فَمَنْ حَآجَّكَ فِيهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا۟ نَدْعُ أَبْنَآءَنَا وَأَبْنَآءَكُمْ وَنِسَآءَنَا وَنِسَآءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَى ٱلْكَـٰذِبِينَ

“But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61).

إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَهُوَ ٱلْقَصَصُ ٱلْحَقُّ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـٰهٍ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَهُوَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ

“Most surely this is the true story, and there is no god but Allah; and most surely Allah is the Mighty, the Wise” (3:62).

فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌۢ بِٱلْمُفْسِدِينَ

“But if they turn back then surely Allah knows the mischief makers” (3:63).

Commentary

Verse 61

Qur’an: “But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge…” (3:61).

“Fa” ( فَ = translated here as “But”) shows that the offer of al-mubahalah ( اَلْمُبَاهَلَةُ = earnest imprecation) branches out from the Divine teaching explained above so clearly and convincingly about ‘Isa son of Maryam (‘a), and ended so emphatically with the words,

“The truth is from your Lord, so be not of the doubters” (3:60).

“In this”: The pronoun “this” refers either to ‘Isa or to the “truth” mentioned in the preceding verse.

The preceding verses were Divine Revelation in which there could be no doubt at all. Apart from that, they contained a clear logical proof, that is, the verse: “Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam....” (3:59). Thus, the knowledge emanating from these verses is two-fold: one, because it is a Divine Speech: two, because of its rational proof. That is why this knowledge was not reserved for the Prophet only; others too could understand it. Even if someone did not believe it to be a Divine Revelation, he could not entertain any doubt about the truth of the subject discussed, because it contained rational argument which unbiased mind was bound to accept. Perhaps that is why Allah said: “after what has come to you of knowledge” (3:61); and did not say, after what We have explained to them.

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

Qur’an: “Then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves” (3:61).

The first-person plural pronoun in “let us call” has a different import from the plural pronouns in “our sons” “our women” and “our selves”. The former refers to both parties of the argument, that is, the advocates of Islam and those of Christianity, while the latter refer to the side of Islam only.

Accordingly, the meaning would be as follows: Let us both call the sons, the women and the ‘selves’; we should call our sons, our women and our ‘selves’, and you should call your sons, your women and your ‘selves’. The verse thus has shortened a long sentence in a meaningful and pleasant way.

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

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

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

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

Moreover, the meaning of a word in a verse is one thing, and it is quite another matter as for whom, or on how many people, could that word be applied in practice. We find numerous examples in the Qur’an where an order, a promise or a threat has been mentioned using plural words, but the circumstances of its revelation show that it was revealed for one person only. For example:

“(As for) those of you who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers, they are not their mothers” (58:2).

“And (as for) those who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers then would recall what they said...” (58:3).

“Allah has certainly heard the saying of those who said: “Surely Allah is poor, and we are rich” (3:181).

“And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: “Whatever can be spared” (2:219).

There are a lot of verses that were revealed with plural words, although the events for which they were revealed concerned only one person.

Qur’an: “then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61)

“al-Ibtihal” ( اَلْاِبْتِهَالُ ) is derived from al bahlah ( اَلْبَهْلَةُ ) also pronounced al-buhlah ( اَلْبَهْلَةُ = curse). This is its basic meaning; then it was commonly used for earnest prayer.

The words, “and bring about the curse of Allah” (3:61), are a sort of explanation for the preceding verb, “then let us pray earnestly” (3:61). The verse said, “and bring about the curse of Allah” (3:61); it did not say ‘and ask from Allah to curse’. It was an indication that that prayer would surely be granted because at that juncture it was the only way to distinguish the truth from the falsehood.

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

This observation leads us to another reality. All those who came out for the proposed imprecation were equal partners in their respective claim. Had the claim and the resulting imprecation been between the Prophet only and the Christians, one party (i.e., the Prophet) would demand singular words, and the other, plural. In such cases, it is necessary to use an expression which would cover singular and plural both. For example, the sentence under discussion could have been written like this: and bring about the curse of Allah on whosoever is lying. But it says: “... on the liars.” (3:61) It proves that indeed there were liars (in plural) in one party to the argument, either on the side of the Prophet or on the Christians’ side.

Consequently, all those who came out for the imprecation would be partners in the claim - because lie presupposes a claim. Therefore, those who were present on the side of the Prophet for the imprecation - i.e., ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn - were partners in the claim of the Messenger of Allah (S) and his Mission. It is one of the most excellent virtues which were given exclusively to these family members of the Prophet (peace be on them all!). Another exclusive excellence: Allah gave them the names of ‘selves’, women, and sons of the Prophet to the exclusion of all the men, women, and children of the ummah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: All the Christians who had come in the delegation of the Najran were a party to a claim - the claim that ‘Isa was God, and the son of God, and one of the three persons of God. There was no discord among them in this matter, nor was there any difference in this claim between their men and women. Likewise, the claim on the side of the Prophet - that Allah is One, there is no god but He; and ‘Isa son of Maryam was His servant and His messenger - was upheld by all the believers; it was not confined to any one of them - not even the Prophet. Therefore, it is out of place to say that those who were brought by the Prophet for the imprecation had any superiority or excellence over the rest of the believers. In fact, the Prophet had brought them just as examples of the sons, women and selves mentioned in the verse.

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

Reply: Had the Prophet brought them just as samples, it was necessary for him to bring at least two other men, three women and three sons - to comply with the demand of the plurals. Yet, he did not do so. It proves that only those who came with him were worthy of being called his sons, his women and his selves - to the exclusion of all the others. Only on accepting this fact, we can say that he obeyed the Divine Order given in this verse. In other words, he could not find any one worthy of being included in these categories, except the one man, one woman and two children whom he brought with him. There was no one else whom he could be included in compliance with the plural words of the verse. In these circumstances, he fully complied with the order, although he could not bring three persons in any category.

Moreover, if you ponder on the events, you will see that the only aim of the Christians of Najran in coming to Medina was to confront the Messenger of Allah (S) and to argue with him about ‘Isa son of Maryam. It was the Messenger of Allah who was claiming that ‘Isa was a servant of Allah and His messenger. It was he who called others to believe in this claim, saying that it was based on Divine Revelation - the revelation which, he said, was sent to him. As for the rest of the believers, the Christians had nothing to do with them; nor did they argue with them. That is why Allah has used singular verbs and pronouns in the beginning of this verse, when referring to the Prophet: “But whoever disputes with you (literally: thee) in this after what has come to you (lit.: thee) of knowledge, then say (lit.: say thou)...” The same is the case of this verse:

“But if they dispute with you (lit. :thee), say (lit. :say thou): “I have submitted myself (entirely) to Allah and (so has) everyone who follows me” (3:20).

The above explanation shows that the Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be on him and his progeny!) had not brought those personalities as samples or examples of other believers - because the believers, per se, had no part in that disputation or imprecation; and there was no reason why they should be offered as targets for the curse and punishment which were to come to one of the two parties (the Christians and their adversary, i.e., the Prophet).

The Prophet himself was a party to that argument and it was his obligation to offer himself as the target of the calamity which could come to him in case his claim was (God forbid!) wrong. Now, there was no reason why he should bring ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (‘a) with him, if his claim were not dependent on them also, as it was on his own self. He had come with them for imprecation because they were the only sons, woman and self on whom his claim depended. Surely, he had not brought them as samples or examples. It is now crystal clear that these personalities were his partners in his claim; the claim depended on them as it did on him.

Furthermore, the Christians had come to argue with the Prophet not just because he believed that ‘Isa son of Maryam was the servant and messenger of Allah. They had taken upon themselves to come all the way to Medina because in addition to claiming those things about ‘Isa, he had called and invited them to believe likewise. This call, this mission, was the main reason why they had come in a delegation for argument. Consequently, when the Prophet came to the appointed place of imprecation, bringing with him the four personalities, it was because of that claim and that call together. Thus, these personalities were his partners in his mission, as they had been his partners in his claim.

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

Reply: It is true that the beginning of the verse does not show more than that which has been mentioned above. But the end of the verse, that is, “on the liars” (3:61), shows that there were surely liars (in plural) in one of the two sides of the argument and imprecation. Such expression could only be used if there were several people in each group, all making some claim - be it true or false. Therefore, those who were brought there by the Prophet were indeed his partners, both in the claim and in the mission, as was explained above. It is thus proved that those who were present there with the Prophet - all of them - were parties to the claim and the mission, together with the Prophet, and were his partners in it.

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

Reply: Not at all. We have explained earlier where we have discussed “Prophethood”1 that the Call and Propagation are not one and the same with the prophethood, although they are among its conditions and concomitants, and are parts of the divinely bestowed responsibilities which a prophet takes upon himself. Likewise, we have made it clear in the discourse about the Imamah 2 that they are not identical with Imamah either, although they are in a way among its concomitants.

Verse 62

Qur’an: “Most surely this is the true story, and there is no god but Allah...” (3:62).

The demonstrative pronoun “this” refers to the earlier mentioned stories of ‘Isa (‘a). There is a fine literary transposition in the sentence. What it says is as follows: Most surely the stories We have told you concerning ‘Isa are the truth - not that which is told by the Christians.

There is multiple emphasis in this sentence: Inna ( ١ِنّ = surely), and la ( ل = surely) followed by an additional pronoun huwa (هؤ =this) are all combined together to put utmost emphasis on this statement. It was done to cheer the Prophet and to encourage him and strengthen his heart for the coming imprecation, by augmenting his certainty and insight, and fortifying his confidence in the revelation which Allah had sent to him. It is further strengthened by additional emphasis contained in the next sentence which describes an accompanying reality: “and there is no god but Allah” (3:62). This fact once again shows that the preceding stories are truth.

Qur’an: “… And most surely Allah is the Mighty, the Wise” (3:62).

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

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

Verse 63

Qur’an: “But if they turn back then surely Allah knows the mischief makers” (3:63).

What should be the actual aim of any argument or imprecation? The manifestation of the truth. If so, then it is unthinkable for a seeker of truth to turn back from it. If the Christians really wanted the truth to be manifested - and they knew that Allah was the Guardian of truth and that He would never allow it to be destroyed or invalidated - they would not turn back from the proposed imprecation. And if they did, it would show that their aim by all this argumentation and disputation was not the manifestation of truth; they only wanted apparent victory, preservation of the status they had and beliefs they followed, and continuation of the customs and Traditions with which they were familiar.

Their only goal was that which their desire, lust and greed had made to seem fair to them - and it was not the good life which conforms with truth and happiness; it was but a semblance of life. In other words, they did not want reform and improvement; they wanted to make mischief in the world by corrupting the good life. Their turning back would mean that they were mischief-makers.

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

The second part of the sentence refers to the Divine Attribute of knowledge, and it has been emphasized with addition of inna (surely), as it says: “then surely Allah knows…” (3:63). It was to show that mischief-making and thwarting the manifestation of truth was ingrained in their psyche, and Allah knows that as a result of that deep-rooted trait they will surely turn back from the imprecation. And so they did, and by doing so proved the truth of the Divine Words.

Traditions

As-Sadiq (‘a) said: “When the Christians of Najran came to the Messenger of Allah (S) as a delegation - and their leaders were al-Ahtam, al-‘Aqib, and as-Sayyid - and (the time of) their prayer came, they began to ring hand-bells and prayed. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! This in your Mosque?’ He said: ‘Let them be!’ When they finished (their prayer) they came near the Messenger of Allah and said: ‘To what do you call (us)?’ He said: ‘To bearing the witness that there is no god except Allah, and that I am the Messenger of Allah, and that ‘Isa was a servant created (by Allah), he used to eat, drink and relieve himself.’ They said: ‘Then who was his father?’ Thereupon came the revelation to the Messenger of Allah saying: ‘Say to them, “What do you say about Adam? Was he a servant created (by Allah) who used to eat, drink, relieve himself and cohabit?”’ The Prophet put this question to them, and they replied: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then who was his father?’ and they became speechless. Then Allah sent down (the verse):

“Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust...” (3:59).

And the verse:

“But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge... and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61).

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

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

When the morning came, they came to the Messenger of Allah (S) - and there were with him the Leader of the Faithful (‘Ali), Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (‘a). The Christians said: ‘Who are these?’ They were told: ‘This is his cousin, al-wasiy ( اَ١لوصى = executor of will) and son-in-law, and this is his daughter Fatimah, and these are his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn.’ So, they were frightened and said to the Messenger of Allah: ‘We shall pay you whatever you are pleased with but excuse us from the imprecation.’ Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (S) made agreement with them on (the condition of) al-jizyah (الجزْيَة = tax); and they went away.”3

Ar-Rayyan Ibn as-Salt narrates a talk between ar-Ridha’ (‘a) with al-Ma’mun and the scholars about the difference between the Prophet’s progeny and the rest of the ummah and the superiority of the former over the latter, in which he, inter alia, says: “The scholars said: ‘Has Allah explained (this) selection in His Book?’ ar-Ridha’ (‘a) said: ‘He has explained the selection manifestly in twelve places - apart from the hidden (references).’ Then he described those places of the Qur’an, during which he said: ‘As for the third (verse, it was) when Allah distinguished His purified creatures and ordered His Prophet to earnestly pray with them for His curse on the liars, in the verse of imprecation. So Allah, the Mighty, the Great, said:

“But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves” (3:61).

The scholars said: ‘our selves means the Prophet himself.’ Abu al-Hasan (ar-Ridha’) said: ‘You are mistaken. He only meant ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. And one of the proofs to show it is the saying of the Prophet (himself): “Banu Wali‘ah should give up (their mischief); otherwise, I will surely send to them a man like my own self” - referring to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. And He meant al-Hasan and al-Husayn with “sons” and meant Fatimah with “women”. So this is an exclusive virtue in which no one can precede them, and an excellence in which no man can equal them, and an honour in which no creature can overtake them, because He made ‘Ali’s person like his (Prophet’s) own self (person)...’ ”4

As-Saduq narrates through his chain from al-Imam Musa Ibn Ja‘far (peace be on both of them!), that he had a talk with (Harun) ar-Rashid, during which ar-Rashid said to him: “How is it that you say, ‘We are the offspring of the Prophet’, while the Prophet did not leave any offspring? And progeny is through male, not through female; and you are the children of the daughter, and her child is not (her father’s) progeny.” The Imam said: “I said to him: ‘I ask you by the right of kinship and that of the grave (i.e., of the Prophet) and of him who is therein, that you should excuse me from (replying to) this question.’ He said: ‘You shall tell me of your proof for it, O son of ‘Ali, and you, O Musa! are their leader and their present Imam - thus I have been informed - and I am not going to excuse you from any question I put to you until you bring me a proof from the Book of Allah; because you claim, O children of ‘Ali! that nothing of it (the Book) comes out from you - not even an alif or a waw - but you know its interpretation; and you advance the word of Allah, the Mighty, the Great, as your proof; “We have not neglected anything in the Book.” (6:38), and you are not in need of the opinion of scholars and their analogy.’

“Then I said: ‘Do you permit me to reply?’ He said: ‘Let me have.’ I said (reciting the Qur’anic verse): I seek refuge of Allah from the cursed Satan5. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful....

“.…And of his (Ibrahim’s) offspring, Dawud and Sulayman and Ayyub and Yusuf and Musa and Harun; and thus do We reward those who do good” (6:84).

“And Zakariyya and Yahya and ‘Isa and Ilyas; each one was of the good ones” (6:85).

I asked: Who was the father of ‘Isa? O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said: ‘He had no father.’ Then I said: ‘Yet He (Allah) has joined him with the progeny of the Prophets through Maryam; and in the same way Allah, the High, has joined us with the progeny of the Prophet through our mother, Fatimah.’ (Then I said): ‘Should I tell you more? O Leader of the Faithful!’ he said: ‘Let me have.’ I said: ‘(It is) the word of Allah, the Mighty, the Great:

“But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61).

And nobody has ever claimed that the Prophet - on the occasion of the imprecation with the Christians - made anyone enter under the drape except ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. So (this) was the interpretation of His Word: “our sons” meant al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and “our women”, Fatimah; and “our selves”, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.’ ” 6

Al-Ma’mun had asked ar-Ridha’ (‘a) several questions, one of which was as follows:

Al-Ma’mun said: “What is the proof for the caliphate of your grandfather, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib?”

(The Imam) said: “The verse of our selves.”

He (al-Ma’mun) said: “If there were not our women.”

He (the Imam) said: “If there were not our sons.”

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

Hariz narrates from Abu ‘Abdillah (‘a) that he said: “The Leader of the Faithful (‘Ali, ‘a) was asked about his excellent virtues. He mentioned some of them. Then they said to him: ‘Tell us (some) more.’ So he said: ‘Verily two Bishops of the Christians of Najran came to the Messenger of Allah, and talked (with him) on the subject of ‘Isa (‘a). Thereupon Allah revealed the verse: “Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam…” (3:59). Then the Messenger of Allah entered (the house),.and held the hands of ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, and Fatimah; then he came out, and raised his palms to the heaven and separated his fingers one from another; and called them (the Christians) to the imprecation.’”

(Abu ‘Abdillah, ‘a) then said: “And Abu Ja‘far (‘a) has said: ‘And that is the way of imprecation; one intertwines his hand in one’s (adversary’s) hand raising them to the heaven.’ “Thereupon when the two Bishops saw him, one of them said to his companion: “By God! If he is a prophet, we shall surely perish; and if he is not a prophet his (own) people would save us (from the trouble of confronting him).” So they gave up (the imprecation) and went back.’” 7

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

Ash-Shaykh at-Tusi has narrated it in his al-Amali, through his chains from ‘Amir Ibn Sa‘d from his father; and also through his chains from ‘Abdu’r-Rahman Ibn Kathir from as-Sadiq (‘a); and also through his chains from Salim Ibn Abi ’l Ja‘d, raising it to Abu Dharr; and also through his chains from Rabi‘ah Ibn Najid from ‘Ali (‘a).

Al-Mufid has narrated it in his al-Ikhtisas, through his chains from Muhammad Ibn az-Zibriqan from Musa Ibn Ja‘far (‘a); and also from Muhammad Ibn al-Munkadir from his father from his grandfather.

Al-‘Ayyashi has narrated it in his at-Tafsir from Muhammad Ibn Sa‘id al-Urdunni from Musa Ibn Muhammad Ibn ar-Ridha’ (‘a) from his brother; and also from Abu Ja‘far al-Ahwal from as-Sadiq (‘a); and also from al-Mundhir from ‘Ali (‘a); and also through his chains from ‘Amir Ibn Sa‘d.

Al-Furat has narrated it in his at-Tafsir several traditions to this effect, which separately reach to Abu Ja‘far (‘a), Abu Rafi‘, ash-Sha‘bi, ‘Ali (‘a), and Shahr Ibn Hawshab and several other Traditions to the same effect have been narrated in Rawdat al-wa‘izin, I‘lam al-wara, al-Khara’ij and other books.

It has been narrated in at-Tafsir of ath-Tha‘labi8 from Mujahid and al-Kalbi: “When the Prophet called the Christians for the imprecation, they said: ‘Let us return and think over it.’ When they were alone, they asked al-‘Aqib - and he was a man of good judgment among them: ‘O ‘Abd al-Masih! What is your opinion?’ He said: ‘By Allah! You are well-aware, O ye Christians! that Muhammad is a prophet, sent by Allah, and that he has brought to you the decisive word about your Companion (‘Isa, ‘a). By Allah! whenever a nation has entered into imprecation with a prophet, their elders have perished, and their youngsters have died. And if you do it, we shall surely perish; but, if you turn down, for the love of your religion and (want) to remain on what you have at present, then make peace with the man and go back to your towns.’

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

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

The author says: The event, nearly in similar words, has also been narrated in Kitabu al-Maghazi from Ibn Ishaq. Also, al-Maliki has narrated it in his al-Fusul al-muhimmah from many exegetes; and al-Hammuyi has narrated nearly similar tradition from Ibn Jurayh.

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

‘Amir son of Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas narrates from his father that he said: “Mu‘awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan ordered Sa‘d telling him, ‘What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (‘Ali, ‘a)?’ He said, ‘As for this matter, as long as I remember three things which the Messenger of Allah (S) has said (about ‘Ali) I will never abuse him; if even one of them were for me, it would have been dearer to me than red livestock.’

I heard the Messenger of Allah (S) saying, when he left him (‘Ali) as his Deputy (when going) for one of his battles. ‘Ali said to him, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Are you leaving me behind with women and children?’ Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (S) said to him: ‘Are you not pleased that you should have the same position with me that Harun had with Musa - except that there is no prophet after me?’ And I heard him saying on the day of Khaybar: ‘Most surely tomorrow I will give the standard (of army) to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger do love.’ (Sa‘d) said: ‘So we held our heads high (hoping to catch the eye of the Prophet).

But he said: ‘Call ‘Ali to me.’ So, he was brought (before him), sore-eyed; and (the Prophet) put (his) saliva in his eyes (and he was cured); and gave the standard to him. And Allah conquered (Khaybar) on his hand. And when this verse was revealed: “... then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves, then let us pray earnestly...” (3:61), the Messenger of Allah called ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and said: ‘O Allah! These are the People of my House.’ ”9

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by at-Tirmidhi in his as-Sahih, Abu al-Mu’ayyad al-Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad in his Kitab Fada’il ‘Ali, Abu Nu‘aym in his Hilyat al-awliya’ (from the same narrator as above), and al-Hammuyi in his Fara’idu ’s-simtayn.

Abu Nu‘aym narrates through his chains from ‘Amir Ibn Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he said: “When this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (S) called ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn and said: ‘O Allah! These are the People of my House.’ 10

Also he narrates in the same book through his chains from ash-Sha‘bi from Jabir that he said: “al-‘aqib and at-Tayyib came to the Messenger of Allah (S), and he invited them to Islam. They said: ‘We are (already) Muslims, O Muhammad! He said: ‘You tell a lie. If you wish, I would tell you what prevents you from (accepting) Islam.’ They said: ‘Then let us have.’ He said: ‘The love of the cross, drinking liquor, and eating the flesh of pig.’ Jabir further said: “Then the Prophet invited them to imprecation, and they promised him to come to him in the morning. When the morning came, the Messenger of Allah held the hands of ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, and Fatimah. Then he sent (someone) to them. But they refused to accept his call (for imprecation); instead, they acknowledged to him (his sovereignty). Then the Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘By Him Who has sent me with truth! Had they done (the imprecation) the valley would have rained fire on them.’ “Jabir said: “About them was revealed the verse: “.. let us call our sons and your sons…” (3:61). Jabir further said: “ ‘our selves’ refers to the Messenger of Allah and ‘Ali; and ‘our sons’ to al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and ‘our women’ to Fatimah.”

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by Ibn al-Maghazili in his al-Manaqib through his chains from the same ash-Sha‘bi from Jabir; by al-Hammuyi in his Fara’idu ’s-simtayn, through his chains from the same narrator; by al-Maliki in his al-Fusul al-muhimmah from the same; by Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi from the same; and by as-Suyuti in his ad-Durr al-Manthur from al-Hakim (who has said that this tradition is correct), and from Ibn Marduwayh as well as Abu Nu‘aym (in his Dala’il al-khayrat) - all from Jabir.

Abu Nu‘aym has narrated in his Dala’il al-khayrat through the chain of al-Kalbi from Abu Salih from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: “Verily a delegation of the Christians of Najran came to the Messenger of Allah (S), and there were fourteen persons of their nobles. Among them were as-Sayyid (and he was the leader) and al-‘Aqib, the second in rank and a man of good judgment among them.” (Then he has described the event as given above.) 11

Al-Bayhaqi has narrated in his Dala’il an-Nubuwwah through the chain of Salmah Ibn ‘Abd Yashu’ from his father from his grandfather that he said: “The Messenger of Allah (S) wrote to the people of Najran, before the (chapter of) Ta Sin Sulayman12 was revealed: ‘In the name of Allah, the God of Ibrahim and Ishaq and Ya‘qub. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah to the Bishop of Najran and the people of Najran. If you accept Islam, then I extol before you Allah, the God of Ibrahim and Ishaq and Ya‘qub. Now after (the praise of Allah), I call you to the worship of Allah leaving aside the worship of the servants (of Allah), and I invite you to (come under) the guardianship of Allah instead of the guardianship of the servants. But if you refuse (it), then (you should pay) the head-tax; and if you refuse (even this), then I declare war against you. And peace (be on you).’

When the Bishop read the letter, he was shocked and extremely terrified. So he sent (someone) to call a man of Najran Shurahbil Ibn Wada‘ah by name; and gave him the letter of the Prophet and he read it. Then the Bishop said to him: ‘What is your opinion?’ Shurahbil said: ‘You surely know the promise which Allah made to Ibrahim about the prophethood in the progeny of Isma‘il. Therefore, how can one be sure that it is not this very man? I would not give any opinion regarding the prophethood. If it were an opinion about a worldly matter, I would have advised you about it and made efforts on your behalf.’ Then the Bishop called the people of Najran one after another, but all said as Shurahbil had said. Thereupon, they decided to send Shurahbil Ibn Wada‘ah, ‘Abdullah Ibn Shurahbil and Jabbar Ibn Fayd, so that they might bring them the (correct) news of the Messenger of Allah (S)

“So, the delegation proceeded until they came to the Messenger of Allah (S). And he asked them (questions) and they asked him, and this questioning between him and them continued, until they said to him: ‘What do you say about ‘Isa son of Maryam?’ The Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘Today, I do not have anything about him; therefore you stay (here), in order that I may tell you tomorrow morning what is to be said about ‘Isa.’ Then Allah sent down these verses:

“Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust...” (3:59).

“(This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers.” (3:60).

“... And bring about the curse of Allah on the liars.” (3:61).

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

“So, the Messenger of Allah (S) returned without doing imprecation, and made agreement with them on the head-tax.”13

Ibn Jarir has narrated from ‘Ilba’ Ibn Ahmar al-Yashkuri that he said: “When the verse was revealed... then say: ‘Let us call our sons and your sons...’ (3:61), the Messenger of Allah (S) sent (someone) to (call) ‘Ali, Fatimah and their sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn; and invited the Jews to enter into imprecation against them. Then a young Jew said: ‘Woe unto you! Are you not familiar with (the story) of your brothers who were yesterday transformed into monkeys and pigs? Do not enter into (this) imprecation.’ So, they desisted (from it).”14

The author says: This tradition supports the view that the pronoun “this” in the opening sentence, “disputes with you in this” (3:61), refers to “truth” in the preceding verse, The truth is from your Lord. In this way, the order of imprecation would cover other matters too, besides the controversy about ‘Isa son of Maryam. In that case, it would be another story15 after the events which took place with the delegation of Najran as narrated in numerous traditions supporting each other, a large portion of which has been quoted above.

Ibn Tawus has written in Sa‘du ’s-su‘ud: “I saw in the book Ma nazala min al-Qur’ani fi ’n-Nabiyyi wa Ahli baytih 16 that he has narrated the tradition of the imprecation through fifty-one chains from the companions and others; and some of them are: al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (peace be on them both), ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan, Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Bakr Ibn Sammal, Talhah, az-Zubayr, ‘Abdu ’r-Rahman Ibn ‘Awf, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Rafi‘17 Jabir Ibn ‘Abdillah, al-Bara’ Ibn ‘Azib and Anas Ibn Malik.”

Likewise (Ibn Shahrashub) has narrated this tradition in al-Manaqib, from a number of narrators and exegetes. as-Suyuti has done the same in ad-Durr al-Manthur.

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

“The traditions unanimously say that the Prophet selected ‘Ali, Fatimah and their two sons for the imprecation; and they apply the word ‘our women’ to Fatimah, and ‘our selves’ to ‘Ali only. The source of these traditions are the Shi‘ahs, and their motive in this respect is well-known. They have tried as much as they could to propagate such traditions until it has spread among a vast number of the Sunnis too.”

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

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

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

“The Prophet and the believers had full confidence in the truth of what they believed about ‘Isa (‘a). It may be understood from the words of Allah “after what has come to you of knowledge” (3:61) because ‘knowledge’ in matters of belief only means ‘certainty’.

“The words of Allah, “let us call our sons and your sons …” (3:61), may be interpreted in either of the two ways:

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

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

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

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

We may comment on this talk in two ways:

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

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

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

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

And who were those Shi‘ahs who were the source of this story? Does he mean those companions who narrated it in the first place - like Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Jabir Ibn ‘Abdillah, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas and others? Or the disciples of the companions who took this tradition from them and conveyed it to others? Like Abu Salih, al-Kalbi, as-Suddi, ash-Sha‘bi and others? Does he want to say that those companions and their disciples became Shi‘ahs - just because they narrated a tradition which he does not like? It is these companions and disciples - together with other like them - who are the final links in the chains of the narrators of the Prophet’s Traditions. Discard them, and you will be left neither with any tradition nor any biography of the Prophet. How can a Muslim - nay, even a non-Muslim researcher - aspire to know the details of the Prophet’s message, if he rejects the traditions? How can he know the teachings and laws brought by the Messenger of Allah? The Qur’an clearly upholds the authority of the sayings and actions of the Prophet; and declares that the religion is based on his life. Reject the authority of the traditions and you have lost the Qur’an as well; there will remain no trace of the Divine Book, nor will there be any fruit of this revelation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not, by my life! This exegete is in fact confused; he does not know the difference between the literal meaning of a word and its application. Obviously, his thinking goes like this: “Allah said to His Prophet,

“But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: ‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves...” (3:61).

Now if we admit that the disputers at that time were the delegates of Najran numbering according to some Traditions, fourteen men; and that there were no women or children with them; and if after that we admit that when the Messenger of Allah (S) went for the imprecation, he had with him only: ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the phrase, ‘whoever disputes with you’ would literally mean the delegation of Najran; our women would mean one woman; ‘our selves’ would mean one ‘self’; and your sons and your women would become words without meaning because there were neither women nor sons in that delegation!”

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

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

The fact is that an eloquent speech conforms with the situation which it is related to and throws light on what is important to explain in a given context. Sometimes the talk is between two strangers, neither knowing the other’s life condition. Then they use normal expressions which are applied in general talk.

Suppose two groups are facing each other; one of them wants the other to know that their conflict is deep-rooted, and that the whole tribe - men and women, elders, and youngsters - shall continue the fight till the last. In such a situation, he will say: We shall fight you with our men, women, and children. Now this sentence is based on the assumption that normally and naturally a tribe does have women and children. The statement aims at making it clear to the enemy that the speaker’s tribe is one in its determination to fight against their adversary. On the other hand, if he were to say, ‘We shall fight against you with our men, a woman and ‘two sons’, it would be a superfluous detail, uncalled for in this context - unless there be some good reason for it in a particular situation.

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

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

This verse is based on the same principle. Accordingly, the words “... then say: ‘Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves...’” (3:61), means as follows: Tell them that you are coming with your closest relatives who are your partners in your claim and knowledge, and invite them to come with their closest relatives. Thus, the verse proceeds in the normal way assuming that the Messenger of Allah had in his family men, women and sons, and the Christian delegates had likewise men, women and sons in their families; it was a challenge couched in general and usual terms.

But when the time came to act on that challenge, it was found that the Prophet did not have any men, women, and sons except one man, one woman and two sons, while his adversaries had no woman or son with them - there were only men in their group. But this difference in implementation did not falsify the challenge. That is why when the Prophet came out with one man, one woman and two sons, the Christians did not accuse him of lying or of not fulfilling the conditions; nor did they cover their refusal by saying that the Prophet had told them to bring their women and sons while they did not have with them at that time and therefore they were unable to enter into imprecation. Also, it was because of this that those who heard this story never imagined that it was a forgery.

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

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

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

Was it a call to gather all the believers and all the Christians? But the believers at that time18 included all - or almost all - Arabs of the tribes of Rabi‘ah and Mudar residing from Yemen and Hijaz to Iraq and beyond. And the Christians included those in Najran (then forming a part of Yemen), Syria and the regions around the Mediterranean Sea, the Romans and the Franks, as well as the people of the Britain, Austria and other places.

Such a vast multitude of people, scattered from the East to the West, must have exceeded millions upon millions, counting men, women, and children all together. There can be no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a sane person that it was almost impossible for all of them to gather in one place. Normal ways and means reject such a proposition altogether.

If the Qur’an had offered this proposal, then it had asked for something impossible. It would mean that the Prophet was offering a conditional proof for the authenticity of his claim - and the condition, on which it depended, was an impossible one! It would have given an excuse - a valid excuse - to the Christians not to accept his call of imprecation. In fact, it would have been more damaging to his claim, rather than weakening the Christians’ case.

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

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

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

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

If the verse at all shows that anyone other than the Prophet had attained knowledge and certainty, it does so about those whom the Prophet had brought with himself for imprecation, as we have inferred from the words “and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61).

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

“And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him)” (12:106).

Here Allah announces their polytheism. How can polytheism co-exist with certainty?

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

“And those who believe say: “Why has not a chapter been revealed?” But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!” (47:20).

“Obedience and a gentle word (was proper); but when the affair becomes settled, then if they remain true to Allah it would certainly be better for them.” (47:21).

“But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!” (47:22).

“Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes.” (47:23).

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

“But if they dispute with you, say: “I have submitted myself (entirely) to Allah and (so has) everyone who follows me” (3:20).

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

He says: “The words of Allah, let us call our sons and your sons...” (3:61) may be interpreted in either of these two ways: First: Each group should call the others; you should call our sons and we should call your sons; and likewise, about the other two categories of women and selves.”

You have already seen in the Commentary that this interpretation (which he gives as his first choice) is totally absurd and is not in conformity with the wordings of the verse. So far as the call for imprecation was concerned, it would have sufficed to say: “Come, let us earnestly pray and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars” (3:61). Why then were the remaining phrases – “Let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our ‘selves’ and your ‘selves’” (3:61) - added:

These phrases were meant to bind each party to bring for the imprecation those who were dearest and most precious to them, that is, the sons, the women, and the selves. This challenge could be meaningful only if each party was to bring its own sons, women, and selves. It would lose its meaning completely if it was interpreted as he says: You should call our sons, women and selves and we should call your sons, women, and selves.

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

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

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

The difficulty, to which he refers, arises from the following objection: How can a man call himself? But this objection has nothing to do with either interpretation. It has been levelled against the explanation that ‘our selves’ means the Messenger of Allah (S) himself. Reportedly during one religious discussion, one group said that ‘our selves’ referred to the Messenger of Allah (S), not to ‘Ali. The opposite party said that it would imply that he called himself, which is manifestly wrong.19

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

Accordingly, no objection can be directed at the Shi‘ahs, even according to the interpretation which he ascribes to them, that ‘our selves’ means ‘All. What difficulty could there be if the Messenger of Allah (S) was to call ‘Ali (‘a)?

His disciple20 has written in al-Manar, after mentioning some traditions: “Ibn ‘Asakir has narrated from Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad from his father in explanation of the verse, then say: “Come let us call our sons and your sons...” (3:61) ‘Then (the Prophet) brought Abu Bakr and his son, ‘Umar and his son, and ‘Uthman and his son.’” Then he comments: “Apparently the verse speaks about a group of the believers.” Thereafter he has copied the above-quoted writing of his teacher, and then has opined as follows: “As you see the verse orders women to participate with men in national struggles and religious wars. It is based on the principle of equality between men and women even in public affairs - except where an exception has been made. (Then he goes on elaborating the same points).

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

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

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

We have discussed at length the subject of the women’s participation, under the verses of divorce in the second volume21 ; and we shall be writing some more in a relevant place that there is no need to make such inferences as he has done from this verse.

• 1. Vide vol. 3 (Engl. transl.), under the verse 2:213. (Author’s note).
• 2. Vide vol. 3 (Engl. transl.), under the verse 2:124. (Author’s note).
• 3. at-Tafsir, alQummi.
• 4. ‘Uyun al-akhbar.
• 5. Refer to verse 16:98.
• 6. ‘Uyun al-akhbar.
• 7. al-‘Ayyashi.
• 8. The author now gives references from the Sunni books. (tr.).
• 9. as-Sahih, Muslim.
• 10. Hilyat al-awliya’.
• 11. ad-Durr al-Manthur.
• 12. the 27th Chapter, the Ant. The author has proved, while writing the traditions under the next verse, that this particular tradition is false. (tr.).
• 13. ad-Durr al-Manthur.
• 14. ad-Durr al-Manthur.
• 15. This tradition is not supported by other traditions or history. (tr.).
• 16. By Muhammad Ibn al-‘Abbas Ibn Marwan.
• 17. A slave of the Prophet.
• 18. It was the 9th year after Hijrah according to some historians, and the 10th according to others. But both timings are open to question, as we shall describe when writing the ‘‘Traditions’’ related to the subsequent verses. (Author’s Note).
• 19. See the second tradition, quoted from ‘Uyun al-akhbar.
• 20. i.e., Rashid Rida, author of Tafsir al-Manar. (tr.)
• 21. Vide Vol. 4 (Engl. transl.), pp. 61 - 83. (tr.)