CHAPTER 5, VERSES 41-50

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ لَا يَحْزُنكَ الَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْكُفْرِ مِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا آمَنَّا بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَلَمْ تُؤْمِن قُلُوبُهُمْۛ وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُواۛ سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ سَمَّاعُونَ لِقَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ لَمْ يَأْتُوكَۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِۖ يَقُولُونَ إِنْ أُوتِيتُمْ هَـٰذَا فَخُذُوهُ وَإِن لَّمْ تُؤْتَوْهُ فَاحْذَرُواۚ وَمَن يُرِدِ اللَّـهُ فِتْنَتَهُ فَلَن تَمْلِكَ لَهُ مِنَ اللَّـهِ شَيْئًاۚ أُولَـٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُرِدِ اللَّـهُ أَن يُطَهِّرَ قُلُوبَهُمْۚ لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ ﴿٤١﴾ سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ أَكَّالُونَ لِلسُّحْتِۚ فَإِن جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْۖ وَإِن تُعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَن يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئًاۖ وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِالْقِسْطِۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ ﴿٤٢﴾ وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِندَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّـهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِن بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَۚ وَمَا أُولَـٰئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ ﴿٤٣﴾ إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِن كِتَابِ اللَّـهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَۚ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًاۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ ﴿٤٤﴾ وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالْأَنفَ بِالْأَنفِ وَالْأُذُنَ بِالْأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُوحَ قِصَاصٌۚ فَمَن تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ فَهُوَ كَفَّارَةٌ لَّهُۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ ﴿٤٥﴾ وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ ﴿٤٦﴾ وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فِيهِۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ ﴿٤٧﴾ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِۖ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّۚ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًاۚ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّـهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْۖ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِۚ إِلَى اللَّـهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ ﴿٤٨﴾ وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ إِلَيْكَۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّـهُ أَن يُصِيبَهُم بِبَعْضِ ذُنُوبِهِمْۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ النَّاسِ لَفَاسِقُونَ ﴿٤٩﴾ أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَۚ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّـهِ حُكْمًا لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ ﴿٥٠﴾

O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening in unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: “We believe”, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; (they are) listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: “If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious;” and as for him whose temptation Allãh desires, you cannot control any-thing for him with Allãh. Those are they for whom Allãh does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chas-tisement in the hereafter (41). (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allãh loves those who judge equitably (42). And how do they make you a judge and they have the Torah wherein is Allãh's judgement? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers (43). Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allãh) were judging (matters) for those who were Jews, and (so did) the Divines and the scholars, as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and barter not My signs for a small price; and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers (44). And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unjust (45). And We sent after them in their footsteps ‘Īsã, son of Maryam, verifying what was before him of the Torah and We gave him the Injīl in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Torah and a guidance and an admonition for those who are pious (46). And the People of the Injīl should have judged by what Allãh revealed in it; and whoever did not judged by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the transgressors (47). And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their (low) desires (diverging) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allãh is the return, of all of you, then He will let you know that in which you differed (48); And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allãh has revealed to you; but if they turn back then know that Allãh desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are trans-gressors (49). Is it then the judgement of (the times of) ignor-ance that they desire? And who is better than Allãh to judge for a people who are sure? (50).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

The verses are interlinked revealed in a single context. Clearly they speak about a group from the People of the Book who had approached the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) regarding some laws of the Torah, hoping that he would give a judgement other than that of the Torah; and thus they would get relief from the strict ruling of their own Book. They told each other: “If you are given this - i.e. what they desired - take it; and if you are not given this - i.e. are given the same law of the Torah - then be cautious.” The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) referred them to the ruling of the Torah, so they turned away from him. Also there was a group of hypocrites which had a tendency similar to that of the Jews; they wanted to put the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) into temptation, so that he might judge between them according to their desire, favouring the powerful segments of the society, as they were doing in the days of ignorance; and who is better than Allãh to judge for a people who are sure?

The verses give credence to what has been narrated regarding its reason of revelation. That they were revealed concerning the Jews when two distinguished married persons from among them committed adultery; and their religious scholars desired to change the scriptural law of stoning to flogging. So they sent some people to ask the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) for the ruling about adultery of married persons; they enjoined them to accept it if he sentenced them to flog-ging, and reject it if he sentenced them to be stoned. The Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) gave judgement for stoning, so they turned away from him. Then the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) asked Ibn Sūriyã what was the law of the Torah on this matter, and he adjured him by Allãh and His signs not to hide what he knew of the truth; so he confirmed to the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) that the law of stoning was there in the Torah . This story will come under “Traditions”, God willing.

However, the verses independently throw light on their theme; they are not restricted in their connotation to their reason of revelation. This is the case in general with all the verses, which were revealed on particular occasions; the reasons or events of their revelation have no significance except as one, among many, of their applications. It is because theQur’ãn is a comprehensive and everlasting Book, which is not, confined to a time or space and not restricted to a particular group or event. Allãh says: . it is nothing but a reminder for all mankind (12:104). Blessed is He Who sent down the Furqãn to His servant so that he may be a warner to the worlds (25:1). .and most surely it is a Mighty Book; falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; . (41:41-42).

QUR’ÃN: O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening in unbelief . .: The verse consoles the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and placates him because of what he had to endure at the hands of those who are mentioned here. They were those who were striving together in hastening in disbelief; they went ahead rapidly on this path; their motives of disbelief were reflected in their words and deeds one after another; thus they were unbelievers striving in unbelief. It should be noted that striving in unbelief is not the same as striving to unbelief.

The clause: “from among those who say with their mouths: 'We believe', and their hearts do not believe”, describes those who strive together in hastening in unbelief, i.e., from among the hypocrites. It has given the attribute instead of naming the persons concerned, in order to describe the reason of this prohibition. Likewise, the attribute: “who strive together in hastening in unbelief”, points to the reason for not grieving. Meaning therefore will be as follows, and Allãh knows better: These people should not grieve you by striving together in hastening in disbelief, because they have entered into Islam with their mouths only, not with their hearts; and they are not the believers; of the same character are the Jews who have approached you and have said what they said.

The context shows that the phrase: “and from among those who are Jews”, is in conjunctive with the phrase: “from among those who say with their mouths: . .”; it is not an independent sentence. Accordingly, the words: “listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you”, arepredicate of an omitted subject, that is, they are. These sentences describe the condition of the Jews; as for the hypocrites who have been mentioned at the beginning of the verse, obviously, their condition does not fit this description. These Jews are “listeners for the sake of a lie”; they avidly listen to a lie although they know it to be a lie; otherwise they were not liable to be blamed; and they are “listeners for another people who have not come to you”; that is, they accept whatever is reported to them and do whatever they are told. This variation in the import of listening necessitated the repetation of the word, “listeners”. The first indicates paying attention to while the second signifies acceptance.

The clause: “they alter the words from their places”, i.e., after the words have been put in their proper places; it shows the attribute of “another people”; also with the same phrase is connected the sentence: “saying: 'If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious.' “

It all shows that a group of the Jews were involved in a religious problem; their Book contained clear divine order for it, but their scholars changed it knowingly; then they sent some people to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to seek his judgement on that matter, enjoining them to accept his decision if he decided according to their corrupted order, and be on guard if he decided otherwise.

The sentence: “and as for him whose temptation Allãh desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allãh”, is parentetical; it shows that the Jews in this affair are enmeshed in divine temptation and trial; therefore the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) should set his mind at rest that this affair is from Allãh and it has to return to Him, and no one else has any authority on any of it; why should he feel grieved for a matter from which no one except Allãh can remove.

“Those are they for whom Allãh does not desire that He should purify their hearts”: Their hearts continue to wallow in their original filth and dirtiness, because they are piling up sin over sin, so Allãh has left them to their error: . but and He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors [2:26].

“they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter”: It is a threat that the Jews will be disgraced in this world - and it has already been done - and shall have grievous punishment in the life hereafter.

QUR’ÃN: (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbid-den: ar-Rãghib says in Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn: “as-Suht (اَلسُّحْتُ = rind, bark which is destroyed); Allãh says: fa-yushitakum bi-‘adhãb ('lest He destroys you by a punishment' [20:61]); it has also been recited as fa-yashitakum; it is said: suhtuh and asuhtuh; from this root is derived as-suht, a forbidden thing which brings shame to the user or doer, as though it destroys his religion and honour; Allãh says: devourers of what is forbidden; and the Prophet (a.s.), has said: 'All flesh that grows from forbidden things, Fire is more entitled to it;' and bribe is named suht.”

Thus every property obtained unlawfully is suht (forbidden). The context shows that in this verse “what is forbidden” refers to bribe. This adjective as used here indicates that those Jewish scholars who had sent that group to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had taken bribe in that matter for altering the divine law; some people's safety was under threat because of that law, so they averted it with bribery; they took bribe and changed the order of Allãh.

It is now clear that the two phrases: “listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden”, taken together describe the condition of the whole nation; but taken separately, the words, “listeners of a lie”, de-scribe the attribute of preceding: those who are Jews, i.e. those who were sent to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their companions; and: “devour-ers of what is forbidden”, points to the preceding: another people who have not come to you. In short, the scholars of the Jews devour bribe, and their followers, the general public, listen to their lies.

QUR’ÃN: therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allãh loves those who judge equitably: The verse leaves it to the Prophet's discretion to judge between them - when they come to him for judgement - or to turn aside from them. It is understood that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was not to choose either of the two without an underlying reason and justification. In short, the matter was left to his own outlook. Further elaborating this option, Allãh says that if the Prophet turned aside from them refusing to judge between them, they could not harm him in any way; and if he decided to judge, he was to judge with justice and equity.

Ultimately, it means that Allãh does not like them to be judged except according to His law; the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was to enforce divine law among them, if it was not acceptable to them, he should not involve himself with them because he could not apply any other law anywhere.

QUR’ÃN: And how do they make you a judge and they have the Torah wherein is Allãh's judgement? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers: The verse points to a surprising behaviour of the Jews: They are a nation having their own Book and Sharī‘ah; they reject your Prophethood, Book and Sharī‘ah; then they are faced with a problem about which their book contains a clear divine order; yet they turn back from the Torah with its divine order, while they are not those who believe in it.

Accordingly, the phrase: “Yet they turn back after that”, means: they turn back from the law concerning that event although they do have the Torah, which contains divine commandments. The phrase: “and these are not the believers”, means: they do not believe in the Torah and its law; they have abandoned belief in the Book and its law, and turned to disbelief.

It is possible to take the words: “Yet they turn back”, as referring to their rejection of the Prophet's judgement; and the phrase: “these are not the believers”, as pointing to their disbelief in the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), even though they had come to him and sought his judgement; or it could refer to their disbelief in the Torah and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) together. But the explanation we have given earlier is more in keeping with the context.

The verse confirms to a certain extent the Torah now prevalent among the Jews. It is the book collected by Ezra by the permission of Cyrus, king of Persia, after he conquered Babylon, released the Children of Israel from captivity of Babylon, and allowed them to return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. It is the same Torah, which was in their hands during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and it is the same, which they have with them today. TheQur’ãn confirms that this present Torah contains laws of Allãh, and it also says that alterations and changes have corrupted it.

The above discourse proves that the present Torah, prevalent among the Jews today, contains some parts of the original Torah sent down to Mūsã (a.s.), also many of its parts have been changed and corrupted through addition, omission, change of word or context, etc. This is the Qur’ãnic view of the Torah and extensive research leads to the same conclusion.32

QUR’ÃN: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allãh) were judging (matters) for those who were Jews, and (so did) the Divines and the scholars, as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and barter not My signs for a small price; and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers: It gives the reason of what was explained in the preceding verse. This and the following verses describe that Allãh had laid down for these nations, in their successive times, laws, and wrote them in the books revealed to them, in order that they should be guided by them and acquire insight through them, and they should serve as reference points in matters in which they differed; He ordered their prophets and scholars to judge matters by them; they were given the responsibility to guard the books and protect them from corruption and alteration; they were admonished not to accept any price for giving judgement - a price which was bound to be trivial [in comparison to Allãh's pleasure]; they should not fear the people, rather they should fear Allãh.

He emphasized it again and warned them of following their low desires, lest the worldly people seduce them from divinely revealed truth. He has appointed various sets of law for various people in different times, so that He might try them thoroughly; it is because abilities of times differ with changing eras, and two things which differ in strength and weakness cannot be perfected with one factor with one style.

“SurelyWe sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light”: There was in it some guidance and some light with which the Israelites were led to some cognizance and laws adequately suitable to their condition, conforming to their capabilities. Allãh has described in His book their general behaviour and the particulars of their national affairs and limits of their understanding. Accordingly they were given a part of guidance and a part of light because they had appeared on the scene in remote past and primitive age with simple understanding; Allãh says: And We wrote for him in the tablets admonition from every thing and clear explanation of all things . (7:145).

“with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allãh) were judging (matters) for those who were Jews”: The prophets followed Islam, i.e. submission to Allãh, which is the religion with Allãh. This nomenclature has been used to show that there is only one religion, and that is to submit to Allãh and not to refrain from worshipping Him. A man who believes in Allãh and submits to Him has no right to reject any of His commandments and laws.

“and (so did) the Divines and the scholars as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, and they were witnesses thereof”: The Divines, i.e., those scholars whose knowledge and action were exclusively devoted to Allãh (if the word is derived from ar-Rab (اَلرَّبُ = Lord); it may also be taken to mean those scholars who train and raise up people by their knowledge (if it is derived from at-tarbiyah ( اَلتَرْبِيَةُ = to raise up). al-Ahbãr (اَلأَحْبَارُ ) are those knowledgeable and expert scholars who judge according to the divine order, and who guard the sharī‘ah as contained in the Book of Allãh; and because they were its guardians and preservers, they were called its witnesses; the sacred book was safe from change and alteration because they had memorized it perfectly. The clause: “and they were witnesses thereof”, is a sort of result of the phrase: “as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh”. In other words, they were told to guard it, so they were guarding it by being its witnesses.

This meaning of witnessing is supported by the context. Some people have said that it refers to attesting about the Prophet's judgement of stoning that it is found in the Torah; some others have said that it means testifying for the Book that it has come from Allãh. But the context does not support either of these two interpretations in any way.

“therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and barter not My signs for a small price”: It branches out from the clause: “Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets . .” Meaning: As the Torah was sent down by Us, and it contained the laws with which the prophets, the divines and the scholars judged between you, therefore you should not hide anything of it nor should you make any alteration in it, be it for fear or for greed. As for fear, it may happen, if you fear the people and forgetyour Lord; but you should fear Allãh only, it will liberate you from people's fear; and as for greed, it may take place if you barter the signs of Allãh for a small price, like worldly riches or glory - all of which is transitory and ephemeral.

There is also another possibility: It could have branched out from the phrase: “as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, and they were witnesses thereof”; because the requirement to guard the Book is tantamount to take covenant for guarding it. Thus the meaning will be as follows: We made covenant with them for guarding the Book and made them witnesses for it, that they would not change it, would not be afraid of anyone except Me in making it known and would not barter My signs for small price. Allãh says: And when Allãh made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; . (3:187).Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: “It will be forgiven us.” And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allãh but the truth, and they have read what is in it? And the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And (as for) those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer; surelyWe do not waste the reward of the right-doers (7:169-70).

And this second meaning is more appropriate, keeping in view the forceful emphasis at the end piece of the subsequent verse: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are unjust.

QUR’ÃN: And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds: The context, and especially or the mention of reprisal in wounds proves that the aim here is to describe the law of retribution in various types of felonies, like murder, cutting wounding. The contraposition in “life for life” and subsequent phrases places the avenger against the felon. It means that a life is taken in retaliation for life, an eye in reprisal of eye and so on.ba (بَ = for) is used here for exchange, as you say: “I sold it for so much.”

These sentences, then, give the following meaning: A life would be taken in place of a life, an eye would be gouged for an eye, a nose would be cut for a nose, an ear would be severed for an ear, a tooth would be extracted for a tooth and there is reprisal in wounds. In short, all limbs and organs of man shall be avenged with similar limb and organ of the felon.

Probably that is the purpose of the suggestion offered by someone that: “life is for life”, actually has an omitted but understood predicate, 'avenged' or 'killed'. Otherwise, there is no need of this sup-position; sentences are grammatically complete without that addition.

The verse is not without a certain indication that this law is other than that for which they had come to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and which has been mentioned in preceding verses; because the context has changed with the verse: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light.

The law described in the verse under discussion is found in the present Torah, as will be quoted in the forthcoming “Traditions”, God willing.

QUR’ÃN: but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unjust: If the possessor of the right of retribution, like the heir of the slain, the victim of attack himself or the wounded forgives the felon and remits the retribution, then “it”, i.e. this remission shall be an expiation for the sins of the remitter; or it shall be an expiation for the felon in that particular felony.

The meaning therefore is as follows: If the holder of the right of retaliation forgives the culprit, it shall be expiation for him; but if he does not forgive then he must decide according to the law revealed regarding retaliation; and whoever does not judge by what Allãh has revealed, those are the unjust people.

It clearly shows that:

First: The conjunctive:wa (وَ = and) in the clause: “and whoever did not judge”, joins it with the clause: “but he who foregoes”; i.e., it does not begin a new sentence. Also, the conjunctive, fa (فَ = translated here as 'but') has the import of branching out, i.e. it makes the details grow from the general order of retaliation. It is not unlike another verse of retaliation, which inter alia says: . but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then (the demand for the bloodwit) should be made according to the usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner (2:178).

Second: The clause: “and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed . .”, metaphorically puts the reason in place of its effect. The full construction shall be as follows: and if he does not forego, then he should judge by what Allãh has revealed, because whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unjust.

QUR’ÃN: And We sent after them in their footsteps ‘Īsã, son of Maryam, verifying what was before him of the Torah: at-Taqfiyah (اَلتَقْفِيَة = to send something behind another thing); it is derived from al-qafã (اَلْقفَا = back); al-ãthãr (اَلآثَارُ ) is plural of al-athar (أَثَرُ = track, trace, sign), it is mostly used for footsteps; “after them” i.e. after the prophets.

The sentence: “And We sent after them in their footsteps ‘Īsã, son of Maryam”, is an extended metaphor, intimating that Allãh made ‘Īsã (a.s.) to proceed on the same path on which had gone the pre-ceding prophets; and it is the way of invitation to monotheism and submission to Allãh.

The clause: “verifying what was before him of the Torah”, makes the preceding statement clearer; it points to the fact that the call of ‘Īsã was the same as the call of Mūsã (peace be on them both), without any difference at all.

QUR’ÃN: and We gave him the Injīl in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for those who are pious: As the verses speak about the sharī‘ah of Mūsã, ‘Īsã and Muhammad (may Allãh's blessing be on him and his progeny and on them both), and as they have been revealed concerning their Books, it proves that the Books tally with each other.

It follows that:

First: The Injīl mentioned in this verse - and it means Good News - was a book revealed to ‘Īsã (a.s .); it was not merely a “good news” without a book. But Allãh has not given any detail in His Book as to how it was revealed, contrary to what He has done regarding the Torah and the Qur’ãn. He says about the Torah:

He said: “O Mūsã! Surely I have chosen you above the people withMy messages and with My words, therefore take hold of what I give to you and be of the grateful ones.” AndWe wrote for him in the tablets admonition from everything and clear explanation of all things . (7:144-5). .he took up the tablets, and in the writing thereof was guidance and mercy for those who fear for the sake of their Lord (7:154).

And He says especially for the Qur’ãn:

The Faithful Sprit has descended with it, upon your heart that you may be of the warners, in plain Arabic language (26:193-5). Most surely it is the Word of an honoured messenger, the possessor of strength, having an honourable place with the Lord of the Throne, one (to be) obeyed, and faithful in trust (81:19-21).In honoured books, exalted, purified, in the hands of scribes, noble, virtuous (80:13-16). Although Allãh has not mentioned anything regarding revelation of Injīl and its particulars, yet the verse under discussion mentions its revelation to ‘Īsã (a.s.) side by side with the coming down of Torah on Mūsã (a.s.), and revelation of the Qur’ãn on Muhammad (may Allãh's blessings be on him and his progeny) and it proves that Injīl too was a book like the other two.

Second: Allãh says about Injīl: in which was guidance and light, parallel to what He had said about Torah [in 5:44]: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; these words point to the cognition and laws contained in the Book. He says at the end of this very verse 5:46 [about Injīl]: anda guidance and an admonition for those who are pious. By putting the two phrases [about Injīl] side by side, it is understood that the guidance mentioned in the former phrase is something separate from the one mentioned in the latter phrase and which has been explained as admonition. The former guid-ance is related to cognition, which guides in matters of faith and belief, while the latter refers to that cognition which leads one to fear of Allãh and piety in religion.

Now, what is meant by light? It can only mean the laws andsharī‘ah ; and meditation gives support to this interpretation. The laws of religion are the light, which illuminates the path of life and man proceeds in that light to his destination. Allãh says: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among thepeople, . . (6:122).

It is now clear that the guidance, mentioned first in description of the Torah and the Injīl, refers to matters of faith and belief; like Oneness of God and resurrection; and the light in both places denotes sharī‘ah and laws; while the guidance mentioned second time as attribute of the Injīl refers to sermon and admonition. And Allãh knows better.

Also, now one may understand the reason of repetition of “guidance” in the verse; it is because the second “guidance” is differ-ent from the first one; in the second instance, in the phrase: “a guid-ance and an admonition”, there is an explicative apposition, inasmuch as “admonition” gives the meaning of “guidance”. And Allãh knows better.

Third: The phrase: “and verifying what was before it of Torah”, as attribute of Injīl, is not a repetition for the sake of emphasis33 , etc.; rather it denotes that Injīl follows thesharī‘ah of Torah, because there was nothing in Injīl other than confirmation of Torah's sharī‘ah and call to follow it. Of course, there were a few exceptions made by ‘Īsã (a.s.), as Allãh quotes him as saying: . and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbiddenyou, . . (3:50).

Its proof is seen in the next but one verse: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, as will be explained in the “Commentary”.

QUR’ÃN: and a guidance and an admonition for those who are pious: This clause has already been explained. It proves that the Injīl revealed to ‘Īsã paid special care to piety, in addition to matters of belief and faith and practical laws which were found in the Torah. Although theQur’ãn does not verify totally the Torah which is in their hands today; and although the four Gospels attributed to Mathew, Marks, Luke and John, are not the same Injīl which Qur’ãn says was revealed to ‘Īsã himself, yet they all confirm this matter, as will be explained later, God willing.

QUR’ÃN: And the people of the Injīl should have judged by what Allãh revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the transgressors: Allãh had revealed in the Injīl confirmation and verification of the Torah in its laws, except some abrogated rules which were described in the Book revealed to ‘Īsã (a.s.); obviously when Injīl verified the laws of Torah and made lawful some things which had been forbidden in it, then following the Torah in its laws - except those unlawful things which were made lawful by Injīl - was tantamount to obeying the law of Injīl.

Some exegetes have claimed on the strength of this verse that Injīl too contained, like Torah, elaborated laws and sharī‘ah; but the explanation given above show the weakness of this claim.

The statement: “and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the transgressors”, puts emphasis on the order contained in the preceding sentence: “And the people of the Injīl should have judged . .” Allãh has repeated this sentence three times with minor difference all for emphasis; twice relating to the Jews and once regarding the Christians; as He has said: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers [5:44]. .those are they that are the unjust [5:45]. .those are they that are the transgressors [5:47]. In this way, their disbelief, injustice, and transgression have officially been put on record.

What is the reason that the Christians have been called trans-gressors while the Jews were described as unbelievers and unjust? It is because the Christians changed monotheism to trinity and abandoned the laws of Torah; they were misled by Paul who preached that ‘Īsã had brought an independent religion, separate from that of Mūsã, and that that new religion had abrogated all laws through ‘Īsã's atonement; thus the Christians went out of the fold of monotheism and its sharī‘ah through mistaken interpretation; so they transgressed the boundary of the true divine religion. Transgression means exit of a thing from its prescribed place, like exit of the core of date from its cover.

As for the Jews, they had no doubt whatsoever about the religion of Mūsã (a.s .); they had rejected knowingly the laws and beliefs, which they had, full knowledge of; and it was nothing but injustice and disbelief in Allãh's signs.

It should however be noted that the three verses, i.e.: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they: that are the unbelievers; that are the unjust; that are the transgressors, are unrestricted; they are not confined to any one group, religion or nation, although here they have been applied to the People of the Book.

There is a difference of opinion among exegetes regarding the import of the unbelief of him who does not judge by what Allãh has revealed, e.g., a judge who decides a case contrary to what Allãh has revealed, or a ruler who rules against what Allãh has revealed, or an innovator who invents a system other than that of divine religion. This question comes under the purview of fiqh. The fact is that violation of any rule of the sharī‘ah or any other established matter of religion, when one knows that it is an established fact and then rejects it, is disbelief, if one violates it, knowing its factuality but without rejecting it, it is transgression. But of one does not know that it is an established religious matter and then rejects it, it is neither disbelief nor trans-gression, because it is an excusable incapability (except if there was negligence in investigation of facts and proofs). See books of fiqh for details.

QUR’ÃN: AndWe have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it: Haymanah (هَيْمَنَة ) of a thing over another thing entails its authority over it, involving its protection, safety and management. This describes the position of the Qur’ãn, which Allãh says is explanation of everything vis-à-vis the previous divine books. It preserves from those books' contents, the permanent unchangeable fundamentals and abrogates what deserves it from the subsidiary items that are liable to change and alteration, in order to make it conform to man's position, keeping in view his step-by-step development and perfection with passage of time. Allãh says: Surely thisQur’ãn guides to that which is most upright (17:9). Whatever signsWe abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it (2:106). Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the Ummī, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Injīl, (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honour him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful (7:157).

The phrase: “a guardian over it”, is an explanatory conclusion of the preceding, verifying what is before it of the Book; without it the mention of verification could cause a misunderstanding that the Qur’ãn confirmed the laws of the Torah and the Injīl and let them continue without any change; but with this phrase in place, the verification only means that the Qur’ãn accepts that those laws and cognitive matters had truly come from Allãh and Allãh has full power to manage them as He pleases, He may abrogate them or may complete them with other laws, as He points to it in this very verse: and if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you.

Therefore, the words: “verifying what is before it”, mean that the Qur’ãn has kept intact that part of the law and knowledge of Injīl which were suitable for this ummah, as such the consequent addition, omission or abrogation was not contrary to this verification - in the same way as ‘Īsã (a.s.) and his Injīl had verified the Torah even when they had made lawful some things prohibited by the Torah, as Allãh quotes him as saying: And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden you . (3:50).

QUR’ÃN: therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their (low) desires (diverging) from the truth that has come to you: As the sharī‘ah, which has been revealed to you and is contained in the Book, is truth, and as it is truth when it tallies with the Books revealed earlier, and is truth when it goes against those Books, because it is a guardian over them, therefore you are inevitably required to judge between the People of the Book (as is apparently supported by the preceding verses), or between the people (as is supported by following verses), by what Allãh has revealed to you; you should not follow their desires or turn away from the truth that has come to you.

The above discourse shows that the pronoun in: “judge between them”, may refer to the People of the Book or to the people in general. But the first alternative necessitates taking the phrase as meaning, judge between them if you decide to judge, because Allãh had not obligated him to judge between the People of the Book, but had left it to his discretion whether he wanted to judge or turned aside from them. He says: therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them [5:42]. Moreover, Allãh has at the beginning of this set of verses, mentioned the hypocrites together with the Jews. So there is no reason why the pronoun, “them”, should be taken to refer to the Jews only when another group was mentioned together with them. Therefore, looking at it in this context, the second alternative seems more appropriate, i.e. judge between the people.

Obviously, the words: “do not follow their desires from the truth”, are well connected and they imply divergence from the truth.

QUR’ÃN: for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way: ar-Rãghib says in his Mufradãtu 'l-Qur’ãn: “ash-Shar‘ (اَلشَرْعُ ) is the way of a clear path; it is said: 'I opened for him a path.' ash-Shar‘ is a masdar, then it was used as a noun for open path; it is pronounced ash-shir‘, ash-shar‘ and ash-sharī‘ah; then it was used for the divine path; Allãh says: a law and a way . Some people have said, 'The sharī‘ah was given this name to liken it to drinking place.' “

Probably, the case is vice versa, i.e., the drinking place was the original meaning which was then borrowed for the law; because they knew clearly the ways to water holes, etc. which were frequently visited by them. And he has said: “an-Nahj (اَلنَهْجُ ) is clear path; nahaja 'l-amr and anhaja both mean the matter became clear; manhaj and minhãj of path mean open road.”

MEANING OF SHARĪ‘AH AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHARĪ‘AH, DĪN AND MILLAH IN QUR’ÃNIC USAGE

Sharī‘ah, as you have seen, means path and religion; likewise millah is an adopted path. However, apparently the Qur’ãn uses the word,sharī‘ah in a meaning more particular than dīn (religion). For proof, see the verse: Surely the religion with Allãh is Islam . (3:19).

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (3:85); when read together with the verse under discussion: for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and the verse: Then We have made you follow a course in the affair, therefore follow it . (45:18).

Thus, sharī‘ah is the way prepared for an ummah or a prophet who was sent with it, as we say, sharī‘ah of Nūh, sharī‘ah of Ibrãhīm, sharī‘ah of Mūsã, sharī‘ah of ‘Īsã and sharī‘ah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.); and religion is the divine course and system which covers all nations; so sharī‘ah is liable to abrogation but not religion in its wider sense.

There is one more difference: Religion is attributed to singular or plural whatever their position; butsharī‘ah is not attributed to a singular unless it be its Legislator or its principle head who manages it. They say: Muslims' religion, Jews' religion, Muslims' sharī‘ah, Jews' sharī‘ah; again they say: Allãh's religion, Allãh'ssharī‘ah , Muhammad's religion, Muhammad's sharī‘ah; Also they say: Zayd's religion, ‘Amr's religion, but they never say: Zayd's sharī‘ah or ‘Amr's sharī‘ah. May be it is so because the term,sharī‘ah , carries a hint of incidental happening, an allusion of preparing and paving the path. It is perfectly right to say: the path prepared by Allãh, the way laid down for the prophet or for a certain ummah; but it is not right to say: the way which was laid down for Zayd, because Zayd has no particular connection to it.

In any case, it is inferred from the above thatsharī‘ah's mean-ing is more particular than that of religion. As for the verse, 42:13 (He has prescribed for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nūh, and that which We have revealed to you, and that which We enjoined upon Ibrãhīm and Mūsã and ‘Īsã . .), it does not go against it, because it shows that the sharī‘ah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), laid down for his ummah is the sum total of what was enjoined upon Nūh, Ibrãhīm, Mūsã and ‘Īsã (peace be upon them), added to what was revealed to Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). It is either an allusion to the fact that Islam [is a comprehensive religion which] combines the merits of all previous sharī‘ah plus the excellence of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.)'s revelation, or it aims at proving that all the laws do have a single reality and essence, even though they were somewhat different among themselves because the people for whom they were sent had different [intellectual and social] standards; as is hinted or proved by the words of verse 13 of chapter 42 coming after the clause quoted above: . that establish the religion and be not divided therein.

Religion is one and unalterable, while laws differ [from nation to nation, time to time, and] are liable to abrogation. The relationship of a particularsharī‘ah with religion is like that of minor rules of Islam (with their abrogator and abrogated ones) with the basic religion. Allãh has not obligated His servants except to adhere to one religion, i.e. submission to Him; but He has taken them to that destina-tion through different paths, legislating for them various systems according to their various abilities, and these are the laws of Nūh, Ibrãhīm, Mūsã, ‘Īsã and Muhammad (may Allãh's blessing be upon him and his progeny and on them); exactly as He sometimes abro-gated within one sharī‘ah some laws replacing them with others because the abrogated law had lost its benefit and the abrogator one had become more appropriate and beneficial. See for example the replacement of the punishment of life-imprisonment for a fornicatress with flogging and stoning, etc. This is proved by the divine words: and if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you . .

As for millah, it is as though it points to norms and customs observed by people in their lives; and it probably has a shade of meaning of imlã’ (إِمْلاَءُ ) and imlãl (إِمْلاَل ) i.e., 'dictation'; as such it would be a custom handed down by others; its root meaning is not so clear; therefore more likely it is synonymous to sharī‘ah inasmuch as, contrary to religion, milla like sharī‘ah denotes a system and way related to a particular group; yet there is difference between the two: sharī‘ah is used for the system or way keeping in view the reality that it has been laid down by Allah for people's use; while millah is used for the system as it is handed down practically among the people generation after generation. Probably that is the reason that millah is not ascribed to Allãh in genitive construction, i.e. they never say, millah of Allãh, while they say, religion of Allãh,sharī‘ah of Allãh.

However, it is ascribed to a prophet to denote his tradition and habit, or to an ummah because they follow and observe that custom and tradition. Allãh says: . the millah of Ibrãhīm, the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists (2:135); and Allãh quotes Yūsuf (a.s.) as saying: . surely I have forsaken the millah of a people who do not believe in Allãh, and they are deniers of the hereafter; and I follow the millah of my fathers, Ibrãhīm and Ishãq and Ya‘qūb . (12:37-38). And He quotes the unbelievers' threat to their prophets:

. . We will most certainly drive you forth from our land, or else you shall come back into our millah . (14:13).

It is thus seen that dīn (religion) in Qur’ãnic usage is more general than sharī‘ah and millah; and these two are synonymous, with some difference in their usage.

QUR’ÃN: and if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you: It gives the reason why there were sent various laws. Making all a single people does not mean making them a single species, because all of them already belong to a single species living in the same way, as Allãh says: And were it not that all people would have been a single nation, We would certainly have assigned to those who disbelieve in the Beneficent God (to make) of silver the roofs of their houses and the stairs by which they ascend (43:33).

Rather it means treating whole mankind as a single people considering them to be on a single level of intellectual capacity and social behaviour, in which case a single set of laws would have been made for all, because of proximity of their ranks. Accordingly, the clause: “if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people”, has metaphorically put the reason of condition in place of condition; the idea is to make the meaning of the following clause clearer: “but that He might try you in what He gave you”, that is, He might test you with the favours He bestowed on you. Naturally, the favours, pointed to in the verse, differed from nation to nation. The differences were not based on their habitations, languages and colours, because Allãh had never sent more than onesharī‘ah in one period; rather the differences occurred by passage of time because of man's gradual development intellectually and socially. Divinely prescribed responsibilities and laid down laws are but means of trial with which Allãh tests man in various stages of life. In other words He brings man's potential to fulfilment, be it on the side of felicity or infelicity. You may say that it is done for differentiating the party of Allãh from the party of Satan. These different expressions used above have been taken from the divine Book, and sum total of all is the same. Allãh says keeping in view the aspect of test: . and We bring these days to men by turns and that Allãh may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allãh loves not the unjust; and that Allãh may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers. Do you think that you will enter the Garden while Allãh has not yet known those who strive hard from among you, and (He has not) known the patient! (3:140-2). There are many verses of this theme.

As for the bringing man's potential to fulfilment, Allãh says: So if there comes to you guidance fromMe , then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy. And whoever turns away fromMy remembrance, his shall surely be a straitened life, and We will raise him, on the Day of Resurrection, blind (20:123-4).

And He says regarding the third aspect (i.e., distinguishing the party of Allãh from that of Satan): And when your Lord said to the angels: “Surely I am going to create a mortal of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape . .” [Satan] said: “My Lord! Because Thou hast left me to stray, I will certainly make (evil) fair seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate, except Thy servants from among them, the freed ones.” He said: “This is a straight path withMe : Surely as regards My servants, thou hast no authority over them except those who follow thee of the deviators. And surely Hell is the promised place of them all.” (15:28-43). There are many such verses.

In short, Allãh had bestowed on mankind different types of capabilities and potentialities in different times and eras; also the divine laws, whose enforcement among them was essential in order to complete their lives' felicity were sent for man's test which varies according to the variance in examinees' abilities - all these factors together had caused difference in various laws. That is why Allãh has said that this difference of laws has happened because He has wished to test and examine you in what He has bestowed on you of His favours, as He says: for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people.

The meaning of this verse is then as follows, and Allãh knows better: For each nation from among youWe have laid down and legis-lated a different law and distinct way; if Allãh had pleased He would have made you (creatively) a single nation and legislated for you a single set of law. But He has laid down for you different laws in order to test you in what He has given you of various favours. This differ-ence in favours demanded difference in test (which in their turn)give rise to divine laws and legislations. Naturally there was difference in various laws.

The different nations mentioned here are those of Nūh, Ibrãhīm, Mūsã, ‘Īsã and Muhammad (may Allãh's blessing be upon him and his progeny and on them) as He says describing His favours on this ummah: He has prescribed for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nūh and that which We have revealed to you, and that which We enjoined upon Ibrãhīm and Mūsã and ‘Īsã . (42:13).

QUR’ÃN: therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allãh is the return of all of you, then He will let you know that in which you differed: al-Istibãq (اَلإِسْتِبَاقُ = to vie, to compete) is derived from the root as-sabq (اَلسَبْقُ = to get ahead of some one);almarja‘ ( اَلْمَرْجَعُ = return) is a masdar derived from ar-rujū‘ (اَلرُجُوْعُ = return). The speech has branched out as a concomitant from the preceding: for every one of you didWe appoint a law and a way. The meaning: And We have prescribed for you this true sharī‘ah which is superior to all previous ones, and it contains your good and welfare, therefore you should vie with each other to hasten to good deeds, i.e., the divinely prescribed laws and responsibilities; you should not entangle yourselves in the differences that are there between you and the others, because all of you are to return to your Lord, and then He will let you know that in which you differed, and will judge between you clearly and decide with justice.

QUR’ÃN: And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, . many of the people are transgressors: The begin-ning of the verse: “And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their low desires”, corresponds with the clause in the preceding verse: therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their (low) desires; then the two separate in their ramifications, and one realizes that the repeti-tion has occurred for this purpose. The former verse tells them to judge by what Allãh has revealed and admonishes them not to follow their low desires - because thissharī‘ah revealed by Allãh is the one prescribed for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his people. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them to vie with one another in virtuous deeds. The latter verse orders them to judge by what Allãh has revealed and not to follow their low desires - explaining that if they turned back from what Allãh has revealed, it would show that Allãh has left them in their error on account of their transgression. Allãh has said: . He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it; but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors (2:26).

It results from the above that this verse elaborates some themes of the preceding verse which needed more explanation: The only reason that people of low desire turn away from following what Allãh has revealed with truth is that they are transgressors; Allãh desires to afflict them on account of some of their sins which have caused their transgression. This affliction apparently means that He leaves them to err. Thus the clause: “And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed”, is in conjunction, as has been said, with the word, “Book”, in the preceding verse's opening sentence: And We have revealed to you the Book . In that case, it is more appropriate to take the al (اَلْ = the) in, “the Book”, as connoting a new occurence; the meaning then will be as follows: We have revealed to you the laws which have been prescribed for them, and that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed.

“and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allãh has revealed to you”: Here Allãh warns His Prophet against their seduction and temptation, although he (s.a.w.a.) was ma‘sūm and sinless through divine protection. It is because the power of ‘ismah (sinlessness) does not nullify the free will and choice, nor does it repeal the laws based on that will and choice. Ismah is in fact an academic and intellectual aptitude; knowledge and perception do not deprive practical powers and faculties from their middle position between doing and not doing. It is these faculties, which move the limbs and organs of a man and cause his activities.

For example, a sure knowledge that a certain food is poisoned prevents man from taking that food. But the organs used in eating, like hand, mouth, tongue, and teeth may perform their activities in this eating, or they may remain inert although they could possibly become active; so the action is within power, although it has become like impossible to do because of that knowledge.

We have written to some extent on this topic when explaining the verse: . and they shall not harm you in any way, and Allãh has revealed to you the Book and the Wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and Allãh's grace on you is very great (4:113).

“But if they turn back, then know that Allãh desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults”: As mentioned above, it describes that they were left to err because of their transgression. This clause reverts to the initial theme of this set of verses, where it says: O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening in unbelief . [5:41]. The verse aims at putting the Prophet's mind at rest and cheers him up; it teaches him that which would keep grief and sorrow away from his heart. This is what Allãh has done in most of the places where He has told him not to grieve if the unbelievers turn away from the true Call or disdain to accept, that which would lead them to the path of guidance and success. So Allãh explained to him that they were not going to weaken the kingdom of Allãh, nor were they to overwhelm Him; it is Allãh Who is dominant in His affairs; it is He Who leaves them to err because of their transgression, makes their hearts deviated because of their deviation, and puts uncleanness on them by removing His help from them and luring them into evil. Allãh says: And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape (8:59). So, as all matters are in Allãh's hand, and He drives away all types of uncleanness from His clean religion, so nothing can escape from Him if He wants it; there-fore there was no cause to grieve, as nothing was lost.

Probably, that is the reason that Allãh has said: “but if they turn back, then know that Allãh desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults”; instead of saying, 'but if they turn back, then Allãh desires . .' or some other expression to that effect. In its present structure the verse intends to teach the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that their turning back is caused by divine subjugation, as such it should not cause grief to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); he is a Messenger inviting people to the way of his Lord; if anything grieves him it should do so because Allãh's will is predominant in the affairs of religious Call. As nothing can overcome Allãh's will, and it is He Who leads them here and there by His subjugation, helping some and leaving some in their deception, therefore there was no reason to be grieved.

Allãh has explained this reality in other words: Then may be you will kill yourself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they do not believe in this announcement. SurelyWe have made whatever is on the earth an embellishment for it, so that We may try them (as to) which of them is best in deed. And most surelyWe will make what is on it bare ground without herbage. (18:6-8) Thus Allãh has made it clear that the aim of sending messengers, and their coming with relig-ious warning and good news was not that all people should enter into the fold of true religion, as a man plans and thinks concerning his requirements and needs. The only purpose of this all is to test the people and put them on trial, so that it may be known who is best in deed. Otherwise, this world and all that is in it is going to perish very soon, nothing will remain except a bare ground, free from these disbelievers who turn away from the speech of truth, and cleansed from all their hearts' attachments. So, there is no reason to be sorry, because it is not going to bring any failure inOur endeavours, nullify Our power or cause weariness in Our will.

“and most surely many of the people are transgressors”: As mentioned earlier, it gives the reason of the preceding sentence: then know that Allãh desires to afflict them on account of some of their sins.

QUR’ÃN: Is it then the judgement of (the times of) ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allãh to judge for a people who are sure?: This question branches out from the theme of the preceding verse that describes their turning back from what is in reality the judgement of Allãh that was revealed to them and which, they knew very well, was truth. Also possibly the verse may be taken as the con-clusion of the themes of previous verses.

Its meaning: As these laws and rules are the truth revealed by Allãh, and as other than these there is no true sharī‘ah, there is nothing besides them except the system of the days of ignorance, emanating from low desires. What do these people, who turn aside from judgement of truth, want after all? There is noting else except the judgement of the Days of Ignorance. Do they then want that judge-ment, when there is no one better than Allãh to judge for these people who claim to be believers?

So, the sentence: “Is it the judgement of (the time of) ignorance that they desire?” is a reprimand in the form of question; and: “who is better than Allãh to judge?” Is a question with implied negative reply, i.e. no one is better than Allãh to judge, and a judgement is followed because of its good. The clause: “for a people who are sure”, is an insinuation to them that if they are truthful in their claim of believing in Allãh, then they are sure of His signs; and those who are sure of His signs deny that any one can be better than Allãh in judgement.

It should be noted that these verses in several places turn from singular or plural first person pronoun to that of third person and vice versa. For example, the clause: surely Allãh loves those who judge equitably, followed by: Surely We sent down Torah, which is followed by: as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, after which comes: and fearMe , and so on. Whenever the third person uses the proper Divine Name: Allãh, it reflects on the import-ance of the subject. Where the first person singular pronoun is used, it shows that all affairs are in the hand of Allãh alone, without any interference from any friend or intercessor. If the verse speaks of any good promise or attraction, it is Allãh who is going to manage it and He is the Most Noble of those who fulfil their promise. If it contains a threat or warning then it is really most troublesome and hardest and no friend or intercessor can avert it from man, because the matter is in Allãh's hand alone. And He [by using singular pronoun] has nullified every intermediate link and rejected every intervening cause. Ponder on it; and some aspects of it have been described earlier.

TRADITIONS

Majma‘u 'l-bayãn narrates under the verse: O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening in unbelief . ., from al-Baqir (a.s .) that he said, “A woman of high status in Khaybar committed adultery with a man of high rank from among them - and both had spouses. So they did not like to stone them. They sent (some one) to the Jews of Medina and wrote to them to ask the Prophet about it, hoping that he would allow them some latitude. So a group of them, including Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, Ka‘b ibn Usayd, Shu‘bah ibn ‘Amr, Mãlik ibn as-Sayf and Kinãnah ibn Abi 'l-Haqīq, etc., went (to the Prophet, s.a.w.a.) and said, 'O Muhammad! Tell us about a fornicator and a fornicatress, when they have their spouses, what is the pre-scribed punishment for them?' He said, 'And will you agree to my judgement in this?' They said, 'Yes.' So Jibrīl came down with (the order of) stoning. (The Prophet) told it to them; they refused to accept it. Jibrīl said, 'Make Ibn Sūriyã (arbitrator) between you and them;' and gave his particulars to (the Prophet).

“So the Prophet said, 'Do you know a young man, beardless, white, one-eyed, who lives in Fadak and is called Ibn Sūriyã?' They said, 'Yes.' He said, 'What position does he have among you? They said, '(He is) the most knowledgeable Jew (living on the face of the earth) of what Allãh had revealed to Mūsã.' He said, 'Then you send (message) to call him.' They did so, and ‘Abdullãh ibn Sūriyã came to them.

“So the Prophet said to him, 'I adjure you by Allãh, that which there is no god but He, and Who sent down Torah to Mūsã, and parted the sea for you, and delivered you and drowned the people of Pharaoh, and made the clouds to give shade over you and sent to you manna and quails, do you find in your Book (the punishment of) stoning for the one who commits adultery while having a spouse?' Ibn Sūriyã said, 'Yes. By Him Whom you have reminded me, if it were not for the fear that the Lord of Torah would burn me down if I lied or changed, I would not have confessed to you. However, (now) you tell me how it is in your Book, O Muhammad!' He said, 'When four wit-nesses of approved probity testify that he had entered into her as kohl stick enters kohl container, then he becomes liable to stoning.' Ibn Sūriyã said, 'Exactly like it had Allãh revealed to Mūsã in Torah.'

Then the Prophet said to him, 'What was the first time you became lax in the judgement of Allãh?' He said, '[It was our custom that] when a man of status committed adultery, we did nothing to him, and when a weak person did so, we enforced the punishment to him; thus fornication increased in our high class society, until a cousin of one of our kings committed adultery and we did not subject him to stoning. Then another man committed the same and the King wanted to stone him. But the man's people told the King, “Never, until you stone that person, i.e., the King's cousin.” So we said, “Come together, so that we lay down something below stoning that will be applied to men of high and low status both.” Thus we laid down flogging and tahmīm, that is, the fornicator and fornicatress should each be flogged forty strokes, then their faces be blackened, and they be put on two donkeys their faces being towards the donkey's posterior, and they be made to go round (the town). They prescribed it in place of stoning.'

“The Jews then said to Ibn Sūriyã, 'How quickly you told him (everything); you did not deserve what we had said about you, but you were absent, and we did not like to slander your reputation.' He said, 'He adjured me by Torah, otherwise I would not have informed him.'

The Prophet gave his judgement and the two were stoned near the door of his mosque. And he said, 'I am the first to revive your judgement when they had made it dead.' Then Allãh revealed in this connection: O People of the Book! Indeed has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much. Then Ibn Sūriyã stood up and put his hands on the knees of the Messenger of Allãh and said, 'This is the place of the one who seeks protection by Allãh andyou, that you should not mention to us the “much” which you have been told to pass over.' So the Prophet did not mention it.

“Then Ibn Sūriyã asked him about his sleep. He (the Prophet) said, 'My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep.' He said, 'You said the truth; now tell me (why) a child resembles his father and has no resemblance with his mother at all, or resembles his mother without having any resemblance to his father.' He said, 'The water of which-ever of the parents tops that of the other, his or her resemblance will prevail.' He said, 'You said the truth; now tell me which parts of the child belong to the man and which to the woman?' “ (The Imãm, a.s.), said, “Then the Messenger of Allãh went into trance for a long time; then he came out of it, with ruddy face and pouring sweat; and he said, 'Flesh, blood, nail and fat belong to the woman, and bone, sinew and veins belong to the man.' He said, 'You said the truth; your affairs are those of a prophet.'

“So Ibn Sūriyã accepted Islam at this stage. And he said, 'O Muhammad! Which of the angels comes to you?' He said, 'Jibrīl. He said, 'Describe his attributes to me; and the Prophet described it.' He said, 'I bear witness that he is in Torah as you have said and that you are truly the Messenger of Allãh.'

“When Ibn Sūriyã accepted Islam, the Jews quarrelled with him and abused him.

“When they wanted to leave, Banū Qurayzah caught the hold of Banu 'n-Nadīr and said, 'O Muhammad! (These are) our brothers, Banu 'n-Nadīr, our father is one, and our religion is one, and our prophet is one. When they slay one of us, (the slain one) is not avenged [i.e. his killer is not killed], rather they give us his blood money seventy wasaq34 of date; and when we slay one of them, they kill the killer and take from us double the amount, one hundred and forty wasaq of date. If the slain one is a woman, they kill (in her retaliation) one of our men, and (they kill) two of our men in place of their one man, and one of our free men in place of their slave; and our wounds are recompensed at half of their wounds. Therefore, you judge between them and us. So, Allãh revealed the verse about stoning and retaliation.' “

The author says: at-Tabrisī has also narrated in Majma‘u 'l-bayãn, through a group of exegetes, in addition to his narration from al-Bãqir (a.s.). Also, there are traditions in Sunnī tafsīrs and collec-tions of ahãdīth, somewhat nearer to the beginning of the above story, narrated through several chains from Abū Hurayrah, Barã’ ibn ‘Ãzib, ‘Abdullãh ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbãs and others. The traditions are nearer in meaning to each other. The end part of the tradition has been narrated in ad-Durru 'l-manthūr from ‘Abd ibn Hamīd and Abu 'sh-Shaykh from Qatãdah, and from Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Ishãq, at-Tabarãnī, Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ibnu 'l-Mundhir and others from Ibn ‘Abbãs.

As for the confirmation (in the tradition) by Ibn Sūriyã that the order of stoning was found in the Torah, and that it was the meaning of the verse: And how do they make you a judge and they have the Torah . ., it is also supported by the fact that nearly similar order is found in the Torah which is prevalent among them, as may be seen in the Deuteronomy, ch. 22, vs. 22-24: 22.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed untoan husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.35

As you have seen, this reserves stoning for some eventualities.

As for the report in the tradition that they had also asked the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) about the law of blood money, apart from their question regarding the law of adultery, it has been written earlier that the verses are not without some support to it. As for the order of retaliation of slaying and wounding which the verse says was prescribed in the Torah, this too is found in the present Torah, as may be seen in Exodus, ch. 21, vs. 12-13 & 23-25:

12. He that smiteth a man, so that hedie , shall be surely put to death.

13. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

. . . . .

23. And if anymischief follow , then thou shalt give life for life,

24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Further, the Leviticus, ch. 24, vs. 17-20, says:

17. And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

18. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20. Breach for breach, eye for eye,tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

as-Suyūtī narrates through Ahmad, Abū Dãwūd, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu 'l-Mundhir, at-Tabarãnī, Abu 'sh-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh from Ibn ‘Abbãs that he said, “Surely Allãh revealed: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbe-lievers. .that are the unjust. .that are the transgressors. He revealed it about two groups of the Jews, one of them subdued the other in the Era of Ignorance, until they reconciliated and made peace (on the condition) that if the mighty group slayed someone of the weaker group, his blood money should be fifty wasaq, and if the weaker one slayed a member of the mighty group, his blood money should be a hundred wasaq. This continued until the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) came to Medina. The two groups came down to welcome the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.), and he had not over-powered them yet. Then the weaker group stood up and said, 'Was there ever such a thing between two tribes? Their religion is one, their lineage is one and their town is one and (yet) blood money of one is half of that of the other? Certainly, we had given it to you only because of the injustice you did to us and in fear of you. But now that Muhammad has arrived, we shall not give in to you.' War was almost to erupt between them, and then they agreed to make the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) (Arbitrator) between them. Then the mighty group thought it over and said, 'By Allãh! Muhammad is not going to give you from them the double of what he would give them from you;' and they have truly said that they had not given it to us but because of (our) injustice and coercion to them. So, they engaged in secret intrigue against the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.). Allãh informed His Messenger of all their affairs and what they wanted. Then Allãh revealed: O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together . and most surely many of the people are transgressors.” [5:41-49] Then he said, “By Allãh! It was revealed about them.” (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

The author says: al-Qummī has narrated this story inter alia in a lengthy tradition in his at-Tafsīr; and it says that it was ‘Abdullãh ibn Ubayy who talked on behalf of Banu 'n-Nadīr - and it was the mighty one - and tried to frighten the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) of them, and that it was he who had said: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious.

But the first tradition is truer in text, because its meaning is more in conformity with the context of the verses; the first parts of the verses - particularly the first two - do not fit the story of the blood money between Banu 'n-Nadīr and Banū Qurayzah, as is not hidden from a person who recognizes the literary styles. It is not unlikely that it is an attempt to apply the story to the Qur’ãn, as is the case with a lot of traditions purporting to describe the reason of revelation of verses. It is as though the narrator found this story applicable to the verse: And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, . and preceding ones; then he found that the verses are connected with one another beginning from: O Messenger! Let not those grieve you who strive together . so he took all these verses as revealed in this story, and became oblivious of the story of stoning. And Allãh knows better.

Sulaymãn ibn Khãlid said, “I heard Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.), saying, 'When Allãh intends good for a servant, He scratches up a white spot in his heart, and deputes to him an angel who keeps him on right (path); and when He intends evil for a servant, He scratches up a black spot in his heart, and closes the hearing of his heart, and deputes to him a Satan who leads him astray.' Then he recited this verse: Therefore (for) whomsoever Allãh intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam; and (for) whosoever He intends that He should leave him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending into the sky . [6:125]. Then he said: Surely those against whom the word of your Lord has proved true will not believe [10:95]; and he said: . Those are they for whom Allãh does not desire that He should purify their hearts; . [5:41].” (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī)

[al-Kulaynī] narrates through his chain from as-Sakūnī that Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s .) said, “as-Suht (forbidden) is the price of dead body, and price of dog, and dowery for fornication, and bribe in judgement and wage of al-kãhin (اَلْكَاهِن = fortuneteller, soothsayer).” (al-Kãfī )

The author says: The tradition describes a number of forbid-den and unlawful earnings, without encompassing all such things. There are a lot of unlawful earnings as detailed in traditions. There are many traditions of this theme narrated from the Imãms of Ahlu 'l-Bayt (a.s.).

‘Abd ibn Hamīd has narrated that ‘Alī ibn Abī Tãlib was asked about suht, he said, “Bribe.” It was said to him, “In judgement?” He said, “That is disbelief.” (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

The author says: “That is disbelief” points to what has come in the verses under discussion in condemnation of suht and taking bribe in judgement: and barter not My signs for a small price and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers. Many traditions from al-Bãqir and as-Sãdiq (a.s .) have repeatedly said that: 'As for taking bribe in judgement, it is disbelief in Allãh and His Messenger.' There are numerous traditions in exegesis of suht and its prohibition, narrated through Shī‘ah and Sunnī chains and recorded in their collections of ahãdīth.

Ibn Abī Hãtim, an-Nahhãs (in his an-Nãsikh wa 'l-mansūkh), at-Tabarãnī, al-Hãkim (saying that it was correct), Ibn Marduwayh and al-Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunanu 'l-kubrã) have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbãs that he said, “Two verses of this chapter - i.e. 'The Table' - were abrogated: the verse of al-qalãid (اَلْقَلاَئِدُ = sacrificial animals with symbolic garlands) and: therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them. Thus the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) had option, if he wished he would judge between them and if he wished he would turn aside from them and return them to their laws.

Then was revealed (the verse): And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their low desires.” (Ibn ‘Abbãs) said, “So the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) was ordered to judge between then according to our Book.” (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr) Abū ‘Ubayd, Ibnu 'l-Mundhir and Ibn Marduwayh have nar-rated from Ibn ‘Abbãs that he said about the verse: judge between them or turn aside from them, that it was abrogated by the verse: And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed.(ibid.)

The author says: as-Suyūtī has also narrated it through ‘Abdu 'r-Razzãq from ‘Ikrimah. However, the theme of the verses does not agree with this claim of abrogation. The clear context of the verses shows them to be interlinked and proves that they were revealed all together. As such there is no sense in saying that some of its verses have abrogated some others. Moreover, the verse: And that you should judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, is not independent in its meaning; it is connected with the preceding verses; therefore there is no reason to treat it as an abrogating one. (However, if abrogation is OK with all these difficulties, then the clause: therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, in the preceding verse, has more right to be treated as abrogating.) Apart from that, you have seen that the pronoun, them, in, judge between them, more manifestly refers to the people in general, rather than the People of the Book or particu-larly the Jews. Moreover, we have described in the beginning of this chapter that the chapter of “The Table” is abrogating, and not abrogated.

Abū ‘Amr az-Zubayrī narrates from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) that he said, “Surely the things because of which one deserves Imãmah are: Purification, cleanliness from sins and grave offences which make one liable to the hell; then enlightened - and another copy says, (hidden) knowledge of all that the ummah needs, its halãl and harãm, knowl-edge of its Book, its particular and general, decisive and ambiguous, intricacies of its knowledge and marvels of its interpretation, its abro-gating and abrogated.”

“I said, 'What is the proof that Imãm cannot be except he who has the knowledge of these things you have mentioned?' He said, 'The word of Allãh regarding those whom He has given permission to rule and made them deserving to it: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allãh) were judging (matters) for those who were Jews, and (so did) the Divines and the scholars, . So these are the Imãms, below the prophets, who raised up the people by their knowledge; and as for al-ahbãr (اَلأَحْبَارُ ), they are the scholars, below the Divines; then Allãh gave information and said: as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh; and He did not say, they were put under the burden of the Book.'“ ( at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyãshī)

The author says: It is a very fine argument presented by the Imãm (a.s.); it shows a wonderful connotation of the verse, finer than the previously given explanation: It describes that the sequence used in the verse - the prophets, then the Divines, then the scholars - points to their descending ranks in excellence and perfection; thus the Divines are below the prophets and above the scholars, and the scholars are those men of religious erudition who have been entrusted with its knowledge through teaching and learning.

Allãh has described the mode of the Divines' knowledge in these words: as they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh, and they were witnesses thereof. If the idea were to show its similarity to the scholars' knowledge, it would have been said, as they were placed under it, as Allãh says: The similitude of those who were placed under the Torah, then they did not hold it . (62:5). It is because al-istihfãz (اَلإِسْتِحْفَاظُ ) means to ask someone to guard; it implies obligating him to guard and protect; it is similar to the words of Allãh: That He may question the truthful of theirtruth, . . (33:8), i.e. that He may obligate them to display the attribute of truthfulness that is hidden in their souls.

This guarding of the Book and its witnessing cannot be com-plete without ‘ismah (عِصْمَةُ = sinlessness) which Allãh does not grant to non-ma‘sūms. ‘Ismah's essentiality is understood from the fact that Allãh has based His permission to them to judge on their guarding of the Book, and has given credence to their witnessing based on the same; and it is impossible to give credence to their witnessing if there were any possibility of their falling into error or committing any mistake - because it is on their testimony that the Book is confirmed.

So, this guarding and witnessing is something quite different from the protection and the testimony, which we are familiar with, in our society. Rather it is of the type of the protection of deeds and witnessing that has been mentioned in the verse: . that you may be the witnesses for the people and (that) the Messenger may be a witness for you . (2:143). Its explanation was given in the first volume of the Book.36

This guarding and witnessing is ascribed to all, although only some of them were going to do it, in the same way as witnessing of deeds has been ascribed to the whole ummah, although only a few shall do it. Such usage is common in the Qur’ãn; e.g. Allãh says: And certainlyWe gave the Book and the Wisdom and the Prophecy to the Children of Israel . (45:16). Of course, the scholars too were given the responsibility of guarding and witnessing and covenant was taken to that effect from them too. But it was only a subjective religious affirmation, quite apart from real affirmation that depends on real guarding, free from mistake and error; and divine religion cannot be complete without this as it cannot be without that.

It is now established that there is a position between those of the prophets and the scholars, and it is the position of the Imãms. Allãh has told us about it in His word: And We made of them Imãms to guide byOur command as they were patient, and they were certain of our signs (32:24). It does not go against the verses, which say: AndWe gave him Ishãq, and Ya‘qūb, as a further gift, and We made (them) all good ones. And We made them Imãms, to guide (people) by Ourcommand, . . (21:72-73). It is because joining of prophethood and Imãmate in a group does not prevent separation of the two posi-tions in others. Some details about Imãmate have been given in the first volume under the divine words: And (remember) when his Lord tried Ibrãhīm with certainwords, . . (2:124).37

In short, the divines and Imãms, who hold the middle rank between the prophets and the scholars, do have the knowledge of the Book as it should be known, and do bear witness thereof as it should be done.

The verse speaks about the divines and Imãms of the Children of Israel. But the verse shows that it was because Torah was a Book revealed by Allãh which contained guidance and light, i.e., matters of belief and deed required of the ummah; and if that demanded this guarding and witnessing which can only be done by the divines and Imãms, then the same will apply to every Book revealed by Allãh which contained divine gnosis and practical laws. And this proves our intended purpose.

Therefore, the Imãm's words, 'so these are the Imãms below prophets', mean that the Imãms' rank is below that of the prophets, according to the sequence given in the verse; likewise, the scholars are below the Imãms. The words, they bring up the people with their knowledge, make it clear that the Imãm has taken the word, ar-rabbãnī (اَلْرَب َّاني ) as being derived from at-tarbiyah (اَلتَّرْبِيَةُ = to bring up) and not from ar-rububiyyah (اَلرُّبُوبِيَّةُ = lordship). The meanings of other clauses are clear from earlier explanation.

Perhaps this meaning was intended by al-Bãqir (a.s.) when he said that the verse: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light . required to guard (part) of the Book of Allãh . ., was revealed about the Imãms of Ahlu 'l-Bayt (a.s.). Mãlik al-Juhanī narrates that AbūJa‘far (a.s.) said about the above verse, “About us was it revealed.” (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī)

Tafsīru 'l-burhãn writes under the verse: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers, that [al-Kulaynī] narrates through his chain from ‘Abdullãh ibn Muskãn that he said, “The Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.), said, 'Whoever judged about two dirhams a judgement of injustice, then enforced it by coercion, he shall be from among the people of this verse: and whoeverr did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.' I said, 'And how does he coerce in this matter?' He said, 'He will be having whip and prison; so he gives judgement against someone; then if he agreed to his judgement, (well and good); otherwise, he would beat him with his whip and put him in prison.' “

The author says: ash-Shaykh has narrated it in at-Tahdhīb through his chain from Ibn Muskãn, from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); and al-‘Ayyãshī has narrated it in his at-Tafsīr from him. The beginning of the hadīth is narrated through other chains too from the Imãms of Ahlu 'l-Bayt (a.s.).

In this tradition, the judgement is made conditional on coercion. It implies that the judgement should be of such a nature as would produce an affect; it would be a decree, which by its very nature would show some definite result. Otherwise, mere utterance is not called judgement.

Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr, Abu 'sh-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbãs that he said: and whoever did not judge by what Allãh revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers, . that are the unjust, . that are the transgressors, (were revealed) especially about the Jews. (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

The author says: The three verses are unrestricted and there is no cause to justify their restriction; place of application does not permit change in word's generality. Apart from that, the third verse is related to the Christians, not the Jews. Moreover, a contrary tradition is narrated from the same Ibn ‘Abbãs.

‘Abd ibn Hamīd narrates from Hakīm ibn Jubayr that he said, “I asked Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr about these verses of 'The Table'; I told (him) that a group thinks that they were revealed to the Children of Israel, and not to us. He said, 'Recite what is before it and what is after it,' so I recited them before him. So he said, 'No; but it was revealed to us.' Then I met Muqassim, mawlã of Ibn ‘Abbãs; and I asked him about these verses in 'The Table'; I told (him) that a group thinks that they were revealed to the Children of Israel, and not to us. He said, 'It was revealed to the Children of Israel and revealed to us, and whatever was revealed to them and to us, it is for them and for us.'

“Then I went to ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn (a.s .), and asked him about these verses in 'The Table'; and I told him that I had asked Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and Muqassim about them. He (the Imãm) said, 'Then what did Muqassim say?' So I informed him of it.” (Hakīm) said, “The Imãm said, 'He has said truth; but it is an unbelief, not like the unbelief of polytheism; and a transgression, not like the transgression of poly-theism; and an injustice, not like the injustice of polytheism.' Then I metSa‘īd ibn Jubayr and informed him of what he (the Imãm) had said.Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said to his son, 'How did you find him?' [He said], 'Indeed I found for him excellence over you and Muqassim.”(ibid.)

The author says: The earlier given commentary shows that the tradition fits the apparent meaning of the verse.

al-Kulaynī narrates in al-Kafī through his chain from al-Halabī from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.); and al-‘Ayyãshī narrates in his at-Tafsīr from Abū Basīr from the same Imãm (a.s.) that he said about the verse: but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; “Shall be expiated from his sins as much as he will forego of his wound or other things.”

Ibn Marduwayh has narrated from a man from the Helpers that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said regarding the words of Allãh: buthe who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him. “A man, his tooth is broken, or his hand is cut, or any organ of his body is cut or wounded, and he foregoes it, so (similar) quantity of his faults is reduced from him. If it was one-fourth of blood-money, then one-fourth of his faults, and if it was one-third, then one-third of his faults; and if it was (full) blood-money (all) his faults will fall down from him in similar way.” (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

The author says: A similar tradition has been narrated by ad-Daylamī from Ibn ‘Umar. Probably, what this and the preceding tradi-tions say that the expiation is divided according to the division of foregoing, is inferred from the fact that in the sharī‘ah, blood-money, which is divisible, has the same position as retailation; then retaliation and blood-money together are weighed vis-à-vis expiation of sins, and this too is divisible. Therefore part of it would stand opposite to part of that, as the whole stands opposite to the whole.

al-Qummī narrates in his at-Tafsīr, under the verse: for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, that he (a.s.) said: “For every prophet was a sharī‘ah and a way.”

Tafsīru 'l-burhãn writes under the verse: Is it then the judge-ment of (the times of) ignorance that they desire?, that [al-Kulaynī] narrates through his chain from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khãlid from his father from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) that he said, “Judges are four (types), three are in the Fire and one is in the Garden; a man judges unjustly and knowingly, so he is in the Fire; and a man judges unjustly and he does not know, so he is in the Fire; and a man judges justly but he does not know, so he is in the Fire; and a man judges justly and he knows, so he is in the Garden.”

And he (a.s .) said, “Judgements are (of) two (categories): Judge-ment of Allãh and judgement of (the Era of) Ignorance; so whoever misses the judgement of Allãh, judges according to the (Era of) Ignorance.”

The author says: There are many traditions of these two themes from the Shī‘ah and Sunnī chains, recorded under the chapters of judgement and evidence. The verse hints at, rather clearly denotes both meanings. As for the first meaning, it is because judging unjustly - whether he knew it to be unjust, or judged without knowledge and it chanced to be unjust - and likewise judging justly but without know-ing it, all this is following the low desire, and Allãh has forbidden it in His words: therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed, and do not follow their low disires (diverging) from the truth that has come to you. In this verse, Allãh warned against following low desires and has put it parallel to the judgement by the revealed truth. It is understood from it that permission of judgement is conditional on knowledge of truth; otherwise giving judgement is not allowed because it is merely following the low desires. Moreover, the name, judgement of the Era of Ignorance, is applicable to it, which stands face to face with the judgement of Allãh.

As for the second theme, i.e., the division of judgement between that of Allãh and that of the Era of Ignorance, it is inferred from the apparent meaning of the words of Allãh: Is it then the judgement of (the times of) ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allãh to judge . .? See how the two judgements stand opposite each other.

at-Tabarī has narrated in his at-Tafsīr from Qatãdah, under the verse: Surely We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allãh) were judging (matters) for those who were Jews, and (so did) the Divines and the scholars, that he said, “As for the Divines, they were jurispru-dents of the Jews; and as for the ahbãr, they were their scholars.” He (also) said, “And it has been reported to us that the Prophet of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) said, when this verse was revealed, “We do judge the Jews and the others from people of (other) religions.”

The author says: as-Suyūtī too has narrated it under the same verse through ‘Abd ibn Hamīd and through Ibn Jarīr from Qatãdah.

This tradition apparently shows that the reported utterance of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is related to this verse, i.e., the verse is the proof of this statement. But the difficulty is that the said verse proves only that the judgement was based on the Torah and was reserved for the Jews because it contains the word: for these who were Jews; it did not extend to non-Jews, or to judging by other than Torah, contrary to what appears from the tradition. It could be said that the Prophet's word, “We do judge”, means that the prophets do so; but it is a ridicu-lous meaning and has no relevance to the verse.

However, it appears that one of the narrators has erred in quot-ing the verse, and that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had spoken those words after revelation of the verse: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, . therefore judge between them by what Allãh has revealed and do not follow their low desires . This hypothesis fits on what has earlier been mentioned that apparently the pronoun in, judge between them, refers to the people and not particularly to the Jews. However, the narrator has quoted one verse (5:44) in place of the other (5:48).

* * * * *

3. Concerning the Prophet's Other Miracles

Synopsis: Miracles established through logical proof; an examination of the documents used as evidence by those who deny those miracles; the annunciation of the prophethood of Muhammad in the Torah and the Gospel; the conversion of many Jews and Christians to Islam, which is the absolute proof that demonstrates the truthfulness of this annunciation; the Prophet's miracles, even more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the past prophets.

No well-informed scholar will doubt that the Qur'an is the greatest miracle that the Prophet of Islam produced. This means that it is the greatest miracle worked by all the prophets and messengers. In the preceding discussion, we have mentioned some of these from the standpoint of their miraculous nature, and have clarified the superiority of the Book of God over all these miracles. However, we wish to reiterate here that the miracles of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) were not limited to the Qur'an; rather, he matched them in his ability to work miracles while, at the same time, distinguishing himself from the rest of them with the miracle of the Exalted Book. The evidence of this lies in two points.

First, [there are] the traditions reported among Muslims through uninterrupted transmission, which establish that the Prophet worked other miracles. Muslims of all doctrines and sects have compiled numerous books [on the subject] that any person interested in the subject can refer to. These reports are superior in two respects to those compiled by the people of the Book regarding their own prophets.

The first is the closeness of the period: Any report that is close to the event is easier to believe than later reports. The second is the large number of transmitters. The Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) who witnessed his miracles were far more numerous than the Jews and Christians who reported the miracles of their own prophets. The followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) during his lifetime could be counted on the fingers; therefore, the reports of his miracles must have originated with these few believers. Hence, if the reports concerning the miracles of Moses and Jesus have any claim to universal acceptance through uninterrupted transmission, so do, to a greater extent, the reports concerning the miracles of the Prophet of Islam. But, as we have just explained, the reports on the miracles of the earlier prophets are not confirmed to have been transmitted without interruption in the succeeding periods; hence, the claim is invalid.

Moreover, the Prophet of Islam confirmed many of the miracles of earlier prophets, and then claimed that he was superior to all of them, and that the line of prophets ended with him. This claim necessitates that his miracles should be more extraordinary than those that occurred before him, for it would be unreasonable for anyone to claim superiority over others while confessing that he is inferior to them in some of the attributes of perfection. Does it stand to reason for someone to claim that he is the most learned of all physicians, and, at the same time, concede that some of the other physicians are able to cure a disease that he is unable to cure? Reason rules against this. It is because of this that we see that most of the false prophets denied that miracles could occur. They repudiated all the miracles of past prophets and endeavored to explain away the verses which mention the occurrence of miracles, lest the people ask them for something similar, and their incapacity would thereby be exposed. Some ignorant persons and those who mislead simple folk have written that the verses of the Qur'an include things which deny any miracle for the great Prophet except the Qur'an. They maintain that the Qur'an is his only miracle to the exclusion of any other, and that it is the only proof of his prophethood. We shall now turn to the verses they have quoted as proof and discuss their arguments; then we shall point out their error.

One of these verses is [what] God says:

Naught hinders Us from sending signs [al-ayat] save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel - a clear portent- but they did wrong in respect to her. We send not divine signs, save to warn (Qur’an 17:59).

The above passage, they assert, shows clearly that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) did not bring any divine sign except the Qur'an. The reason for not sending other signs is that the earliest of bygone communities [to which prophets were sent] denied the divine signs that were sent to them.

The response is as follows.

The signs which the verse repudiates, and which were denied by the earlier communities, were only the divine signs that the communities demanded from their prophets. Therefore, the verse simply indicates that the Prophet did not comply with the unbelievers in producing the divine signs they specified. It does not deny that he did not perform any miracles at all. That the signs intended here are only those which were demanded is indicated by the following.

First, the word ayat is the plural of aya, meaning "a sign." The word in the [Arabic] verse is the definite plural, preceded by the definite article al- (the). There are three possible meanings of the word in its present context. One is the generic meaning that would apply to every sign. This would entail that the verse denies the occurrence of any sign that confirms a prophet's claim. The corollary is that sending a prophet is futile, for there is no benefit in sending him without a clear proof of his veracity. In other words, to impose on people the obligation to acknowledge him creates a situation whereby the people have been asked to perform a duty of which they are not capable. Another possible meaning is that the term refers to all the signs, and this is also erroneous, for the confirmation of a prophet's veracity could be achieved by any divine sign. It does not require all the signs. Besides, those who demanded the signs did not ask him to produce all of them; hence, there is no point in ascribing this meaning to the verse. Evidently, the prohibited signs mentioned in this verse are certain divine miracles that are known.

Second, if the denial expressed by the doubtful were a good reason to prevent the sending of divine signs, it would have, likewise, been a good reason to prevent the sending of the Qur'an as well, for there is no sense in excepting the Qur'an, of all di­ vine signs, from this obstruction. We have already explained that the Qur'an is the most important miracle brought by any prophet, and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) challenged all the communities with it in order to prove his prophethood as long as there remain days and nights. This also conveys to us that the prohibited signs were only a particular kind of signs, and not divine signs in general.

Third, the verse states that the reason for not sending the divine signs was that such signs were denied to the earlier communities. This amounts to explaining the absence of a thing by the presence of an obstacle. It is evident that a justification based on the existence of an obstacle is not rationally acceptable except if the cause necessitating the existence of that thing is present. An intelligent person, for example, would find it inappropriate to explain that a piece of wood is not damp, when the fact is that there is no fire around it to make it bum. This is self evident, and is not open to doubt. Therefore, to justify the absence of divine signs on the ground of the denials, it would be imperative that something existed that required sending them. The thing which required sending them could have been the divine wisdom of guiding human beings and leading them toward their happiness. In this case, the people's request for signs from the Prophet must have exceeded the number required to provide the proof [of his claim to divine office]. However, if divine wisdom were the thing that required sending signs, then they would have inevitably been sent. This is because nothing can prevent divine wisdom from effecting what it wants, because it is unthinkable that the All-Wise would choose to do something that would contradict His wisdom, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of denial. Besides, if the denials of past communities were admissible as an obstacle preventing divine wisdom from sending the signs, they would have also been admissible as obstacles to sending the Prophet. This and its opposite premises are necessarily false, and a contradiction of what is obligatory. Hence, it remains that the thing requiring the signs to be sent is the demand of the people. Those who demand divine signs inevitably require things that exceed the [number of] signs necessary for establishing the proof. This is to say that it is incumbent on God to send whatever signs are necessary to establish the proof, but any signs in excess of those must not be sent by God, neither of His own accord nor in compliance with the demand of the doubters. It is true, however, that it would not be impossible for Him to do that if circumstances deemed it necessary to establish the proof a second or a third time, or if it were necessary to respond to what the people demanded.

Accordingly, the demand for signs must have been made by some people after the proof had been established for them with the necessary signs, and after they had denied them. Moreover, denials by past communities were the reasons for not sending the signs demanded by those communities, because a further denial of the demanded signs would have made it necessary to send down punishment on those who deny. [But God could not do this], for He had guaranteed, as a favor for His Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), and out of respect for his status, to remove worldly punishment from those communities. Thus, God, the Exalted, says, "But God would not punish them while you were with them" (Qur’an 8:33).

That the denial of the demanded divine signs necessitates the punishment of those who deny it is because of the following: The initial signs are solely for the purpose of proving the prophethood of the prophet, and as such, denying them would not lead to more than the eternal punishment due them for denying the prophet. But signs demanded by the people reflect the disputatiousness and obduracy of those who demand them. This is because if they were after the truth, they would have believed the first sign, for it is sufficient proof. Moreover, their demand signifies that they committed themselves to believing in the prophet if the latter were to respond to the demand. Thus, if they were to deny the demanded miracle, they would have mocked the prophet and the truth toward which he had called them, as well as the signs that they had demanded. It is for this reason that God calls these types of signs "the signs of warning," as He does at the end of the verse under discussion. Otherwise, there is no sense in including all divine signs in the category of warning signs when some of them are mercy for mankind, and guidance and a light for their path.

One of the things that indicate to us that the prohibited signs are the signs of warning is the context of this verse and its narrative. In the preceding verse, God, the Exalted, says:

There is not a township [i.e., a community] that We shall not destroy before the Day of Resurrection, or punish with dire punishment. That is set forth in the Book [of Our decrees] (Qur’an 17:58).

The verse also mentions that the divine sign [the she-camel] is in connection with the Thamud, following which a punishment was inflicted upon them. Their story is mentioned in sura 26, entitled "al-Shu'ara"' (The Poets). However, this verse ends with God's reminder: "We send not the signs save to warn."

All these contextual factors demonstrate that the signs which were withheld were those which had been demanded, and which would have entailed the descent of divine retribution. If we examine the Qur'an sufficiently, it will become so evident to us as to admit no doubt, that the unbelievers of Mecca at times asked for divine retribution to be sent down on them, and on others. They asked for signs which had brought down divine punishment on past communities for demanding, then denying, them. The first type [of signs] includes [the following]:

And when they said, "O God! If this be indeed the truth from You, then rain down stones on us or bring on us some painful doom!" But God would not punish them while you [O, Muhammad] were with them, nor will He punish them while they seek forgiveness (Qur’an 8:32-33). Say, "Have you thought, when this doom comes to you as a raid by night, or in the [busy] day, What is there of it that the guilty ones desire to hasten?" (Qur’an 10:50). And if We delay for them the doom until a reckoned time, they will surely say, "What withholds it?" (Qur’an 11:8). They bid you hasten the doom [of God]. And if a term had not been appointed, the doom would assuredly have come to them [before now]. And verily it will come upon them suddenly when they perceive not (Qur’an 29:53).

As for the other type, it includes [the following]:

And when a sign comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given." God knows best with whom to place His message. Humiliation from God and heavy punishment will smite the guilty for their scheming (Qur’an 6:21). But when there came to them the Truth from Our presence, they said, "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses of old? They say, "Two magics [the Torah and the Qur'an] that support each other"; and they say, "Lo! In both we are disbelievers" (Qur’an 28:48).

What indicates to us that it was their rejection of demanded divine signs, like those which had earned, for earlier communities, God's retribution, is [the following]:

Those before them plotted, so God struck at the foundations of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them from above them, and the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 16:26). Those before them denied, and so the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 39:25).

Those are only a few examples of the numerous indications in the Qur'an concerning what we have said. Moreover, the exegesis of the verse under consideration [17:59], both by Shi’ite and Sunni commentators, supports what we have construed from its apparent sense. In this regard, the following tradition is related on the authority of the Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him):

Some people asked Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) to produce a sign. Gabriel came down and said: "Verily, God says, 'Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them' [Qur’an 17:59]. And if We were to send to the Quraysh a sign and they were not to believe in it, then We would have destroyed them. It is for this reason that We have delayed sending signs to your people."1

Another tradition is reported on the authority of lbn 'Abbas, who said:

The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to change [Mount] Safa into gold, and to move away the hills for them so that they could cultivate the land. Thus, he was told [through revelation]: "If you so desire, We shall give them respite for a time [and] perhaps some of them will choose [to believe]; and if you so desire, We shall give them what they want, but if they were to disbelieve, they shall be doomed as were those before them." The Prophet said, "Rather give them time." Thus God, the Exalted, revealed, "Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them . ." [Qur’an 17:59].2

There are other traditions on this subject that can be referred to in the books of traditions and in the exegesis of Tabari.

Other verses that have been used to deny the Prophet any other miracle besides the Qur'an include [the following]:

And they say: "We will not put faith in you till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us; or you have a garden of date-palms and grapes and cause rivers to gush forth therein abundantly; or you cause the heaven to fall upon us piecemeal, as you have pretended, or bring God and angels as a warrant; or you have a house of gold; or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read." Say [O, Muhammad]: "Glorified is my Lord! Am I naught save mortal messenger?" (Qur’an 17:90-93)

The conclusion which the opponents [of our view] have drawn from these verses is that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to work a miracle which would testify to the truthfulness of his prophethood; but he refused, and admitted his inability, claiming for himself only that he was a mortal sent to them as a messenger. Hence, the verses indicate that the working of miracles was denied him.

The response is as follows:

First, we have already explained to the reader, in our response to the preceding arguments, the circumstances of the demanded signs. The miracles that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to perform were undoubtedly demanded signs, and the unbelievers were predisposed to be obstinate in denying the truth. This is indicated by two things:

l. They had made their acceptance of the Prophet's call conditional upon one of those things that they were demanding. Had they not been obstinate in denying the truth, they would have been satisfied with any divine sign that proved his truthfulness. There was no other reason for them to demand these things specifically to the exclusion of other divine signs.

2. Regarding their saying, "Or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read," what is the point of the stipulation to bring down a letter? Is not ascending to heaven a sufficient sign in itself of his veracity? Or is there not in these vain desires clear evidence of their obstinacy against the truth?

Second, some of the things demanded by the unbelievers in the verses above were impossible [demands] and others were no proof of the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood. Even if it were incumbent on the Prophet (peace be upon him) to acquiesce in their demands, these would not have been the kinds of miracles for him to perform.

To make this clear, there were six things that the Meccan unbelievers demanded from the Prophet in these verses; three of them were impossible, and three, though not impossible, had no connection with establishing the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood.

The first of the three inconceivable things was causing heaven to fall upon them piecemeal. This would entail the destruction of the Earth and the death of its inhabitants. Such a thing would occur only at the end of time. The Prophet had informed them about this, as is evident from their saying, "As you have asserted." The falling of heaven on the Earth is mentioned in several places in the Qur'an, as in God's saying:

When the heaven is split asunder (Qur’an 84: 1); when the heaven is cleft asunder (Qur’an 82: 1). If We will, We can make the earth swallow them or cause obliteration from the sky to fall on them (Qur’an 34:9).

What makes this inconceivable is that its occurrence before its appointed time is incompatible with the survival of mankind and the guidance toward their perfection that wisdom has determined. It is impossible for the All-Wise to act in a way that is incompatible with His wisdom.

The second inconceivable thing demanded by the disbelievers was that the Prophet should bring God so that they meet Him and see Him. This is indeed impossible, for God cannot be seen with the eyes; otherwise, He would be limited in certain ways, and He would have color and countenance, and all this is inconceivable for God. The third inconceivable thing was to bring down a letter from God. What made this impossible was that they wanted a letter sent down that was handwritten by God, and not one that could be created and brought into being. This may be inferred from the fact that if they had meant a letter sent down through any means possible, there was no reasonable ground for demanding that it should come from heaven. An earthly letter would have served the purpose just as well as a heavenly one. There is no doubt that what they demanded was impossible because it would have required that God should possess a body with limbs. Exalted is God from all this, Sublime and Supreme.

The other three things, although possible, had no bearing on the truthfulness of the claim to be a prophet. This is because causing a spring to gush forth from the Earth, or owning a garden of date-palms and grapes and abundant rivers, or owning a house of gold-these things have no connection with the claim to be a prophet. Many people have one of them, yet they are not prophets. Indeed, some people have all three of them, yet they are not necessarily believers, let alone prophets. Since these things have no bearing on the claim of prophethood, and do not prove its veracity, producing them in the context of proving this veracity would be a futile act that a wise prophet would not perform.

Some individuals may delude themselves into believing that these three things do not prove the veracity of a prophet only when they are realized through conventional and familiar means. But if they are realized through extraordinary means, then there would be no doubt that they are divine signs, which confirm the truthfulness of a prophethood.

The response to this is as follows. In itself, this is correct. But the unbelievers wanted these things even through the conventional means, for they found it inconceivable that a divine messenger should be poor and without possessions:

And they say, "If only this Qur'an had been revealed to some great man of the two towns [Mecca and Ta'if] (Qur’an 43:31).

Consequently, they asked that the Prophet be a wealthy person. What indicates this is that they qualified their demand by asking that the garden and the house of gold should belong exclusively to the Prophet. Had they truly wanted these things to serve as miracles, then there would have been no valid reason for this condition; rather, there was no reason for them to demand the garden and the house, for it would have been sufficient to produce a single grape or a little bit of gold.

As for the unbelievers saying, "Till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us," there is no evidence in it that they were asking for the spring for them, and not for the Prophet, but simply that they were asking him to make it gush forth for their sake. The difference between the two senses is clear. Moreover, the Prophet did not admit to them his inability to perform the miracle, as those [who subscribe to the view under discussion] have imagined erroneously. Rather, what he made clear to them by saying, "Glorified is my Lord" is that God is above any incapacity; that He is capable of anything possible; that He is above being seen or encountered; that

He is above being commanded to do something that the unbelievers demanded; and that the Prophet was a human being commanded by God, the Exalted, to whom alone belong all the commands-and He does what He wishes and commands what He wills.

Another verse employed by those who deny that the Prophet performed any miracle other than the Qur'an is God's saying:

And they will say, "If only a sign were sent down upon him from his Lord!" Then say [O Muhammad]: "The unseen belongs to God. So wait! Lo, I am waiting with you" (Qur’an 10:20).

What they deduced from the verse is that the unbelievers demanded a divine sign from the Prophet, and that he did not mention any miracles of his. Instead, he replied to them that the unseen belongs to God. This proves that he did not have any miracle except what he had brought in the Qur'an.

A number of other verses are close to this in meaning. They include God's saying:

Those who disbelieve say, "If only some sign were sent down upon him from His Lord!" You are a warner only, and for every community a guide (Qur’an 13:7). They say, "Why has no sign been sent down upon him from His Lord?" Say, "Lo! God is able to send down a sign." But most of them know not (Qur’an 6:37).

The response to this is as follows.

First, as we said above, these unbelievers and others like them were not asking the Prophet to produce divine signs that would establish his truthfulness. They, rather, asked him to produce special signs. This is clarified in many places of the Qur'an. Thus, for instance, God, the Exalted, says:

They say, "Why has not an angel been sent down to them?" (Qur’an 6:8). And they say: "O you to whom the Reminder is revealed; lo! you are indeed a madman! Why bring you not angels to us, if you are of the truthful?" (Qur’an 15:6-7); And they say: "What ails this messenger [of God] that he eats food and walks in the markets? Why is not an angel sent down to him, to be a warner with him, or [why is not] a treasure thrown down unto him, or why has he not a paradise from whence to eat?" And the evildoers say, "You are but following a man bewitched" (Qur’an 25:7-8).

We already noted that signs should not be produced on demand. Moreover, the unbelievers wanted only the signs they were demanding. What indicates this to us is the fact that, had they wanted the Prophet to produce just any sign that proved his veracity, he would have certainly responded by pointing to the Qur'an, by which he indeed challenged them in many of its passages. What is, in reality, clear from the verses used as evidence by the opponents [of miracles other than the Qur'an], and from similar other verses, are the following two points:

1. The challenge of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) to all people was made specifically with the Qur'an [and not with any] of his other miracles. This had to be so, as we explained above, because the everlasting prophethood requires the eternal miracle, and this can only be the Qur'an, for none of his other miracles could be expected to possess continuity.

2. The working of miracles was not the Prophet's own choice. He was only a messenger, subject in this matter to the permission of God, the Exalted. Accordingly, the demand of the disbelievers had no role in this matter. This applies to other prophets as well. The following revelations by God, the Exalted, point to this fact:

It was not [given] to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave. For everything, there is a time prescribed (Qur’an 13:38). And it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave, but when God's commandment comes [the cause] is judged aright, and the followers of vanity will then be lost (Qur’an 40:78).

Second, the Qur'an also contains verses which indicate that miracles issued from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Among these are God's saying:

The hour drew nigh and the moon was split in twain. And if they behold a sign (aya), they turn away and say, "Prolonged illusion" (Qur’an 54: 1-2). And when a sign (aya) comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given" (Qur’an 6: 124).

Several things indicate to us that aya here means a miraculous sign [rather than a Qur'anic verse].3 The [first verse] speaks of seeing the aya. Had the reference been to the verses of the Qur'an, the correct expression would have been "hearing" it. "Seeing" the aya is, moreover, conjoined with the splitting of the moon. Finally, [the second verse] ascribes to the aya the act of "coming" to them, rather than of "descending," or any of the other expressions [used from the Qur'anic revelation]. In fact, their words "prolonged illusion" are evidence of miracles repeatedly performed by the Prophet. Consequently, if we were to concede that the previous verses deny his performance of miracles, then the denial applies only to the time when these verses were revealed. It cannot possibly apply to any subsequent period.

The summary of what has been said above is as follows:

1. There is no evidence, in any of the verses of the Qur'an, that would deny the occurrence of other miracles besides the Qur'an. On the contrary, a number of verses contain evidence that proves the occurrence of other miracles, which the opponents [of this view] allege to have been denied by the Qur'an.

2. Producing a miracle was not something which the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) could decide of his own free will. It was in the hands of God, the Glorified.

3. When a claim to prophethood is made, what is needed is a miracle which proves the claim and on which its verification depends. Any miracle which exceeds this purpose is not incumbent upon God to manifest, nor should the Prophet respond if one were demanded.

4. Any miracle which entails doom and torment for the community is forbidden for that community. It must not be performed in response to a demand from the community, regardless of whether that was [made] by all or some of its members.

5. The lasting miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), by which he challenged all the communities until the Day of Resurrection, is the revealed Book of God. As for his other miracles, they are not lasting, no matter how numerous they were. In this respect they share the characteristics of miracles [performed] by the earlier prophets.

The Annunciation of Muhammad's Prophethood in the Torah and the Gospel

The Qur'an states in a number of its verses that Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) announced the good tidings of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) and that this annunciation was mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. God, the Exalted, says in regard to this:

I shall prescribe it [my mercy] for those who follow the Messenger, the u nlettered Prophet, whom they will find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, enjoining on them that which is right and forbidding them that which is wrong (Qur’an 7: 157). And . Jesus, son of Mary, said, "O, Children of Israel, lo! I am the messenger of God to you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is Ahmad"4 (Qur’an 61:6).

Hence, many Jews and Christians, during and after Muhammad's lifetime, believed in his prophethood. This is conclusive evidence that this annunciation still existed in the texts of the two ancient scriptures at the time of his message. Had they not been there, the Jews and Christians would have possessed sufficient proof to deny the Qur'an's claim and to reject the Prophet's call, and they would have rejected him vehemently. The fact that so many of them embraced Islam and believed the Prophet's call, during and after his time, is indisputable evidence that the text of the annunciation was still preserved at that time. Accordingly, faith in Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) necessitated faith in Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny), without requiring any miracle to establish his veracity.

However, a miracle was necessary [to establish his veracity] for other communities that did not believe in Moses and Jesus and their revelations. It has been established earlier that the Noble Qur'an is the lasting miracle and the divine proof of the truthfulness of the Prophet and the veracity of his mission. Moreover, his numerous other miracles, which have been related by uninterrupted transmission, are more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the other prophets who preceded him.

Notes

1. Hashim b. Sulayman al-Bahrani, Kitab al-Burhanfi Tafsir al-Qur'an, ed. Mahmud b.Ja'far al-Musawi al-Zarandi, 4 vols. (Tehran: Chapkhane Aftab, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 424.

2. Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 15, p. 74

3. The word aya serves both meanings.-Trans.

4. Ahmad (the Most Praised One) is an alternative name for the Prophet Muhammad.­Trans.

3. Concerning the Prophet's Other Miracles

Synopsis: Miracles established through logical proof; an examination of the documents used as evidence by those who deny those miracles; the annunciation of the prophethood of Muhammad in the Torah and the Gospel; the conversion of many Jews and Christians to Islam, which is the absolute proof that demonstrates the truthfulness of this annunciation; the Prophet's miracles, even more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the past prophets.

No well-informed scholar will doubt that the Qur'an is the greatest miracle that the Prophet of Islam produced. This means that it is the greatest miracle worked by all the prophets and messengers. In the preceding discussion, we have mentioned some of these from the standpoint of their miraculous nature, and have clarified the superiority of the Book of God over all these miracles. However, we wish to reiterate here that the miracles of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) were not limited to the Qur'an; rather, he matched them in his ability to work miracles while, at the same time, distinguishing himself from the rest of them with the miracle of the Exalted Book. The evidence of this lies in two points.

First, [there are] the traditions reported among Muslims through uninterrupted transmission, which establish that the Prophet worked other miracles. Muslims of all doctrines and sects have compiled numerous books [on the subject] that any person interested in the subject can refer to. These reports are superior in two respects to those compiled by the people of the Book regarding their own prophets.

The first is the closeness of the period: Any report that is close to the event is easier to believe than later reports. The second is the large number of transmitters. The Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) who witnessed his miracles were far more numerous than the Jews and Christians who reported the miracles of their own prophets. The followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) during his lifetime could be counted on the fingers; therefore, the reports of his miracles must have originated with these few believers. Hence, if the reports concerning the miracles of Moses and Jesus have any claim to universal acceptance through uninterrupted transmission, so do, to a greater extent, the reports concerning the miracles of the Prophet of Islam. But, as we have just explained, the reports on the miracles of the earlier prophets are not confirmed to have been transmitted without interruption in the succeeding periods; hence, the claim is invalid.

Moreover, the Prophet of Islam confirmed many of the miracles of earlier prophets, and then claimed that he was superior to all of them, and that the line of prophets ended with him. This claim necessitates that his miracles should be more extraordinary than those that occurred before him, for it would be unreasonable for anyone to claim superiority over others while confessing that he is inferior to them in some of the attributes of perfection. Does it stand to reason for someone to claim that he is the most learned of all physicians, and, at the same time, concede that some of the other physicians are able to cure a disease that he is unable to cure? Reason rules against this. It is because of this that we see that most of the false prophets denied that miracles could occur. They repudiated all the miracles of past prophets and endeavored to explain away the verses which mention the occurrence of miracles, lest the people ask them for something similar, and their incapacity would thereby be exposed. Some ignorant persons and those who mislead simple folk have written that the verses of the Qur'an include things which deny any miracle for the great Prophet except the Qur'an. They maintain that the Qur'an is his only miracle to the exclusion of any other, and that it is the only proof of his prophethood. We shall now turn to the verses they have quoted as proof and discuss their arguments; then we shall point out their error.

One of these verses is [what] God says:

Naught hinders Us from sending signs [al-ayat] save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel - a clear portent- but they did wrong in respect to her. We send not divine signs, save to warn (Qur’an 17:59).

The above passage, they assert, shows clearly that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) did not bring any divine sign except the Qur'an. The reason for not sending other signs is that the earliest of bygone communities [to which prophets were sent] denied the divine signs that were sent to them.

The response is as follows.

The signs which the verse repudiates, and which were denied by the earlier communities, were only the divine signs that the communities demanded from their prophets. Therefore, the verse simply indicates that the Prophet did not comply with the unbelievers in producing the divine signs they specified. It does not deny that he did not perform any miracles at all. That the signs intended here are only those which were demanded is indicated by the following.

First, the word ayat is the plural of aya, meaning "a sign." The word in the [Arabic] verse is the definite plural, preceded by the definite article al- (the). There are three possible meanings of the word in its present context. One is the generic meaning that would apply to every sign. This would entail that the verse denies the occurrence of any sign that confirms a prophet's claim. The corollary is that sending a prophet is futile, for there is no benefit in sending him without a clear proof of his veracity. In other words, to impose on people the obligation to acknowledge him creates a situation whereby the people have been asked to perform a duty of which they are not capable. Another possible meaning is that the term refers to all the signs, and this is also erroneous, for the confirmation of a prophet's veracity could be achieved by any divine sign. It does not require all the signs. Besides, those who demanded the signs did not ask him to produce all of them; hence, there is no point in ascribing this meaning to the verse. Evidently, the prohibited signs mentioned in this verse are certain divine miracles that are known.

Second, if the denial expressed by the doubtful were a good reason to prevent the sending of divine signs, it would have, likewise, been a good reason to prevent the sending of the Qur'an as well, for there is no sense in excepting the Qur'an, of all di­ vine signs, from this obstruction. We have already explained that the Qur'an is the most important miracle brought by any prophet, and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) challenged all the communities with it in order to prove his prophethood as long as there remain days and nights. This also conveys to us that the prohibited signs were only a particular kind of signs, and not divine signs in general.

Third, the verse states that the reason for not sending the divine signs was that such signs were denied to the earlier communities. This amounts to explaining the absence of a thing by the presence of an obstacle. It is evident that a justification based on the existence of an obstacle is not rationally acceptable except if the cause necessitating the existence of that thing is present. An intelligent person, for example, would find it inappropriate to explain that a piece of wood is not damp, when the fact is that there is no fire around it to make it bum. This is self evident, and is not open to doubt. Therefore, to justify the absence of divine signs on the ground of the denials, it would be imperative that something existed that required sending them. The thing which required sending them could have been the divine wisdom of guiding human beings and leading them toward their happiness. In this case, the people's request for signs from the Prophet must have exceeded the number required to provide the proof [of his claim to divine office]. However, if divine wisdom were the thing that required sending signs, then they would have inevitably been sent. This is because nothing can prevent divine wisdom from effecting what it wants, because it is unthinkable that the All-Wise would choose to do something that would contradict His wisdom, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of denial. Besides, if the denials of past communities were admissible as an obstacle preventing divine wisdom from sending the signs, they would have also been admissible as obstacles to sending the Prophet. This and its opposite premises are necessarily false, and a contradiction of what is obligatory. Hence, it remains that the thing requiring the signs to be sent is the demand of the people. Those who demand divine signs inevitably require things that exceed the [number of] signs necessary for establishing the proof. This is to say that it is incumbent on God to send whatever signs are necessary to establish the proof, but any signs in excess of those must not be sent by God, neither of His own accord nor in compliance with the demand of the doubters. It is true, however, that it would not be impossible for Him to do that if circumstances deemed it necessary to establish the proof a second or a third time, or if it were necessary to respond to what the people demanded.

Accordingly, the demand for signs must have been made by some people after the proof had been established for them with the necessary signs, and after they had denied them. Moreover, denials by past communities were the reasons for not sending the signs demanded by those communities, because a further denial of the demanded signs would have made it necessary to send down punishment on those who deny. [But God could not do this], for He had guaranteed, as a favor for His Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), and out of respect for his status, to remove worldly punishment from those communities. Thus, God, the Exalted, says, "But God would not punish them while you were with them" (Qur’an 8:33).

That the denial of the demanded divine signs necessitates the punishment of those who deny it is because of the following: The initial signs are solely for the purpose of proving the prophethood of the prophet, and as such, denying them would not lead to more than the eternal punishment due them for denying the prophet. But signs demanded by the people reflect the disputatiousness and obduracy of those who demand them. This is because if they were after the truth, they would have believed the first sign, for it is sufficient proof. Moreover, their demand signifies that they committed themselves to believing in the prophet if the latter were to respond to the demand. Thus, if they were to deny the demanded miracle, they would have mocked the prophet and the truth toward which he had called them, as well as the signs that they had demanded. It is for this reason that God calls these types of signs "the signs of warning," as He does at the end of the verse under discussion. Otherwise, there is no sense in including all divine signs in the category of warning signs when some of them are mercy for mankind, and guidance and a light for their path.

One of the things that indicate to us that the prohibited signs are the signs of warning is the context of this verse and its narrative. In the preceding verse, God, the Exalted, says:

There is not a township [i.e., a community] that We shall not destroy before the Day of Resurrection, or punish with dire punishment. That is set forth in the Book [of Our decrees] (Qur’an 17:58).

The verse also mentions that the divine sign [the she-camel] is in connection with the Thamud, following which a punishment was inflicted upon them. Their story is mentioned in sura 26, entitled "al-Shu'ara"' (The Poets). However, this verse ends with God's reminder: "We send not the signs save to warn."

All these contextual factors demonstrate that the signs which were withheld were those which had been demanded, and which would have entailed the descent of divine retribution. If we examine the Qur'an sufficiently, it will become so evident to us as to admit no doubt, that the unbelievers of Mecca at times asked for divine retribution to be sent down on them, and on others. They asked for signs which had brought down divine punishment on past communities for demanding, then denying, them. The first type [of signs] includes [the following]:

And when they said, "O God! If this be indeed the truth from You, then rain down stones on us or bring on us some painful doom!" But God would not punish them while you [O, Muhammad] were with them, nor will He punish them while they seek forgiveness (Qur’an 8:32-33). Say, "Have you thought, when this doom comes to you as a raid by night, or in the [busy] day, What is there of it that the guilty ones desire to hasten?" (Qur’an 10:50). And if We delay for them the doom until a reckoned time, they will surely say, "What withholds it?" (Qur’an 11:8). They bid you hasten the doom [of God]. And if a term had not been appointed, the doom would assuredly have come to them [before now]. And verily it will come upon them suddenly when they perceive not (Qur’an 29:53).

As for the other type, it includes [the following]:

And when a sign comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given." God knows best with whom to place His message. Humiliation from God and heavy punishment will smite the guilty for their scheming (Qur’an 6:21). But when there came to them the Truth from Our presence, they said, "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses of old? They say, "Two magics [the Torah and the Qur'an] that support each other"; and they say, "Lo! In both we are disbelievers" (Qur’an 28:48).

What indicates to us that it was their rejection of demanded divine signs, like those which had earned, for earlier communities, God's retribution, is [the following]:

Those before them plotted, so God struck at the foundations of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them from above them, and the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 16:26). Those before them denied, and so the doom came on them whence they knew not (Qur’an 39:25).

Those are only a few examples of the numerous indications in the Qur'an concerning what we have said. Moreover, the exegesis of the verse under consideration [17:59], both by Shi’ite and Sunni commentators, supports what we have construed from its apparent sense. In this regard, the following tradition is related on the authority of the Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him):

Some people asked Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) to produce a sign. Gabriel came down and said: "Verily, God says, 'Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them' [Qur’an 17:59]. And if We were to send to the Quraysh a sign and they were not to believe in it, then We would have destroyed them. It is for this reason that We have delayed sending signs to your people."1

Another tradition is reported on the authority of lbn 'Abbas, who said:

The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to change [Mount] Safa into gold, and to move away the hills for them so that they could cultivate the land. Thus, he was told [through revelation]: "If you so desire, We shall give them respite for a time [and] perhaps some of them will choose [to believe]; and if you so desire, We shall give them what they want, but if they were to disbelieve, they shall be doomed as were those before them." The Prophet said, "Rather give them time." Thus God, the Exalted, revealed, "Nothing hinders Us from sending signs save that the folk of old denied them . ." [Qur’an 17:59].2

There are other traditions on this subject that can be referred to in the books of traditions and in the exegesis of Tabari.

Other verses that have been used to deny the Prophet any other miracle besides the Qur'an include [the following]:

And they say: "We will not put faith in you till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us; or you have a garden of date-palms and grapes and cause rivers to gush forth therein abundantly; or you cause the heaven to fall upon us piecemeal, as you have pretended, or bring God and angels as a warrant; or you have a house of gold; or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read." Say [O, Muhammad]: "Glorified is my Lord! Am I naught save mortal messenger?" (Qur’an 17:90-93)

The conclusion which the opponents [of our view] have drawn from these verses is that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to work a miracle which would testify to the truthfulness of his prophethood; but he refused, and admitted his inability, claiming for himself only that he was a mortal sent to them as a messenger. Hence, the verses indicate that the working of miracles was denied him.

The response is as follows:

First, we have already explained to the reader, in our response to the preceding arguments, the circumstances of the demanded signs. The miracles that the unbelievers asked the Prophet to perform were undoubtedly demanded signs, and the unbelievers were predisposed to be obstinate in denying the truth. This is indicated by two things:

l. They had made their acceptance of the Prophet's call conditional upon one of those things that they were demanding. Had they not been obstinate in denying the truth, they would have been satisfied with any divine sign that proved his truthfulness. There was no other reason for them to demand these things specifically to the exclusion of other divine signs.

2. Regarding their saying, "Or you ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in your ascension till you bring down for us a letter that we can read," what is the point of the stipulation to bring down a letter? Is not ascending to heaven a sufficient sign in itself of his veracity? Or is there not in these vain desires clear evidence of their obstinacy against the truth?

Second, some of the things demanded by the unbelievers in the verses above were impossible [demands] and others were no proof of the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood. Even if it were incumbent on the Prophet (peace be upon him) to acquiesce in their demands, these would not have been the kinds of miracles for him to perform.

To make this clear, there were six things that the Meccan unbelievers demanded from the Prophet in these verses; three of them were impossible, and three, though not impossible, had no connection with establishing the truthfulness of a claim to prophethood.

The first of the three inconceivable things was causing heaven to fall upon them piecemeal. This would entail the destruction of the Earth and the death of its inhabitants. Such a thing would occur only at the end of time. The Prophet had informed them about this, as is evident from their saying, "As you have asserted." The falling of heaven on the Earth is mentioned in several places in the Qur'an, as in God's saying:

When the heaven is split asunder (Qur’an 84: 1); when the heaven is cleft asunder (Qur’an 82: 1). If We will, We can make the earth swallow them or cause obliteration from the sky to fall on them (Qur’an 34:9).

What makes this inconceivable is that its occurrence before its appointed time is incompatible with the survival of mankind and the guidance toward their perfection that wisdom has determined. It is impossible for the All-Wise to act in a way that is incompatible with His wisdom.

The second inconceivable thing demanded by the disbelievers was that the Prophet should bring God so that they meet Him and see Him. This is indeed impossible, for God cannot be seen with the eyes; otherwise, He would be limited in certain ways, and He would have color and countenance, and all this is inconceivable for God. The third inconceivable thing was to bring down a letter from God. What made this impossible was that they wanted a letter sent down that was handwritten by God, and not one that could be created and brought into being. This may be inferred from the fact that if they had meant a letter sent down through any means possible, there was no reasonable ground for demanding that it should come from heaven. An earthly letter would have served the purpose just as well as a heavenly one. There is no doubt that what they demanded was impossible because it would have required that God should possess a body with limbs. Exalted is God from all this, Sublime and Supreme.

The other three things, although possible, had no bearing on the truthfulness of the claim to be a prophet. This is because causing a spring to gush forth from the Earth, or owning a garden of date-palms and grapes and abundant rivers, or owning a house of gold-these things have no connection with the claim to be a prophet. Many people have one of them, yet they are not prophets. Indeed, some people have all three of them, yet they are not necessarily believers, let alone prophets. Since these things have no bearing on the claim of prophethood, and do not prove its veracity, producing them in the context of proving this veracity would be a futile act that a wise prophet would not perform.

Some individuals may delude themselves into believing that these three things do not prove the veracity of a prophet only when they are realized through conventional and familiar means. But if they are realized through extraordinary means, then there would be no doubt that they are divine signs, which confirm the truthfulness of a prophethood.

The response to this is as follows. In itself, this is correct. But the unbelievers wanted these things even through the conventional means, for they found it inconceivable that a divine messenger should be poor and without possessions:

And they say, "If only this Qur'an had been revealed to some great man of the two towns [Mecca and Ta'if] (Qur’an 43:31).

Consequently, they asked that the Prophet be a wealthy person. What indicates this is that they qualified their demand by asking that the garden and the house of gold should belong exclusively to the Prophet. Had they truly wanted these things to serve as miracles, then there would have been no valid reason for this condition; rather, there was no reason for them to demand the garden and the house, for it would have been sufficient to produce a single grape or a little bit of gold.

As for the unbelievers saying, "Till you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us," there is no evidence in it that they were asking for the spring for them, and not for the Prophet, but simply that they were asking him to make it gush forth for their sake. The difference between the two senses is clear. Moreover, the Prophet did not admit to them his inability to perform the miracle, as those [who subscribe to the view under discussion] have imagined erroneously. Rather, what he made clear to them by saying, "Glorified is my Lord" is that God is above any incapacity; that He is capable of anything possible; that He is above being seen or encountered; that

He is above being commanded to do something that the unbelievers demanded; and that the Prophet was a human being commanded by God, the Exalted, to whom alone belong all the commands-and He does what He wishes and commands what He wills.

Another verse employed by those who deny that the Prophet performed any miracle other than the Qur'an is God's saying:

And they will say, "If only a sign were sent down upon him from his Lord!" Then say [O Muhammad]: "The unseen belongs to God. So wait! Lo, I am waiting with you" (Qur’an 10:20).

What they deduced from the verse is that the unbelievers demanded a divine sign from the Prophet, and that he did not mention any miracles of his. Instead, he replied to them that the unseen belongs to God. This proves that he did not have any miracle except what he had brought in the Qur'an.

A number of other verses are close to this in meaning. They include God's saying:

Those who disbelieve say, "If only some sign were sent down upon him from His Lord!" You are a warner only, and for every community a guide (Qur’an 13:7). They say, "Why has no sign been sent down upon him from His Lord?" Say, "Lo! God is able to send down a sign." But most of them know not (Qur’an 6:37).

The response to this is as follows.

First, as we said above, these unbelievers and others like them were not asking the Prophet to produce divine signs that would establish his truthfulness. They, rather, asked him to produce special signs. This is clarified in many places of the Qur'an. Thus, for instance, God, the Exalted, says:

They say, "Why has not an angel been sent down to them?" (Qur’an 6:8). And they say: "O you to whom the Reminder is revealed; lo! you are indeed a madman! Why bring you not angels to us, if you are of the truthful?" (Qur’an 15:6-7); And they say: "What ails this messenger [of God] that he eats food and walks in the markets? Why is not an angel sent down to him, to be a warner with him, or [why is not] a treasure thrown down unto him, or why has he not a paradise from whence to eat?" And the evildoers say, "You are but following a man bewitched" (Qur’an 25:7-8).

We already noted that signs should not be produced on demand. Moreover, the unbelievers wanted only the signs they were demanding. What indicates this to us is the fact that, had they wanted the Prophet to produce just any sign that proved his veracity, he would have certainly responded by pointing to the Qur'an, by which he indeed challenged them in many of its passages. What is, in reality, clear from the verses used as evidence by the opponents [of miracles other than the Qur'an], and from similar other verses, are the following two points:

1. The challenge of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) to all people was made specifically with the Qur'an [and not with any] of his other miracles. This had to be so, as we explained above, because the everlasting prophethood requires the eternal miracle, and this can only be the Qur'an, for none of his other miracles could be expected to possess continuity.

2. The working of miracles was not the Prophet's own choice. He was only a messenger, subject in this matter to the permission of God, the Exalted. Accordingly, the demand of the disbelievers had no role in this matter. This applies to other prophets as well. The following revelations by God, the Exalted, point to this fact:

It was not [given] to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave. For everything, there is a time prescribed (Qur’an 13:38). And it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a sign, save by God's leave, but when God's commandment comes [the cause] is judged aright, and the followers of vanity will then be lost (Qur’an 40:78).

Second, the Qur'an also contains verses which indicate that miracles issued from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Among these are God's saying:

The hour drew nigh and the moon was split in twain. And if they behold a sign (aya), they turn away and say, "Prolonged illusion" (Qur’an 54: 1-2). And when a sign (aya) comes to them, they say, "We will not believe till we are given that which God's messengers are given" (Qur’an 6: 124).

Several things indicate to us that aya here means a miraculous sign [rather than a Qur'anic verse].3 The [first verse] speaks of seeing the aya. Had the reference been to the verses of the Qur'an, the correct expression would have been "hearing" it. "Seeing" the aya is, moreover, conjoined with the splitting of the moon. Finally, [the second verse] ascribes to the aya the act of "coming" to them, rather than of "descending," or any of the other expressions [used from the Qur'anic revelation]. In fact, their words "prolonged illusion" are evidence of miracles repeatedly performed by the Prophet. Consequently, if we were to concede that the previous verses deny his performance of miracles, then the denial applies only to the time when these verses were revealed. It cannot possibly apply to any subsequent period.

The summary of what has been said above is as follows:

1. There is no evidence, in any of the verses of the Qur'an, that would deny the occurrence of other miracles besides the Qur'an. On the contrary, a number of verses contain evidence that proves the occurrence of other miracles, which the opponents [of this view] allege to have been denied by the Qur'an.

2. Producing a miracle was not something which the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) could decide of his own free will. It was in the hands of God, the Glorified.

3. When a claim to prophethood is made, what is needed is a miracle which proves the claim and on which its verification depends. Any miracle which exceeds this purpose is not incumbent upon God to manifest, nor should the Prophet respond if one were demanded.

4. Any miracle which entails doom and torment for the community is forbidden for that community. It must not be performed in response to a demand from the community, regardless of whether that was [made] by all or some of its members.

5. The lasting miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), by which he challenged all the communities until the Day of Resurrection, is the revealed Book of God. As for his other miracles, they are not lasting, no matter how numerous they were. In this respect they share the characteristics of miracles [performed] by the earlier prophets.

The Annunciation of Muhammad's Prophethood in the Torah and the Gospel

The Qur'an states in a number of its verses that Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) announced the good tidings of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) and that this annunciation was mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. God, the Exalted, says in regard to this:

I shall prescribe it [my mercy] for those who follow the Messenger, the u nlettered Prophet, whom they will find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, enjoining on them that which is right and forbidding them that which is wrong (Qur’an 7: 157). And . Jesus, son of Mary, said, "O, Children of Israel, lo! I am the messenger of God to you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is Ahmad"4 (Qur’an 61:6).

Hence, many Jews and Christians, during and after Muhammad's lifetime, believed in his prophethood. This is conclusive evidence that this annunciation still existed in the texts of the two ancient scriptures at the time of his message. Had they not been there, the Jews and Christians would have possessed sufficient proof to deny the Qur'an's claim and to reject the Prophet's call, and they would have rejected him vehemently. The fact that so many of them embraced Islam and believed the Prophet's call, during and after his time, is indisputable evidence that the text of the annunciation was still preserved at that time. Accordingly, faith in Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) necessitated faith in Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny), without requiring any miracle to establish his veracity.

However, a miracle was necessary [to establish his veracity] for other communities that did not believe in Moses and Jesus and their revelations. It has been established earlier that the Noble Qur'an is the lasting miracle and the divine proof of the truthfulness of the Prophet and the veracity of his mission. Moreover, his numerous other miracles, which have been related by uninterrupted transmission, are more worthy of belief than the miracles performed by the other prophets who preceded him.

Notes

1. Hashim b. Sulayman al-Bahrani, Kitab al-Burhanfi Tafsir al-Qur'an, ed. Mahmud b.Ja'far al-Musawi al-Zarandi, 4 vols. (Tehran: Chapkhane Aftab, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 424.

2. Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 15, p. 74

3. The word aya serves both meanings.-Trans.

4. Ahmad (the Most Praised One) is an alternative name for the Prophet Muhammad.­Trans.