to the Meccan disbelievers. They took pride in the fact that they were the descendants of great Prophets, Abraham and Ishmael, and were well acquainted with their history. They are here told that they seem to have forgotten the history of their ancestors of whom they are so proud. They should consult some other people who happen to know and thus realize that it is not safe to defy God’s Prophets.

Taking ذکر in the sense to remember, the words اھل الذکر would mean, those who remember, and the expression, ask those who possess the Reminder, would mean that if the disbelievers of Mecca have forgotten the history of their forefathers they should learn it from Muslims who are اھل الذکر, i.e. who possess and remember that history. The taunt must have cut to the quick the Meccan idolaters who were so proud of their ancestry.

The words, نوحی الیھم (to whom We sent revelation), point out that the honour and greatness which the Prophets had acquired had their basis not in material resources or numbers, but were due to the revelations they received from God.

The verse also suggests an answer to the misgivings of disbelievers who asked how the Holy Prophet, a helpless man, could bring political power and glory to his followers. They are told that all the previous Prophets were as helpless as he, yet they were successful in their mission and gained power and greatness.

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?

Commentary:

The contemptuous tone of the disbelievers’ discourse is continued in this verse. They are represented as saying to the Prophet that if he could not accomplish any of the things they demanded of him, he might at least have some good things for himself. Pharaoh had challenged Moses that he could not be a true Prophet because he possessed no bracelets of gold (43:54); but the Meccan disbelievers went a step further and declared that the Prophet’s claims could only be regarded true if he possessed a house made of gold.

The words, Or thou ascend up into heaven…that we can read, contain a derisive reference to the Mi‘raj or the Ascension of the Prophet. The disbelievers meant to say that they would not believe in his ascension unless he stayed in the heavens and let fall to them a book that they might read. To these foolish demands of the disbelievers the words, Say, Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger, embody a crushing reply. They are told that their demands fall under two heads: (a) those that pertain to God; (b) those that pertain to the Prophet. The demands of the first category are frivolous in character and God is above such frivolities. These demands have nothing to do with the spiritual development of man for which Divine Messengers are raised. As for their demands pertaining to the Prophet, they are incompatible with his humanity and his mission as a Prophet of God. A human being, even one invested with prophethood, could not and would not indulge in such acrobatic feats.

17:60; 23:25; 34:44.

Commentary:

In the previous verse the Holy Prophet, in reply to the foolish and frivolous demands of disbelievers, was commanded to say to them that he was nothing beyond a Messenger of God. The present verse contains their strongest objection that he is only a mortal. In fact, the words, Has Allah sent a man as a Messenger, contain not one but several objections. The first is that, God being so great, it is incompatible with His dignity to appoint a mere mortal as His Messenger. This objection in reality implies rejection and denial of revelation itself. Some people reject a Prophet out of vanity and a false sense of self-importance. They do not deny the possibility of Divine revelation, but in their pride and egotism they cannot bring themselves to think that God could possibly choose a man of no consequence, as they think, to be the bearer of His Message. Another class of people hold that man, being endowed with great natural gifts and talents, is quite fit to find the right path by the help of these natural faculties alone and needs no Divine revelation to guide him. Yet a third class would object to any mortal being a Divine Prophet on the ground that a Prophet requires higher and better faculties for the effective discharge of his onerous duties than those possessed by a mere mortal. These people are ever ready to believe in the claims of any mountebank if only he professes to possess superhuman powers, but find it hard to believe in similar claims of another person possessed of the highest moral and spiritual stature who might be sincere enough to disclaim all such superhuman powers. This class of men fall an easy prey to supernaturalism. Persons who suffer from such mental distempers might well profess to believe in the past Prophets, but their failure to recognize the truth of a new claimant to Prophethood amply proves that the faith which they profess in the old Prophets is but an empty and customary faith inherited from their forefathers and is devoid of all reality.

22:6; 23:13; 35:12; 36:78; 40:68.

Commentary:

This verse constitutes the reply of the poor and depressed Muslim to his boastful Christian companion. He admonishes the latter not to deny God in his conceit. He seeks to rouse him from his state of self-complacency by drawing his attention to his very insignificant beginning and by implication to the transitoriness of the things of this world.

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.