Topic: Gospel, (Injil)

109:3, 7.

6:57; 13:38.

Commentary:

This verse points to the hostility of Jews and Christians not only to Islam but also to one another. The Jews had Jerusalem as their Qiblah (See I. Kings 8:22-30; Dan. 6:10; Ps. 5:7; Jonah, 2:4) while the Samaritans, a disowned section of the Jews, who also followed the Mosaic Law, had adopted a certain mountain in Palestine, named Gerizim, as their Qiblah (John, 4:20 and Commentary on the New Testament by Right Rev. W. Walsham How, D.D., published by Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, under this verse). As regards the early Christians, they followed the Qiblah of the Jews (Acts 3:1; Enc. Brit., 14th edition, v. 676; Jew. Enc. vi. 53) but we learn from authentic sources that when a party of the Christians of Najran paid a visit to Medina to have a discussion with the Holy Prophet on some doctrinal point, they worshipped in the Holy Prophet’s mosque at Medina with their faces turned to the East (Zurqani, iv. 41). Thus the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Christians followed different Qiblahs owing to their mutual jealousy and enmity. In these circumstances it was vain to expect them to follow the Qiblah of the Muslims, and when obsolete faiths refused to follow the true Qiblah, how could a true believer follow a Qiblah that had become obsolete.

The concluding clause speaks of the practice of the People of the Book as vain "desires," not because they were not originally based on revelation but because they were opposed to the new revelation that had appointed the Ka‘bah as Qiblah. He who insists on sticking to an order that is no longer in force, really follows naught but his own desire.

The words, then thou shalt surely be of the transgressors, do not evidently refer to the Holy Prophet, because, (1) he could in no circumstances go against Allah’s commandment, and (2) the foregoing part of this very verse says about him, nor wouldst thou follow their Qiblah, and (3) it is clearly stated in the preceding verse that he loved to turn his face towards the Ka‘bah and eagerly awaited a divine commandment to that effect. It is, therefore, unthinkable that the Prophet could forsake the Qiblah of his own liking. The words obviously refer, as supported by the rules of the Arabic language as well as the usage of the Quran, either to the reader in general or to every individual Muslim who followed the Holy Prophet.

See 2:256.

For the meaning of الحی and القیوم see 2:256.

Commentary:

The verse contains a strong refutation of the divinity of Jesus. This doctrine being one of the main topics dealt with in this chapter, the Surah fittingly opens with such attributes of God as cut at the very root of this doctrine. These attributes, i.e. (1) the Living or the Ever-Living, and (2) the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining, prove on the one hand that God, the possessor of these attributes, should need no partner or helper; and on the other that Jesus, who was subject to the law of birth and death, being thus neither ever-living nor self-subsisting and all-sustaining, could not be divine.

These attributes also prove the hollowness of the doctrine of Atonement which is a corollary of the above doctrine. Jesus, it is said, suffered death to atone for the sins of mankind. If that is so, he could not be God, for God is Ever-Living and cannot suffer death, permanent or temporary. It is futile to say that the death of Jesus meant only the separation of the god-Jesus from his physical habitat. The connection between the god-Jesus and his physical body was, according to Christian belief, in its very nature, a temporary one and was bound to break one day, even if Jesus had not died on the cross. So the mere breaking up of this connection could serve no useful purpose. It must be some other death which brought redemption to his sinful followers. That death, according to the Christians themselves, came upon Jesus when after his crucifixion he descended into Hades or Hell (Acts 2:31 and the Book of Common Prayer, Article on Religion, III). Thus, far from being immune from death, which is God’s exclusive prerogative, Jesus suffered death both in its literal and figurative sense. He not only died but descended into Hades. Again he not only suffered from grief and pain but also disgrace and humiliation.

Similarly, the attribute of القیوم (the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining) proves the falsity of the Christian doctrine. God, being Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining, should not only live by Himself without the support of any other being but all others should receive support from Him. But Jesus can never be proved to possess these attributes. Like other mortals, he was born of a woman, lived on food and drink, suffered pain and humiliation, asked others to pray for the alleviation of his sufferings, and finally, as the Christians say, died on the cross. The New Testament bears ample testimony to all these facts. But God being Ever-Living, Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining is above all this.

4:106; 5:49; 29:52; 39:3.

Important Words:

بالحق (containing the truth). الحق is derived from حق i.e. it was or became just, proper, right, true, authentic, genuine, substantial or real; or it was or became an established or confirmed truth or fact; or it was or became binding, incumbent or due. So حق means, a truth; an established fact; a right; equity and justice; a thing that is decreed or destined; a thing suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, truth and right. الحق is one of the names of God, meaning the Really Existing God; or the Creator according to the requirements of wisdom, justice and right. The word is also applied to the Quran and the religion of Islam (Lane). See also 2:181.

توراة (Torah) is believed to be a Hebrew word. In Arabic it is said to be derived from وری. They say وری النار i.e. the fire burnt. وری الزند means, he made the fire-producing wood or steel produce fire. وری الخبر means, he concealed the news. وری عن کذا means, he meant one thing but by using equivocal expressions made the listener think of another (Aqrab). In view of these significations of the word, توراة (Torah) is so called probably because in its pristine purity reading it and acting upon its teaching kindled in the heart of man the fire of Divine love. Possibly, the word also contains a hint that bright prophecies about the advent of the final Law-giving Prophet lie hidden in the Book. In Hebrew the root meaning of the word is "to teach", the word Torah meaning, "instruction or precept or law" (Gesenius). Torah is the name applied to the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The name may have its origin in the popular Jewish belief that "the original Pentateuch, like everything celestial, consisted of fire, being written in block letters of flame upon a white ground of fire" (Jew. Enc. xii. 197). The name Torah is also sometimes applied to the Ten Commandments.

انجیل (Gospel) is probably of Greek origin from which the English form "Evangel" (good news) is derived. The word Evangel was formerly freely used in place of Gospel, but is now archaic. In Arabic نجله ابوہ (najalahu) means, his father begot him. نجل الشیء means, he laid bare or disclosed the thing. نجل الارض means, he tore open or ploughed the land for the purpose of sowing seed. نجل الرجل (najila) means, the man’s eyes were large and beautiful. The word انجیل which, according to Aqrab, is a Greek word underived from any Arabic root, means بشارة i.e. good news.

مصدقًا (fulfilling). See 2:42.

الفرقان (Discrimination). See 2:54.

Commentary:

The expression بالحق rendered as "containing the truth" (lit. "with truth") means:(1) that the Quran comprises true teachings which are based on eternal truth and are incapable of being successfully assailed; (2) that the Quran has been sent rightly, meaning that the first recipients of it were the fittest people to receive it; (3) that it has come in the fullness of time and fulfils a true need; (4) that it has come to stay and no effort on the part of its opponents can succeed in destroying or tampering with it. See Important Words above.

انجیل means "good news", and the Gospels are so called because they contained not only "good news" for those who accepted Jesus, but also because they contained prophecies about the advent of the Greatest of the Prophets whose coming Jesus described as the coming of the Lord Himself (Matt. 21:40) or as the advent of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). They also contain prophecies about the advent in the Latter Days of Jesus’ own counterpart, the Promised Messiah.

The word انجیل occurring in the verse does not refer to the present four Gospels which were written by the followers of Jesus long after his so-called crucifixion and which give merely an account of his life and teachings. The word refers to the actual revelation received by Jesus from God. The present Gospels do indeed contain a part of that revelation, but Divine words have become so mixed up with the sayings of Jesus himself that in many cases it is difficult to distinguish between the two. The Gospels contain a good deal of matter which is admittedly not of Divine origin.

The saying of the Holy Prophet, صدورھم اناجیلھم i.e. "the breasts of my Companions are like Gospels" (Lisan), sheds some light on the significance and position of the Gospels. This saying of the Prophet means that the breasts of his Companions were repositories of his life history and teachings which are indeed a great gospel. It may be inferred from this that the position of the present Gospels is analogous to that of the collections of Hadith, such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

The clause, He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this as a guidance, means that before the Quran was revealed, the Torah and the Gospels provided spiritual guidance for men but that their place was now taken by the Quran which has come as a guidance for all time and all mankind.

2:88; 57:28.

3:51; 61:7.

Commentary:

The words, We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, show that, like the Prophets who preceded him, Jesus also was a follower of the Law of Moses, the Gospels being only an exposition of selected teachings of the Torah suited to those times.

5:45-46.

Commentary:

The words, And let the People of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, do not mean that the Gospel is a Book of Law and that Christians should act upon the Law revealed in it, for the obvious reason that the Gospel is not a Book of Law, Jesus himself having followed the Law of Moses from which not a jot or tittle was to pass away till there had come the revelation of the perfect Law embodied in the Quran.

In fact, these words, like the similar ones contained in 5:45, do not enjoin obedience to any Law of Moses or Jesus but refer to the prophecies contained in the Torah and the Gospel about the Holy Prophet of Islam. Thus the present verse as well as 5:45 warns Jews and Christians that if they defied these prophecies and rejected the Holy Prophet, they would be regarded as "wrongdoers" and "rebellious" in the sight of God. For the Biblical prophecies about the Holy Prophet of Islam see note on 2:42, 90; and also John 16:7-13.

19:43.

Important Words:

اب (father) which is originally ابو gives the following meanings: a father; an ancestor; a paternal uncle. ابوالمرأة means, the woman’s husband. ابوالمثوی means, master or owner of the dwelling (Lane). See also 4:12.

آزر (Azar). For the discussion of the word and the relationship of Azar with Abraham see under Commentary below. The word is considered by some to be of non-Arabic origin, though in Arabic too it has a root. Thus آزر النبات means, the vegetation grew thick and strong. آزر فلانا means, he strengthened such and such a person. آزرہ means, he sympathized with and helped him (Aqrab). The name, which thus appears to be attributive, was given to Azar probably because he helped his people in establishing idol-worship. According to Mujahid, آزر was originally the name of an idol (Qadir).

Commentary:

With this verse the Quran turns to an account of Abraham, which is given here for two reasons: Firstly, because it is the idolatrous Quraish that are chiefly addressed in these verses and they revered Abraham as their progenitor and patriarch. Hence, by giving an account of Abraham, God wants to tell the Quraish that their great ancestor Abraham was also, like the Holy Prophet, opposed to idolatry, which shows that idol-worship is a later innovation. Secondly, by means of this account, God wants to impress upon idolaters the hollow and unsound foundation on which stands the belief and practice of idol-worship and the absurd ideas which give rise to idolatry.

In the present verse Abraham is represented as arguing with his اب (father) on the subject of idolatry. This اب (father) is here named Azar. Now we have to see in what relation this man stood to Abraham and what his true name was. Christian writers have criticized the Quran on the, ground that it calls Abraham’s father by the name Azar while his true name was Terah. It is true that in Gen. 11:26 Abraham’s father is named Terah. But it is equally true that in Luke 3: 34 Abraham is called the son of Thara and not Terah. The reader should note the change not only in the first consonant but also in the vowel that follows. The Talmud also gives the name of Abraham’s father as Thara. Eusebius, the great Church historian, who has been rightly styled the Father of Ecclesiastical History, gives, in spite of Gen. 11:26 and Luke: 3: 34, which could not be unknown to him, Athar as the name of Abraham’s father (Sale). This clearly shows that even among the Jews there existed no unanimity as to the name of Abraham’s father. The fact that Eusebius, followed neither Gen. 11:26, nor Luke 3: 34 shows that he had strong reasons to differ from these two well-known sources. The correct form thus appears to be Athar, which later became changed into Thara or Terah. Now the form adopted by Eusebius is almost, if not exactly, the same as given by the Quran. If there is any difference, it is only that of pronunciation; otherwise both forms, i.e. Azar and Athar, are identical. Christians have, therefore, no reason to quarrel with the Quran for calling Abraham’s father by the name Azar. It may also be noted that Abraham’s father is also called Zarah in the Talmud (Sale) and Zarah is approximately the same as Azar. All this goes to prove not only that the Quran is not wrong on calling the father of Abraham by the name Azar, but also that the Quranic version is much more reliable than that of the Bible.

The next question we have to consider is that of the relationship in which Azar stood to Abraham. In the Quran, he has been called Abraham’s اب (ab), a word applied, as shown under Important Words, not only to father but also to uncle, grandfather, etc. who stand in the position of a father. From the Quran it appears that Azar, though called the (ab) of Abraham, was not really his father. In 9:114 we are told that Abraham had made a promise to Azar, his اب (ab), to pray to God for his forgiveness, but when he came to know that he was an enemy of God, he abstained from praying for him and was actually forbidden to do so (see also 26:87 where again Azar is spoken as the اب of Abraham). Elsewhere, however, the Quran itself records a prayer of Abraham which he offered in the last days of his life, after he had built the Ka‘bah in company with his son, Ishmael. In this prayer, Abraham prays for his father and is not forbidden to pray for him; but here Abraham does not use for him the word اب but والد (14:42). Now, as has already been stated, the word ابmay be applied to a person other than the real father, but the word والد (walid) which means "the begetter" is applied to none but the actual father. This clearly shows that Azar who has been called the اب (ab) of Abraham was a different person from the والد (walid) of Abraham. He was probably his uncle.

Some passages of the Bible also support this conclusion. We are told that Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of Terah (Gen. 20:12). This shows that Terah was not his real father, for in that case he could not marry Terah’s daughter, his own sister. It appears that his father being dead, he was brought up by his uncle, Azar or Athar, who gave him his daughter Sarah in marriage. As Azar brought up Abraham and was in the position of a father to him, the latter came to be ascribed to him as a son, and this led to the error of Azar or Athar being taken as the real father of Abraham. Again, from the Talmud it appears that Azar prosecuted Abraham and presented him before the king for the offence of breaking idols. If Azar had been the real father of Abraham, he would not have followed such a course against his own son.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

4:75; 61:11-12.

3:196; 61:5.

Commentary:

The words, an unfailing promise that He has made incumbent on Himself in the Torah and the Gospel and the Quran, mean that the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran contain clear promises of divine favour and assistance for those who strive in the cause of God with their persons and property. The promise is general, but was to apply to Muslims alone after Islam had abrogated other religions. These words may also mean that the people of whom God purchased their lives and property in exchange for Heaven, viz. the Companions of the Holy Prophet of Islam, have been spoken of and commended in all the three Books, i.e. not only in the Quran, but in the Torah and the Gospels as well.

Important Words:

یلحدون (they unjustly incline in making this insinuation) is derived from لحد. They say لحد المیت i.e. he buried the corpse. لحدالسھم عن الھدف means, the arrow deviated from the target. الحد الی فلان means, he inclined towards such a one. They say الحد فی الدین i.e. he deviated or swerved from the right way with respect to religion; he impugned religion. الحد فی الحرم means, he desecrated the haram and violated its sanctity. The Quranic expression لسان الذی یلحدون الیه means, the tongue of him unto whom they incline (Lane & Aqrab).

اعجمی (foreign) is derived from عجم (‘ajama) which means, he bit it: and he chewed it. عجم (‘ajuma) means, he had an impotence or an impediment or a difficulty in his speech or utterance and a want of clearness, chasteness, or correctness therein. They say اعجم الکلام i.e. he made the speech or language to want or be without or to have a quality the contrary of clearness, perspicuous-ness or distinctness or to want or be without chasteness or correctness. اعجم الکتاب means, he dotted the book or pointed it or he removed its want of clearness by means of diacritical points. The Arabs say, اعجم البابi.e. he closed the door. عجم means, foreigners as meaning others than Arabs; such as are not Arabs, especially Persians. عجمی signifies one who is of the race of the عجم though he may be chaste or correct in Arabic speech. قوم اعجم means, a people not of the Arabs. اعجم means, one having an impotence or impediment or difficulty in speech though he may be clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking a foreign language; and not clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking Arabic though he may be an Arab; and اعجمی signifies the same, (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions from whom disbelievers alleged the Holy Prophetreceived help in composing the Quran. According to some reports, it was a Christian slave named Jabr, who read the Christian Scriptures while making swords. The Prophet used to go and sit with him. According to another report, it was ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of al-Huwaitib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Uzza, who knew the previous Scriptures and had embraced Islam and held firmly to the Faith. According to yet another report a slave named Abu Fuqaih who was also known as Yasar and was a Jew assisted the Holy Prophet in preparing the Quran. He was subjected to much persecution for his adoption of Islam and probably died sometime before the Hijrah. Again, ‘Abdullah bin Muslim al-Hadrami is reported to have said that his two Christian slaves named Yasar and Jabr, natives of ‘Ain at-Tamar, followed the trade of sword-cutters at Mecca. They used to read the Gospels while engaged in their work. When the Holy Prophet passed by their shop and saw them reading the Gospels he would stop there for a while. A report says that when one of them was asked whether he taught Muhammad the Bible he replied, ‘No, but he teaches me.’ Ibn ‘Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet gave instruction in Islam to a Roman slave named Bal‘am. The Quraish taunted the Prophet that he learned many things from him. The same is said of ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Ausa bin Rabi (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of sundry other persons have also been mentioned from whom the Prophet was alleged by the Quraish to have received help, among them being ‘Ammar and Suhaib. The names of Salman, the Persian, and of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of the Nestorian monk, Sergius, who according to Mas‘udi is the well-known Buhairah, have also been mentioned in this connection.

From the verse under comment, it appears that Meccans accused the Prophet of receiving help from a certain person in preparing the Quran and the verse answers the allegation by saying, But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear. The Christian critics say that this answer is irrelevant, for, as Arnold says: "admitting they were foreigners, they might nevertheless supply him with material" (Sherr’s Commentary of the Bible). It was the necessary material or subject matter, they allege, with which the foreigners supplied the Prophet and to say in reply that the tongue of the person who was alleged to teach him was not Arabic betrayed the irrelevancy of the answer. But these reverend gentlemen seem conveniently to ignore the patent fact that this was not the only objection with which the Quran was assailed. It has not hesitated to mention many other similar objections of disbelievers and has refuted them thoroughly. If the Quran could successfully rebut so many other objections of disbelievers, it could answer this one also. In fact it has adequately done so even in the verse under comment, but the reverend gentlemen themselves have not been able to understand the answer. Moreover, if the reply given in the Quran was so manifestly irrelevant as Christian critics pretend to find it, why did not the Meccans of the Prophet’s times who first made this objection, failed to detect this manifest irrelevancy and why did they not express their dissatisfaction with the answer? But not the slightest reference is to be found in any tradition to this so-called irrelevancy of this answer of the Quran. If Meccans had signified their dissatisfaction with this answer and had pointed out its absurdity and irrelevancy, the traditions would have mentioned it as they have mentioned so many other incidents calculated to impugn the Quran and render its position apparently indefensible.

The fact is that these critics themselves have not understood the objection. The traditions quoted above bring to light two objections of the Meccans. One was that Christian and Jewish slaves who had been converted to Islam secretly helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Quran. They furnished him with the necessary material which was subsequently rendered into Arabic. The other was that he listened to certain non-Muslim slaves while they recited the Gospels and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from them.

Thus Meccans made two objections. One of these the Quran has answered in this verse, while the other has been answered in vv. 25:5, 6, 7. This second objection along with its answer runs thus: And the disbelievers say, It is nothing but a lie which he has forged and at which other people have assisted him. But they have been guilty of a great injustice and have uttered an untruth. And they say: These are legends of the ancients; he has got them written down and they are dictated to him morning and evening, Nay, He Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth has revealed it. He truly is Most Forgiving and Merciful. The difference between these verses and the verse under comment is quite manifest. In the verse under comment disbelievers refer to a single man as having taught the Holy Prophet, while in Surah 25, it is not one man but many who are alleged, by disbelievers, to have assisted him in writing the Quran. To both these allegations different answers suiting the nature of the allegations have been given. Thus it is clear that Meccans had made two distinct and separate objections and both these have been answered in the Quran at different places, and traditions support this conclusion. It was with regard to several of the slave converts to Islam that it was alleged that they furnished material to the Prophet. To this allegation of the Meccans, chapter 25 refers in the words, at which other people have assisted him. From the same chapter it also appears that those who were alleged to have assisted the Prophet were Muslims, for the passage in question says: They are dictated to him morning and evening. Now it is an historical fact that while at Mecca Muslims assembled in the morning and evening in the house of Arqam for prayers and sat round the Holy Prophet with doors closed in order to avoid interference by disbelievers. Disbelievers alleged that the meetings were held to compose the Quran in secret, when the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity would tell the old histories of their religions, and the Prophet would have these accounts written down by his Companions. This is how disbelievers declared the Quran to be a forgery which was prepared by many persons, incidentally admitting by implication that a work of the unique excellence of the Quran could not be prepared by one man. Some Christian critics even in our own time have identified themselves with this allegation and have the hardihood to suggest that the letters with which some of the chapters of the Quran begin are the initial letters of the names of the Companions who composed them.

The objection gives rise to two inevitable questions: (a) whether those slave converts who were alleged to have assisted the Holy Prophet in writing the Quran were so learned and intelligent as to teach the Prophet what they were alleged to have taught him and (b) whether the Quran is a human production.

It is not difficult to find answers to both these questions. It does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand that those who helped the Prophet in producing and preparing the Quran and to whom he was indebted for what the Quran contained could not believe it to be the word of God and could not, for his sake, undergo willingly those inhuman cruelties and tyrannies which they suffered at the hands of disbelievers. Could these accomplices of the Holy Prophet in forging the Quran possibly endure the most cruel persecution for believing in a book which they themselves had fabricated? Are these Christian critics unaware of the persecution which these so-called forgers of the Quran bore without wavering and flinching?

With regard to the second question, viz. whether those great truths which are alleged to have been taught to the Prophet by the slave converts could possibly have been taught by them, the Quran says that what are spoken of as 'the legends of the ancients' and what are represented as being taught by the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity are not legends but great truths and mighty prophecies which have been made by Him 'Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth, and which it is beyond the power of any mortal to foretell'.

Now, if the objection mentioned in the verse under comment was the same as had been quoted and answered in 25:5-7 (which by common consent was revealed before the present Surah) viz. that some other persons had supplied the Prophet with material, the same convincing answer should have been given here also. But the answer given here is quite different from the one given in chapter 25. This shows that the objection referred to in the verse under comment has not been understood by these critics of the Quran. The present verse does not refer to the objection that a certain man provided material for the Quran. It refers to the second allegation of disbelievers viz. that the Prophet incorporated into the Quran what he heard from the Christian slave when the latter read the Gospels at his shop. The tradition says that there were two Christian slaves, Jabr and Yasar, who worked as sword-cutters at Mecca and read the Gospels at their shop and, when the Prophet passed by them, he used to stop there and listen to them. But on closer scrutiny it appears that really there was only one slave, Jabr, who was alleged to teach the Prophet. Another tradition, to which reference has already been made, supports this view and gives the name of Jabr only. Yet another tradition tells us that only one of the two Christian sword-cutters was asked whether he taught the Prophet, and he replied that, far from his teaching the Prophet, it was the Prophet who taught him. This not only shows that it was only one slave who read the Gospels, but also throws light on the purpose for which the Prophet sometimes stopped at his shop. He did not stop there to learn but to teach the man whom he considered to be religious-minded.

It has now been clearly established that the Quran refers to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Prophet is alleged to have received help in preparing the Quran which is mentioned in chapter 25 and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from Jabr and incorporated in the Quran.

This second objection has been answered in the verse under comment. The verse purports to say that the tongue of him to whom they attribute the teaching of the Prophet being اعجمی i.e. foreign and defective, he could not impart to the Prophet in his faulty Arabic those great and eternal truths for explaining which the possession of sound and deep knowledge of Arabic was essential.

Other pertinent questions which arise here are, did the slave in question read an Arabic version of the Gospels and were the Gospels translated into Arabic in the Prophet’s time and were the Arabic versions so common that even slaves read them while working at their workshops? The original language of the Gospels was, according to Muslims, Hebrew, and according to Christians, Greek. If the existence of an Arabic version of the Bible in the time of the Prophet cannot be proved, it would follow that the slave in question read either a Hebrew or a Greek version. But if he read a Hebrew or a Greek Gospel, the question arises, how was the Prophet able to understand him, since he did not know either of these languages? Hence in order to understand the significance of the verse under comment, it has to be seen whether the Gospels had been translated into Arabic at the time of the Holy Prophet. That they had not been translated into Arabic is clear from the following facts:

Up to the time of the Prophet translations of the Gospels had not been made in any language. It was in the 13th or 14th centuries of the Christian era that the Gospels first began to be translated into other languages. The study of the Commentaries of the Quran by Muslim scholars also shows that Arabic versions of the Bible were not available to them, because when in their Commentaries they quote the New or the Old Testament they make very serious mistakes. They ascribe to these books stories which are not found in them. This clearly shows that Arabic versions of the Bible did not exist in their time, otherwise they would not have made such blunders.

Traditions also show that in the time of the Holy Prophet the Gospels were to be found only in Hebrew or Greek. In Bukhari we have the following about Waraqah bin Naufal; "He had become Christian in the days of ignorance and he used to write the Gospels in Hebrew." True, another tradition gives Arabic in place of Hebrew, as the language in which Waraqah wrote the Gospels but preference must be given to the tradition quoted from Bukhari because if the Arabic versions of the Bible could be available in the days of the Prophet many Muslims would have read them. But no such scholars of the Bible among early Muslims were to be found. We are even inclined to the view that the reporter had, by mistake, substituted the word "Hebrew" for "Greek" in the above tradition, because only Greek versions were current in those days and Hebrew versions had almost ceased to exist. That the Christian Scriptures had not been translated into Arabic by the time of the Prophet receives further support from the fact that even the Jewish tribes of Medina had not translated the Torah into Arabic by that time, and whenever he needed a reference to this book, he consulted ‘Abdullah bin Salam, a great Hebrew scholar. This view is also supported by the following testimony of a well-known Christian writer, Dr. Alexander Souter, M.A., LL.D., who writes in his book, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament" (Second Edition, 1925 p. 74), under the head, 'Arabic Versions': "These come partly and directly from Greek, and partly through Syriac and partly through Coptic. Mohammad himself knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest manuscript goes no further back than the 8th century. Two versions of the Arabic are reported to have taken place at Alexandria in the 13th century." In short, there is no doubt about the fact that the Gospels had not been translated into Arabic at the time of the Prophet and those who had to consult them used the Greek or Hebrew version.

Thus it is clear that when Jabr, the Christian slave, read the Gospels, he must have read the Greek or the Hebrew version. And how could the Holy Prophet benefit by listening to a book in a language which he did not understand? The fact seems to be that when disbelievers saw the Prophet standing at Jabr’s shop they imagined that he must have learnt something from him. The Quran removes these doubts by saying, the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue plain and clear, meaning that the man from whom the Prophet was alleged to have received material for the Quran must have read the book in Hebrew or Greek because his "tongue being foreign" he could not explain to the Holy Prophet in his defective Arabic those great truths which the Quran comprises. But the Prophet knew only Arabic and so he could not follow him, much less incorporate in the Quran what he heard from him.

In short, disbelievers brought two distinct charges against the Prophet. First, that he listened to a Christian slave while the latter read the Gospels at his workshop, and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from him. Secondly, that he received help from those slaves who had been converted to Islam from Judaism and Christianity and who met him in secret in the house of Arqam. Both these objections have been separately answered by the Quran, the first in the verse under comment and the second in 25:5-7.

It would be of some use to mention here the following facts which are relevant to the objections stated above.

1. The Quran has either abrogated or improved upon the teachings of former Scriptures. The Holy Prophet must have derived the knowledge of the teachings of those Scriptures from the same source—from God—from which he had derived the knowledge of the new teachings of the Quran which have supplanted previous Scriptures.

2. It has condemned some of the fundamental teachings of Christianity and has improved upon others. There is no known Christian sect with which it has not disagreed on one point or other. Now it is for Christian critics to say to which sect that man who is supposed to have "taught" the Holy Prophet belonged and how he could teach him things which were against his own beliefs. Certainly the Prophet’s so-called helpers could not have helped him in abrogating the teachings of their own religious Scriptures.

3. It has corrected many Biblical statements. For instance, it declares that Aaron did not take part in the worship of the calf. It clears David, Solomon and Noah of the sinful acts ascribed to them in the Bible. These are facts to the truth of which even Christian writers have had to bear witness today when more than 1350 years have passed since these truths were, for the first time, proclaimed by the Quran. Surely, no Christian slave could teach the Prophet these historical truths.

4. The Quran has made some very important prophecies with regard to some of the events mentioned in the Bible. No Jewish or Christian sect had any knowledge of them. But their truth has now come to light. For instance, the Quran states that God preserved the body of Pharaoh so that it might be a sign for the generations to come. No Christian slave could impart this knowledge to the Prophet.

5. It appears from the traditions that the Holy Prophet used to visit Jabr’s shop in the fourth or fifth year of the Call, when he was boycotted by Meccans. But chapters 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the Quran which deal with Jews and Christians had been revealed before that time. Ibn Mas‘ud who was one of very early converts to Islam says that chapters 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 belong to the early Meccan period (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). All these Surahs abound in facts relating to Jews and Christians. How could the Prophet know these facts if the source of his information was the Christian slave, Jabr, the sword-cutter of Mecca?

Important Words:

مریم (Mary) is probably a compound word consisting of مر and یم and possesses, in Hebrew, a variety of meanings. Some of these meanings are: 'bitter sea'; 'drop of the sea'; 'star of the sea'; 'bitterness'; 'mistress or lady'. The word also means 'exalted'. It may also mean 'pious worshipper'. From two alternative roots the word might also mean, 'the rebellious', or 'the corpulent'. It seems that among the Jews and the Arabs corpulence was considered as a mark of beauty and girls who were corpulent were considered beautiful and therefore named Maryam. Maryam also seems to be a popular name among the Jews in the time of Jesus. See also 3:37.

شرقیاً (to the east) means, (1) facing the east; (2) to the east. مکاناً شرقیاً means, a place to the east; a place facing the east; a place in which the sun shines; an open dwelling place (Lane).

الکتاب (the Book) may refer both to the Bible and the Quran.

Commentary:

It seems relevant and necessary to mention, as a prelude to the somewhat detailed account of Jesus’ fatherless birth as given in the next several verses, some facts related about Mary in the Quran and the Bible.

The New Testament sheds practically no light on the life of Mary before she became pregnant. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give an extremely brief and discursive description of her circumstances before the above important event took place while Mark and John are completely silent over it. According to Matthew, Mary, on being married to Joseph, was found to be with a child. Joseph intended secretly to put her away but was refrained from taking this extreme step by an angel saying to him in a dream: "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife" (Matt. 1:19, 20). According to Luke, Mary was a relation of Zachariah’s wife and used to go to their house. Apart from this unimportant additional fact Luke leaves us quite in the dark about Mary’s account prior to her marriage with Joseph. But the Quran gives us a much more detailed account of Mary’s family, the circumstances that attended her birth, the vow of her mother, her childhood being dedicated to the service of the Church and lastly of her having conceived Jesus (3:36-38).

The present Surah, however, gives a still more detailed account of Mary having conceived Jesus and of what happened to her and to Jesus after his birth and after he was commissioned with his divine mission. The Quran has provided us with all necessary details about Mary that have any bearing on the important subject of prophethood which was about to be transferred from the House of Israel to that of Ishmael and which forms the principal thesis of the present Surah. If anything the Bible has given a very sorry picture of Jesus and his relations with his mother. Whereas the Quran depicts him to be kind, dutiful and very compassionate towards his mother, the Gospels show that he did not like his mother because she did not believe in him (Matt. 12:46-50). Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21 show that besides Mary, Jesus’ other relations did not believe in him while the Gospel of John keeps discreetly silent over this painful subject. We also know that the Jews used to taunt Jesus by saying that if his mission was true why his own relations did not believe in him (Matt. 13:55-56). Some of his relations and friends went so far as to lay hold on him for they said that he was beside himself (Mark 3:21). This attitude of disbelief on the part of his relatives towards Jesus had made him so bitter that when he was being taken to Calvary to be put on the cross and his mother appeared on the scene, he addressed her saying 'Woman, behold thy son!' (John 19:26). And when on another occasion a woman being very much impressed by his discourse said: 'Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked' (Luke 11:27), he retorted: 'Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it' (Luke 11:28), which signified that he could not even bear his mother being praised.

Such is the picture which the Gospels have drawn of the unenviable relations between Jesus and his mother. But the description is not only self-contradictory, it also offends against human nature and intelligence. The Quran, however, presents both these blessed and holy persons in quite a different light. Regarding Jesus it says that he was kind and loving, obedient and dutiful to his mother and that he was not haughty and rude (19:33) while about Mary it states that she was a pious, chaste and truthful woman and was a great worshipper of God and that God purified her, accepted her and chose her above the women of the world (3:43, 44; 5:76; 66:13). How great is the difference between the unenviable picture of Mary drawn by the Gospels and the beautiful description given of her in the Quran. Whereas the Biblical description is highly derogatory and self-contradictory, the Quranic description is not only consistent with the dignity of a highly righteous woman but is also more akin to truth and facts of history.

As the verse shows Mary withdrew herself to a place to the east. Special mention has been made of "a place to the east" in the verse, in order, perhaps, to point to the time-honoured custom of the Jews that they attached special significance to مشرق (east) and considered it sacred. They believed that the birth of the first man took place in the east where God planted a garden (Gen. 2:8). The Babylonians by whose traditions the Jews became much impressed as they had lived under them as captives also looked upon the east as "the gate of light" (Ezekiel 11:1). Matthew 2:2 and Revelation 7:2 also shed some light on the importance of the east. Both the Jews and Christians hold the east in special respect. They build their places of worship facing the east. This is why special mention has been made in the present verse "of a place to the East" and Mary has been described as having gone to "a place which was facing the east."

For a somewhat detailed note on the early life of Mary see vv. 3:36, 37, 38.

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9:123.

59:9.

Important Words:

أشداء (hard) is the plural of شدید which is derived from شد which means, he was or became strong. شد علی عدوہ means, he attacked his enemy. شدید means, firm or firm of heart; strong; compact; powerful; robust; courageous; brave; keen or tenacious; niggardly; avaricious; exalted (Lane & Aqrab).

سیما (mark) is derived from سوم (sawwama). They say سوم الفرس i.e. he put a mark upon the horse; he put the mark with iron such as is used for branding or with something whereby he should be known. سیما or سومة means, a mark, sign or token or badge by which a thing is known or by which the good is known from the bad (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The preceding verse had made a great prophecy about the eventual triumph of Islam over all other religious systems. The verse under comment signifies that the foundation of the grand and glorious future of Islam have already been laid by "Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah and those who are with him," and mentions some of the noble qualities of good and sincere believers, through whose selfless efforts this consummation will be brought about. They are brave, firm and courageous and not susceptible to the evil influences of bad persons and environment; on the contrary, they are loving and kind towards each other. These are the two essential characteristics of a progressive and rising people who seek to leave their mark on the course of world events. Elsewhere in the Quran (5:55) the true and good Muslims have been described as أذلة علی المؤمنین أعزة علی الکافرین i.e. kind and humble towards believers and hard and firm against disbelievers.

The words, "this is their description in the Torah," may refer to the Biblical description, viz. "he shined forth from mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints" (Deut. 33:2). And the expression, "and their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce" may refer to another Biblical parable, viz. "Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed seeds some fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold" (Matt. 13:3-8). The former description seems to apply to the Companions of the Holy Prophet and the latter parable to the followers of Jesus’ Counterpart, the Promised Messiah, who, from very small and insignificant beginnings, are destined to develop into a mighty organization and gradually but progressively to carry the Message of Islam to the ends of the earth till it will prevail and triumph over all religions, and its opponents will wonder at, and be jealous of, its power and prestige.

2:88; 5:47.

5:83.

Commentary:

The verse may mean that the followers of Jesus invented monasticism in order to seek Allah’s pleasure but Allah had not prescribed it for them; or they invented monasticism which God had not prescribed for them—He had only prescribed for them the seeking of His pleasure.

In v. 26, it was stated that God had sent down المیزان (Balance) in order that people may act with equity and justice, i.e. by avoiding extremes they should adopt the golden mean or the middle course in all their affairs and actions because that was the best and the safest course. In the present verse the example of a people—the Christians—has been cited to show that the adoption of an extreme course by them, with howsoever good intentions, led them away from the goal they had sought to attain. They invented the institution of monkery in order, as they thought, to seek the pleasure of God, and in conformity with, according to them, Jesus’s own teaching and practice. The adage that the road to Heaven is paved with good intentions was never better illustrated than in the case of Christians for whom monkery proved a source of many evils. They started with monasticism and ended with giving themselves up to the worship of Mammon. By implication the Muslims were told that because a great Prophet had been raised for them, by following whom they would be given great worldly power and wealth, they should not go to the other extreme and give themselves up to the pursuit of material gains and physical pleasures. While monasticism has been decried and deplored as repugnant to human nature, the Holy Prophet also is reported to have said: لارھبانیة فی الاسلام i.e. there is no monasticism in Islam (Ibn Athir). Islam is not a religion for dreamers and visionaries who live in a world of their own conception, entirely divorced from the hard realities of life, but it is a practical system which gives effective and full guidance in mundane as well as spiritual affairs. It has not left any aspect of crowded human life for which it has not laid down practical guidance. There is no place in Islam for such an impracticable teaching as "take no thought for the morrow" (Matt. 6:34). It emphatically enjoins a Muslim "to look to what he sends forth for the morrow" (59:19). According to Islam a true Muslim is one who discharges fully and completely the obligations he owes to his fellow beings (حقوق العباد) as he discharges those he owes to his Creator (حقوق اللّٰه).

27:14; 43:31.

Important Words:

أحمد (Ahmad) is derived from حمد and حمدہ means, he praised, eulogised or commended him; spoke well of him; he requited him; he gave him his due. أحمد (Ahmada) means, he did or said that for which he should be praised or which was praiseworthy. أحمد الشیء means, the thing was or became praiseworthy. أحمد means, one who praises much or who is praised much or most (Lane & Taj).

Commentary:

The prophecy of Jesus about the coming of Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth as given in the Gospels is as follows:

I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it sees him not, neither knoweth him… but when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me… for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you… I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you unto all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come… He shall glorify me (John 14: 16-17. 15: 26; 16: 7, 12-14).

From these verses of the Gospel of John the following inferences are clearly deducible:

(1) That Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth could not come unless Jesus should have departed from the world.

(2) That the Comforter was to abide in the world for ever.

(3) That he was to say many things which Jesus himself could not tell because the world could not then bear them.

(4) That he would guide men unto all truth.

(5) That he would not speak of himself, but whatever he would hear that would he speak.

(6) That the Comforter would glorify Jesus and testify of him.

This description of Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth is in complete harmony with the status and mission of the Holy Prophet as given in the Quran:

(1) The Holy Prophet appeared after Jesus had departed from this world.

(2) He is the last Law-giving Prophet and the Quran the last revealed Divine Law for the whole of mankind till the end of time (5:4).

(3) Jesus could not guide mankind to all truth because his Message was meant only for a particular people and for a particular period. And the Law as amended and given to the Jews by him was not and could not be a complete and perfect Law because they had not yet mentally and morally so developed as to be the bearers of a complete Shari‘ah and the world had to wait till it was given a perfect Law in the form of the Quran (5:4) and a Prophet par excellence i.e. the Holy Prophet who could guide all mankind.

(4) The Holy Prophet gave to the world a Law complete in all its details which alone could guide mankind unto all truth (5:4).

(5) The Holy Prophet did not speak of himself but whatever he heard from God that did he speak (53:4).

(6) The Holy Prophet glorified Jesus (2:254; 3:56).

The prophecy in the Gospel of John resembles the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment except that instead of Ahmad the name stated therein is Paraclete. Christian writers challenge the correctness of the Quranic version of the prophecy, basing their contention on this difference of names, irrespective of the otherwise similar features of Biblical & Quranic versions.

In fact, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic was his mother tongue and Hebrew his religious language. The present Biblical version is the translation of Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek.

A translation naturally cannot fully convey the beauty of the text. Languages have their limitations. The same is true of the people who speak them. Their limitations are reflected in their works. The Greek language has another word, i.e.Periklutos, with a similar meaning as Ahmad in Arabic. Jack Finegan, the renowned theologian, in his book, "The Archaeology of World Religions," says:

"Where in Greek the word Comforter (Parakletos) is very similar to the word for 'renowned' (Periklutos), the latter being the meaning of the names Ahmad & Muhammad."

Moreover, "The Damascus Document" a scripture discovered towards the end of the nineteenth century in Ezra synagogue, Old Cairo (p. 2. lines 12, 13) describes Jesus as having foretold the advent of a "Holy Spirit," named Emeth.

ویود یعیم بید مشیحو روح قد شو و ھوا ایمة و بفروش

شمو شمو تیھم

i.e. And by His Messiah, He has made them know His Holy Spirit. For it is He who is Emeth i.e. “The Truthful One”, and in accordance with His name are also theirs.

"Emeth" in Hebrew means "the Truth," or "the Truthful one and a person of constant goodness" (Strachan’s Fourth Gospel, page 141). The word was interpreted by the Jews as "God’s Seal." Naturally, though Jesus must have used the name Ahmad, the phonetic resemblance of the two words (Ahmad & Emeth) caused later writers to substitute "Emeth"for Ahmad, its Hebrew synonym.

Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, since in his person the Second Manifestation of the Holy Prophet took place. To this Second Manifestation or Second Coming of the Holy Prophet, the third verse of the next Surah—Al-Jumu‘ah pointedly refers.

It may be mentioned here that a prophecy about the Holy Prophet is also clearly stated in Gospel of Barnabas which is treated by the Church as apocryphal but which has as much claim to be accepted as authentic as any of the four Gospels.