Appearance
Verses 79–80
The verses come after those related to the affairs of Jesus; it implies that it is the second stage of the argument exonerating Jesus from the responsibility of what the Christians believe about him. We may summarize the whole argument as follows:
Jesus was not as you think about him. Neither was he Lord nor had he claimed Lordship for himself. (1) He was not Lord, because he was a mortal creature; was conceived in his mother’s womb who gave birth to him and brought him up in a cradle. Of course, just like Adam, he had no father, thus his likeness was with God as the likeness of Adam. (2) Nor had he claimed to be Lord, because he was a prophet, and was given the Book, the Judgment and Prophethood; and a prophet, having that status, cannot transgress the limit of servitude, nor can he divest himself of submission to God.
How can a prophet tell people: Take me as your Lord, be my servants rather than God’s? Or, how can he allow it for any other creature of God? A prophet would never enjoin men to take the angels or the prophets for lords. He would not give to any servant of God more than his due, nor would he deny prophethood of any prophet of God divesting him of his status and dignity.
مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِي مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَٰكِنْ كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ ٧٩
(3:79) It is not meet for a man (li basharin) that Allah should give him the Book and the 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):
Li in li-basharin denotes ownership; that is, it does not belong to him; it is not meet for him; he has no right to it. The same expression has been used in some other places; for example, It does not beseem us that we should talk of it (); And it is not attributable to a prophet that he should act unfaithfully ().
The clause, “that God should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood,” is the subject of kāna (= was; is). It prepares the ground for the next statement; “then he should say to men; ‘Be my servants rather than God’s.’ ” Apparently, the sentence could be shortened by omitting the introductory clause, “that God should give him the Book …”; yet, it was inserted to give a new connotation to the phrase, “It is not meet for a man”. Let us see what happens if the sentence is rewritten, omitting the introductory clause; then the verse would run as follows: It is not meet for a man that he should say to men. The meaning then would be as follows: He was not given that right, although possibly he could say so if he transgressed the limit and became insolent. But there is no room for such inference in the sentence as it now stands. The verse in the present form means as follows: When God gives a man knowledge and gnosis of reality, and brings him up with Divine Care, that man can never transgress the boundary of servitude; nor does he feel free to interfere in what does not belong to him, or to dispose what he has no right to; as God describes the declaration of Jesus, in the verse: And when Allah will say: O Jesus son of Mary! did you say to men, ‘take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah’ , he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say) ().
The verse says, “that God should give him ,” instead of saying: a man whom God gave the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood. The reason for it is clear from the above explanation. The latter wording points only to the basic legislative prohibition of such transgression. On the other hand, the present construction, “that God should give him ....,” shows that such behavior is definitely impossible. The Divine Guidance and upbringing cannot fail to attain its goal, as God says: These are they whom We gave the Book and the Judgment and the Prophethood, therefore if these (the tribesmen of the Messenger of God,) disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it ().
In short, the verse says that it is not possible for a man to join these Divine Favors with calling the men to his own worship. It is not possible when he is given a Book, the Judgment and Prophethood that he should say to men: Be my servants rather than God’s. In this context the verse resembles to a certain extent the verses: The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him and as for those who disdain and are proud, He will chastise them with a painful chastisement. And they shall not find for themselves besides Allah a guardian or a helper (). The implication is that the Messiah and the angels who are near to God are too high in prestige and too great in status to disdain the worship of God; because disdaining His worship brings painful chastisement on the culprit; and far be it from God to chastise His honored prophets or the near angels.
Objection: The verse uses the word, thumma (then) in the phrase, “then he should say to men”; this conjunctive denotes some delay; and the delay does not conform with the joining you have mentioned.
Reply: What we have said about joining the Divine Favors with calling men to disbelief gives the gist of the matter. Togetherness and combination can happen with simultaneous things as well as with two things appearing consecutively—that too is a sort of combination.
Be my servants rather than God’s: The proviso, “rather than God’s,” has been added after the words, “my servants,” as a matter of necessity. God does not accept any worship unless it is purely for His own person. God says: Now, surely, sincere religion (obedience) is for Allah (alone); and (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, (saying), We do not worship them save that they may make us nearer to Allah , surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful (). Thus, God has rejected outright the worship of those who join worship of others with His worship, even if the others are worshipped merely as interceders and intermediaries, and only with intention of reaching near God through them.
Moreover, the reality of worship does not come into existence until some independence is admitted for the worshipped even in polytheism. The partner, per se, has some independence; while in reality it is only to God that absolute Lordship and Godhead belongs. Therefore, His Lordship cannot be complete, nor can His worship be correct except with negation of independence from every other thing in every possible way. The worship of someone else is worship of other than God, even if God is worshipped with him.
...but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord (al-Rabbānī) because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves):
al-Dirāsah (to study) is more specific than al-Taʿallum (to learn; to study), as the former is generally used for studying from book by reading and reciting. al-Rāghib says:
Daras al-dār (vestiges of the house remained); it implies that the house itself was obliterated; and for this reason al-durūs is translated as obliteration. Likewise, daras al-kitāb (or, daras al-ʿilm) means, he got trace of book (or, knowledge) memorizing it; he grasped its meaning. As it is attained by regular recitation, such recitation is called memorization. God says: and they have read what is in it (); because of your teaching the Book and reading; And We have not given them any books which they read ().”
The theme is that a man having such a high status will call you only to attainment of faith and to believe in the teachings of the Book which you learn and teach—the Book that contains the fundamental Divine Knowledge; he will enjoin you to acquire noble character and good traits found in the Book; and to practise and do good deeds to which you call the people. He will do so, in order that you attach yourselves exclusively to your Lord, and thus become divine scholars.
Bi-mā kuntum (lit., because you were), being a past tense, shows that the action had already taken place; that the audience was already teaching and reading the Book. It gives a hint that, possibly, it is an allusion to the Christians, who said that Jesus had told them that he was the son of God and His Word (with all the differences in the meaning of sonship). The fact is that the Children of Israel had been given a revealed Book which they taught and read; then they differed in it—a difference that was accompanied by textual changes and alterations. Jesus was sent only to explain to them a part of what they differed in and to allow them part of that which was forbidden them; in short, to call them to fulfil their obligations concerning the learning and teaching—that they should attach themselves exclusively to their Lord in reading and teaching His Book.
Although the verse may somehow be applied to the Messenger of God—because his mission covered the People of the Book too, who used to teach and read the Book of God—but Jesus was before the Prophet and the verse applies to him in a more befitting manner; also because he was sent exclusively to the Children of Israel, unlike the Messenger of God.
So far as other ulu al-ʿAzm prophets (who came with a Book), that is, Noah, Abraham and Moses are concerned, the verse obviously cannot be applied to them.
وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَنْ تَتَّخِذُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ أَرْبَابًا ۗ أَيَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ ٨٠
(3:80) Or that he should enjoin you (yaʾmurakum) that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)?
A group of the People of the Book had taken the angels for lords. For instance, the Sabaeans worshipped the angels and attributed that custom to the authority of religion. Likewise the Arabs, while claiming to follow the religion of Abraham, said that the angels were God’s daughters.
As for taking the prophets for lords, the Jews, for instance, said that ʿUzayr was the son of God—as the Qur’an quotes them—although Moses had not allowed it to them, nor was there in the Torah anything other than monotheism. Had Moses allowed it to them he would be enjoining it—far be it from him!
The style of the verse, “then he should say to men: ‘Be my servants rather than God’s’ ,” differs in two ways from that of the next verse, “Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords”: (1) The subject matter in the former is worship of other than God, and in the latter it is taking them for lords. (2) The people enjoined in the former are described in third person, “men,” while the latter addresses them directly in second person. Let us look at both changes:
First: The former verse adversely alludes to the Christians concerning their worship of Jesus. As is known, they believe in his godhead openly, saying that he had invited them to his own worship. Thus they have clearly ascribed this call to Jesus that he said to them: ‘Be my servants’. On the other hand, taking the angels and the prophets for lords (in the meaning used in the case of others than Jesus) is opposed to the belief of monotheism only by implication, not clearly. That is why the latter verse uses the word, “lords,” instead of gods.
Second: Both expressions (Be my servants; that he should enjoin you) deal with a subject which was relevant to the audience of these verses, that is, the People of the Book and the Arabs. The first verse has used the word, “should say”; and “saying” implies a face to face talk. But the people present at the time of the Prophet were not present at the material time, that is, when Jesus was supposed to say it. It is for this reason that the verse says, “he should say to men,” instead of saying, he should say to you. On the other hand, the second verse uses the word “enjoin”; enjoining does not necessarily require face to face talk; it may be done even when the enjoined one is absent. An order given to, or a matter connected with, the ancestors is applied to the later generations if the latter identify themselves with the former. As for “saying”—because it employs transmission of voice—it denotes oral conversation and presence of the audience (except when it is used simply in the meaning of instruction).
It is therefore evident that basically these verses require second person plurals (as in, or that he should enjoin you); but exception was made in the first verse owing to special reasons.
What! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)? Apparently, the question is directed to all who followed a prophet like the People of the Book, or claimed to do so like the Arabs of the days of Ignorance who believed that they were on the religion of Abraham. The talk is based on a hypothetical proposition and the meaning is as follows: If it is true that you do follow this man who was given the Book, the Judgment and Prophethood, then you have already submitted to God, acquiring the characteristics of Islam; then how will it be possible for that prophet to enjoin you with disbelief, diverting you from the very path to which he had guided you by the order of God?
It is clear from the above explanation that in this verse, Islam refers to the religion of monotheism; the religion which God sent all the prophets with. This view is supported by other verses preceding and following this verse, in which the word, “Islam,” has been used in this very meaning: Surely the religion with Allah is Islam (); Is it then other than Allah’s religion that they seek (to follow) … 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 ().
An exegete has said:
The two verses under discussion refer to the Messenger of God. His view is based on a tradition (quoted earlier) describing the circumstances of its revelation which says that Abū Rāfiʿ al-Quraẓī and a Najrānite Christian said to the Messenger of God: “Do you want us to worship you? O Muḥammad!” Then God revealed: It is not meet for a man that God should give him … after you are Muslims?
Then the said exegete has argued by the last phrase, After you are Muslims; “because Islam is the religion brought by Muḥammad.”
Comment: He has confused the Islam of Qur’anic terminology (the religion of monotheism which was preached by all the prophets) with the Islam of the Muslims’ terminology—a term which came into use after the time of revelation. (We have explained it earlier).
Discourse
The discussions “Conclusion (Having Seven Sections)”; “The Story of Jesus and his Mother in the Qur’an”; “Position of Jesus Before God and in His Sight”; “What Jesus Said, and What was Said About Him?”; “Argument of the Qur’an against the Belief of the Trinity”; “Jesus is an Intercessor, not a Redeemer”; “The Origin of These Beliefs”; “Which Book the People of the Book Belong to? What is its Condition?”; “Judaism and Christianity from Historical Point of View”; “The History of the Present Torah:”; “The Story of Jesus and the Gospels:” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.
Examining Narrations
- al-Qummī narrates about the verse: 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 rather than Allah’s:
“Surely Jesus did not say to men: ‘I have created you, therefore you should be my servants rather than God’s’, rather he said to them: ‘Be worshippers of the Lord’, that is, having true knowledge.” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: The context and associations given in the Commentary support this explanation. “Surely Jesus did not say to men: ‘I have created you.’ ” It is a sort of a proof to show that he had not said it. Had he told them to worship him, it would have been necessary to tell them that he was their creator; but he had not said it, nor had he created them.
- The same exegete narrates about the verse: Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords. “There were people who worshipped the angels; the Christians thought Jesus was the Lord; and the Jews said that ʿUzayr was the Son of God. God therefore said that no prophet would enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for Lords.” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: It has been explained in the Commentary.
- It is narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr from Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and al-Bayhaqī (in his Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah) from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said: “When the Jewish scholars and Christians of Najrān gathered near the Messenger of God and he invited them to Islam, Abū Rāfiʿ al-Quraẓī said: ‘Do you wish, O Muḥammad, that we should worship you as the Christians worship Jesus son of Mary?’ Thereupon a Christian of Najrān said: ‘Well, do you want this from us, O Muḥammad?’ The Messenger of God said: ‘I seek refuge in God that we should worship other than God, or that we should enjoin worship of someone else; He has neither sent me with it nor has He enjoined me this.’
Therefore, God, revealed the verses (because of their question): It is not meet for a man … after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
- It is reported in the same book: “ʿAbd b. Hamid has narrated from al-Ḥasan that he said: ‘I have been told that a man said: “O Messenger of God! We greet you (exactly) as we greet each other. Should not we prostrate before you?” He said: “No. But you should honor your Prophet, and recognize the right of the ones having that right; because prostration should not be done for anyone other than God.” Then God revealed the verses: It is not meet for a man … after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?’ ” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: Also other events have been narrated concerning revelation of these verses. Obviously, all of them are based on academic inferences: and we have discussed in detail about them. Also, it is possible for various reasons to combine in relation to one verse. And God knows better.
al-Bashar (= man) is synonymous with “al-insān”; it is used for singular as well as plural; one man is al-bashar and also a group of men is al-bashar. (Auth.) ↩︎
al-ʿIbād like al-ʿAbīd is plural of al-ʿAbd (= slave; servant); the difference between the two plurals is in usage; al-ʿibād is mostly used in relation to God, for example, ʿibād allāh (= slaves/servants of God); while al-ʿAbīd is generally used when related to man; they say, ʿAbīd al-nās (= slaves/servants of men), and not ʿibād al-nās. (Auth.) ↩︎
al-Rabbānī (translated here as worshippers of the Lord) is derived from al-Rabb (the Lord), to which ‘A’ and ‘n’ have been added for augmentation of meaning; as for example, they use: al-liḥyānī for one having a luxuriant beard. Thus al-Rabbānī means the one having special relationship with the Lord, and spending his life in His servitude and worship. Bi in bi-mā is causative, and means “because”; while mā is for al-maṣdar and has changed the past tenses into infinitive verbs; that is why we have translated it in the following way: but rather (he would say): ‘Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)’ (Auth.) ↩︎
The verb yaʾmurakum (= or that he should enjoin you), because of the vowel A after yaʾmur (according to the well-known and common recital), is in conjunction with “he should say”. (Auth.) ↩︎