Verses 64–78

Chapter 3: Āl-Imrān (The Family of Imrān) · Printed edition: Volume 6, pp. 77–115

Now begins the second phase of the exposition of the People of the Book, particularly the Christians, and some related matters.

The preceding verses described the condition of the People of the Book generally, beginning with the verse (Surely the religion with Allah is Islam …), taking a turn at the verse (Have you not considered those who are given a portion of the Book?). Then it focused its attention on the Christians beginning with the verse (Surely Allah chose Adam and Noah), guiding the believers earlier, in the verse , not to take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers (Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers).

This was the first phase.

Now, the same subjects are explained in other words and in a different style. First, it comments on the People of the Book in general. Apart from the verses under discussion, it throws light on various relevant matters in other places; for example: Say: O People of the Book! why do you disbelieve in the signs of Allah? (); Say: O People of the Book! why do you hinder him who believes from the way of God?” (). Secondly, it exposes the condition of the Christians and their belief concerning Jesus: It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book, and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants … (). Then the talk turns to the matters related to the believers calling them to submission and unity and warning them of befriending the unbelievers and being intimate with them in preference to the believers. All these things are explained in numerous verses and in various places.

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ ٦٤

(3:64) Say: O People of the Book! come to a word, common between us and you, that we shall not worship any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (Submitting ones).

This call is addressed to all the People of the Book in general. The invitation to “come to a word” really means to unite on the meaning of the word by acting upon it. The call to the word is based on the idiom found in Arabic and other languages, as for example, they say: The nation is united on this word. It implies the meanings of belief, acknowledgment, recognition and propagation. The verse therefore means: Come let us adhere to this word, cooperating with one another in its propagation and acting on its demands.

“Common between us and you” means that you and we both are equally bound to acknowledge it and to act on it. Obviously, the use of this adjective for “word” is metaphorical. What is actually equal is its acknowledgment and the resulting action. Again action is related to the import of the word, not the word itself. Moreover, the call for unity about the word in itself has metaphorical connotation. In this way, this sentence has many fine points of rhetorics: Calling to unite on a meaning, then using the “word” for the meaning and then ascribing the adjective “common” to the “word”.

Also, it has been said that the “common word” refers to that which the Qur’an, the Torah and the Injīl commonly invite to with one voice—and that is the belief of monotheism. If this suggestion is correct then the next words, “that we shall not worship any but God …,” would serve as the correct explanation of the word common between the Muslims and the People of the Book; it would invite the latter to leave aside their own interpretation of the Oneness of God—the interpretation used to fit this pristine “word” on their own desire; for example, their belief that God was incarnated, took a son, was one but had three persons; their worship of their rabbis, priests and bishops. The meaning in that case would be as follows: Come to a word common between us and you, and that is the belief in One God; and if we unite on it then we would have to discard and reject all that is associated with God, and would not take others for lords besides Him.

But the ending of the verse, “but if they turn back, then say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims (Submitting ones)’ ,” supports the first meaning given by us. In short, the verse calls to this word that “we shall not worship any but God …,” as it is the demand of Islam, the total submission, which is the religion with God. Although submission is also a concomitant of the belief in the Oneness of God, the verse calls the People of the Book not to the theoretical, but practical, monotheism; that is, to discard worshipping anyone but God. (Think over it).

...that we shall not worship any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah: It is the explanation of “the common word,” and it is what submission to God demands. The words, “we shall not worship any but God,” reject the worship of any other than God; it is not their aim to prove or affirm the worship of God. We have already mentioned in the explanation of the “creed”—There is no god except God—that the phrase, “except God,” is not an exception but an appositional substantive for another substantive of “god” (al-badal); consequently, the sentence aims at rejecting partners for God, not at affirming the existence of God. According to the Qur’an, existence of God and His being the Truth needs no proof, it is a self-evident reality.

This sentence calls them not to associate anyone to God in worship. But it does not nullify the other types of polytheism emanating from the belief that God had a son or the idea of trinity and things like that. That is why the call continues: “And (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides God.” The fact is that merely saying that a worship is meant for God does not make it the worship of God, unless it is done with pure and sincere faith, unless the heart is purged of all beliefs and superstitions springing from polytheism. Otherwise, the worship would be for a god who had a partner. And a worship devoted to one of the alleged partners in godhead—even if it is done for him exclusively—would still be a product of polytheism. Why? because such a worship, by its very definition is a share devoted to one of the two or more partners; as such it acknowledges the right of the other partner or partners, and is therefore the worship of those partners too.

On the other hand, the Prophet calls them, by order of God, to the pure monotheism, “that we shall not worship any but God and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides God.” It is this call which combines in itself all the aims and objectives of prophethood; it is this which the prophets taught their men, and which they propagated in the human society.

We have described (while explaining the verse , Mankind was but one people) that prophethood is a God-inspired awakening, a true advancement, the purpose of which is to spread the word of religion. The religion, in its reality, is equilibrium in the society’s march of life; and a well-balanced society creates well-balanced individual in life. In this way, each and everyone is accorded his due position which the nature has meant him to have. Thus, the society gets the freedom and the felicity of natural perfectness based on justice and equity; and likewise the individual gets complete freedom to enjoy the life in all its aspects, as he thinks fit and as he likes—except when it is likely to harm the society’s life. And all these freedoms and enjoyments are conditional to servitude and submission to God, subservient to the unseen authority and power.

We may summarize the prophets’ message in these words: They want human species—individually and collectively—to march forward according to the dictate of their nature which adheres to the belief of monotheism. That belief in its turn demands that man should base all his individual and social actions and activities on submission to God, and that he should spread justice and equity. In other words, all should be given equal rights in life, and all should have equal freedom of good intention and good deed.

This goal cannot be achieved until and unless the roots of conflict and unlawful transgression are completely destroyed; so that no strong person exploits or enslaves a weak man, no one dominates another, and no powerless person serves the interests of someone powerful. There is no god but God; there is no Lord except God; and there is no rule for anyone except God.

This is what this verse says: that we shall not worship any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah. There are many verses of the same connotation. For example, God quotes Joseph as saying: O my two mates of the prison! are sundry lords better or Allah, the One, the Supreme? You do not worship besides Him but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent down any authority for them; judgment is only Allah’s; He has commanded that you shall not worship aught but Him; this is the right religion (). Also, God says: They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Mary, and they were not enjoined but that they should worship one God only, there is no god but He ().

And the same is the importance of many admonitions addressed to their peoples by the prophets like: Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Abraham, Shuʿayb (Jethro), Moses and Jesus (peace be on them all). For example:

Noah: My Lord! surely they have disobeyed me and followed him whose wealth and children have added to him nothing but loss ().

Hūd: Do you build on every height a monument? Vain is it that you do. And you make strong fortresses that perhaps you may abide. And when you lay hands (on men) you lay hands (like) tyrants ().

Ṣāliḥ: And do not obey the bidding of the extravagant ones ().

Abraham: When he said to his father and his people: What are these images to whose worship you cleave? They said: We found our fathers worshipping them. He said: Certainly you have been, (both) you and your fathers, in manifest error ().

And God said to Moses and Aaron: Go both to Pharaoh, surely he has become inordinate. So go you both to him and say: Surely we are two messengers of your Lord; therefore send the Children of Israel with us and do not torment them. ().

And lastly Jesus said to his people: ...and so that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so fear Allah and obey me ().

The natural religion is that which negates transgression and mischief, and eradicates injustice and unlawful dominations—the unjust dominations which destroy the foundation of happiness and uproot the basis of truth and reality. It was this fact which the Prophet alluded to when he said in the last pilgrimage (and al-Masʿūdī has mentioned it in his Murūj al-dhahab, in the events of the year 10 of Hijrah): “Indeed the time has come full circle to its (original) form (as it was) the day when God created the heavens and the earth.” Perhaps he meant that the men have come back to the rule of nature because the Islamic character had become firmly rooted among them.

The sentence, that we shall not worship any but Allah, not only covers all the aims and objectives of prophethood, but also explains the reason of this commandment.

...that we shall not worship any but Allah: Godhead is that which everything worships, is bewildered about and loved—in every way. God is the origin and fountainhead of every perfection in all the things; in spite of their magnitude in number, they are related to one another and all are one in that each component looks to God for its needs; He is the source of every perfection desired by these things. This reality leads us to the Oneness of God. As the created things are interrelated, the Creator can be no more than one. He is the Owner in Whose Hand is the management of everything. Therefore, it is obligatory to worship God, because He is the One and Only God, there is no partner or colleague to Him. And it is obligatory not to ascribe any partner to Him in worship. In other words, this universe with all that it contains cannot submit except to One Creator. These creatures are joined in a uniform system, they are united in their existence: naturally there cannot be more than one Lord for them, because there is not more than one Creator for them.

And (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides God: Human beings, in spite of their great number, are parts of one reality, that is, human species and humanity. All those merits and abilities which the hand of creation has put in them in equal measure demand that they must have equal rights in life, and must be accorded equal treatment in all those matters. On the other hand, there are differences in the conditions of the individuals and in their ability to procure and acquire some advantages and prerogatives of life; they are the gifts of general humanity which are bestowed to some particular individuals or groups here and there; such prerogatives also should be allowed to the mankind—but only in the way it demands. For example, sexual intercourse, pregnancy and medical treatment, all are the affairs of the humanity in general; yet sexual intercourse is the prerogative of an adult human being, male or female, while pregnancy is exclusively reserved for the female; and medical treatment is accorded only to a sick person.

In short, the members of the human society are components of a single reality—the components being similar to each other. No one has a right to impose his will on another, until and unless he takes on himself a similar burden on behalf of the other. And this is what cooperation in acquisition of life’s advantages means. But if the society or individual surrenders to an individual, if the whole or a part of the humanity submits to another part; raising him from the level of equality to that of superiority, giving him domination and arbitrary powers, making him an autocratic despot—he rules as he likes, is obeyed in whatever he says, and is taken as a lord whose will has to be complied with—then it negates the nature and destroys the foundation of humanity.

Moreover, Lordship exclusively belongs to God, there is no lord but He. Thus, if a man puts himself under the authority of another man like himself, allowing that master to do with his follower whatever he wants, then it means that the said master has been taken as a lord besides God. It is such a proposition which can never be accepted by him who has surrendered himself to God.

It is now clear that the words of God, “And (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides God,” throw light on two realities: One, the human beings are parts of a single reality, the parts being similar to each other. Two, Lordship is the exclusive prerogative of Godhead.

...but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (Submitting ones): It is a call to them to witness that the Prophet and his followers are on a religion which God is pleased with, and it is Islam. God says: Surely the religion with Allah is Islam (). This declaration will cut their argument and dispute, because no proof prevails against the truth and the people of the truth.

This sentence points to the fact that monotheism in worship is a concomitant to Islam.

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تُحَاجُّونَ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَتِ التَّوْرَاةُ وَالْإِنْجِيلُ إِلَّا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ ٦٥

(3:65) O People of the Book! why do you dispute about Abraham, when the Torah and the Injīl were not revealed till after him? Do you not then understand?

Apparently it is governed by the imperative verb, “say,” placed in the preceding verse; and so are the verses 70–71, coming after four verses. Thus, it will be an order to the Prophet to say these things to the People of the Book. On the other hand, the verse coming after two verses (Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe), gives an association which shows that the verse under discussion too may be a direct talk of God, and not of the Prophet (by God’s Command).

The People of the Book disputed among themselves about Abraham. Probably it was, in the beginning, an argument by which each group wanted to show its veracity. The Jews might be saying: Abraham, whom God has praised so much, was from us; a claim which the Christians might have countered by saying: Abraham was on truth, and the truth has been manifested by the advent of Jesus. Then the arguments might have degenerated into bigotry and obstinacy. Then the Jews claimed that Abraham was a Jew; and the Christians, that he was a Christian. However, it is a known fact that Judaism and Christianity came on the scene after the revelation of the Torah and the Injīl respectively; and these Books were revealed long after Abraham. How could it be possible for him to be a Jew (a follower of the religion brought by Moses)? Or a Christian (a follower of the shariah of Jesus)? All that can be said about Abraham is this: He was on truth, sincerely adhering to right, away from wrong, submitting himself to God. These verses, therefore, have a connotation similar to the verse: Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Are you better knowing or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? ().

هَا أَنْتُمْ هَٰؤُلَاءِ حَاجَجْتُمْ فِيمَا لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلِمَ تُحَاجُّونَ فِيمَا لَيْسَ لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ٦٦

(3:66) Behold! you are they who disputed about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows while you do not know.

The verse affirms that they possessed a knowledge in respect of the disputation which they indulged in; and negates another knowledge and ascribes it to God. The exegetes have variously explained the knowledge which they had, and that which they did not. According to them it may mean as follows: ‘You had disputed about Abraham and you had some knowledge about him, for example, that he existed at a certain time and was a prophet. Why then do you dispute about a matter of which you have no knowledge at all—claiming that he was a Jew or a Christian? The fact is that God knows while you do not know.’ Alternatively, the knowledge that has been affirmed may refer to the little knowledge they had about Jesus. The verse thus says: ‘You have disputed about Jesus while you had some knowledge about him and his affairs. Why do you then dispute about a subject of which you have no knowledge, claiming that Abraham was a Jew or a Christian?’

The above two explanations, given by the exegetes, do not conform with the apparent context of the verse. The first is wrong because the People of the Book had never contended with each other about the existence or prophethood of Abraham. The second, because neither party was on right concerning their disputation about Jesus. Both were mistaken in their respective beliefs, making erroneous claims about him. How then can their disputation about Jesus be called a disputation of which they had knowledge? In any case, the verse says that they disputed about something of which they had knowledge and also about that of which they had no knowledge. The question arises as to what was the disputation about which they had knowledge? Moreover, it apparently shows that both disputes were among the People of the Book themselves. It does not refer to any argument between them and the Muslims; otherwise, the Muslims would obviously have been in wrong in that matter of which the People of the Book had knowledge.

The appropriate explanation would be as follows—and God knows better:

It is well known that there was a never ending dispute between the Jews and the Christians which covered all the subjects in which they differed. The main point of contention was the Jesus’ prophethood and the claims made by the Christians concerning his status—that he was God and son of God, and the belief of trinity. The Christians disputed with the Jews about his being a prophet sent by God—and the Christians had its knowledge. The Jews disputed with the Christians and refuted his godhead, his sonship and the trinity—and they talked with knowledge about it. These were the disputations about which they had got knowledge. As for the disputation about that of which they had no knowledge, it was their contention that Abraham was a Jew or a Christian.

When the Qur’an says that they had no knowledge of this matter, it does not mean that they were unaware of the fact that the Torah and the Injīl were revealed after Abraham—as it was an obvious thing. Nor that they were oblivious of the fact that a preceding man cannot be a follower of one coming after him, because the admonition at the end of the preceding verse (Do you not then understand?) does not leave room for this suggestion; it shows that it is such an obvious thing that a mere hint is enough to focus attention on it. They knew that Abraham preceded the Torah and the Injīl, but they were oblivious of its logical corollary that he therefore could not be a Jew or a Christian, that he would be on the Divine Religion, that is, submission to God.

The Jews also said: There cannot be more than one true religion and that is the Judaism. Thus, Abraham would inevitably be a Jew. The same argument was used by the Christians to Christianize Abraham. The error they committed in this argument sprang from ignorance, not obliviousness. The fact is that the religion of God is one—and that is Islam, the submission to God. It is one, progressing towards perfection, with passage of time and in keeping with mankind’s progress—as humanity advances to perfection. Judaism and the Christianity are two branches of the perfection of Islam—the root religion. The prophets (peace be on them all!) were the builders of that structure, each of them had a hand in it, laying down the foundation and raising such a lofty edifice. No doubt, Abraham was the founder of Islam—that is, submission to God—and it was the basic and true religion; then the true religion appeared with the name of Judaism and then Christianity; these were two of the branches of its perfection, two of the stages of its completion. What the Jews and the Christians did not know was that these propositions do not make Abraham a Jew or a Christian. He would remain, as before, an upright Muslim; his name would be always linked with that of Islam, the religion which he himself had founded. Islam is the root of Judaism and Christianity; but it is neither Judaism nor Christianity. The root is not attributed to its branches; it is the branch that should be related to the root.

To say that Abraham was a Muslim and not a Jew or a Christian does not imply a claim that he was the follower of the Prophet of Islam, acting according to the Qur’anic shariah. Nobody should rush to say that as Abraham had preceded the revelation of the Torah and the Injīl and therefore could not be counted as a Jew or a Christian, so had he preceded the revelation of the Qur’an and the advent of Islam, therefore, in a completely identical manner, he should not be called a Muslim.

As a matter of fact, the use of ‘Islam’ for the Qur’anic shariah is a terminology which came up after the revelation of the Qur’an, when the fame of the religion brought by Muḥammad, had spread far and wide. The Islam which is attributed to Abraham means submission to God, humbling oneself before His Lordship. The two uses are different, and consequently there is no room for any objection whatsoever.

The People of the Book were unaware of the true meaning of the basic religion; they did not know that it was a reality which had various levels, and which had evolved, passing through stages, to the summit of its perfection. It was this ignorance of theirs to which God refers when He says: “And God knows while you do not know. Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian …” This meaning is also supported by the next verse: “Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe;” as well as the verses 84–85 coming later: Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. 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. (We shall explain it in its place.)

مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَٰكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ٦٧

(3:67) Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.

This verse has been explained above. Some exegetes have explained it as follows: The Jews and the Christians claimed that Abraham was one of them, on their religion. Likewise, the idol-worshipping Arabs claimed that they were the followers of al-dīn al-ḥanīf (the upright religion) the religion of Abraham; even the People of the Book came to call them al-ḥunafā and thus al-ḥanīfiyyah (uprightness; religion of Abraham) was misconstrued to mean idol-worship.

When God praised Abraham by saying that “he was upright,” it was necessary to explain the word, so that people should not take it in the sense of idol-worship. That is why God added the words, “A Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists;” he followed the religion which God is pleased with, and that is Islam, submission to God, and he was not a polytheist like the Arabs of the days of Ignorance.

إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَٰذَا النَّبِيُّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۗ وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٦٨

(3:68) Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe; and Allah is the Guardian of the believers.

This verse gives the reason behind the foregoing talk, and explains the reality of the subject matter. The meaning is as follows (and God knows better):

If we look at relationship between this great Prophet, Abraham, and those who came after him, obviously he cannot be counted as a follower of later generations; rather, we have to decide who is nearest of all to him. Only he can be nearest of all to a prophet—coming with a shariah and a Book—who follows the truth like him and accepts the religion which he brought. According to this criterion, the nearest to Abraham is this Prophet and those who believe. They are on the Islam for which God had chosen Abraham. Likewise, those who were his followers were nearest to him—not those who disbelieve in the communications of God and confound the truth with falsehood.

The words, “those who followed him,” are an allusion against the People of the Book, indirectly telling the Jews and the Christians that they were not the nearest to Abraham because they did not follow him in submitting to God.

The phrase, “And this Prophet and those who believe,” distinguishing the Prophet and his followers from the followers of Abraham; this was done to show the exalted position of the Prophet; he was too great to be called someone’s follower. The same consideration is reflected in other verses; for example, These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance (). Note that God did not say, ‘therefore follow them’.

The sentence, “And God is the Guardian of the believers,” complete this reasoning and explanation. Abraham was a waliyy (friend) of God, and his al-wilāyah (friendship, guardianship) was a part of God’s guardianship; and God is the Guardian of the believers, not of the others who disbelieve in His Signs and confuse the right with wrong, the truth with falsehood.

وَدَّتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يُضِلُّونَكُمْ وَمَا يُضِلُّونَ إِلَّا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ ٦٩

(3:69) A party of the People of the Book desire that they should lead you astray, and they lead not astray but themselves, and they do not perceive.

How is it that the People of the Book lead not astray but themselves? The first and foremost human virtue is inclination towards truth and its acceptance. A desire to divert the people away from the truth, to turn them towards falsity (being a psychological trait) is a depravity of soul and how evil this depravity is! It is a sin, a crime, a transgression against truth; and what is there after the truth but lie and error? Thus, when they desire to lead the believers astray (when those believers are on truth), they in fact lead themselves astray although they do not perceive it.

And even if they got hold of a believer and led him astray by planting some doubts in his heart, they would be leading themselves astray before him. Man does not do anything—good or bad—but for himself. God says: Whoever does good, it is for his own self, and whoever does evil, it is against it (45:46). As for those who go astray because of someone’s misguidance, it is not so much a result of that deceiver’s influence, as the misdeed and wrong choice of the straying person himself—by permission of God. The Qur’an says: Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls (); And whatever affliction befalls you, it is on account of what your hands have wrought, and (yet) He pardons most (of your faults). And you cannot escape in the earth, and you shall not have a guardian or a helper besides Allah (). Some details about the effects and characteristics of human actions have been given in the second volume (Arabic text), under the verse: … these it is whose deeds are forfeited in this world and the hereafter ().

This explanation is among those Qur’anic realities which spring from al-Tawḥīd (monotheism) of action, and that active belief in its turn is based on the realities of Lordship and Kingdom. Only in this way, we can explain the exclusiveness found in the words of God: “And they lead not astray but themselves, and they do not perceive.” As for the explanation given by others, they do not help in understanding this exclusiveness; that is why we have not mentioned them here at all.

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأَنْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ ٧٠

(3:70) O People of the Book! Why do you disbelieve in the communications of Allah while you witness (them)?

It has already been explained that disbelieving in communications of God is not the same as disbelieving in God Himself. Disbelief in God entails open rejection of monotheism, as the idol-worshippers and atheists do; while disbelief in communications means rejection of the Divine Knowledge after it is clarified and explained. The People of the Book do believe that the universe has One God. What they disbelieve in are described in the books revealed to them and to others, like the prophethood of Muḥammad , the fact that Jesus was the servant and the messenger of God, that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, that the hand of God is open, that God is Self-sufficient and other such things. The People of the Book, in Qur’anic language, are disbelievers in communications of God, not in God Himself. Of course, there is the verse which goes against it: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, from among those who were given the Book, until they pay the jizyah (tributary tax) with their hands while they are in a state of subjection (). It clearly says that those People of the Book did not believe in God, that is, they disbelieved in God. But it goes on mentioning their non-prohibition of prohibited things and their deviation from the religion of truth; and it shows that when the verse attributes disbelief to them it really uses a concomitant to allude to the related characteristic. In other words, when they disbelieve in communications of God, it follows that they do not believe even in God and the latter day although they may not realize it. But it does not speak about open and direct disbelief in God.

“While you witness (them)”: It shows that their disbelief in communications refers to their rejection of the Prophet; they did not accept that the Prophet was the promised Prophet whose advent was foretold in the Torah and Injīl although they clearly saw that the signs and descriptions mentioned therein perfectly fitted on the Prophet.

Somebody has said that the word, “communications,” is general and comprehensive; it covers all the communications and there is no reason why it should be restricted to the signs of the Prophet; the word therefore refers to their rejection of all the true signs and communications.

Comment: The explanation given by us clearly shows the invalidity of this interpretation.

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَلْبِسُونَ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُونَ الْحَقَّ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ ٧١

(3:71) O People of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with the falsehood and hide the truth while you know?

Why do you manifest the truth in the form of falsehood? The words, “while you know,” show or at least allude, that the confusion and the hiding refers to their confounding and hiding the religious knowledge and realities; and not to the verses of scriptures; that is, it does not speak about the verses which they had altered, hidden or misinterpreted.

These two verses, beginning with, “O People of the Book! Why do you disbelieve …” and ending with, “while you know?,” complete the talk which began with the words, “A party of the People of the Book desire …” The whole community has been admonished for the wrong-doings of some of its members, because they were all united in race, tribe and character, and all accepted what some of them were doing. Such usage is commonly found in the Qur’an.

وَقَالَتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ آمِنُوا بِالَّذِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَجْهَ النَّهَارِ وَاكْفُرُوا آخِرَهُ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ ٧٢

(3:72) And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe (in) the first part of the day, and disbelieve (at) the end of it, perhaps they go back (on their religion).

Wajh al-nahār (lit. face of the day) means the first part of the day, because it has been used in contrast with “the end of it”; also the face of a thing is what it appears to others with, and as far as the day is concerned, it is its early part. The context of this saying shows that something was revealed to the Prophet in the early hours of the day which conformed with tenets of the People of the Book, and another revelation came at the end of the day which was against their belief. And this prompted them to say these words.

Therefore, the clause, “that which has been revealed to those who believe,” refers to a particular Qur’anic revelation which agreed with the belief and practice of the People of the Book. The words, “the first part of the day ,” are an adverbial phrase of time, and it is related not to “Avow belief,” but to “has been revealed” because it is nearer. The words, “And disbelieve (at) the end of it,” mean: disbelieve in that which has been revealed (to those who believe) at the end of the day; it is an allegorical expression putting the adverbial phrase of time in place of the thing which happened at that time; a similar device has been used in the verse where it says: Nay, (it was) planning of night and day ().

Accordingly, it supports what has been narrated from the Imams of the Ahl al-bayt, relating the circumstances in which this verse was revealed. This idea was propagated by the Jews at the time when the qiblah was changed. The Messenger of God had prayed the morning prayer towards Bayt al-Maqdis which was the qiblah of the Jews. Then the qiblah was changed towards the Kaʿbah in the noon prayer. Then a group of the Jews said: Believe in that which was revealed to those who believe in the early hours of the day, that is, praying towards Bayt al-Maqdis, and disbelieve in that which has been revealed at the end of it, that is, facing towards the Kaʿbah. This explanation is further supported by their assertion which has been quoted in the next verse: “And do not believe but in him who follows your religion;” that is, do not trust anyone who does not follow your religion and does not believe in it, lest you disclose to him some of your secrets and the good tidings which were revealed to you about the promised Prophet—one of the signs foretold of the Prophet was that he would change the qiblah towards the Kaʿbah.

Another interpretation: Some exegetes have said that the phrase, “the first part of the day” is related to the verb “Avow belief”; and, “the end of it,” is an adverbial phrase, (in which “in” is deleted and understood) and it is related to the verb “disbelieve”. Accordingly, the meaning would be as follows: Some of them should pretend to believe in the Qur’an and attach themselves with the Muslims; then they should renounce Islam at the end of the day saying that they had believed in the morning because they were deceived by apparent signs of truth of Islam but they had to renounce it by the end of the day because they had seen many things which proved its falsity; and because the good tidings of the prophethood and signs of veracity which they were told by the previous prophets did not fit on this Prophet. This was a devious plan to deceive the believers, so that the believers would be overwhelmed by doubts about their religion, and weakened in their conviction; in this way their power would break down and their mission fail.

This meaning in itself is not far-fetched, and especially from the Jews who had left no stone unturned to defeat Islam, to extinguish its light by any possible means. But the wording of the verse does not fit this interpretation. We shall write some related things under the traditions, God willing.

Someone has explained it as follows: Avow belief in their praying towards the Kaʿbah in the first part of the day and disbelieve in it at the end of the day; perhaps they would go back on their religion.

A fourth explanation: Pretend to believe in the first part of the day by agreeing that the signs of the promised prophet were present in the Prophet; and disbelieve at the end of it saying that those attributes did not fit on him; this would put doubts in the believers’ minds and perhaps they would renounce their religion. There is no proof for these two interpretations; and whatever the meaning, there is no ambiguity in the verse.

وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوا إِلَّا لِمَنْ تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَىٰ هُدَى اللَّهِ أَنْ يُؤْتَىٰ أَحَدٌ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيتُمْ أَوْ يُحَاجُّوكُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ ۗ قُلْ إِنَّ الْفَضْلَ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ ٧٣

(3:73) And do not believe but in him who follows your religion. Say: Surely the guidance is the guidance of Allah—that one may be given (by Him) the like of what you were given; or they would contend with you by an argument before your Lord. Say: Surely grace is in the hand of Allah, He gives it to whom He pleases; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

The context shows that this too is the saying of the People of the Book, completing their talk which started with the words, Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe. And likewise the words, that one may be given (by Him) the like of what you were given; or they would contend with you by an argument before your Lord, are continuation of their speech. And therefore the sentence, “Say: ‘Surely the guidance is the guidance of God,’ ” is a parenthetical sentence in reply of their talk beginning with, “Avow belief,” and ending with, “who follows your religion.” The change of style supports this view. Similarly the words, Say: Surely grace is in the hand of God are in reply of their talk, that one may be given (by Him) the like of what you were given. In this way, all the segments of this talk are interwoven and the meanings of the two preceding verses interrelated with one another. Also, the two verses stand face to face with the verses describing the Jews’ obstinacy, disputation and deception.

The meaning therefore is as follows, and God knows better:

A party of the People of the Book, that is, the Jews, said one to another: Attest the truth of the Prophet and the believers regarding their prayer towards Bayt al-Maqdis in the first part of the day and do not accept their truth when they prayed towards Kaʿbah in the afternoon. Do not trust others when you talk with them, lest they inform the believers that the changing of qiblah to the Kaʿbah was foretold as a sign of the truth of the Promised Prophet. For, if you accepted the affair of the Kaʿbah and disclosed what you knew about it (that it was a sign of the Prophet’s truth), then you would have to face two dangers: (1) The believers would get a qiblah of their own, like that of yours; it would destroy your supremacy and neutralize your precedence in the matter of qiblah; (2) the believers would contend with you before your Lord establishing a proof against you that although you knew about the new qiblah and were witnesses of its truth, you did not accept the Islam.

God replied to their talk—that they should believe what was revealed in the early part of the day and disbelieve what happened at the end of it, and their admonition to one another to hide the matter of qiblah so that the believers would not know the truth—that the guidance which the believers needed was the true guidance and it was the guidance of God, and not yours. The believers do not need your guidance; you may follow the believers’ guidance if you like and reject it if you so desire; you may proclaim the truth if you wish, and hide it if you want.

Then God replies to their fear that one might be given by God the like of what they were given.

He says that grace is in the hand of God, He gives it to whom He pleases. It is not in the Jews’ hands so that they could reserve it for their own selves, blocking the way to the others. God has made no comment on their conspiracy to hide the truth so that the believers would be unable to argue with them before their Lord; it was such a conspicuously fallacious presumption that needed no reply. The same disdainful silence is maintained in another verse exposing the same fallacy: And when they meet those who believe they say: We believe, and when they are alone one with another, they say: Do you talk to them of what Allah has disclosed to you that they may argue with you by this before your Lord? Do you not then understand? What! Do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they proclaim? (). The exclamatory “What!” in the sentence, “What! Do they not know,” shows that it is not a reply to the Jews; it is just an indication that their talk goes against correct understanding, for they know that their hiding or proclaiming makes no difference in God’s knowledge.

It will be seen from the above explanation that the words, “And do not believe,” mean ‘do not trust anyone’, ‘do not expect anyone to keep your secret’. It has the same connotation as the verse: and believes the believers (). The words, “him who follows your religion,” mean ‘the Jews’. Their aim was to prevent the disclosure of what they knew regarding the truth of the change of qiblah to the Kaʿbah. Their knowledge of this truth was also referred to in the verses: turn then thy face towards the Sacred Mosque … and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; … Those whom we have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons; and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it) ().

The exegetes have written various explanations for these verses. One of them says that the whole verse, ... And do not believe...Ample-giving, Knowing, is a direct speech of God, not a quotation of the Jews’ talk; and the second person plural pronouns—“And do not believe,” “What you were given,” “they would contend with you,” “before your Lord” are all addressed to the believers; while the second person singular pronoun in “Say” refers to the Prophet. Some others agree with this explanation with one difference: They say that the second person plural pronouns in the above mentioned words are addressed to the Jews, and the speech admonishes and rebukes them. Still others have said that the words, “And do not believe but in him who follows your religion,” are the quotation of the Jews’ talk; while the words, “Say: ‘Surely the guidance is the guidance of God—that one may be given (by Him) …’ ,” are spoken by God in reply to what the Jews had said. Likewise, there is a difference about the meaning of “grace” whether it means religion, worldly blessings, dominance or something else.

These interpretations, in spite of their bewildering number, are far removed from the connotation given by the context, as we have already shown. That is why we have not spent much time on them.

Say: Surely grace is in the hand of Allah, He gives it to whom He pleases; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing: al-Rāghib says:

Every voluntary gratis benefaction is called al-faḍl; as God says: and ask Allah of His grace (); this is Allah’s grace (); and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace (); Say: In the grace of Allah (); and were it not for the grace of Allah ().

Accordingly the sentence, “Say: ‘Surely grace is in the hand of God’ ,” is a sort of abbreviated syllogism from which the first premise has been omitted. The full deductive syllogism shall be as follows: Say: This revelation and Divine bestowal (which you are trying to reserve for yourself by pretending to believe and disbelieve and admonishing each other to hide the truth) is not a thing which we mortals can impose on God, it is really a grace. Grace is in the hand of God (to Whom belong the Kingdom and the Command). Therefore, He has the power to give it to whom He pleases. And Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

This verse does not leave any room for the Jews to reserve the Divine Grace for themselves (despite their mistaken belief reflected in their words and deeds). Why should some people enjoy the grace of God to the deprivation of others (as the Jews wanted to do with religion and qiblah)? One may imagine only three ways for it.

Either the grace of God would fall under the influence of someone else, who then would manipulate the Divine Will, diverting it to one side, preventing it from going in another direction. But the fact is otherwise. Because “Surely grace is in the hand of God, He gives it to whom He pleases.”

Or, the bounty is in short supply, is insufficient to reach all the aspirants. In that case it would need some outside factor to choose a few and reject the others. But the fact is otherwise. Because God is Ample-giving; All-powerful, Whose grace knows no limit.

Or, it could be that the grace—even if it was unlimited and in the hand of God—could not reach a certain group because that group was hidden from God, was unknown to Him. Thus the privileged group plans devious ways to hide the other groups and keep them concealed from God, in order to deprive them of the Divine Grace. But the fact is otherwise. Because God is All-knowing; ignorance cannot reach Him; nothing can be hidden from Him.

يَخْتَصُّ بِرَحْمَتِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ ٧٤

(3:74) He specially chooses for His mercy whom He pleases; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.

As the grace is in the hand of God, He gives it to whom He pleases; and as He is Ample-giving, Knowing, it is in His power to choose some of the servants for some of His favors. It is for Him to manage His property as He likes. The fact, that His grace and His bestowal of bounties are unrestricted, or that nobody can put any restraint on Him, does not make it necessary for Him to bestow His grace on each and every person indiscriminately. Otherwise, it would again be a restraint on His absolute power. It is His prerogative to specially choose for His grace whomever He pleases.

The verse ends on the sentence, And Allah is the Lord of mighty grace. In a way it explains the reason of all that has been mentioned above. The grace is mighty. Consequently it must be in His hand to give it to whom He pleases. Also, God should be Ample-giving in His grace, knowing the condition of His servants, well aware of which type of grace would be more suitable to a given person. And therefore it should be His prerogative to specially choose for His grace whomever He pleases.

In the sentence, “He specially chooses for His mercy whom He pleases,” the word, “grace” has been replaced by “mercy”. It shows that the grace, being a free gift, a discretionary bounty, is a branch of mercy. God says: And My mercy encompasses all things (); and were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have ever been pure (); Say: If you control the treasures of the mercy of Lord, then you would withhold (them) from fear of spending ().

وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مَنْ إِنْ تَأْمَنْهُ بِقِنْطَارٍ يُؤَدِّهِ إِلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ إِنْ تَأْمَنْهُ بِدِينَارٍ لَا يُؤَدِّهِ إِلَيْكَ إِلَّا مَا دُمْتَ عَلَيْهِ قَائِمًا ۗ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ٧٥

(3:75) And among the People of the Book there are some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a heap of wealth, he shall pay it back to you; and among them are some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a dīnār he shall not pay it back to you except that you remain standing over him, this is because they say: There is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way (to reproach); and they tell a lie against Allah while they know.

The verse points to the glaring differences seen in the characters of various People of the Book, for example, in keeping the trust and fulfilling the agreements. Their dishonesty and breach of trust is in itself a national disgrace; this characteristic has permeated their society as a well accepted feature. Unfortunately, it is based on their ideology which is reflected in the statement: “There is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way (to reproach).” They called themselves the People of the Book, and called others gentiles, unlearned people. The above quoted statement means that no gentile (non-Israelite) can have any way against an Israelite. Even more disturbing was their claim that the behavior was approved by religion. It is to this aspect that the next sentence refers: “And they tell a lie against God while they know.”

They believed—as they do even today that they were the chosen people; Divine Grace was their exclusive property; others had no share in God’s favor; God had given them Prophethood, the Book and the Kingdom; therefore they had precedence and excellence over all races, and had a right to subjugate the others. This misconception gave rise to various misunderstandings. For example, they came to believe that the sociological and financial rights and obligations (like prohibition of interest, of devouring others’ property and usurping people’s rights) were applicable within their own circle only. A Jew should not devour another Jew’s property unjustly; an Israelite should not usurp the rights of his own people. In short, only the People of the Book had got a way to reproach against the People of the Book. As for the gentiles, the non-Israelites, they had no way of reproach against the People of the Book. The Jews thought they could deal with non-Israelites anyway they liked; they could do with others whatever they wanted. In their eyes the gentiles were no better than animals and .they dealt with them as they did with animals.

Of course, the conception was not found in the books that are said to be revealed, like the Torah, etc. They had taken this idea from their rabbis and blindly followed them. Moreover, the religion of Moses was meant for the Children of Israel only; others were neither invited nor allowed to enter it. Thus it became a racial religion. This gave rise to a belief that this excellence and Divine Grace was something based on race for which the Children of Israel were exclusively chosen. Being born of Israel parents was the essence of dignity, the root of excellence, the basis of supremacy. The one who was related to Israel had absolute precedence over all others. When such arrogant spirit governs the structure of a nation, it incites them to create mischief on the earth, and to annihilate the essence of humanity found in a society.

Of course, sometimes it becomes necessary in a human society to deprive some individuals or groups of some common rights. But what should be the criterion for such deprivation? A healthy society believes that whoever tries to negate others’ rights or to damage or destroy the society itself, should be deprived of his own rights. From Islamic point of view the only criterion of rights is acceptance of Islam or coming under the protection of Islamic State. One who is neither a Muslim nor a dhimmī (one under the protection of Islamic State), has no right in the life. This criterion conforms with the dictate of nature; and you have seen that the human society also recognizes such test in a general way.

Now, we come back to the verse under discussion, “Among the People of the Book.” Apparently, it should have been ‘Among them’. Why was the noun used in place of the pronoun? It was done to remove a possible misunderstanding: the preceding two verses had spoken about: “A party of the People of the Book”; if these verses had said, ‘Among them’, it could give an impression that it was speaking about a group of the previously mentioned, “A party of the People of the Book”. You will see that after removing this possible cause of misunderstanding, the next verse uses pronoun when it says: “Most surely there is a party amongst those who distort the Book with their tongues.”

Also, mentioning of the attribute—that is, their being the People of the Book—points to a sort of reason. That is, such words and deeds—their saying that there is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way to reproach, and their swallowing the people’s wealth in this way—would not have looked so strange if they had been uttered by unlearned people, who did not know anything about prophethood and revelation. But these were the People of the Book; they had the Book which contained the God’s Commandments; and they knew very well that the Book did not give them any such latitude, nor did it allow them to take other people’s wealth and property just because they were gentiles, non-Israelites. Such statements and deeds were more strange and more disgraceful because they were uttered and done by the People of the Book. Therefore, they deserved more severe condemnation and rebuke.

Apart from their rhetorical beauties, their parallel setting in the context of trustworthiness shows that the words al-qinṭār and al-dīnār have been used for great and small amounts respectively. The verse means that there are some among them who faithfully keep the amount entrusted to them, no matter how great and valuable it may be; while there are others among them who would embezzle it even if it is a trivial and worthless thing.

The second person singular pronoun in the phrase, “if you entrust one (of them) with a heap of wealth, he shall pay it back to you,” does not refer to any particular person; it is a sort of indefinite pronoun showing general applicability of the statement. In other words, the sentence means: If someone—anyone—gives him something in trust he shall pay it back to him, no matter how great the amount may be.

...except that you remain standing over him: The word, “standing,” points to urgency and insistence; when the claimant remains standing on his feet without sitting, it shows his impatience and inability to wait. Someone has said that mā is an adverb of time; but it makes no sense.

...this is because they say: There is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way (to reproach): Apparently, the context shows that the pronoun, “this,” refers to the whole description written before, that is, the fact that some of them keep their trust even if it is a huge amount, and others do not pay it back even if it is a small thing; this difference has arisen from their belief that there is on them no way to reproach in the matter of the unlearned people. This idea has created among them a great disparity in ethical and spiritual standard although they know that God has not ordained any such thing in His Book, nor is He pleased with such practices of theirs.

Alternatively, it may be referring to the second group only, which is mentioned by the sentence: “And among them there are some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a dīnār he shall not pay it back to you.” In this case, the first (that is, trustworthy) group may have been mentioned here just to give the complete picture, to fulfil the demand of justice. Consequently, the plural pronouns in, “they say,” and, “they know,” may refer to, “the People of the Book,” or to, “some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a dīnār”. In the latter case, the first person pronoun in, “upon us,” may refer to all, “the People of the Book,” or to a certain group of them. The translation will differ in each case, but all the possibilities are correct and credible. (Think it over.)

...and they tell a lie against Allah while they know: It refutes their claim that there was not upon them any way to reproach in the matter of the unlearned people. Also, it proves that they used to justify their behavior on religious grounds, claiming that it was a Divine Revelation, as we have mentioned earlier.

بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ وَاتَّقَىٰ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ ٧٦

(3:76) Yea, whoever fulfils his promise and guards (against evil) —then surely Allah loves those who guard (against evil).

It answers their argument and affirms what they wanted to negate with their statement that there was no way to reproach upon them regarding the non-Israelites. Fulfilment of promise means acting on it and guarding against its breach.

The promise refers to the covenant which God had taken from His servants that they would believe in Him and worship Him. This meaning is supported by the next verse which says: “(as for) those who take a small price for the covenant of God and their (own) oaths.” Or, it may mean all promises in general, including the covenant of God.

The sentence, “then surely God loves those who guard (against evil),” is a syllogism from which a premise has been omitted for brevity. Its completed form would be as follows: then surely God loves him, because he guards against evil, and God loves those who guard against evil. The idea is that God bestows honor and dignity on His pious servants by loving them, and not by giving them licence to deceive, exploit and oppress His other servants.

The verse indicates that the divinely bestowed dignity is not so easily obtainable; it is not a common—place thing which could be attained by just verbal expression of belonging, or which may be used for racial or national supremacy by crafty and wily persons. The important condition for attainment of Divine Dignity is piety and fulfilment of the covenant made with God. When these conditions are fulfilled the said dignity is achieved. That dignity means God’s love, friendship and guardianship, which are not given except to His pious servants. It results in Divine help and happy life, which in its turn brings them prosperity and betters their condition in this world, and raises their rank in the hereafter.

This is the meaning of dignity which God bestows. It does not give rise to imposition of a certain race or nation on the shoulders of His servants, good and bad alike, giving the supposed “master race” freedom to do whatever they want and to say whatever they like. Thus, one day they would claim, “there is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way (to reproach);” saying next day that they were the friends of God to the exclusion of the other people; and yet another day, that they were the sons of God and His beloved ones. Thus, it leads them to create mischief in the earth and to destroy the tilth and the stock.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَشْتَرُونَ بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ وَأَيْمَانِهِمْ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَٰئِكَ لَا خَلَاقَ لَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ وَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَلَا يَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهِمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلَا يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ٧٧

(3:77) (As for) those who take a small price for the covenant of Allah and their (own) oaths—surely they shall have no portion in the hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them, nor will He look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they shall have a painful chastisement.

It explains the reason of the preceding statement. The Divine Dignity is exclusively reserved for those who fulfil the covenant of God and guard against evil—are pious; because the others those who take a small price for the covenant of God and their own oaths—have no honor, no dignity at all.

The fact is that whoever breaks the covenant of God and forsakes piety—not guarding himself against evil—does so just for the enjoyment of the vanities of this world, giving preference to immediate desires over everlasting happiness. He exchanges the covenant of God and the piety with a few worldly trinkets. That is why it has been likened to a trade deal: Covenant of God is the item sold; and insignificant worldly provision, its small price.

Surely they shall have no portion in the hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them … they shall have a painful chastisement: The descriptions of this group stand face to face with the attributes of the first group (Yea, whoever fulfils his promise and guards (against evil) …); and the consequences of their behavior are all negative. Keeping it in view, we find that:

First: The verse points to them with the demonstrative pronoun, ulā’ika (those, they), which is used for a distant object. It shows that they are far removed from nearness to God. Conversely, the pious ones who fulfil their covenant are brought nearer to God because He loves them.

Second: When God loves someone, he is given a portion in the hereafter; God will speak to him and look upon him on the Day of Resurrection, will purify him and forgive him, that is, will remove chastisement from him. God has mentioned three traits for those who break the covenant of God and their own oaths.

(1) They shall have no portion in the hereafter because they themselves had preferred this world’s share. It shows that “A small price” refers to this world. Of course, we have explained it above as the worldly provision; it was done because God has used adjective “small” for it and the same adjective has been used for the worldly provision in the verse: Say. The provision of this world is small (). In other word, the provision of the world is the world (itself).

(2) God will not speak to them, nor will he look upon them on the Day of Resurrection. It stands vis-a-vis the love which God has for His pious servants; in love, the lover wants to enjoy nearness with the beloved, by looking at him and talking to him when they are together. As God does not love this group, He will not speak to them nor look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, the day when they will be brought in His presence. The verse first mentions not speaking and then not looking upon; the description is in descending order; speaking shows more intimacy than looking upon; it is as though the verse wants to say: God shall not confer upon them any honor, neither great nor small.

(3) God will not purify them and they shall have a painful chastisement: The statements are unrestricted and unconditional. It implies that they shall remain unpurified and in chastisement both in this world and in the hereafter.

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِيقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ ٧٨

(3:78) Most surely there is a party amongst those who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be (a part) of the Book, and they say, It is from Allah, while it is not from Allah, and they tell a lie against Allah whilst they know.

al-Layy (= to spin, to entwine); when used with the head or tongue as its object, it means inclining, bending or tilting it. God says: they turn back their heads (); distorting (the word) with their tongues (). Apparently, it means that they recite the lies which they have invented against God in the same tone and style which they use for the Book, in order to confuse the people, making them believe that it was a part of the Book while it is not so.

The word “Book” has been repeated thrice in this sentence, in order to remove all possible ambiguity. The first “Book” refers to that which they wrote with their own hands and attributed to God; the second refers to the “Book” which was revealed by God; the third refers to the same Divine Revelation but the word was repeated to remove ambiguity and to indicate that the “Book,” being the Book of God, was too high and sublime to contain such forgeries—it is because the word “Book” has a connotation that points to sublimity.

The same was the cause of repeating the Divine Name, God, in the sentence, “And they say, it is from God, while it is not from God”. It means it is not from God Who is the true God and Who does not say except truth, as He Himself says: and the truth do I speak ().

The verse ends with the words, “And they tell a lie against God whilst they know”: It is refutation after refutation of their ascribing their forgeries to Divine Revelation. They were confusing the people by their distorted recitation; God refuted it and said, “while it is not (a part) of the Book”. Then they used to say, “it is from God;” God refuted them first by saying, “while it is not from God”; and then by declaring that “they tell a lie against God”. This repeated denial points to two new factors:

(1) Telling lies is their ingrained habit and persistent trait.

(2) It is not because of any confusion or ignorance that they have told such lies; they know that it is a lie and yet they say it.

Examining Narrations

1. al-Suyūṭī writes in al-Durr al-manthūr under the verse: Say: O People of the Book! come to a word, common between us and you …: “Ibn Jarīr has narrated through his chains from al-Suddī that he said: ‘Then the Messenger of God called them—that is, the delegation of the Christians of Najrān—and said: “O People of the Book! come to a word, common between us and you …” ’ ”

Author’s comment: The same book quotes another tradition of the same meaning through Ibn Jarīr from Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar b. al-Zubayr. The tradition apparently means that this verse was revealed about the Christians of Najrān. We have written a tradition in the beginning of the chapter, that its early part (up to eighty odd verses), was revealed about the Christians of Najrān; and this verse is included in that number. Some traditions say that the Messenger of God invited the Jews of Medina to a common word, until they accepted to pay jizyah. However, it is not in conflict with its revelation about the delegation of Najrān.

2. al-Bukhārī narrates through his chains from Ibn ʿAbbās from Abū Sufyān a long hadith in which he, inter alia, mentions the letter sent by the Messenger of God to Heraclius, the Roman emperor. Abū Sufyān says: “Then he (Heraclius) asked for the letter of the Messenger of God and read it; and it was written therein: ‘In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muḥammad, the Messenger of God to Heraclius, the emperor of Rome. Peace be on him who follows guidance. After this, I invite you to Islam. Accept Islam, and you will be saved (in the hereafter). Accept Islam and God will give you double reward. But if you turn back, then the sin of your people also will be on your shoulders. ‘O People of the Book! come to a word, common between us and you, that we shall not worship any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah’; but if they turn back, then say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims (Submitting ones) …’ ” (al-Ṣaḥīḥ, al-Bukhārī)

Author’s comment: It has also been narrated by Muslim in his aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ; and by al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-manthūr from al-Nasāʾī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Abī Ḥātim, all from Ibn ʿAbbās.

And it has been said that also the letter sent by the Messenger of God to Muqawqis, the Chief of the Copts, contained these very words of God, O People of the Book! come to a word, common between us and you …” There is a Cufic writing reputedly the original letter of the Prophet, its text conforming with his letter to Heraclius; and its photos are easily available throughout the Muslims world.

However, the historians say that the Messenger of God wrote the letters which he sent through various envoys to many kings and rulers (like: Heraclius, Kisrā and al-Najāshī) in the sixth year of hijrah. It proves that this verse was revealed in the sixth year or even earlier. On the other hand, the historians (like: al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Athīr and al-Maqrīzī) have written that the delegation of the Christians of Najrān had come to the Messenger of God in the tenth year of hijrah, while others (like: Abu al-Fidāʾ in al-Bidāyah wa al-nihāyah and al-Ḥalabī in al-Sīrah al-Ḥalabiyyah) say that it was in the ninth year. If so, then the verse would have been revealed in the ninth of tenth year of hijrah. Sometimes, it is said that it was revealed in the early years of hijrah as the traditions written hereafter will show. Others say that it was revealed twice, as al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar has reported.

Nevertheless, the verses of the chapter are connected with each other in a single context, as we had pointed out in the beginning of the chapter; and it supports the view that the verse was revealed long before the ninth year. Consequently, the delegation must have come in the sixth year of hijrah or even earlier.

It is difficult to believe that the Prophet would write letters to rulers of Rome, Egypt and Fārs and ignore the people of Najrān who were nearer.

There is a point to note in the above quoted tradition. The letter begins with the formula, In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful . Keeping it in view, we may know the worth of the tradition copied earlier (in the story of Najrān’s delegation), from al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾilu al-nubuwwah. He narrates: “The Messenger of God wrote to the people of Najrān, before the (chapter of) ‘Ṭā Sīn’ (that is, the Ant) was revealed: ‘In the name of God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. From Muḥammad, the Messenger of God to the Bishop of Najrān and the people of Najrān. If you accept Islam, then I extol before you God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. After that I call you to the worship of God leaving aside the worship of the servants (of God), and I invite you to (come under) the guardianship of God instead of the guardianship of the servants. But if you refuse (it), then (you should pay) the head-tax; and if you refuse (even this), then I declare war against you. And peace (be on you).’ ”

Now, the chapter of the Ant is a Meccan one; and its textual evidence almost clearly proves that it was revealed before hijrah; how can that period be juxtaposed with the event of Najrān? Apart from that, the purported letter contains some other things which cannot be explained, like the demand of jizyah and ultimatum of war and other such things. And God knows better.

3. al-Ṭabarānī narrates from Ibn ʿAbbās: “Verily the letter of the Messenger of God to the unbelievers was: ‘come to a word common between us and you’ (al-Durr al-manthūr)
4. It is written in the same book about the words of God, O People of the Book! why do you dispute about Abraham, “Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Jarīr and al-Bayhaqī (in his Dalāʾilu al-nubuwwah) have narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said:

‘The Christians of Najrān and rabbis of the Jews came to the Messenger of God and disputed with one another near him. The rabbis said: “Abraham was but a Jew”; and the Christians said: “Abraham was but a Christian”. Thereupon, God revealed about them: O People of the Book! why do you dispute about Abraham, when the Torah and the Injīl were not revealed till after him?… and Allah is the Guardian of the believers. Then Abū Rāfi al-Quraẓī (a Jew from Banū al-Qurayẓah) said: “Do you demand from us, O Muḥammad! that we should worship you as the Christians worship Jesus son of Mary?” And one of the Najrānites said: “Is it what you wish, O Muḥammad?” And the Messenger of God said: “I seek protection of God that I should worship other than God or enjoin worship of other than Him. Not for this He has sent me or enjoined me.” Then God revealed concerning their talk: It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah’s ; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves).” Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; What! would He enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims? (). Thereafter God mentioned the covenant He had made with them and their forefathers that they should believe in the Prophet when he came to them, and to their acceptance of this fact; so He said: And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of the Book and Wisdom—then an Apostle comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)?” They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you (). (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comment: According to the text and context of the verses (It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and Judgment and Prophethood …) are applicable on Jesus son of Mary more meaningfully and in an easier way than on the Messenger of God, as we shall explain when writing on these verses. Perhaps what the tradition says concerning the revelation of these verses about the Messenger of God is just an inference of Ibn ʿAbbās. Moreover, when the Qur’an deals with such talks, it invariably always brings it in the form of question and answer or as a quotation with its refutation.

5. al-Kalbī has narrated the story of the hijrah to Abyssinia through Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās; and it has also been narrated by Muḥammad b. Isaac from Ibn Shahāb through his chains, that he said: “When Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib with a group of the Companions of the Prophet migrated to Abyssinia and settled there; and the Prophet migrated to Medina and there happened in Badr what happened, the Quraysh assembled in Dār al-Nadwah (the Town Hall) and said to each other: ‘You may avenge those who have been killed at Badr with those Companions of Muḥammad who are with al-Najāshī (Negus). Collect some money and send it as a present to al-Najāshī; perhaps he would hand over your tribesmen to you; and there should go two of your wise men as your envoys to him.’

“They sent ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ and ʿUmārah b. Abī MuʿAyt with presents (of) skins, etc. They sailed the sea and arrived at Abyssinia. When they came to al-Najāshī, they prostrated before him and greeted him; and said: ‘Our people are sincere and thankful to you, and they love your courtiers. They have sent us to you to warn you against these people who have come to you for, they follow an imposter who has stood up, claiming to be a Messenger of God; and none of us has followed him except a few simpletons. And we made life difficult for them and compelled them to take shelter in a narrow mountain valley of our land, with nobody visiting them, until hunger and thirst (nearly) destroyed them. When the situation became too tough for him, he sent his cousin to you, in order to create mischief here—in your religion, kingdom and subjects. Therefore, beware of them and hand them over to us; it will save you the trouble of dealing with them.’ Also, they said: And it is a sign (of their mischief) that when they come here they will not prostrate before you, nor will they greet you in the way the people greet you; (it is because of their) disliking your religion and customs.’

“Then al-Najāshī called them (that is, the Muslims). When they came, Jaʿfar called at the door: ‘The party of God ask permission to come before you.’ al-Najāshī said: ‘Tell this caller to repeat his words.’ Jaʿfar did, and al-Najāshī said: ‘Yes; let them enter with safety of God and His protection.’ ʿAmr looked at his colleague and said: ‘Do you not hear how they jabbered about the party of God and how the King responded to them?’ And they were displeased with it.

“Then (the Muslims) entered and did not prostrate before him. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ said: ‘Do you not see that they deem themselves too great to prostrate before you?’ al-Najāshī said to them: ‘What prevents you from prostrating before me and greeting me in the way all those do who come to me from furthest regions?’ They replied: ‘We do sajdah (prostration) to God Who created you and gave (this) kingdom to you. Of course, we were using the customary greeting when we were idolaters; then God raised among us a truthful Prophet, and he taught us the greeting which God is pleased with, and that is, “Peace,” the greeting of the people of the Garden.’ al-Najāshī knew that it was true and that it was in the Torah and Injīl. Then he said: ‘Who among you had called, “The party of God asks permission to come before you?” ’ Jaʿfar said: ‘I’ Then he (Jaʿfar) said: ‘You are a king from the People of the Book, and it is not proper to talk much before you, nor to do any injustice. I would like to answer on behalf of my Companions; therefore, order these two people that one of them should speak and the other should just listen; and you should listen to our talk.’ ʿAmr said to Jaʿfar: ‘Speak.’ Jaʿfar said to al-Najāshī: ‘Ask these two people whether we are slaves or free people. If we are slaves (and) have fled from our masters, then you should return us to them.’ an-Najāshī said: Are they slaves or free people?’ He (ʿAmr) said: ‘Nay; (they are) free and noble people.’ al-Najāshī said: ‘They are saved from slavery.’ Jaʿfar said: ‘Ask them if we have shed any blood unjustly, so that they want its requital from us?’ ʿAmr said: ‘No; not a single drop.’ Jaʿfar said: Ask them, if we have taken other people’s property without right, so that we have to repay it?’ al-Najāshī said: ‘Even if it is a heap of money I shall repay it.’ ʿAmr said: ‘No; not even a small amount.’ al-Najāshī said: ‘Then what do you want from them?’ (ʿAmr) said: ‘We and they were together on one religion, the religion of our forefathers; and they have left it and followed another religion. Therefore, our people have sent us so that you may hand them over to us.’ al-Najāshī said: ‘What was the religion you followed and what is that which they have now accepted?’ Jaʿfar said: As for the religion we followed before, it was the religion of the Satan; we disbelieved in God and worshipped the stone. And as for the religion to which we have turned, it is the religion of God, the Islam; it has been brought to us from God by a Messenger, coming with a Book like the Book of the son of Mary and conforming to it.’ al-Najāshī said: ‘O Jaʿfar! you have spoken a very great thing.’

“Then al-Najāshī ordered the gong to be rung. It was done and every priest and monk gathered near him. When all were assembled, al-Najāshī said: ‘I adjure you by God Who revealed the Injīl to Jesus, do you find (any news of) a prophet messenger between Jesus and the Day of Resurrection?’ They said: ‘By God! Yes. He has given us the good news of him and said: “Whoever shall believe in him shall believe in me, and whoever shall disbelieve in him shall disbelieve in me.” ’ al-Najāshī said to Jaʿfar: ‘What does this man say to you? What does he enjoin you to do? And what does he forbid you from?’ (Jaʿfar) said: ‘He recites to us the Book of God and enjoins us to do good and forbids us the evil; he enjoins us to be good to our neighbors and relatives and to the orphans, (and) tells us that we should worship God, the One, (Who) has no partner.’ (al-Najāshī) said to him: ‘Recite to me from what he recites to you.’ Then (Jaʿfar) recited to him the Chapters of ‘The Spider’ and ‘The Romans’. The eyes of al-Najāshī and his Companions overflowed with tears, and they said: ‘Recite to us some more from this good talk.’ Then Jaʿfar recited to them the Chapter of ‘The Cave’. (At this stage) ʿAmr, intending to incite (the anger of) al-Najāshī against them, said: ‘These people abuse Jesus and his mother.’ al-Najāshī said (to Jaʿfar): ‘Well, what do you say about Jesus and his mother?’ Then he (Jaʿfar) recited the Chapter of ‘Mary’. When he came to the story of Mary and Jesus, al-Najāshī raised his tooth-stick just a small bit (enough to disturb one’s eyes) and said: ‘By God! The Messiah did not say more then what you have said.’ Then he said turning towards Jaʿfar and his Companions: ‘Go, you are free in my land; you are safe from ill-treatment, and it will be a crime to give you any trouble.’ Again, he said: ‘Be of good cheer; do not be afraid; there is no downfall today for the party of Abraham.’ ʿAmr said: ‘O al-Najāshī! and who are the party of Abraham?’ (al-Najāshī) said: ‘This group and their companion (that is, the Prophet) whence they have come here, and those who follow them.’ The polytheists denied it and claimed (themselves to be on) the religion of Abraham. Then al-Najāshī gave back to ʿAmr and his companion the presents they had brought (to him), and said: ‘Surely your present is just a bribe; you take it back because God gave this kingdom to me and He did not take any bribe from me.’ Jaʿfar said: ‘Then we returned (from the court), and we were under the best protection.’ And God revealed to the Messenger (who was in Medina) the verse about their dispute about Abraham: Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him and this prophet and those who believe; and Allah is the Guardian of the believers. (al-Tafsīr, al-Khāzin)

Author’s comment: This story has been narrated with other chains, and also from the Ahl al-bayt. We have copied it here in spite of its length, and although it has nothing to do with the circumstances in which the verses under discussion were revealed, because it contains important information about the trials of the first migrants among the Muslims.

6. It has been narrated from al-Ṣādiq about the words of God, Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, that he said: “The Leader of the Faithful, said: ‘Neither a Jew praying to the West nor a Christian praying to the East; but he was an upright Muslim on the religion of Muḥammad.’ ” (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)

Author’s comment: We have explained in the Commentary the meaning of his being on the religion of Muḥammad, blessing of God be on them and their progenies! This tradition looks at the direction of prayer when the qiblah was changed to the Kaʿbah (and the Kaʿbah is almost to the south of Medina). The Jews and the Christians denied its validity; and felt themselves obliged to turn towards the west (where Bayt al-Maqdis is situated), or the east (to which the Christian face). This has been counted as a deviation of these two groups from the middle course. This aspect is supported by wordings of the verse: And thus We have made you a medium nation (). However, it is just an interesting and fine literary inference, and nothing more.

7. Explaining this verse, al-Sādiq said: “Pure, sincere, totally free from idol-worship.” (al-Kāfī)
8. The Leader of the Faithful said explaining the verse: Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed …: “Surely the nearest of the people to the prophets is he who practices most faithfully what they have brought.” Then he recited this verse and said: “Surely the friend of Muḥammad is he who obeys God, even if his relationship is far from him; and surely the enemy of Muḥammad is he who disobeys God, even if he has a near relationship with him.” (Majmaʿ al-bayān)
9. al-Ṣādiq said: “They are the Imams and their followers.” (al-Kāfī; al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
10. ʿUmar b. Udhaynah narrates from the same Imam that he said: “You, by God, are from the progeny of Muḥammad.” I said: “From themselves? May I be your ransom!” He said: “Yes, by God, from their own selves.” He said it three times; then he looked at me and I looked at him and he said: “O ʿUmar! surely God says in His Book: Most surely the nearest of people to Abraham … (al-Tafsīr, al-Qummī; al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
11. There is a tradition narrated from al-Bāqir that he said about this verse: And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief:

“Verily, when the Messenger of God came to Medina he was praying towards Bayt al-Maqdis, (and) the people (that is, the Jews) were pleased with it. When God turned him from Bayt al-Maqdis towards His Sacred House, the Jews were annoyed. And the change of qiblah had happened in the noon prayer. So they said: ‘Muḥammad prayed the morning prayer facing towards our qiblah; therefore, believe in that which was revealed to Muḥammad in the first part of the day; and disbelieve the latter part’; they meant (disbelieve in) the qiblah when the Messenger of God faced towards the Sacred Mosque.” (at-Tafsīr, al-Qummī)

Author’s comment: As you see, the tradition takes the adverbial phrase, (in) the first part of the day, as related to the verb, was revealed; and not to the verb, Avow belief. And we have explained it in the Commentary.

12. Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Ḥātim have narrated through al-ʿAwfī from Ibn ʿAbbās, that he said about the verse: And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief …: “A party of the Jews said: ‘Avow belief when you meet the Companions of Muḥammad in the first part of the day; and when it is the end of it then pray (according to) your own prayer; perhaps they, that is, the believers, would say: ‘These are the People of the Book and they are more knowledgeable than us.” Perhaps they would then turn away from their religion.’ ” (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comment: This meaning has been narrated in the same book from al-Suddī and Mujāhid also.

13. al-Bāqir said about the verse 2:27: “It has been revealed about the covenant: (As for) those who take a small price for the covenant of Allah and their own oaths—surely they shall have no portion in the hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them, nor will He look upon them on the Day of Resurrection nor will He purify them, and they shall have a painful chastisement. And ‘portion’ means share. So he who shall have no share in the hereafter, with what will he enter the Garden?” (al-Kāfī)
14. al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī narrates through his chains from ʿAdiyy b. ʿAdiyy from his father that he said: “Imraʾ al-Qays and a man from Ḥaḍramawt brought their dispute concerning a land to the Messenger of God. (The Prophet) said: ‘Do you have a proof?’ He said: ‘No.’ (The Prophet) said: ‘Then (it will be decided) by his (that is, the opposite party’s) oath.’ He said: ‘Then, by God, he will take away my land.’ (The Prophet) said: ‘If he takes your land by his (false) oath, he shall be among those that God will not look upon him on the Day of Resurrection nor will He purify him and he shall have a painful chastisement.’ (Hearing this) the man was frightened and gave the land back to him.” (al-Amālī, al-Shaykh)

Author’s comment: As you see, the tradition does not show that the verse was revealed about this event. Several traditions have been narrated through the Sunnī chains that it was revealed about this event. But those traditions give conflicting reports. Some like the above, say, that the dispute was between Imraʾ al-Qays and a man from Ḥaḍramawt; others say that the conflict was between al-Ashʿath b. al-Qays and a Jew concerning a land; yet, another tradition says that it was revealed about an unbeliever, who had offered in the market a merchandise for sale, and in order to deceive a Muslim customer, swore by God that he was offered for it a price which in reality he was not offered. Then the verse was revealed.

You have seen in the Commentary that obviously the verse explains the reason of the preceding verse. In this background utmost that is possible is to take these traditions as an application of the verse on that happening ; but they cannot be accepted as an account of the circumstances in which the verse was revealed.

---

1. al-Sawāʾ is a maṣdar, although it is commonly used as an adjective to denote a thing both sides of which are equal. (Auth.) ↩︎

2. See al-Mīzān (Eng. trans.), vol. 2, under verse . (Trans.) ↩︎

3. al-Ṭāʾifah (wanderer, rover, walker about). The people, and especially Arabs, used to live—in the beginning—a nomadic life; their tribes and clans used to wander around with their cattle looking for water and pasture, from season to season; they travelled in groups as a safety measure against attack and assassination. They were then called “A wandering party”; gradually the noun, ‘party’ was dropped, and the adjective al-Ṭāʾifah took its place. (Auth.) ↩︎

4. See al-Mīzān (Eng. trans.), vol. 3. (Trans.) ↩︎

5. al-Shahādah (= presence; knowledge through external senses; witness). (Auth.) ↩︎

6. al-Labs means to create doubt; to confuse; to confound. (Auth.) ↩︎

7. al-Faḍl (surplus; that which is in excess). This word is used in commendatory sense, while al-fuḍūl is used as a derogatory term. (Auth.) ↩︎

8. Like rhyme and similarity of paradigm. (Trans.) ↩︎

9. al-Qinṭār (figuratively used for huge amounts); al-dīnār (a coin). (Auth.) ↩︎

10. illā mā dumta ʿalayhi qāʾiman. It is said that mā has changed the verb into al-maṣdar (infinitive verb) ; and the sentence means, “except that you remain standing over him”. (Auth.) ↩︎

11. al-Tawfiyah is to give completely; al-istīfāʾ is to take completely. (Auth.) ↩︎

12. Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the friends of Allah to the exclusion of other people … (Qur’an, ). (Auth.) ↩︎

13. And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones (Qur’an, ). (Auth.) ↩︎

14. al-Ishtirāʾ (is to sell); “they take a small price for the covenant of God and their (own) oaths,” that is, they exchange the covenant and oaths for provisions of this world. (Auth.) ↩︎

15. al-Khalāq (portion, share); al-tazkiyah (to make grow, good growing; to purify). (Auth.) ↩︎

16. al-Ākhirah (= the hereafter); it stands for al-dār al-ākhirah (the abode in the hereafter; the everlasting abode); it is used for life after death. In the same way, al-dunyā (the world) stands for al-dār al-dunyā (worldly abode), which is used for the life before death. (Auth.) ↩︎

17. See al-Mīzān (Eng. trans.), vol. 5. (Trans.) ↩︎

18. The first such letter discovered was that sent to Muqawqis. Its photo was published in the al-Hilāl of November, 1904. It is now in Istanbul (Turkey). A third letter sent to the co-rulers of Oman, ʿAbd and Jayfar, sons of Julandā, was discovered not very long ago. (Trans.) ↩︎

19. The correct name of this person is ʿUmārah b. ʿUqbah b. Abī Muʿayṭ. But the real person who accompanied ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ to Abyssinia, in the first journey, was ʿUmārah b. al-Walīd b. al-Mughīrah al-Makhzūmī, the brother of Khālid b. al-Walīd; and in the next journey ʿAmr was accompanied by ʿAbdullāh b. Abī Rabīʿah b. al-Mughīrah al-Makhzūmī. (Ed.) ↩︎