Al-Baqarah: (23-24) And if you are in...

Issues in the Verse:

After establishing the proof for the Creator and refuting the notion of partners, the Almighty follows this by presenting evidence for Prophethood. This refutes the Ta'limiyyah (who claim knowledge of God is derived solely from knowledge of the Messenger) and the Hashawiyyah (who claim knowledge of God is only obtained from the Quran and reports). Since the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) is based on the miraculous nature of the Quran, the text establishes the proof of its miraculousness (I'jaz).

The miraculous nature of the Quran can be demonstrated in two ways:

The First Way: The Quran must be one of three possibilities:

1. Equal to the speech of eloquent Arabs.
2. Superior to the speech of eloquent Arabs by a degree that does not violate custom.
3. Superior to the speech of eloquent Arabs by a degree that violates custom (i.e., is miraculous).

The first two possibilities are false. We assert this because if the Quran were merely equal to or slightly superior to human speech, the Arabs—who were masters of language, deeply passionate about refuting the Prophet, and willing to sacrifice life and wealth—would have been compelled to produce a single chapter (Surah) like it, either collectively or individually. Since they failed to do so, despite the availability of witnesses and judges to settle disputes regarding eloquence, we know they were incapable. Therefore, the Quran is not equal to their speech, and the difference is not customary; it is a difference that violates custom, thus proving it is a miracle.

This shows that just as God did not accept mere imitation (Taqlid) in knowing the Oneness of God, He did not accept it in knowing Prophethood.

Furthermore, the Quran achieves the pinnacle of eloquence despite possessing many features that should detract from its eloquence:

1. Subject Matter: Most Arab eloquence focused on describing observable things (camels, horses, maidens, battles, raids). The Quran lacks these descriptions, yet it achieved the highest level of eloquence using the vocabulary familiar to the Arabs.
2. Truthfulness: God maintained absolute truthfulness and avoided falsehood throughout the Quran. Poets who abandoned falsehood and committed to truth often saw their poetry decline in quality (e.g., Labīd ibn Rabi'ah and Hassān ibn Thābit after embracing Islam). Yet, the Quran, while being truthful, reached the utmost eloquence.
3. Consistency: Eloquent speech and poetry are usually excellent only in a verse or two within a longer piece. The Quran, however, is entirely eloquent to the degree that creation is incapable of matching even a single chapter of it.
4. Repetition: When poets repeat descriptions, the second attempt is rarely as good as the first. The Quran contains much repetition, yet every instance remains at the peak of eloquence without any discernible difference in quality.
5. Themes: The Quran focused on establishing acts of worship, forbidding vices, encouraging noble morals, renouncing the world, and preferring the Hereafter—themes that should naturally lead to less ornate language.
6. Versatility: Arab poets excelled in specific genres: Imru' al-Qays in descriptions of excitement and women, Nabigha in descriptions of fear, 'Ushā in descriptions of desire and wine, and Zuhayr in descriptions of hope. Each poet weakened when speaking outside their specialty. The Quran, however, is supremely eloquent in all genres (e.g., promises of reward like ${ \text{No soul knows what has been hidden for them of comfort for eyes} } [As-Sajdah: 17], and threats like { \text{Or are you secure that He will not cause a section of the land to sink with you...} } [Al-Mulk: 16-17]).
7. Source of Knowledge: The Quran is the origin of all sciences: Kalam (theology), Fiqh (jurisprudence), Usul al-Fiqh, grammar, language, asceticism, and accounts of the Hereafter. Whoever studies our book On the Proofs of Inimitability will know that the Quran has reached the ultimate limit in every aspect of eloquence.

The Second Way: We state that the Quran is either:

1. Possessing eloquence to the degree of inimitability (miraculous). If so, it is proven miraculous.
2. Not possessing eloquence to the degree of inimitability. If so, challenging them to produce a parallel would have been possible. Their failure to produce a challenge, despite their strong motives to discredit it, is an extraordinary event, thus proving it is a miracle.

This second path is considered closer to the truth by the author.

The term "Nazzala" (sent down gradually) is used instead of "Anzala" (sent down all at once) because the intent is to emphasize the gradual revelation. This wording is appropriate here because the disbelievers argued: "If this were truly from God and different from human speech, why would it be revealed piecemeal, chapter by chapter, according to events and new circumstances, following the pattern of orators and poets who release their works incrementally?" (As seen in Surah Al-Furqan: 32, where they say: { \text{And those who disbelieve say, "Why was the Qur'an not sent down to him all at once?"} }).

God addresses this by showing that the Quran, revealed gradually, is either:

1. Within human capability. If so, they should have produced something similar gradually.
2. Not within human capability. If so, it is proven miraculous despite being revealed gradually.

The phrase "upon Our servant" refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his Ummah.

A Surah is a portion of the Quran. Its derivation (if the waw is original) is debated:

1. From Sūr al-Madīnah (city wall): Because a Surah is a defined portion of the Quran, like a walled city, or because it encompasses various branches of knowledge, like a city contains its contents.
2. From Surah meaning rank/level: Because the Surah serves as stages or ranks for the reader to ascend, and they vary in length (long, medium, short). It may also be due to its high status in religion.
3. If the waw is a transformation of a hamza: It derives from Sūrah meaning a remnant or remainder of something.

The benefit of dividing the Quran into Surahs:

1. Similar to how scholars divide books into chapters and sections.
2. When a general category contains types, the individuals of each type are better distinguished from one another.
3. The reader feels more invigorated and established in learning when completing a Surah or a section, compared to continuing through an entire long book without pause (like a traveler refreshed after completing a mile or a league).
4. A memorizer who completes a Surah feels they have mastered an independent portion of God's Book, which brings satisfaction. This is why reciting a complete Surah in prayer is superior.

The phrase { \text{Then bring a Surah of its like} } indicates that the Quran's structure into Surahs is exactly as God revealed it, contrary to the view of many Hadith scholars who claim this arrangement was finalized during Uthman's time. This is why the challenge was issued sometimes for a single Surah and sometimes for the entire Quran.

The challenge regarding the Quran was issued in several ways:

1. { \text{Then bring a book from God that is more rightly guided than it} } (Al-Qasas: 49).
2. { \text{Say, "If mankind and jinn were to gather to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants} } (Al-Isrā': 88).
3. { \text{Then bring ten fabricated chapters like it} } (Hud: 13).
4. { \text{Then bring a Surah of its like} }.

This is analogous to someone challenging another in their writing by saying: "Bring its like," "Bring half of it," "Bring a quarter of it," or "Bring one issue from it." This represents the ultimate challenge and removal of excuse.

Addressing the objection: If the challenge includes short Surahs like Al-Kawthar or Al-'Asr, which we know are easily matched or closely approximated, claiming that matching them is beyond human capacity would be stubborn denial (mukābarah), which casts suspicion upon the religion.

The response: This is precisely why the second path of proof (mentioned in Issue 1) is preferred: If the Surah has reached the degree of inimitability, the objective is achieved. If it has not, their refusal to challenge, despite their strong motives to discredit it, becomes the miracle itself. Thus, the miracle is established under both possibilities.

There are two views on the pronoun in { \text{of its like} }:

1. It refers to mā (that which) in { \text{of what We have sent down to Our servant} }: Meaning, bring a Surah similar in its eloquence and fine composition. This view is narrated from Umar, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Al-Hasan, and most verified scholars.
   • Supporting arguments:
     • It aligns with other verses concerning the challenge, especially { \text{Then bring a Surah like it} } (Yunus: 38).
     • The context is doubt regarding the revelation ({ \text{if you are in doubt concerning what We have sent down} }). The meaning is: If you doubt it is from God, bring something similar to it (the revelation). If the pronoun referred to the Prophet, the phrasing would logically be: "If you doubt Muhammad is a messenger, bring a Quran like his."
     • If the pronoun refers to the Quran, it implies inability to match it whether they gather or act alone, whether literate or illiterate. If it refers to Muhammad (PBUH), it only implies the inability of an illiterate individual to match him (since a group cannot equal one person, and a literate person cannot equal an illiterate one). The first implication (inability regardless of status) is stronger proof of inimitability.
     • If the pronoun refers to the Quran, the miracle lies in its perfect eloquence. If it refers to the Prophet, the miracle is completed by affirming his illiteracy (a form of deficiency), which is less preferable.
     • Referring it to the Quran implies that producing its like is impossible for anyone (literate or illiterate). Referring it to the Prophet implies that only someone like him (an illiterate individual) cannot produce it, which is a weaker implication.

2. It refers to Our servant (Abdunā): Meaning, bring a Surah from someone who shares his condition—being an unlettered man who has not read books or learned from scholars.

There are two interpretations for the meaning of Shuhadā'ukum (your witnesses):

1. The Idols: Meaning, those they claimed deserved worship because they could benefit or harm. The implication is: If your idols are truly gods, then in this dispute against Muhammad (PBUH), you are in dire need of their help to refute him. If you call upon them, it serves two purposes: refuting their divinity, and refuting their denial of the Quran's miracle.
2. Their Leaders/Elders: Meaning, call upon your chiefs and leaders to assist you in the challenge and to judge between you regarding what is possible and impossible.

Which interpretation is preferable? It is possible to combine both, as Shuhadā' (witnesses) can metaphorically mean helpers or supporters, and both idols and leaders were believed to be supporters.

However, the first interpretation (leaders) is preferable because the literal meaning of Shuhadā' is those who can observe and testify. This applies literally only to their leaders. Applying it to idols requires metaphor. Alternatively, it could mean: "Call upon those you claim testify for each other." This fits well, as those agreeing on a doctrine testify for one another due to shared opinion. Furthermore, the Arabs had leaders who judged disputes over eloquence. Since applying the term literally is preferable to metaphor, the second interpretation (leaders) is stronger.

The word dūn (other than/below) signifies the lowest rank or a lesser degree. Its relation to the preceding words is debated:

1. It relates to Shuhadā'ukum (Your witnesses):
   • First possibility: Call upon those you took as gods besides God, claiming they will testify for you on the Day of Judgment. Challenging them to seek aid from inanimate objects in opposing the miraculous Quran is extreme mockery.
   • Second possibility: Call upon your witnesses other than the believers (i.e., non-believers) to testify that you produced its like. This implies leniency, suggesting that even their foremost eloquent figures would refuse to bear false witness.

2. It relates to the command Id'ū (Call upon): Meaning, "Call upon witnesses other than God." Do not swear by God or say, "God testifies that what we claim is true," as the incapable person does when lacking proof. Instead, call upon human witnesses whose testimony validates claims before judges. This demonstrates their helplessness and lack of recourse from their claim that "God testifies we are truthful."

The challenge invalidates the doctrine of Jabr (absolute determinism) in several ways:

1. The challenge is based on the impossibility of someone capable of action producing its like. If one denies the servant is the actor, the basis for challenging with miracles collapses.
2. If their excuse for inability is the lack of necessary power, this applies equally to miraculous and non-miraculous acts, rendering the challenge meaningless.
3. Since actions attributed to the servant are created by God, challenging them is effectively challenging Himself, and God is certainly capable of producing its like. Thus, the miracle cannot be established under Jabr.
4. A miracle proves its source by violating custom. If they claim even customary acts are not their own actions, this distinction is lost, invalidating the use of miracles as proof.
5. The Prophet (PBUH) is supported by God granting him this miracle as confirmation of his claim. If the act were not from God, it would not be miraculous. Under Jabr, this distinction vanishes, as both customary and non-customary acts originate from God.

The Refutation of Jabr: The challenge requires the opponent to either intentionally produce the like or for it to happen accidentally. The latter is impossible as accidents are not within one's control. Thus, the act must be intentional. If the intention to act originates from the servant, it avoids the infinite regress problem inherent in Jabr. If the intention originates from God, then Jabr is confirmed, leading to all the contradictions mentioned above, thus invalidating the doctrine of Jabr.

This verse proves the miracle in four ways:

1. Extreme Hostility: We know through continuous reports (tawātur) that the Arabs were intensely hostile to the Prophet (PBUH) and eager to invalidate his message, evidenced by their migration and sacrifice of life. If producing the Quran or even one Surah were within their power, they would have done it. Their failure proves the miracle.
2. The Prophet's Confidence: Although they suspected his claim to Prophethood, they knew he possessed sound intellect and foresight. If he were unsure of his claim, he would not have dared challenge them to the ultimate degree, fearing the inevitable disgrace. His boldness proves he knew, by necessity, their inability to respond.
3. Certainty in Prophecy: If the Prophet (PBUH) were not certain of his truthfulness, he would not have asserted with certainty that they would never do it. A liar cannot speak with such absolute certainty, as the opposite might occur, exposing his falsehood. His certainty proves his conviction.
4. Historical Record: From his time until ours, there has never been a time lacking enemies eager to undermine Islam. Despite this intense desire, no one has ever produced a counter-example. These four points demonstrate the miracle contained in this verse, refuting the ignorant who claim the Quran lacks argumentative proof.

Related Questions:

• Why In (if) instead of Idhā (when)?
  1. To address them according to their assumption; they were not yet certain of their inability, relying on their eloquence.
  2. As mockery, similar to how a strong person says, "If I defeat you," knowing they will certainly win.
• Why { \text{if you do not do it} } instead of { \text{if you do not bring it} }? It is more concise than repeating { \text{if you do not bring a Surah like it} } twice.
• What is the status of { \text{and you will never do it} }? It is an inserted parenthetical clause (adverbial sentence) with no independent grammatical position.
• The meaning of Lan (never) in negation? Lā and Lan both negate the future, but Lan adds emphasis and confirmation. (Three views on its origin are mentioned: Lā an, Lā with nūn substituted for alif, or a particle of نصب (accusative) confirming future negation, per Sībawayh).
• Why is avoiding the Fire conditional upon not producing a Surah like it? If their inability to challenge is proven, the Prophet's truthfulness is established. If they persist in denial despite this proof, they deserve the punishment of the Fire. Thus, avoiding the Fire (the effect) is substituted for abandoning stubbornness (the cause). This is rhetorical conciseness (ījāz), emphasizing the gravity of stubbornness by linking it to the terror of the Fire.
• What is Waqūd (fuel)? That by which fire is kindled. The verbal noun is usually ḍammah (Waqūd), but fatḥ (Waqūd) is also heard. Waqūd usually means firewood. (Reading with ḍammah is like saying someone is the "pride of his people").
• How did they know the Fire's fuel is people and stones? They might have heard it from the People of the Book or from the Prophet (PBUH) before this verse, referencing { \text{a fire whose fuel is people and stones} } (At-Taḥrīm: 6).
• Why is the Fire indefinite in At-Taḥrīm but definite here? The Meccan verse (At-Taḥrīm) introduced the description of the Fire, and the Medinan verse (here) refers back to that known description.
• Meaning of { \text{whose fuel is people and stones} }? It is a fire distinguished by being kindled only by people and stones. This shows its power in two ways:
  1. Other fires require initial fuel before burning people or stones; this fire is kindled by what it burns.
  2. Due to its extreme heat, it ignites stone, whereas stones normally extinguish worldly fires.
• Why are people paired with stones as fuel? Because they associated themselves with stones in this world by carving them into idols and worshipping them instead of God ({ \text{Indeed, you and that which you worship besides Allah are fuel for Hell} } [Al-Anbiyā': 98]). This verse explains that verse: the people and what they worshipped (stones) are the fuel. Since they sought the idols as intercessors, God made them their tormentors, pairing them in the Fire for maximum regret. This is similar to how their accumulated gold and silver will be heated to brand their foreheads and flanks. (The view that it refers specifically to sulfur stones is rejected as it lacks evidence; sulfur fires are common and thus less indicative of extreme power).

Discourse on the Resurrection

This verse delivers the good news to the believers who perform righteous deeds: they will have Gardens (Jannāt) with rivers flowing beneath them. Whenever they are given fruit from it, they will say, "This is what we were given before," yet they are presented with something similar in appearance. They will also have purified spouses therein, and they will abide there eternally.