Topic: Objections Against

2:211; 25:8.

Commentary:

The question, Why has not an angel been sent down to him, implies a desire on the part of the disbelievers to be visited by an angel whom they might see and be thus convinced of the divine mission of the Prophet. The Quran exposes their folly by replying that although the angels of God do come to the Prophet, yet when they visit disbelievers and are seen by them, they invariably come with Divine punishment. Such angels appeared at the Battle of Badr, when, to quote the expression of the Quran, the matter was decided (2:211). See also the succeeding verse.

10:21; 29:51.

Commentary:

The words, Allah has power to send down a sign, do not mean that though God has the power to send down a sign, yet He will not actually do so. The word قادر (having power) used as active participle is intended to denote readiness to show the required power and the closing words of the verse support that inference.

The word قادر also embodies the sense of measuring and determining (Lane). In this sense, the clause would mean that God is devising means for the success of Islam, for people are already joining Islam and swelling the number of Muslims. This is a clear indication of the will of God, but disbelievers would not ponder over it. The Quran makes this point clear by suitable illustrations in the following verse.

23:26; 34:47; 52:30; 81:23.

Important Words:

صاحب (companion) is derived from صحب which means, he was or became his companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend. صاحب of which the plural is اصحاب or صحابة means, a companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend; owner or master; possessor; inmate; manager or disposer; one who keeps or adheres to a thing (Lane). Figuratively the word is also used in the sense of helper.

Commentary:

The word صاحب (companion) meaning both a companion and a helper is not intended as a plain reference to the Holy Prophet. The word has been specially chosen to imply a refutation of the charge of insanity brought by some of his enemies against the Holy Prophet, as well as a veiled rebuke to the Meccans. They are told that the Prophet was their companion and associate. He lived and moved among them and they knew him perfectly well and, therefore, they could easily see, and indeed in their heart of hearts they knew that there was nothing of insanity about him. He was also their helper and was constantly working for their good which constituted further proof of the fact that he was not insane. That he was نذیر مبین (a plain warner) and issued his warnings in a clear and reasoned manner also pointed to the same conclusion—that he was in full possession of his senses.

6:5.

6:105; 17:103.

Important Words:

اجتبیتھا (dost thou forge it). The word اجتبیت derived from جبی . They say, جبی المال i.e. he collected wealth or property. اجتباهmeans, he chose it or selected it. اجتباه also means, he forged it; he extemporised it. The expression لولااجتبیتھا would, therefore, mean, wherefore hast thou not forged it, or produced it, or invented it; or wherefore hast thou not demanded it of God (Lane & Aqrab).

بصائر (evidences) is the plural of بصیرة which is derived from بصر which means, he saw; he was or became endowed with mental perception or belief or knowledge or understanding or intelligence or skill. ابصر الطریق means, the way became manifest. You say انا علی بصیرة i.e. I am certain; or I possess certain knowledge. بصیرة means, mental perception; the perceptive faculty of the mind; understanding; intelligence or skill; firm belief of the heart; constancy or firmness in religion; an evidence, testimony, proof or argument; a witness; an example by which one is admonished; a shield (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word آیة means "a sign". The verses of the Quran are also called آیات (signs) because every one of them by itself constitutes a divine sign, an evidence of the Divine origin of the Quran, and of the truth of the Holy Prophet. The purport of the verse is that although the Word of God is being revealed as occasion demands, and successive signs of God are being shown to men, yet whenever there is some delay in the coming of Divine revelation or the occurrence of signs, disbelievers ignore the Word of God already revealed and the signs already shown and shamelessly begin to ask of the Prophet, "Why do you not bring any revelation or show any sign in your support?" as if no sign had so far been shown and no revelation had come. To this impudent demand of disbelievers, the Holy Prophet is instructed to reply that the sending down of revelation or the showing of signs lies entirely in the hands of God and that he himself possesses no power to produce them at will. But why do they demand a fresh revelation or a new sign, asks the Quran. Are not the revelations that have already come and the signs that have already appeared enough to establish the truth of Islam? Why do they not ponder over them and profit by them?

It should be remembered that God seldom shows signs at the demand of disbelievers. Moreover, the demand for a fresh sign on their part implies that the signs already shown were no signs and furnished no evidence of the Prophet’s truth. Thus to accede to their demand means a reflection on the signs already shown and detracts from their value. It is, therefore, very rare that God shows fresh signs or miracles as demanded by disbelievers. He requires them rather to consider past signs and profit by them.

17:107.

Commentary:

In answer to their demand for fresh signs disbelievers are here told to listen to the Quran carefully, because it contains signs and evidences enough and to spare. This will make them realize the error of their demand and they will see the truth and will as a result become deserving of the mercy of God.

7:189.

7:35; 16:62; 35:46.

Commentary:

This verse embodies a reply to the disbelievers’ demand for punishment (mentioned in the preceding verse). The Holy Prophet is bidden to ask them how he could fulfil their demand for punishment when personally he possessed no power either to do good to, or avert evil from, himself. How clearly this and similar other verses show that the real object of the Quran is to uphold the Unity of God! The Quran cannot bear any human being, even the greatest of all the Prophets, to be regarded as equal to God.

The word امة (people) in this verse means those who disbelieve and not people generally as referred to in v. 48. The verse means to say that there comes a time when disbelievers meet their inevitable end and their place is taken by another people who follow the Divine Messenger. In other words, the Holy Prophet is made to say to disbelievers that, though it is not in his power to bring punishment on them, yet, as it is the immutable law of God that when a people take to evil ways they decline and fall, they will not be allowed to go unpunished and on their ashes a new people shall arise and a new era of truth shall dawn.

17:74.

17:94; 25:9.

13:8.

Important Words:

فلعلك (thou art now perhaps). The word لعل is used to denote either a state of hope or of fear, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else. In the Quranic expression فلعلك تارك بعض مایوحی الیك (thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee) the word لعل has been used to signify that "the people imagine that thou art now perhaps going to abandon, etc." (Mufradat). See also 2:22.

کنز (treasure) is the noun-infinitive from کنز (kanaza). They say کنز المال i.e. he buried the property or treasure in the earth; he collected the property and treasured it, or he hoarded it or stored it in secret. کنز الرمح means, he stuck or fixed the spear in the ground. کنز التمر means, he stored or packed up the dates (in the receptacle). کنز (kanz) means, treasure; property buried in the earth; any property whereof the portion that should be given in alms is not given; property that is preserved in a receptacle; anything abundant and collected together; gold and silver; a treasure of knowledge or science; that in which property is preserved or that in which property is buried or hoarded in secret (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

It is a peculiarity of Quranic diction that sometimes it omits to give the question and only gives the answer, the question being implied in the answer itself. The present verse constitutes an example of this style. In the previous verse believers were promised forgiveness and a great reward. Thereupon disbelievers asked the Holy Prophet in a jeering and ironical manner, "You say your followers will get a great reward and their sins will be forgiven. We know nothing about the forgiveness of their sins. But where is the promised reward of which we do not see the slightest sign? You do not have even the money which you need so badly, nor do the angels descend from heaven to help you." The Quran turns the tables upon the disbelievers and answers their irony, with an irony, saying, "How weighty indeed is the objection of these people and perhaps, o Prophet, from fear of being unable to answer it, you would hide a part of Our revelation which contains prophecies regarding the prosperity and triumph of Islam!" meaning that such a thing can never be.

The verse is capable of another interpretation also. In this case the word لعل would be taken to refer to the hope of disbelievers that the Holy Prophet may, out of fear of their objections, suppress part of the Divine revelation. The verse declares such hopes to be vain and futile, for the Holy Prophet was "only a warner," and the function and duty of a warner is only to issue the warning and deliver his message faithfully; he has no right to suppress any portion of the message. Again, by using the words "only a Warner" the verse also hints that the Holy Prophet did not claim to be God so that the treasures of the earth might be under his control; he was only a human being. If it be said here that believers who were promised "a great reward" (see the preceding verse) were also human beings like the Holy Prophet, it should be remembered that they were promised the reward not immediately but after they had established their title to it by displaying patience and steadfastness under trials and hardships for a considerable time. So disbelievers could demand from the Holy Prophet clear and palpable signs of the prosperity promised to him only when the promised time had come and not earlier. To come attended with power and glory in the very beginning is a sign of personal authority which belongs to God alone and not to any human being."

The words, Allah is Guardian over all things, are intended to point to the fact that all these promises will certainly come to pass. The Holy Prophet will assuredly get both مغفرة (lit. covering up) and a great reward, and the angels of God will undoubtedly descend to bring his work to completion and make null and void the machinations of his enemies. Not only will he himself be favoured with a great reward, but his followers and disciples also would become rulers and kings. Any fair-minded and impartial person can see that both these promises were literally fulfilled.

Some hostile critics of Islam have pretended to infer from this verse that the Holy Prophet was actually prepared to abandon a portion of the Quran out of fear of the objections of his opponents. But the context spurns this baseless interpretation. Can any reasonable person imagine that the demand for the descent of helping angels or for the possession of a treasure was such that, on account of it, the Holy Prophet should, in any way, have become prepared to suppress part of Divine revelation, or that he was unaware of the fact that he was only a warner whose duty was to deliver the Message, whatever it might be? Again, did he not know that God had clearly spoken to him saying He Himself was "Guardian over all things"? So the words, thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee, contain only a vain hope on the part of the disbelievers that the Prophet might give up part of his revelation; they do not at all find any intention or readiness on his part to do so. Do not these critics know that when at Mecca a deputation of the Quraish waited on the Holy Prophet and asked him to give up preaching against their idols and threatened to crush him and his tribe in case he refused to do so, the prompt answer he gave was that even if they put the sun on his right and the moon on his left he would not swerve a hair’s breadth from the teachings which God had given him? Could he, whom the threats or cajolery of the Quraish at a time when he was extremely weak could not induce to give up his preaching, have become so unnerved by these silly objections as to become ready to conceal a part of the DivineWord?

The verse that follows also gives the lie to such an inference, for it contains a challenge to the world to produce ten Surahs like any ten Surahs of the Quran. If there had been any doubt in the Prophet’s mind concerning any portion of the Quran, could that very portion possibly have been followed by a challenge like this? This challenge shows that he believed in the truth of every word of the Quran with a conviction firm as a rock.

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 verse further makes it clear that the parable of the previous verse applied to the Meccans who made themselves deserving of Divine punishment because they rejected the Prophet who was from among them and whom they knew to be truthful, sincere and honest.

Commentary:

When the Meccans were confounded by the answers of the Quran to their questions and objections, they turned round and demanded of the Prophet that if the Quran comprehended every kind of knowledge then he should be able to work miracles—cause springs to gush forth from the earth, grow gardens and build houses of gold for himself. The demand was either intended as mockery or had its basis in the belief that they shared with the Jews that most wonderful works could be performed by special spiritual exercises and by the help of disembodied spirits.

25:11.

Commentary:

Disbelievers mockingly told the Holy Prophet, that, if he could not bring to them any of the good things which they demanded he might as well cause the sky to fall upon them or let God and His angels destroy them.

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.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

52:31.

Important Words:

آیة may here mean a Sign of punishment; or a Sign of the disbelievers’ own choice. See also 19:11.

اضغاث احلام (confused dreams). See 12:45.

Commentary:

In this verse three different objections of disbelievers with regard to the Quran have been mentioned. The first is that the Quran is a mixture of confused dreams. But realizing the untenability of their position, as there exists a beautiful arrangement and order in it and that it forms a connected whole and contains excellent teachings, the disbelievers shift their ground and say that the Holy Prophet has forged it himself. But again realizing that throughout his life the Prophet was by common consent known and looked upon as "the trusty" and "the truthful," they give up this objection also and proceed to accuse him of being a poet and a magician. These objections have been mentioned in an ascending order and the continuous shifting of the ground by disbelievers implies an admission on their part that their objections can stand no examination or scrutiny. The Quran has therefore refused to entertain them here because they carry their own refutation and are self-contradictory and foolish. Further on, however, it has answered these objections in another context.

The demand, let him then bring us a Sign just as the former Prophets were sent with Signs, is clearly foolish and insolent. There has never appeared a Prophet in the world who was not confronted with a similar demand. Jesus was so infuriated with the Scribes and the Pharisees when they said: "Master, we should see a sign from thee" (Matt. 12:38), that he exclaimed in extreme anger: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas" (Matt. 12:39). The refusal on the part of the Quran to entertain the disbelievers’ demand in the manner they expected it, does not imply that no sign had been or was to be shown to them. It only means to demonstrate that the demand is foolish and insolent and that heavenly Signs differ from age to age and therefore the signs that would be shown by the Holy Prophet would be different from those that were shown by Moses or Jesus and for that matter by any other Prophet.

The word شاعر (poet) while meaning one who composes verses also signifies a person who plays with the sentiments and susceptibilities of men. Here the word has been used preferably in the latter sense.

16:104.

Commentary:

The verse constitutes a delightful commentary on the miraculous character of the Quran. The words, "other people have helped him with it," constitute an unequivocal admission on the part of disbelievers that no single person, not even the Holy Prophet could have produced such a marvellous Book and that a large party of men must have assisted him in preparing it.

The clause, "Indeed they have committed a great injustice and a great falsehood," refers to two charges of disbelievers against the Holy Prophet and answers them.

The first charge is that the Holy Prophet has forged a lie. The answer that the verse gives to this charge is that it was unjust on their part to prefer such a charge against the Holy Prophet. He had lived among them a life-time before and they had unanimously borne testimony to his integrity and truthfulness. How could they now charge him with forgery? It was sheer injustice on their part to do so.

The second charge against him is that other people have helped him in producing the Quran. In answer to this charge the verse says that it is an obvious untruth, since whosoever the Prophet’s so-called helpers were, they must have held some beliefs and doctrines, but the Quran refutes and demolishes all false beliefs and abrogates and improves upon others. How could any people be supposed to help him to produce a Book which had laid the axe at the root of those very beliefs and doctrines which they held so dear? So it is patent falsehood to say that the Holy Prophet had received help from any quarter in the preparation of the Quran.

8:32; 16:25; 68:16; 83:14.

Important Words:

اکتتبھا (got them written down) is derived from کتب which means, he wrote. اکتتب کتاباً means, he wrote a book; he asked one to dictate it; he asked for a book or the like to be written for him; he collected it (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

See next verse.

6:4; 11:6; 67:14.

Commentary:

This verse gives another very effective argument to break and demolish the allegations of the Holy Prophet’s detractors. "Do these enemies of truth have the hardihood to say," the verse seems to argue, "that the Quran is but a jumble of old stories and fables which are dictated to him morning and evening? It certainly is not a collection of fables and stories but embodies great truths noble teachings and mighty prophecies which no human brain can devise. The disbelievers will live to see those prophecies being fulfilled, because the Quran has been revealed by the Great God Who knows the secrets of the heavens and the earth and because He being Merciful and Forgiving took pity on corrupt humanity and provided in the Quran the requisite remedies for all its moral and spiritual ills and maladies." See also 16:104.

The verse further by implication holds out a challenge to the disbelievers that if they really think that the Quran is the result of the Holy Prophet’s own effort, aided and helped in its production by a few other individuals, then let the whole world—men and jinn sit together and with their collective and concerted effort produce a book like the Quran, and it declares with all the emphasis at its command that if they ever made such an attempt, they would certainly fail in their object. See also 17:89.