Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 3 (Surah Āl ‘Imrān), VERSES 61 - 63

فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّـهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٦١﴾ إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَهُوَ الْقَصَصُ الْحَقُّۚ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـٰهٍ إِلَّا اللَّـهُۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ﴿٦٢﴾ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ عَلِيمٌ بِالْمُفْسِدِينَ ﴿٦٣﴾

But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars’’ (61). Most surely this is the true story, and there is no god but Allāh; and most surely Allāh is the Mighty, the Wise (62). But if they turn back then surely Allāh knows the mischief makers (63).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

QUR’ĀN: But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge: ‘‘Fa’’ (فَ = translated here as ‘‘But’’) shows that the offer of al-mubāhalah (اَلْمُبَاهَلَةُ = earnest imprecation) branches out from the Divine teaching explained above so clearly and convincingly about ‘Īsā son of Maryam (a.s.), and ended so emphatically with the words, The truth is from your Lord, so be not of the doubters (60). ‘‘in this’’: The pronoun ‘‘this’’ refers either to ‘Īsā or to the ‘‘truth’’ mentioned in the preceding verse.

The preceding verses were Divine Revelation in which there could be no doubt at all. Apart from that, they contained a clear logical proof, that is, the verse: Surely the likeness of ‘Īsā is with Allāh as the likeness of Adam (59). Thus, the knowledge emanating from these verses is twofold: one, because it is a Divine Speech: two, because of its rational proof. That is why this knowledge was not reserved for the Prophet only; others too could understand it. Even if someone did not believe it to be a Divine Revelation, he could not entertain any doubt about the truth of the subject discussed, because it contained rational argument which unbiased mind was bound to accept. Perhaps that is why Allāh said: ‘‘after what has come to you of knowledge’’; and did not say, after what We have explained to them.

Another point: By reminding the Prophet of the Divine Knowledge, Allāh wanted to assure him that he would overwhelm his adversaries by Allāh’s permission and that Allāh would surely be on his side supporting him in that dispute.

QUR’ĀN: then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves: The first person plural pronoun in ‘‘let us call’’ has a different import from the plural pronouns in ‘‘our sons’’ ‘‘our women’’ and ‘‘our selves’’. The former refers to the both parties of the argument, that is, the advocates of Islam and those of Christianity; while the latter refer to the side of Islam only. Accordingly, the meaning would be as follows: Let us both call the sons, the women and the ‘selves’; we should call our sons, our women and our ‘selves’, and you should call your sons, your women and your ‘selves’. The verse thus has shortened a long sentence in a meaningful and pleasant way.

al-Mubāhalah (اَلْمُبَاهَلَةُ ) and al-mulā‘anah (اَلْمُلَاعِنَةُ ) both have the same meaning: to curse each other. The actual parties of the argument were the Messenger of Allāh on one side, and the Christians men on the other. But in the challenge for the imprecation, the call was extended to the sons and women, as it would show more convincingly that the claimant is perfectly sure of the truth of his claim, that he is absolutely right. Allāh has put in man the love of his children and family, to such an extent that he puts himself in jeopardy to save them, plunges into perilous situations to keep them safe. And precisely for this reason, sons have been mentioned before women, because man loves his sons more than his women.

An exegete has said: ‘‘The verse means, let us call your sons, your women and your selves; and let you call our sons, our women and our selves.’’ But the explanation given by us above shows how absurd this meaning is. This meaning does not leave any justification for including the sons and the women in the earnest imprecation.

The detailed description of the invitees is a further proof that the caller (i.e., the Prophet) has absolute confidence in the truth of his claim. The import of the call is as follows: Let my whole group and your whole group enter into earnest imprecation, so that both groups pray earnestly to Allāh and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars. In this way, the Divine curse and chastisement shall cover the sons, women and selves of the liars, and the enemies of truth shall be annihilated completely, they shall be rooted out without leaving any trace.

Consequently, the truth of this speech does not depend on numerousness of the sons, the women or the ‘selves’. The main brunt of the challenge is that one party - that which is on wrong - should perish together with all its near and dear ones - male and female, old and young. The exegetes unanimously say - and traditions and history support them - that when the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) came out for the imprecation, the only persons whom he brought with him were: ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be on them all!). Therefore, the only participants, on the side of Islam, were two ‘selves’, two sons and one woman - and yet the Prophet did fully comply with the Divine Command.

Moreover, the meaning of a word in a verse is one thing, and it is quite another matter as for whom, or on how many people, could that word be applied in practice. We find numerous examples in the Qur’ān where an order, a promise or a threat has been mentioned using plural words, but the circumstances of its revelation show that it was revealed for one person only. For example: (As for) those of you who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers, they are not their mothers (58:2); And (as for) those who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers then would recall what they said (58:3); Allāh has certainly heard the saying of those who said: ‘‘Surely Allāh is poor and we are rich’’ (3:181); And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: ‘‘Whatever can be spared’’ (2:219). There are a lot of verses which were revealed with plural words, although the events for which they were revealed concerned one person only.

QUR’ĀN: ‘‘then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars’’: ‘‘al-Ibtihāl’’ (اَلْاِبْتِهَالُ ) is derived from al bahlah (اَلْبَهْلَةُ ) also pronounced al-buhlah (اَلْبَهْلَةُ = curse). This is its basic meaning; then it was commonly used for earnest prayer.

The words, ‘‘and bring about the curse of Allāh’’, are a sort of explanation for the preceding verb, ‘‘then let us pray earnestly.’’ The verse said, ‘‘and bring about the curse of Allāh’’; it did not say, and ask from Allāh to curse. It was an indication that that prayer would surely be granted because at that juncture it was the only way to distinguish the truth from the falsehood.

The word, ‘‘the liars’’, does not refer to all the liars found anywhere in the world, nor does it mean the genes of the liars. It refers to a particular group - that party of the argument (between the Prophet and the Christians) which was wrong in its claim. The Prophet was saying that Allāh is One, there is no god besides Him, and that ‘Īsā was His servant and messenger; while the Christians said that ‘Īsā was God, and son of God, and that God had three persons.

This observation leads us to another reality. All those who came out for the proposed imprecation were equal partners in their respective claim. Had the claim and the resulting imprecation been between the Prophet only and the Christians, one party (i.e., the Prophet) would demand singular words, and the other, plural. In such cases, it is necessary to use an expression which would cover singular and plural both. For example, the sentence under discussion could have been written like this: and bring about the curse of Allāh on whosoever is lying. But it says: ‘‘... on the liars.’’ It proves that indeed there were liars (in plural) in one party of the argument, either on the side of the Prophet or on the Christians’ side. Consequently, all those who came out for the imprecation would be partners in the claim - because lie presupposes a claim. Therefore, those who were present on the side of the Prophet for the imprecation - i.e., ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn - were partners in the claim of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and his Mission. It is one of the most excellent virtues which were given exclusively to these family-members of the Prophet (peace be on them all!). Another exclusive excellence: Allāh gave them the names of ‘selves’, women and sons of the Prophet to the exclusion of all the men, women and children of the ummah.

Question: You have mentioned above that the Qur’ān uses, more often than not, plural words for singular; and even this verse says ‘‘our women’’ while it was only one lady, i.e., Fātimah (a.s.), who participated in the imprecation. Then why should the plural, ‘‘the liars’’, be not explained in the same way?

Reply: There is a vast difference between the two. There is a situation which may happen again and again, and there is another which is not expected to repeat itself. In the former situation, it is perfectly all right to use a plural in place of a singular, so that the rule or comment would cover even those who would be doing the same thing in future. But in the latter situation it is not allowed to use plural in place of singular, because the event is not to repeat itself and no one else is expected to be included in that order or comment, etc. Look for example at the following verses:

And when you said to him to whom Allāh had shown favour and to whom you had shown favour: Keep your wife to yourself and fear Allāh (33:37).

The tongue of him whom they are inclined to blame (for it) is barbarous and this is clear Arabic tongue (16:103).

O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and a believing woman if she gave hereself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her - specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; (33:50).

And the order for calling to the imprecation could not be extended beyond that particular situation, that is, the imprecation between the Prophet and the Christians. Therefore, when Allāh uses a plural, there should be more than two in both parties which were called; otherwise, the use of the plural ‘‘the liars’’ would be out of place.

Question: All the Christians who had come in the delegation of the Najrān were a party to a claim - the claim that ‘Īsā was God, and the son of God, and one of the three persons of God. There was no discord among them in this matter, nor was there any difference in this claim between their men and women. Likewise, the claim on the side of the Prophet - that Allāh is One, there is no god but He; and ‘Īsā son of Maryam was His servant and His messenger - was upheld by all the believers; it was not confined to any one of them - not even the Prophet.

Therefore, it is out of place to say that those who were brought by the Prophet for the imprecation had any superiority or excellence over the rest of the believers. In fact, the Prophet had brought them just as examples of the sons, women and selves mentioned in the verse.

Moreover, claim and mission are two different things. Those who participated in the imprecation were party to the claim. How is it that you have made them partners in the Mission too?

Reply: Had the Prophet brought them just as samples, it was necessary for him to bring at least two other men, three women and three sons - to comply with the demand of the plurals. Yet, he did not do so.

It proves that only those who came with him were worthy of being called his sons, his women and his selves - to the exclusion of all the others.

Only on accepting this fact, we can say that he obeyed the Divine Order given in this verse. In other words, he could not find any one worthy of being included in these categories, except the one man, one woman and two sons whom he brought with him. There was no one else whom he could include in compliance with the plural words of the verse. In these circumstance, he fully complied with the order, although he could not bring three persons in any category.

Moreover, if you ponder on the events, you will see that the only aim of the Christians of Najrān in coming to Medina was to confront the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and to argue with him about ‘Īsā son of Maryam. It was the Messenger of Allāh who was claiming that ‘Īsā was a servant of Allāh and His messenger. It was he who called others to believe in this claim, saying that it was based on Divine Revelation -

the revelation which, he said, was sent to him. As for the rest of the believers, the Christians had nothing to do with them; nor did they argue with them. That is why Allāh has used singular verbs and pronouns in the beginning of this verse, when referring to the Prophet: ‘‘But whoever disputes with you (literally:thee) in this after what has come to you (lit.:thee) of knowledge, then say (lit.:say thou)...’’ The same is the case of the verse: But if they dispute with you (lit.:thee), say (lit.:say thou): ‘‘I have submitted myself (entirely) to Allāh and (so has) every one who follows me’’ (3:20).

The above explanation shows that the Messenger of Allāh (blessings of Allāh be on him and his progeny!) had not brought those personalities as samples or examples of other believers - because the believers, per se, had no part in that disputation or imprecation; and there was no reason why they should be offered as targets for the curse and punishment which were to come to one of the two parties (the Christians and their adversary, i.e., the Prophet). The Prophet himself was a party of that argument and it was his obligation to offer himself as the target of the calamity which could come to him in case his claim was (God forbid!) wrong. Now, there was no reason why he should bring ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (a.s.) with him, if his claim were not dependent on them also, as it was on his own self. He had come with them for imprecation because they were the only sons, woman and self on whom his claim depended. Surely he had not brought them as samples or examples. It is now crystal clear that these personalities were his partners in his claim; the claim depended on them as it did on him.

Furthermore, the Christians had come to argue with the Prophet not just because he believed that ‘Īsā son of Maryam was the servant and messenger of Allāh. They had taken upon themselves to come upto Medina because, in addition to claiming those things about ‘Īsā, he had called and invited them to believe likewise. This call, this mission, was the main reason why they had come in delegation for argument.

Consequently, when the Prophet came to the appointed place of imprecation, bringing with him the four personalities, it was because of that claim and that call together. Thus these personalities were his partners in his mission, as they had been his partners in his claim.

Question: We accept that the Prophet came with them because they were a part of him; and this attribute was not found in others, it was their exclusive excellence. But it appears - and normal practice confirms it - that when a man brings his near and dear ones, his women and children, in dangerous and frightening places, it shows that he is fully confident of his and their safety and comfort. His bringing them for imprecation proves only that he was absolutely sure of his truth - it does not show anything else. It is quite irrelevant to say that his action proves that they were his partners in the mission.

Reply: It is true that the beginning of the verse does not show more than that which has been mentioned above. But the end of the verse, that is, ‘‘on the liars’’, shows that there were surely liars (in plural) in one of the two sides of the argument and imprecation. Such expression could only be used if there were several people in each group, all making some claim - be it true or false. Therefore, those who were brought there by the Prophet were indeed his partners, both in the claim and in the mission, as was explained above. It is thus proved that those who were present there with the Prophet - all of them - were parties to the claim and the mission, together with the Prophet, and were his partners in it.

Question: It follows, from what you have said, that they were his partners in the prophethood.

Reply: Not at all. We have explained earlier where we have discussed ‘‘Prophethood’’9 that the Call and Propagation are not one and the same with the prophethood, although they are among its conditions and concomitants, and are parts of the divinely-bestowed responsibilities which a prophet takes upon himself. Likewise, we have made it clear in the discourse about the Imāmah10 that they are not identical with Imāmah either, although they are in a way among its concomitants.

QUR’ĀN: Most surely this is the true story, and there is no god but Allāh: The demonstrative pronoun ‘‘this’’ refers to the earlier mentioned stories of ‘Īsā (a.s.). There is a fine literary transposition in the sentence.

What it says is as follows: Most surely the stories We have told you concerning ‘Īsā are the truth - not that which is told by the Christians.

There is multiple emphasis in this sentence: Innā (اِنَّ = surely), and laل ) = surely) followed by an additional pronoun huwa (هُوَ = this) are all combined together to put utmost emphasis on this statement. It was done to cheer the Prophet and to encourage him and strengthen his heart for the coming imprecation, by augmenting his certainty and insight, and fortifying his confidence in the revelation which Allāh had sent to him. It is further strengthened by additional emphasis contained in the next sentence which describes an accompanying reality: ‘‘and there is no god but Allāh’’. This fact once again shows that the preceding stories are truth.

QUR’ĀN: and most surely Allāh is the Mighty, the Wise: The conjunctive ‘‘and’’ joins it to the first sentence of the verse. The same modes of emphasis have again been used here. It aims at further comforting the Prophet and strengthening his heart. It says that Allāh is Mighty: He has power to help the side of the truth. And He is Wise: He cannot neglect or forget this aid, because ignorance or oblivion cannot reach Him. He is not like those false deities whom the enemies of the truth have taken for themselves besides Him.

This explanation shows why these two Divine Names were chosen for concluding this verse. The sentence contains an exclusiveness: Only Allāh is the Mighty and the Wise.

QUR’ĀN: But if they turn back then surely Allāh knows the mischief makers: What should be the actual aim of any argument or imprecation? The manifestation of the truth. If so, then it is unthinkable for a seeker of truth to turn back from it. If the Christians really wanted the truth to be manifested - and they knew that Allāh was the Guardian of truth and that He would never allow it to be, destroyed or invalidated - they would not turn back from the proposed imprecation. And if they did, it would show that their aim by all this argumentation and disputation was not the manifestation of truth; they only wanted apparent victory, preservation of the status they had and beliefs they followed, and continuation of the customs and traditions with which they were familiar. Their only goal was that which their desire, lust and greed had made to seem fair to them - and it was not the good life which conforms with truth and happiness; it was but a semblance of life. In other words, they did not want reform and improvement; they wanted to make mischief in the world by corrupting the good life. Their turning back would mean that they were mischief-makers.

The sentence uses a metaphorical device of putting the cause in place of the effect; it mentions their mischief-making instead of saying that they do not want the truth to be manifested.

The second part of the sentence refers to the Divine Attribute of knowledge, andi it has been emphasized with addition of inna (surely), as it says: ‘‘then surely Allāh knows’’. It was to show that mischief-making and thwarting the manifestation of truth was ingrained in their psyche, and Allāh knows that as a result of that deep rooted trait they will surely turn back from the imprecation. And so they did and by doing so proved the truth of the Divine Words.

TRADITIONS

as-Sādiq (a.s.) said: ‘‘When the Christians of Najrān came to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) as a delegation - and their leaders were al-Ahtam, al-‘Āqib, and as-Sayyid - and (the time of) their prayer came, they began to ring hand-bells and prayed. The Companions of the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh! This in your Mosque?’ He said: ‘Let them be!’ When they finished (their prayer) they came near the Messenger of Allāh and said: ‘To what do you call (us)?’ He said: ‘To bearing the witness that there is no god except Allāh, and that I am the Messenger of Allāh, and that ‘Īsā was a servant created (by Allāh), he used to eat, drink and relieve himself.’ They said: ‘Then who was his father?’ Thereupon came the revelation to the Messenger of Allāh saying: ‘Say to them, ‘‘What do you say about Adam? Was he a servant created (by Allāh) who used to eat, drink, relieve himself and cohabit?’’ ’ The Prophet put this question to them and they replied: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then who was his father?’ and they became speechless. Then Allāh sent down (the verse): Surely the likeness of ‘Īsā is with Allāh as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust ...; and the verse: But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars.

‘‘Then the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘(If you do not agree with what I say) then enter into earnest imprecation with me; thus if I am truthful the curse will be sent down on you and if I am a liar it will be sent down on me.’ The said: ‘You have done justice.’

‘‘So they made an appointment for the imprecation. When they returned to the place they were staying, their leaders as-Sayyid, al-‘Āqib and al-Ahtam, said: ‘If he comes for the imprecation against us with his nation (i.e., people unrelated to him), we shall enter into imprecation against him, because then he is not a prophet. But if he enters into imprecation against us with only the people of his House, we shall not enter into imprecation against him, because he will not put the People of his House forward unless he is truthful.'

‘‘When the morning came, they came to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) - and there were with him the Leader of the Faithful (‘Alī), Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (a.s.). The Christians said: ‘Who are these?’ They were told: ‘This is his cousin, al-wasiy (اَلْوَصِيُّ = executor of will) and son-in-law, and this is his daughter Fātimah, and these are his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn.’ So they were frightened and said to the Messenger of Allāh: ‘We shall pay you whatever you are pleased with, but excuse us from the imprecation.’ Thereupon the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) made agreement with them on (the condition of) al-jizyahاَلْجِزْيَةُ ) = tax); and they went away.’’ (at-Tafsīr, alQummī)

ar-Rayyān ibn as-Salt narrates a talk of ar-Ridā (a.s.) with al-Ma’mūn and the scholars about the difference between the Prophet’s progeny and the rest of the ummah and the former’s superiority over the latter, in which he, inter alia, says: ‘‘The scholars said: ‘Has Allāh explained (this) selection in His Book?’ ar-Ridā (a.s.) said: ‘He has explained the selection manifestly in twelve places - apart from the hidden (references).’ Then he described those places of the Qur’ān, during which he said: ‘As for the third (verse, it was) when Allāh distinguished His purified creatures and ordered His Prophet to earnestly pray with them for His curse on the liars, in the verse of imprecation. So Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, said: But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves.’’ ’ The scholars said: ‘our selves means the Prophet himself.’ Abu ’l-Hasan (ar-Ridā) said: ‘You are mistaken. He only meant ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. And one of the proofs to show it is the saying of the Prophet (himself): ‘‘Banū Walī‘ah should give up (their mischief); otherwise, I will surely send to them a man like my own self’’ - referring to ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. And He meant al-Hasan and al-Husayn with ‘‘sons’’, and meant Fātimah with ‘‘women’’. So this is an exclusive virtue in which no one can precede them, and an excellence in which no man can reach them, and an honour in which no creature can overtake them, because He made ‘Alī’s person like his (Prophet’s) own self (person)...’ ’’ (‘Uyūnu ’l-akhbār)

as-Sadūq narrates through his chain from al-Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far (peace be on both of them!), that he had a talk with (Hārūn) ar-Rashīd, during which ar-Rashīd said to him: ‘‘How is it that you say, ‘We are the offspring of the Prophet’, while the Prophet did not leave any offspring?

And progeny is through male, not through female; and you are the children of the daughter and her child is not (her father’s) progeny.’’ The Imām said: ‘‘I said to him: ‘I ask you by the right of kinship and that of the grave (i.e., of the Prophet) and of him who is therein, that you should excuse me from (replying to) this question.’ He said: ‘You shall tell me of your proof for it, O son of ‘Alī, and you, O Mūsā! are their leader and their present Imām - thus I have been informed - and I am not going to excuse you from any question I put to you until you bring me a proof from the Book of Allāh; because you claim, O children of ‘Alī! that nothing of it (the Book) comes out from you - not even an alīf or a wāw - but you know its interpretation; and you advance the word of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, as your proof; We have not neglected anything in the Book [6:38], and you are not in need of the opinion of scholars and their analogy.’

‘‘Then I said: ‘Do you permit me to reply?’ He said: ‘Let me have.’ I said (reciting the Qur’ānic verse): ‘I seek refuge of Allāh from the cursed Satan. In the name of Allāh, the Beneficent, the Merciful. and of his (Ibrāhīm’s) offspring, Dāwūd and Sulaymān and Ayyūb and Yūsuf and Mūsā and Hārūn; and thus do We reward those who do good; and Zakariyyā and Yahyā and ‘Īsā and Ilyās; every one was of the good ones (6:84 - 5). Who was the father of ‘Īsā? O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said: ‘He had no father.’ Then I said: ‘Yet He (Allāh) has joined him with the progenies of the Prophets through Maryam; and in the same way Allāh, the High, has joined us with the progenies of the Prophet through our mother, Fātimah.’ (Then I said): ‘Should I tell you more? O Leader of the Faithful!’ he said: ‘Let me have.’ I said: ‘(It is) the word of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great: But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of know-ledge, then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars.’’ And nobody has ever claimed that the Prophet - on the occasion of the imprecation with the Christians - made anyone enter under the drape except ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al- Husayn. So (this) was the interpretation of His Word: ‘‘our sons’’ meant al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and ‘‘our women’’, Fātimah; and ‘‘our selves’’, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib.’ ’’ (ibid.)

al-Ma’mūn had asked ar-Ridā (a.s.) several questions, one of which was as follows:

al-Ma’mūn said: ‘‘What is the proof for the caliphate of your grandfather, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib?’’

(The Imām) said: ‘‘The verse of our selves.’’

He (al-Ma’mūn) said: ‘‘If there were not our women.’’

He (the Imām) said: ‘‘If there were not our sons.’’

The author says: The Imām argued on the strength of the word, our selves. He meant that Allāh had made ‘Alī (a.s.) like the person of the Prophet. (And who could have more right to succeed the Prophet than his own person?). al-Ma’mūn said: ‘‘If there were not our women.’’ He wanted to say that the reference to ‘‘women’’ indicates that the word ‘‘our selves’’ means ‘‘our men’’, and as such it would not show any excellence. The Imām replied: ‘‘If there were not our sons.’’ That is, if ‘‘our selves’’ referred to the men, then why should the sons be mentioned separately? They would have been included in ‘‘our men’’.

Harīz narrates from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘The Leader of the Faithful (‘Alī, a.s.) was asked about his excellent virtues. He mentioned some of them. Then they said to him: ‘Tell us (some) more.’ So he said: ‘Verily two Bishops of the Christians of Najrān came to the Messenger of Allāh, and talked (with him) on the subject of ‘Īsā (a.s.). Thereupon Allāh revealed the verse: Surely the likeness of ‘Īsā is with Allāh as the likeness of Adam... Then the Messenger of Allāh entered (the house), .and held the hands of ‘Alī, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Fātimah; then he came out, and raised his palms to the heaven and separated his fingers one from another; and called them (the Christians) to the imprecation.’ ’’ (Abū ‘Abdillāh, a.s.) then said: ‘‘And Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) has said: ‘And that is the way of imprecation; one intertwines his hand in one’s (adversay’s) hand raising them to the heaven.’ ’’ Thereupon when the two Bishops saw him, one of them said to his companion: ‘‘By God! If he is a prophet, we shall surely perish; and if he is not a prophet his (own) people would save us (from the trouble of confronting him).’’ So they gave up (the imprecation) and went back.’ ’’ (al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: This or nearly the same meaning has been narrated in other traditions through the Shī‘ī chains. All of them unanimously say that those who were brought by the Prophet for the imprecation were ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn only.

ash-Shaykh at-Tūsī has narrated it in his al-Amālī, through his chains from ‘Āmir ibn Sa‘d from his father; and also through his chains from ‘Abdu’r-Rahmān ibn Kathīr from as-Sādiq (a.s.); and also through his chains from Sālim ibn Abi ’l Ja‘d, raising it to Abū Dharr; and also through his chains from Rabī‘ah ibn Nājid from ‘Alī (a.s.).

al-Mufīd has narrated it in his al-Ikhtisās, through his chains from Muhammad ibn az-Zibriqān from Mūsā ibn Ja‘far (a.s.); and also from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir from his father from his grandfather.

al-‘Ayyāshī has narrated it in his at-Tafsīr from Muhammad ibn Sa‘īd al-Urdunnī from Mūsā ibn Muhammad ibn ar-Ridā (a.s.) from his brother; and also from Abū Ja‘far al-Ahwal from as-Sādiq (a.s.); and also from al-Mundhir from ‘Alī (a.s.); and also through his chains from ‘Āmir ibn Sa‘d.

al-Furāt has narrated it in his at-Tafsīr several traditions to this effect, which separately reach to Abū Ja‘far (a.s.), Abū Rāfi‘, ash-Sha‘bī, ‘Alī (a.s.), and Shahr ibn Hawshab and several other traditions to the same effect have been narrated in Rawdatu ’l-wā‘izīn, I‘lāmu ’l-warā, al-Kharā’ij and other books.

It has been narrated in at-Tafsīr of ath-Tha‘labī11 from Mujāhid and al-Kalbī: ‘‘When the Prophet called the Christians for the imprecation, they said: ‘Let us return and think over it.’ When they were alone, they asked al-‘Āqib - and he was a man of good judgment among them: ‘O ‘Abdu ’1-Masīh! What is your opnion?’ He said: ‘By Allāh! You are well-aware, O ye Christians! that Muhammad is a prophet, sent by Allāh, and that he has brought to you the decisive word about your Companion (‘Īsā, a.s.). By Allāh! whenever a nation has entered into imprecation with a prophet, their elders have perished and their youngsters have died. And if you do it, we shall surely perish; but, if you turn down, for the love of your religion and (want) to remain on what you have at present, then make peace with the man and go back to your towns.’

‘‘So they came to the Messenger of Allāh; and he had come out in the morning carrying al-Husayn in his lap, holding the hand of al-Hasan, with Fātimah walking behind him and ‘Alī was behind her; and he was saying: ‘When I pray, you say ‘‘Amen’’ ’. Then the Bishop of Najrān said: ‘O ye Christians! Surely I see the faces that if they ask Allāh to remove a mountain from its place, He would surely remove it. Therefore, do not do imprecation, otherwise you will perish, and there will not remain any Christian on the face of the earth, upto the Day of Resurrection.’

‘‘Then they said: ‘O Abu ’1-Qāsim! We have decided that we should not enter into imprecation against you; and that we leave you on your religion and we remain on our religion.’ He said: ‘Well, if you refuse imprecation, then accept Islam - you will have (the rights) which (other) Muslims have, and on you shall be (the duties) which are on them.’ But they refused. So (the Prophet) said: ‘Then I shall fight you.’ They said: ‘We do not have strength to figh against the Arabs. But we shall make peace with you that you will not fight against us or frighten us; nor will you turn us away from our religion, on the condition that we shall pay to you every year two thousand robes - one thousand in Safar and one thousand in Rajab - and thirty coats of mail, (of) common (quality), made of iron.’ So the Prophet made agreement with them on these conditions. And he said, ‘By Him in Whose hand is my soul ! Surely destruction had almost descended on the people of Najrān.’ And if they had entered into imprecation they would have been transformed into monkeys and pigs, and there would have erupted in the valley a conflagration of fire engulfing them all; and surely Allāh would have annihilated Najrān and its inhabitants - even the birds on tree tops; and the year would not have ended for all the Christians but they would have perished.’’

The author says: The event, nearly in similar words, has also been narrated in Kitābu ’l-Maghāzī from Ibn Ishāq. Also al-Mālikī has narrated it in his al-Fusūlu ’l-muhimmah from many exegetes; and al- Hammūyī has narrated nearly similar tradition from Ibn Jurayh.

The agreement contains the phrase, ‘‘one thousand in Safar;’’ it means al-Muharram of Islamic calender, which was the first month of the year in Arabia. In pre-Islamic days it was called ‘‘Safar’’ - the first two months were called Safar al-Awwal and Safar ath-Thānī. Arabs in the days of ignorance used to postpone Safar al-Awwal. Then Islam confirmed the sacredness of the Safar al-Awwal; so it was called, ‘‘the sacred (اَلْمُحَرَّمُ = al-Muharram), month of Allāh;’’ then it became known as al-Muharram.

‘Āmir son of Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās narrates from his father that he said: ‘‘Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān ordered Sa‘d telling him, ‘What prevents you from abusing Abū Turāb (‘Alī, a.s.)?’ He said, ‘As for this matter, as long as I remember three things which the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said (about ‘Alī) I will never abuse him; if even one of them were for me, it would have been dearer to me than red livestocks.’ I heard the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) saying, when he left him (‘Alī) as his Deputy (when going) for one of his battles. ‘Alī said to him, ‘O Messenger of Allāh! Are you leaving me behind with women and children?’ Thereupon, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said to him: ‘Are you not pleased that you should have the same position with me that Hārūn had with Mūsā - except that there is no prophet after me?’ And I heard him saying on the day of Khaybar: ‘Most surely tomorrow I will give the standard (of army) to a man who loves Allāh and His Messenger, and whom Allāh and His Messenger do love.’ (Sa‘d) said: ‘So we held our heads high (hoping to catch the eye of the Prophet). But he said: ‘Call ‘Alī to me.’ So he was brought (before him), sore-eyed; and (the Prophet) put (his) saliva in his eyes (and he was cured); and gave the standard to him. And Allāh conquered (Khaybar) on his hand. And when this verse was revealed: then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly ’’, the Messenger of Allāh called ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and said: ‘O Allāh! These are the People of my House.’ ’’(as-Sahīh, Muslim)

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by at-Tirmidhī in his as-Sahīh, Abu ’l-Mu’ayyad al-Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad in his Kitāb Fadā’il ‘Alī, Abū Nu‘aym in his Hilyatu ’l-awliyā’ (from the same narrator as above), and al-Hammūyī in his Farā’idu ’s-simtayn.

Abū Nu‘aym narrates through his chains from ‘Āmir ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās from his father that he said: ‘‘When this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) called ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al- Husayn and said: ‘O Allāh! These are the People of my House.’’ (Hilyatu ’l-awliyā’)

Also he narrates in the same book through his chains from ash-Sha‘bī from Jābir that he said: ‘‘al-‘āqib and at-Tayyib came to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and he invited them to Islam. They said: ‘We are (already) Muslims, O Muhammad! He said: ‘You tell a lie. If you wish, I would tell you what prevents you from (accepting) Islam.’ They said: ‘Then let us have.’ He said: ‘The love of the cross, drinking liquor, and eating the flesh of pig.’ Jābir further said: ‘‘Then the Prophet invited them to imprecation, and they promised him to come to him in the morning. When the morning came, the Messenger of Allāh held the hands of ‘Alī, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Fātimah. Then he sent (someone) to them. But they refused to accept his call (for imprecation) ; instead they acknowledged to him (his sovereignty). Then the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘By Him Who has sent me with truth! Had they done (the imprecation) the valley would have rained fire on them.’ ’’ Jābir said: ‘‘About them was revealed the verse: let us call our sons and your sons Jābir further said ‘‘our selves refers to the Messenger of Allāh and ‘Alī; and our sons to al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and our women to Fātimah.’’

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by Ibn al-Maghāzilī in his al-Manāqib through his chains from the same ash-Sha‘bī from Jābir; by al-Hammūyī in his Farā’idu ’s-simtayn, through his chains from the same narrator; by al-Māliki in his al-Fusūlu ’lmuhimmah from the same; by Abū Dāwūd at-Tāyalisī from the same; and by as-Suyūtī in his ad-Durru ’l-manthūr from al-Hākim (who has said that this tradition is correct), and from Ibn Marduwayh as well as Abū Nu‘aym (in his Dalā’ilu ’l-khayrāt) - all from Jābir.

Abū Nu‘aym has narrated in his Dalā’ilu ’l-khayrāt through the chain of al-Kalbī from Abū Sālih from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘Verily a delegation of the Christians of Najrān came to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and there were fourteen persons of their nobles. Among them were as-Sayyid (and he was the leader) and al-‘Āqib, the second in rank and a man of good judgment among them.’’ (Then he has described the event as given above.) (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

al-Bayhaqī has narrated in his Dalā’ilu ’n-Nubuwwah through the chain of Salmah ibn ‘Abd Yashū‘ from his father from his grandfather that he said : ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) wrote to the people of Najrān, before the (chapter of) Tā Sīn Sulaymān12 was revealed: ‘In the name of Allāh, the God of Ibrāhīm and Ishāq and Ya‘qūb. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allāh to the Bishop of Najrān and the people of Najrān. If you accept Islam, then I extol before you Allāh, the God of Ibrāhīm and Ishāq and Ya‘qūb. Now after (the praise of Allāh), I call you to the worship of Allāh leaving aside the worship of the servants (of Allāh), and I invite you to (come under) the guardianship of Allāh instead of the guardianship of the servants. But if you refuse (it), then (you should pay) the head-tax; and if you refuse (even this), then I declare war against you. And peace (be on you).’

When the Bishop read the letter, he was shocked and extremely terrified. So he sent (someone) to call a man of Najrān Shurahbīl ibn Wadā‘ah by name; and gave him the letter of the Prophet and he read it. Then the Bishop said to him: ‘What is your opinion?’ Shurahbīl said:

‘You surely know the promise which Allāh made to Ibrāhīm about the prophethood in the progeny of Ismā‘īl. Therefore, how can one be sure that it is not this very man? I would not give any opnion regarding the prophethood. If it were an opinion about a worldly matter, I would have advised you about it and made efforts on your behalf.’ Then the Bishop called the people of Najrān one after another, but all said as Shurahbīl had said. Thereupon, they decided to send Shurahbīl ibn Wadā‘ah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Shurahbīl and Jabbār ibn Fayd, so that they might bring them the (correct) news of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)

‘‘So the delegation proceeded until they came to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.). And he asked them (questions) and they asked him, and this questioning between him and them continued, until they said to him: ‘What do you say about ‘Īsā son of Maryam?’ The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘Today, I do not have anything about him; therefore you stay (here), in order that I may tell you tomorrow morning what is to be said about ‘Īsā.’ Then Allāh sent down this verse: Surely the likeness of ‘Īsā is with Allāh as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars.

‘‘But they refused to agree to that (truth). Thus, when the next morning came after the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had given them that information, he proceeded for the imprecation to a place thick with trees that belonged to him, carrying al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and Fātimah was walking behind him; and he had many wives those days (but did not take any of them with him). And Shurahbīl said to his two companions: ‘Surely, I see a (serious) matter coming (to us). If this man is a prophet sent (by Allāh) and we ventured to imprecate against him, there would not remain on the face of the earth any hair or claw of us (i.e., any cattle or bird belonging to us), but it will perish.’ They said to him: ‘What is your view?’ He said: ‘My opinion is that we should leave the judgment to him, because I see (in him) a man who will never exceed the proper limits in his decision.’ They said: ‘You may do as you like in this matter.’ Thereupon, Shurahbīl met the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and said: ‘I have thought (of one thing) better than the imprecation against you.’ He said: ‘And what is it?’ He said: ‘(We give you the authority) to decide (between us) this day upto the night and from the night to the (next) morning. Whatever you will decide will be binding on us.’

‘‘So the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) returned without doing imprecation, and made agreement with them on the head-tax.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

Ibn Jarīr has narrated from ‘Ilbā’ ibn Ahmar al-Yashkurī that he said: ‘‘When the verse was revealed: then say: ‘Let us call our sons and your sons ...’, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) sent (someone) to (call) ‘Alī, Fātimah and their sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and invited the Jews to enter into imprecation against them. Then a young Jew said: ‘Woe unto you! Are you not familiar with (the story) of your brothers who were yesterday transformed into monkeys and pigs? Do not enter into (this) imprecation.’ So they desisted (from it).’’ (ibid.)

The author says: This tradition supports the view that the pronoun ‘‘this’’ in the opening sentence, disputes with you in this, refers to ‘‘truth’’ in the preceding verse, The truth is from your Lord. In this way, the order of imprecation would cover other matters too, besides the controversy about ‘Īsā son of Maryam. In that case, it would be another story13 after the events which took place with the delegation of Najrān as narrated in numerous traditions which supports each other, and a large portion of which has been quoted above.

Ibn Tāwūs has written in Sa‘du ’s-su‘ud: ‘‘I saw in the book Mā nazala mina ’l-Qur’āni fi ’n-Nabiyyi wa Ahli baytih (by Muhammad ibn al-‘Abbās ibn Marwān) that he has narrated the tradition of the imprecation through fifty-one chains from the Companions and others; and some of them are: al-Hasan ibn ‘Alī (peace be on them both), ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās, Bakr ibn Sammāl, Talhah, az-Zubayr, ‘Abdu ’r-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Rāfi‘ (slave of the Prophet), Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib and Anas ibn Mālik.’’

Likewise (Ibn Shahrāshūb) has narrated this tradition in al-Manāqib, from a number of narrators and exegetes. as-Suyūtī has done the same in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr.

A very strange thing has been written by an exegete who said:

‘‘The traditions unanimously say that the Prophet selected ‘Alī, Fātimah and their two sons for the imprecation; and they apply the word our women to Fātimah, and our selves to ‘Alī only. The source of these traditions are the Shī‘ahs, and their motive in this respect is well-known.

They have tried as much as they could to propagate such traditions until it has spread among a vast number of the Sunnīs too.

‘‘But those who forged these traditions did not succeed in properly fitting their interpretation on the verse. When an Arab says, ‘our women’ he never means his daughter - especially when he has wives too. Such thing is not known in their language. Even more far-fetched is the claim that ‘our selves’ means ‘Alī. Moreover, the delegation of Najrān - concerning whom the verse is said to be revealed - had not come to Medina with their women and children.

‘‘The only thing which the verse shows is that the Prophet was ordered to call the People of the Book (who were disputing with him about ‘Īsā) to gather all - men, women and children - together; and he was to gather the believers - men, women and children - together, in order that they might earnestly pray to Allāh to curse the party which was in the wrong regarding its claim about ‘Īsā (a.s.).

‘‘Such thing would prove that the Prophet had strong conviction of the truth of his claim and had utmost confidence in it. And likewise, the desistence of those who were challenged to imprecation - the Christians or other People of the Book - would show that they had no confidence in their own claim and were disputing not for the purpose of ascertaining the truth; their belief was shakey and they had no clear proofs. How can a believer in Allāh agree to gather such a group - consisting of the truthful ones and the liars - in one place to fix their attention to Allāh asking for His curse, to pray to remove the liars from His mercy? Can anyone be more daring than such a person? Can anything be more mocking to the Divine Power and Majesty than this?

‘‘The Prophet and the believers had full confidence in the truth of what they believed about ‘Īsā (a.s.). It may be understood from the words of Allāh, after what has come to you of knowledge; because knowledge in matters of belief means certainty only.

‘‘The words of Allāh, let us call our sons and your sons …, may be interpreted in either of the two ways:

‘‘First: Each group should call the other; you should call our sons and we should call your sons and likewise about the other two categories of women and selves.

‘‘Second: Each group should call his family. We, the Muslims, should call our sons, women and ourselves, and you should do likewise with your family.

‘‘There is no difficulty in either case in calling the ‘selves’. The difficulty arises when this phrase is restricted to one person, as the Shī‘ahs and their followers do.’’

COMMENT: This is such a non-sense that no knowledgeable person would ever like to write it in academic books; and perhaps someone might venture to say that we have wrongly attributed it to such a renowned man! Yet, we have quoted it in full to show how low a man can sink in misapprehension and jaundiced views because of his bias and prejudice. He goes on demolishing what he had earlier built, and reconfirms what he had rejected before, without caring or even knowing what he was doing. Also, we wanted evil to be known to all, so that they could protect themselves from it.

We may comment on this talk in two ways:

1. To show that the verse proves utmost excellence and superiority of ‘Alī (a.s.). But it is a subject more appropriate for the books of theology, and is not so much related to our subject, that is, explanation of the meanings of the Qur’ānic verses.

2. To review what the above exegete has written about the meaning of the verse of imprecation and concerning the traditions showing what had happened between the Prophet and the Christians of Najrān. This comes within the purview of exegesis, and we shall deal with it here.

You have already seen what the verse means. And the numerous traditions (which support each other), quoted by us, perfectly fit the meaning of the verse. If you ponder on what we have written earlier, you will see where and how his innovated ‘‘proof’’ has gone wrong, and at what points his blinkered vision has made him stumble. Here are some details:

He says: ‘‘The source of these traditions are the Shī‘ahs, and their motive in this respect is well-known. They have tried as much as they could to propagate such traditions until it has spread among a vast number of the Sunnīs too.’’ This he says after admitting that the traditions are unanimous! Would that I knew which traditions he speaks about. Does he mean the abovementioned traditions which support and strengthen each other, which the scholars of traditions have unanimously accepted and narrated? They are not one, two or three; they are countless in number. The traditionalists have quoted them with one voice; the compilers of traditions have written them in their books, including Muslim and at-Tirmidhī in their collections of ‘correct’ traditions; and the historians have confirmed them by describing the events in a similar way. The exegetes of the Qur’ān have unanimously quoted and copied them, without expressing any doubt or levelling any objection against them - and there are among them stalwarts of traditions and history, like at-Tabarī, Abu ’l-Fidā’, Ibn Kathīr and as-Suyūtī etc.

And who were those Shī‘ahs who were the source of this story? Does he mean those companions who narrated it in the first place? Like Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās, Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās and others? Or the disciples of the companions who took this tradition from them and conveyed it to others? Like Abū Sālih, al-Kalbī, as-Suddī, ash-Sha‘bī and others? Does he want to say that those companions and their disciples became Shī‘ahs - just because they narrated a tradition which he does not like? It is these companions and disciples - together with other like them - who are the final links in the chains of the narrators of the Prophet’s traditions. Discard them, and you will be left neither with any tradition nor any biography of the Prophet. How can a Muslim - nay, even a non-Muslim researcher - aspire to know the details of the Prophet’s message, if he rejects the traditions? How can he know the teachings and laws brought by the Messenger of Allāh? The Qur’ān clearly upholds the authority of the sayings and actions of the Prophet; and declares that the religion is based on his life. Reject the authority of the traditions and you have lost the Qur’ān as well; there will remain no trace of the Divine Book, nor will there be any fruit of this revelation.

Or perhaps he thinks that the Shī‘ahs have interpolated and surreptitiously inserted these traditions in the books of traditions and history? But then the problem, instead of going away, would rather increase and be more overwhelming: the tradition will lose its authority and the sharī‘ah will be nullified.

He says: ‘‘They apply the word our women to Fātimah and our selves to ‘Alī.’’ Probably he wants to say that according to the Shī‘ahs, the words our women and our selves literally mean only Fātimah and ‘Alī respectively. Perhaps he got the idea from an earlier quoted tradition in which Jābir said: ‘‘Our selves refers to the Messenger of Allāh and ‘Alī; and our women to Fātimah.’’ But obviously he has not understood its meaning. he traditions do not say so. They only mean that because the Prophet when acting on the verse, did not bring (any other person for imprecation) except ‘Alī and Fātimah, it made it clear that she was the only one worthy of being included in the category our women, as he was the only one qualified for the category our selves; and likewise al-Hasan and al-Husayn were the only two for the category our sons. The words:sons, women and selves taken together meant the family. Therefore, these four were the family of the Messenger of Allāh and his closest relatives, as we have seen in some traditions that he (s.a.w.a.) said after coming with them at the appointed place: ‘‘O Allāh! These are the people of my house.’’ The sentence implies: I did not find anyone whom I could call, except these four.

That this is the correct explanation may be seen in the wording of some traditions which say: ‘‘our selves refers to the Messenger of Allāh and ‘Alī.’’ It clearly shows that the tradition aims at describing who had come under which category - not at explaining the literal meaning of the words.

He says: ‘‘But those who forged these traditions did not succeed in properly fitting their interpretation on the verse. When an Arab says our women he never means his daughter - especially when he has got wives too. Such thing is not known in their language. Even more far-fetched is the claim that our selves means ‘Alī.’’

First he has given an imaginary meaning to the traditions, then he uses it as an excuse to discard all those narrations - in spite of their numerousness, in spite of their great number. Then he discredits its narrators and all those who have accepted them by accusing them of the crime of Shī‘ism! Had he been a true seeker of knowledge, he should have studied the books of exegesis, and remembered the vast multitude of the masters of eloquence and authorities of rhetorics, since they have quoted and written these traditions in their books of exegesis and other subjects without any hesitation, without any objection.

Look at the author of Tafsīru ’l-Kashshāf. He is a recognized authority on Arabic language, grammer and literature. He has often pronounced judgment on various recitations of the Qur’ān, showing why a certain recitation was not in keeping with the norms of language or usage. And see what he has to say about this verse: ‘‘And this verse contains a proof - unsurpassed in strength - of the excellence of the people of the mantle, peace be on them. And there is in it a clear proof of the truth of the prophethood of the Prophet, because nobody - either a supporter or an antagonist - has ever narrated that they (the Christians) answered that call (for imprecation).’’

How come that those giants of rhetorics and champions of literature could not realize that these traditions - in spite of their vast multitude and their repeated narrations in the books of traditions - accuse the Qur’ān of using incorrect expression by employing a plural (women) for one woman only?

Not, by my life! This exegete is in fact confused; he does not know the difference between the literal meaning of a word and its application.

Obviously, his thinking goes like this: ‘‘Allāh said to His Prophet, But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: ‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves ...’ Now if we admit that the disputers at that time were the delegates of Najrān numbering according to some traditions, fourteen men; and that there were no women or children with them; and if after that we admit that when the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) went for the imprecation, he had with him only: ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the phrase, whoever disputes with you, would literally mean the delegation of Najrān; our women would mean one woman; our selves would mean one ‘self’; and your sons and your women would become words without meaning because there were neither women nor sons in that delegation!’’

I wonder why he forgot to add that it would also mean use of our sons (a plural, meaning at least three sons) for only two sons, because it is more repugnant than the use of plural for singular. Since post-classical period, people have been using plural in place of singular - although such use is not found in the classical Arabic, except when done as a mark of respect. But the use of plural for dual is an unheard of thing - it has no justification at all.

However, it was this trend of thought which led him to discard all these traditions, saying that they were forged. But he has completely misunderstood the talk.

The fact is that an eloquent talk conforms with the situation which it is related to, and throws light on what in a given context is important to explain. Sometimes the talk is between two strangers, neither knowing the other’s life condition. Then they use normal expressions which are applied in general talk. Suppose two groups are facing each other; one of them wants the other to know that their conflict is deep-rooted, and that the whole tribe - men and women, elders and youngsters - shall continue the fight till the last. In such a situation, he will say: We shall fight you with our men, women and children. Now this sentence is based on the assumption that normally and naturally a tribe does have women and children. The statement aims at making it clear to the enemy that the speaker’s tribe is one in its determination to fight against their adversary.

On the other hand, if he were to say, ‘We shall fight against you with our men, a woman and two sons’, it would be a superflous detail, uncalled for in this context - unless there be some good reason for it in a particular situation.

But when the talk is between friends who know each other’s family, then it may be couched in general terms. For example, one may say while inviting the other to his home: We are at your service - we ourselves as well as our women and children. Or, he may wish to be more specific and say: All of us will be at your service - the men, the daughter and the two children.

In short, normal way of expression is one thing and its application on real facts is another matter. Sometimes they may coincide, at other times they may be different. If a man speaks in normal and general terms and then it appears that the real situation is different, he is not accused of telling a lie.

This verse is based on the same principal. Accordingly the words, then say: ‘‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves ’’, means as follows: Tell them that you are coming with your closest relatives who are your partners in your claim and knowledge, and invite them to come with their closest relatives. Thus, the verse proceeds in the normal way assuming that the Messenger of Allāh had in his family men, women and sons, and the Christian delegates had likewise men, women and sons in their families; it was a challenge couched in general and usual terms. But when the time came to act on that challenge, it was found that the Prophet did not have any men, women and sons except one man, one woman and two sons, while his adversaries had no woman or son with them - there were only men in their group. But this difference in implementation did not falsify the challenge. That is why when the Prophet came out with one man, one woman and two sons, the Christians did not accuse him of lying or of not fulfilling the conditions; nor did they cover their refusal by saying that the Prophet had told them to bring their women and sons which they did not have with them at that time and therefore they were unable to enter into imprecation. Also, it was because of this that those who heard this story never imagined that it was a forgery.

The above explanation also shows the absurdity of his assertion where he says: ‘‘Moreover, the delegation of Najrān - concerning whom the verse is said to be revealed - had not come to Medina with their women and children.’’

He says: ‘‘The only thing which the verse shows is that the Prophet was ordered to call the People of the Book (who were disputing with him about ‘Īsā) to gather all - men, women and children - together; and he was to gather the believers - men, women and children - together; in order that they might earnestly pray to Allāh to curse the party which was in the wrong in its claim about ‘Īsā How can a beliver in Allāh agree to gather such a group - consisting of the truthful ones and the liars - in one place to fix their attention to Allāh asking for His curse, to pray to remove the liars from His mercy? Can anyone be more daring than such a person? Can anything be more mocking to the Divine Power and Majesty than this?’’

In short, the verse invites both parties to gather together with their ‘‘selves’’, their women and their sons in one place and then to earnestly pray for Allāh’s curse on the liars. Now let us find out what is the meaning of this gathering which he talks about.

Was it a call to gather together all the believers and all the Christians? But the believers at that time14 included all, or almost all, Arabs of the tribes of Rabī‘ah and Mudar residing from Yemen and Hijāz to Iraq and beyond. And the Christians included those in Najrān (then forming a part of Yemen), Syria and the regions around the Mediterranean sea; the Romans and the Franks, as well as the people of the Britain, Austria and other places.

Such a vast multitude of people, scattered from the East to the West, must have exceeded millions upon millions, counting men, women and children all together. There can be no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a sane person that it was almost impossible for all of them to gather in one place. Normal ways and means reject such a proposition altogether. If the Qur’ān had offered this proposal then it had asked for an impossible. It would mean that the Prophet was offering a conditional proof for the authencity of his claim - and the condition, on which it depended, was an impossible one! It would have given an excuse - a valid excuse - to the Christians not to accept his call of imprecation; in fact it would have been more damaging to his claim, rather than weakening their case.

Or, does he mean that it was a call to gather from both groups only those who were present thereby - the believers of Medina and nearby places, and the Christians of Najrān and the places in its vicinity? This alternative - although less absurd than the preceding one - was no less impossible. Who was capable that day of gathering all the residents of Medina and Najrān and their neighbouring places, not leaving a single woman and child out, in one place for the intended imprecation? Such proposal would have been an admission that the truth was impossible to prove, because the proof depended on an impossible condition.

Or, was it a call covering only those who were actively engaged in the disputation and arguments? That is, the Prophet and the believers around him, and the delegation of the Christians of Najrān. But then his own objection would boomerang: ‘‘Moreover, the delegation of Najrān - concerning whom the verse is said to be revealed - had not come to Medina with their women and children.’’ So the problem would not go away.

Further he says: ‘‘The Prophet and the believers had full confidence in the truth of what they believed about ‘Īsā (a.s.). It may be understood from the words of Allāh, after what has come to you of knowledge; because knowledge in matters of belief means certainty only.’’

It is true that the knowledge, as used in this verse, means certainty. But would that I knew where does it say that the believers were sure of the truth of their belief concerning ‘Īsā? The verse does not speak about anyone except the Prophet in singular pronouns: But whoever disputes with you (lit. thee) in this after what has come to you (lit. thee) of knowledge, then say (lit. say thou). And there was no reason why the verse should have addressed anyone except the Prophet alone; the Christians’ delegation had only one aim before their eyes - to dispute and argue with the Prophet. It was not their intention to meet the believers; they had not argued at all with the believers, nor had the believers spoken to them.

If the verse shows at all that anyone other than the Prophet had attained knowledge and certainty, it does so about those whom the Prophet had brought with himself for imprecation, as we have inferred from the words, and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars.

On the other hand, the Qur’ān shows that not all the believers had attained knowledge and certainty. For example:

And most of them do not believe in Allāh without associating others (with Him) (12:106). Here Allāh announces their polytheism. How can polytheism co-exist with certainty?

And when the hypocrites and those in whose heart was a disease began to say: ‘‘Allāh and His Messenger did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive’’ (33:12).

And those who believe say: ‘‘Why has not a chapter been revealed?’’

But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then! Those it is whom Allāh has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes (47:20 - 23).

The fact is that certainty was attained by only a few of the followers of the Prophet who had got clear sight. Allāh says:

But if they dispute with you, say: ‘‘I have submitted myself (entirely) to Allāh and (so has) every one who follows me’’ (3:20).

Say: ‘‘This is my way, I invite (you) unto Allāh; with clear sight (which) land he who follows me (possess) (12:108).

He says: ‘‘The words of Allāh, let us call our sons and your sons ..., may be interpreted in either of the two ways: First: Each group should call the others; you should call our sons and we should call your sons; and likewise about the other two categories of women and selves.’’

You have already seen in the Commentary that this interpretation (which he gives as his first choice) is totally absurd and not in conformity with the wordings of the verse. So far as the call for imprecation was concerned, it would have sufficed to say: Come, let us earnestly pray and bring about the curse of Allāh on the liars. Why then were the remaining phrases added: Let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our ‘selves’ and your ‘selves’? These phrases were meant to bind each party to bring for the imprecation its dearest and precious-most things, that is, the sons, the women and the selves. This challenge could be meaningful only if each party was to bring its own sons, women and selves. It would lose its meaning completely if it was interpreted as he says: You should call our sons, women and selves and we should call your sons, women and selves.

Moreover, common sense rejects this interpretation. Why should the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) give the Christians power and authority over their sons and women? Because only after getting that power and authority could each party call the other’s sons and women and bring them at the place of imprecation. Surely the aim could be achieved in a better way if each party called its own sons and women.

Further, as we have shown above, this interpretation makes it necessary to add in the verse the idea of giving someone the power and authority over others. But how and on what ground can we do so? The truth is that this interpretation is absolutely wrong. Only the other interpretation is correct - that each party was to call its own family members.

He says: ‘‘There is no difficulty in either case in calling the ‘selves’. The difficulty arises when this phrase is restricted to one person, as the Shī‘ahs and their followers do.’’

The difficulty, to which he refers, arises from the following objection: How can a man call himself? But this objection has nothing to do with either interpretation. It has been levelled against the explanation that our selves means the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) himself. Reportedly during one religious discussion, one group said that our selves referred to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), not to ‘Alī. The opposite party said that it would imply that he called himself, which is manifestly wrong. (See the second tradition, quoted from ‘Uyūnu ’lakhbār.)

It will be seen from the above that his claim that ‘‘the difficulty arises from the Shī‘ahs’ interpretation’’, is absolutely wrong. The Shī‘ahs say that the word, our selves, means the men from the family of the Prophet; and when the order was implemented, it was applied to the Messenger of Allāh and ‘Alī (blessings and peace be on them!). And there could be no difficulty in their calling one another.

Accordingly, no objection can be directed at the Shī‘ahs, even according to the interpretation which he ascribes to them, that our selves means ‘All. What difficulty could there be if the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) was to call ‘Alī (a.s.)?

His disciple15 has written in al-Manār, after mentioning some traditions: ‘‘Ibn ‘Asākir has narrated from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad from his father in explanation of the verse, then say: ‘Come let us call our sons and your sons ’ ‘Then (the Prophet) brought Abū Bakr and his son, ‘Umar and his son, and ‘Uthmān and his son.’ ’’ Then he comments:

‘‘Apparently the verse speaks about a group of the believers.’’ Thereafter he has copied the abovequoted writing of his teacher, and then has opined as follows: ‘‘As you see the verse orders women to participate with men in national struggles and religious wars. It is based on the principle of equality between men and women even in public affairs - except where an exception has been made. (Then he goes on elaborating the same points.)

COMMENT: As for the tradition which he has quoted, it is an isolated and peculiar one and goes against all the other traditions on this subject; and needless to say that the other traditions are so numerous and so well known. That is why the exegetes have not mentioned it. Moreover, it contains statements which do not tally with the facts: It supposes that all the people mentioned therein had sons, but surely not all of them had sons at that time.

He says: ‘‘Apparently the verse speaks about a group of the believers.’’ Probably, he wants to infer from the tradition (quoted by him) that the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had brought there all the believers and their children; thus the words that the Prophet, ‘‘brought Abū Bakr and his son ...’’ would indirectly imply that he brought all the believers. In this way he wants to support the interpretation of his teacher, discussed above. But you see how isolated, shunned and discarded this tradition is; and how defective is its text. Apart from that it does not give the meaning he infers from it.

Now look at the principle adduced by him that women should participate in the public affairs just as men do. If his reasoning is accepted then it would also prove that small children too should participate in those affairs with their elders. This one point alone is enough to show the falsity of his observation.

We have talked at length on the subject of the women’s participation, under the verses of divorce in the second volume16 ; and we shall be writing some more in a relevant place there is no need to make such inferences as he has done from this verse.

* * * * *