Topic: Objections To

11:2.

39:24.

7:54; 18:79.

4:163.

Important Words:

محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).

متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).

زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.

الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.

What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.

Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.

This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.

According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).

The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.

It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.

As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.

The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.

Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.

The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.

Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.

47:25.

Commentary:

The word اختلاف (disagreement) may have two meanings: (1) either it may refer to contradictions in the text of the Quranand the teachings contained therein; or (2) it may refer to the non-agreement between the Quranic announcements in the form of prophecies and their result or fulfilment. The Quran is free from اختلاف (disagreement) in both these respects. In spite of covering an extremely vast field of reform—spiritual, moral, social, economic, political, legal, etc.—its teachings are perfectly harmonious, no part clashing in letter or spirit with another, no section nourished at the cost of another.

Taken in the second sense, the verse means that all the different announcements and prophecies made by the Quran are proving, and will prove, to be true; and there can be no disagreement in this respect either. If the Quran had not been the Word of God, but the fabrication of man, most of the prophecies and promises made by it under extremely adverse conditions would have failed to materialize.

So the fact that the prophecies made in the Quran have been, and are being, fulfilled against all calculations and all expectations and in a most wonderful manner is a proof positive of the fact that it is the revealed Word of God.

The word, much, qualifying the word disagreement should not be construed to mean that some disagreement in the Quran is possible. The expression is simply intended to mean that, whereas otherwise there would have been much disagreement, the Quran being the Word of God, there is, in fact, none.

10:43; 17:48.

17:47; 41:6.

Commentary:

For an explanation of "veils" and "deafness", see 2:8.

What the Quran calls "signs" are described by disbelievers as mere "fables of the ancients," which saying of theirs is condemned by God. This shows that in the sight of God the stories of past Prophets and past nations given in the Quran are not meant as "tales" or "stories" but as "signs", being prophecies of future events which, when fulfilled, will serve as "signs".

6:26; 68:16; 83:14.

Commentary:

The disbelievers alleged that they could produce a composition like that of the Quran. It was, however, nothing but an empty boast on their part, which they never attempted to carry into effect; and the challenge of the Quran, which declared that they would never be able to produce even a short chapter like any chapter of the Quran, has ever remained unanswered. The disbelievers also thought that the Quran contained nothing but the tales of the ancients. The verse under comment contradicts this assertion by drawing their attention to the powerful prophecies contained in the Quran which unmistakably prove it to be the Word of God, it being beyond the power of man to produce a composition containing such powerful prophecies. The Battle of Badr, for instance, fulfilled many a mighty prophecy, foretold by the Quran (e.g 54:45-47; 34:30, 31)—a fact which rendered it impossible for man to imitate a production like it, and which fully exposed the absurdity of the assertion that the Quran was nothing but tales of the ancients.

27:85.

Commentary:

The verse means that it is no wonder that disbelievers look upon the Quran as a fabrication (see the preceding verse). When a man does not understand a thing fully, he is prone to deny it. As disbelievers did not comprehend the Quranic teaching and found it to be contradictory to many of their confirmed views and cherished notions, they rejected it forthwith. The words, they have rejected that the knowledge of which they did not compass, may also mean, "they hastened to reject the Quran before even trying to understand it or knowing its true significance."

The words, nor has the true significance thereof yet come to them, may lead some to think that if a long period must elapse before the reality and true significance of some of the things promised by the Prophets could be known, then it would not be wrong to disbelieve in them in the beginning when that reality could not yet be known. But such an inference would be manifestly wrong. The verse does not mean that in the beginning the Prophets do not possess those proofs and arguments which can help seekers after truth to know and recognize their truth. What it means is that those who, in spite of witnessing signs which go to establish the truth of a Prophet, attach importance to certain other matters to which they wrongly give undue weight, should not be in a hurry to deny the truth of the Prophet on that score only but should wait till those matters about which they entertain doubts are clarified.

The Rev. Mr. Wherry, quoting Brinkman, says that on the basis of this verse no blame could attach to the Meccans for rejecting the Quran, because, according to the Quran itself, they were not yet in full possession of the required knowledge. But the reverend gentleman did not trouble to consider that it is one thing to be unable to possess full knowledge about a certain thing and quite another not to try to acquire such knowledge. The Quran does not say that disbelievers were unable to get sufficient knowledge by which they could know the truth of the Holy Prophet, but that they never tried to acquire such knowledge and rejected him on the ground that he was a common man like themselves.

10:2; 12:2; 13:2; 14:2; 15:2.

3:8; 10:2.

Important Words:

الر (Alif Lam Ra). For these abbreviated letters see 2:2 and 10:2. احکمت (made unchangeable) is formed from احکمwhich is derived from حکم. They say حکمه i.e. he prevented or restrained him from acting in an evil manner; or he turned him from wrongdoing. احکمه means, he made it firm, stable, strong or sound; he put it into a firm, stable, strong, sound or good state; it made him characterized by wisdom. احکمته التجارب means, trials have rendered him firm or sound or wise in judgement (Lane). The expression احکمت ایاته would thus mean: the verses of this Book are rendered sound and firm by arguments and proofs; or they are prevented from being corrupted; or the verses of this Book are characterized by wisdom; or the teachings of this Book withhold people from evil. See also 3:8.

فصلت (expounded in detail) is derived from فصل (fasala) which means, he separated or divided a thing from another thing; he decided a dispute, etc. فصل الکلام (fassala) means, he explained; or he made the speech distinct, clear or perspicuous. فصل الشیء means, he made the thing to consist of (or he divided the thing into) distinct portions or sections. تفصیل means, explaining distinctly or in detail.

خبیر (All-Aware) is derived from خبر (khabura) or خبر (khabara) which means, he knew or had knowledge of a thing with respect to its real state. خبرہ (khabarahu) also means, he tried or tested or made experiment of it.

خبیر means, knowing; possessing knowledge or information or possessing much knowledge with respect to internal qualities of things; informed. It is one of the attributive names of God meaning, He Who knows what has been and what is and what will be; or He Who well knows the internal qualities of things (Lane).

Commentary:

A comparison of this verse with 3:8 shows that the verses of the Quran which have been spoken of as متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) in the latter verse are here described by the word فصلت (have been expounded in detail). Thus the present verse helps to make clear that the term متشابھات in 3:8 represents the details of the Quranic teachings, and it is these detailed teachings which the opponents of Islam seek to criticize. The fundamental teachings of Islam are so unassailable that even its most inveterate enemy finds it difficult to take exception to them. But, in order to know the whole truth about Islam, a study of both its fundamental teachings and their details is necessary, and when the details are subordinated to the fundamentals, no ground is left for doubt or misgiving. For instance, the Quranic teaching about the punishment of various offences is sometimes criticized; but, when this question is considered in the light of its fundamental teachings, one is constrained to admit its absolute superiority. The fundamental teaching of Islam on this point is that the offender should be punished when punishment is calculated to produce good results, but that he may be pardoned and mercy shown to him when mercy is likely to lead to the desired results (42:41). This is the basic teaching of Islam about punishment, which may be inflicted or withheld as occasion demands. Similarly, Islam permits resort to arms in certain cases, which to some appears to be objectionable, but we cannot shut our eyes to the hard fact that sometimes war becomes unavoidable for the establishment and maintenance of justice and equity. The permission, on certain occasions, to have recourse to arms is thus like the surgeon’s operation which may superficially appear to be cruel but is in reality an act of mercy.

The expression, It is from One Wise and All-Aware, means that these teachings proceed from One Who is both Wise and Knowing and therefore they can be relied upon as really useful and beneficial. As this chapter contains repeated references to Divine punishments, therefore, in order to forewarn the reader that these punishments were meted out to offenders under the Divine attribute of "Wisdom" and were not inflicted unjustly, it opens with the Divine attribute of حکیم (Wise). Similarly, by mentioning the Divine attribute of خبیر (All-Aware), the Quran reminds the reader that the Divine Possessor of this attribute, being fully aware of the true reality of things, cannot forego the punishment which the wickedness of evildoers rightly demands.

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

Commentary:

The verse reverts to the original theme and says that when deniers of the Unity of God and Resurrection listen to arguments in support of these doctrines, instead of giving them proper consideration they make light of them by saying that these arguments are a mere repetition of the sayings of the ancients. By such remarks they seek to divert the attention of their followers from the truth. This is a common device of the opponents of truth. They always assert that there is nothing new in the teachings of their Prophet, and think that this assertion alone constitutes a sufficient refutation of his claims. As a matter of fact, Prophets of God come to remind men of the old truths that the latter had forgotten. If the later Prophets had taught what had not been taught by their predecessors they would indeed be impostors. Of course, every Prophet presents old truths in a new garb and, if necessary, makes some additions or alterations as required by the circumstances and conditions of his age.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

31:28.

Commentary:

Christian nations of the west boast of their great inventions and scientific discoveries and seem to labour under the misconception that they have succeeded in fathoming the secret of creation itself. But, says the verse, this is nothing but a vain boast. God’s secrets are so inexhaustible and He has endowed His creatures with such wonderful powers and attributes that far from fathoming the secret of creation, what these people will be able to discover after all their striving will not be even as much as a drop in the ocean.

The verse also hints that those will be the days of publicity and innumerable books on all sorts of subjects will be published but even then the vast ocean of knowledge will remain unfathomed.

21:43; 26:6.

Commentary:

In form every message which a Prophet brings is a new one but in substance and essence it is the same old message. "I am no new Messenger," the Quran depicts the Holy Prophet as saying with regard to himself (46:10). The verse under comment means to say that every new Divine Message in its own time was treated with mockery and derision by disbelievers.

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.

Commentary:

The subject of the verb قال may both be God and the Holy Prophet.

The particle فی means, in; about; regarding. The word السماء may signify heavenly sciences or things connected with the spiritual realm, and the word الارض may stand for material or worldly sciences.

The verse means to say that the disbelievers reject the Message of the Quran on the plea that they see nothing in the Holy Prophet beyond an ordinary human being but they ignore the patent fact that the All-Hearing and All-Knowing God is at his back. God knows full well all their secret and open plots and machinations against Islam and He hears the prayers of the Holy Prophet and His chosen servants and will frustrate all the evil designs of disbelievers.

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.

27:69.

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.

17:107; 73:5.

11:121.

Important Words:

رتلناہ ترتیلا (We arranged it in the best form) is derived from رتل (ratala). They say رتل الشیء i.e. the thing was or became well arranged. رتل الکلام (rattala) means, he put together and arranged well the component parts of the speech or saying and made it distinct. ترتیل (inf. noun) in its original sense relates to the teeth, their being separate one from another. The addition of the infinitive to the verb رتلنا is done in order to intensify the sense (Lane).

Commentary:

The Quran was revealed piecemeal and at intervals. This was intended to serve two very useful purposes: (i) The interval between the revelation of different passages afforded the believers an opportunity to witness fulfilment of some of the prophecies made in the passages already revealed and thus their faith became strengthened and fortified. Further it was intended to answer the objections raised by disbelievers during the interval. (ii) When Muslims needed guidance on a particular occasion to meet a particular need, necessary and relevant verses were revealed. Besides, the revelation of the Quran was spread over a period of 23 years in order to enable the Companions of the Holy Prophet to remember, learn and assimilate it. Moreover, the Quran had anticipated one possible objection of disbelievers and its gradual revelation was intended to answer that objection. If it had been revealed at once and in the form of one complete book, the disbelievers could have said that the Holy Prophet had got it all prepared from somebody. Thus its gradual revelation at different times, on different occasions and under vastly different conditions and circumstances, effectively smashed this possible objection. Last of all there was a prophecy of Prophet Isaiah that the last Divine Book would be revealed piecemeal and at intervals. The prophecy is as follows:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge and whom shall he make to understand the message? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breast? For it is precept upon precept; precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little: for with strange lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28: 9-10).

The words, "We have arranged it in the best form," signify that whereas the Quran was revealed gradually and piecemeal to meet the needs of changing circumstances, it did not remain a collection of disorderly fragments but was given a perfect order and arrangement by Divine revelation. It may be noted here that the present order of the Quran is different from that in which it was originally revealed. It was revealed in an order which suited the needs and requirements of its immediate addressees and was arranged, under Divine direction, in an order which suited the permanent needs of humanity at large. Since both these kinds of needs were different, the two orders should necessarily have been different. It is indeed an outstanding miracle of the Quran that it was revealed in an order which was best suited for the needs of the period during which it was revealed and was arranged for permanent use in the order which was also best suited for humanity’s lasting needs.