Al 'Imran: (61) So whoever argues with you concerning him...

Know that Allah, the Exalted, clarified at the beginning of this Surah several conclusive proofs demonstrating the falsehood of the Christians' claims regarding [Jesus having] a spouse and a child. He followed this by addressing all their doubts exhaustively. He concluded the discussion with this decisive point against their claims: Since the absence of a human father and mother for Adam (peace be upon him) did not necessitate that he be the son of God, the absence of a human father for Jesus (peace be upon him) does not necessitate that he be the son of God. May Allah be exalted above that! And just as the creation of Adam from dust was not impossible, the creation of Jesus from the blood that gathered in the womb of his mother was also not impossible. Whoever is just and seeks the truth will know that the clarification has reached its utmost limit.

At that point, the Almighty said: {So whoever argues with you concerning him} after these clear proofs and evident responses, then cease discussion with them and treat them as you would treat a stubborn opponent, which is by inviting them to the Mula'anah (mutual imprecation). He said: {Say: Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons} until the end of the verse.

Herein lie several issues:

Issue 1

It is agreed that when I was in Khwarizm, I was informed that a Christian man had arrived, claiming deep knowledge and mastery of their doctrine. I went to him, and we began our discussion. He asked me: "What is the proof for the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)?" I replied to him as has been transmitted to us: The appearance of miracles through Moses, Jesus, and other prophets (peace be upon them) has been transmitted to us, and likewise, the appearance of miracles through Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has been transmitted.

If we reject the Tawatur (mass transmission), or if we accept it but claim that a miracle does not prove truthfulness, then the prophethood of all other prophets (peace be upon them) is invalidated. If we acknowledge the validity of Tawatur and acknowledge that miracles prove truthfulness, and since both are established concerning Muhammad (peace be upon him), then the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) must be acknowledged necessarily, because when the evidence is equal, the resulting conclusion must also be equal.

The Christian replied: "I do not claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a prophet; rather, I claim he was God." I told him: "The discussion about prophethood must necessarily be preceded by the knowledge of Divinity. What you claim is false, and the proof is that God is defined as a necessary being (Wajib al-Wujud) in and of Himself, who must not be a body, nor localized, nor an accident. Jesus, however, is defined as this physical, human person who came into existence after being non-existent, was killed after being alive (according to your belief), was a child first, then grew up, then became young, and he used to eat, drink, speak, sleep, and wake up. It is established by the self-evident nature of intellect that the created cannot be eternal, the needy cannot be self-sufficient, the contingent cannot be necessary, and the changing cannot be permanent."

The second argument invalidating this claim is that you admit the Jews seized him, crucified him, and left him alive on the cross, that they pierced his side, and that he resorted to trickery to escape them and hide from them. When they treated him with such treatment, he showed intense distress. If he were God, or if God indwelt him, or if he were a part of God residing in him, why did he not repel them from himself? Why did he not utterly destroy them? And what need did he have to show distress toward them or resort to trickery in fleeing from them? By God, I am greatly astonished! How can a rational person utter and believe this statement? The very intuition of the intellect almost testifies to its falsehood.

The third argument is this: Either it is said that God is this observable physical person, or it is said that the entirety of God indwelt him, or that a part of God and a portion of Him indwelt him. All three divisions are false.

1. The first: If the God of the universe were that body, then when the Jews killed him, it would mean the Jews killed the God of the universe. How then did the universe remain without a God afterward? Furthermore, the Jews are the most despised and base of people; thus, the God killed by the Jews would be a God of utmost weakness.
2. The second (that the entirety of God indwelt this body): This is also false, because God is neither a body nor an accident, so His indwelling in a body is impossible. If He were a body, then His indwelling in another body would mean the intermingling of His parts with the parts of that body, which necessitates dispersion in the parts of that God. If He were an accident, He would require a substrate (mahall), meaning God would require something other than Himself, which is all nonsense.
3. The third (that a part of God's essence and a portion of His parts indwelt him): This is also impossible because if that part were essential to Divinity, then upon its separation from God, God would cease to be God. If it were not essential to realizing Divinity, it would not be a part of God. Thus, the falsehood of these divisions is established, and the statement of the Christians is proven false.

The fourth argument invalidating the Christians' claim is that it is established by mass transmission that Jesus (peace be upon him) was intensely devoted to worship and obedience to God Almighty. If he were God, this would be impossible, because God does not worship Himself. These are extremely clear and manifest arguments proving the falsehood of their claim.

Then I asked the Christian: "What led you to conclude that he was God?" He replied: "What led me to that conclusion was the appearance of wonders through him, such as raising the dead and healing the blind and the leper, which can only occur through the power of God Almighty." I asked him: "Do you accept that the absence of evidence does not necessitate the absence of the evidenced thing, or not? If you do not accept this, then you must accept that denying the existence of the universe in eternity necessitates denying the Creator. If you accept that the absence of evidence does not necessitate the absence of the evidenced thing, then I say: Since you permitted the indwelling of God in the body of Jesus (peace be upon him), how do you know that God did not indwell my body, your body, or the body of every animal, plant, and inanimate object?"

He replied: "The difference is clear. I only judged that indwelling occurred because those wondrous actions appeared through him, and wondrous actions did not appear through me or you. Therefore, we know that this indwelling is absent in us." I told him: "It is now clear that you did not grasp the meaning of my statement: 'The absence of evidence does not necessitate the absence of the evidenced thing.' Because the appearance of those miracles indicates the indwelling of God in Jesus's body, the absence of those miracles in me and you only indicates the absence of that evidence. Therefore, if the absence of evidence does not necessitate the absence of the evidenced thing, then the absence of those miracles in me and you does not necessitate the absence of indwelling in me, in you, in the dog, the cat, or the mouse." I then said: "A doctrine whose acceptance permits the possibility of God's essence indwelling in the body of a dog or a fly is utterly base and weak."

The fifth argument is that turning a staff into a living serpent is more remote from reason than bringing a dead person back to life, because the similarity between the body of a living being and the body of a dead person is greater than the similarity between wood and the body of a serpent. If turning the staff into a serpent did not necessitate that Moses was God or the son of God, then it is even more appropriate that the raising of the dead does not indicate Divinity. At this point, the Christian was silenced, and he had no further argument. And Allah knows best.

Issue 2

It is narrated that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) presented the proofs to the Christians of Najran, and they persisted in their ignorance, he said to them: "Indeed, Allah has commanded me that if you do not accept the proof, I should engage in Mubaahalah (mutual imprecation) with you." They replied: "O Abu al-Qasim, rather, we will return and reflect upon our matter, and then we will come back to you."

When they returned, they consulted al-'Aqib, who was their man of opinion. They said: "O 'Abd al-Masih, what do you think?" He replied: "By God, you know, O assembly of Christians, that Muhammad is a messenger prophet, and he has brought you the true word concerning your companion. By God, no people have ever engaged in Mubaahalah with a prophet, and their elders survived, nor did their young ones sprout. If you do this, it will result in annihilation. If you insist on adhering to your religion and remaining upon what you are upon, then bid farewell to the man and return to your lands."

The Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) had come out wearing a black cloak, having taken Al-Husayn in his arms and holding the hand of Al-Hasan. Fatimah was walking behind him, and Ali (may God be pleased with him) was behind her. He was saying: "When I supplicate, say Ameen." The Bishop of Najran said: "O assembly of Christians, I see faces. If they were to ask God to remove a mountain from its place, He would remove it for them. So do not engage in Mubaahalah, lest you be destroyed, and no Christian remains on the face of the earth until the Day of Resurrection."

Then they said: "O Abu al-Qasim, we have decided not to engage in Mubaahalah with you, and we affirm your religion." He said (peace and blessings of God be upon him): "If you refuse Mubaahalah, then submit (to Islam). You will have what Muslims have, and you will bear what Muslims bear." They refused. He said: "Then I will challenge you to fight." They replied: "We have no strength for war with the Arabs. But we will make a treaty with you: that you do not raid us, nor turn us away from our religion, on the condition that we pay you annually one thousand Hullah (garments)—two thousand in Safar and two thousand in Rajab—and thirty old iron shields." He made peace with them on those terms and said: "By Him in Whose Hand is my soul, destruction has descended upon the people of Najran. If they had engaged in Mula'anah, they would have been transformed into apes and pigs, and the valley would have blazed with fire upon them, and God would have utterly destroyed Najran and its people, even the birds on the treetops. And not a year would pass over all the Christians until they were annihilated."

It is narrated that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came out in the black cloak, Al-Hasan (may God be pleased with him) came and he took him in. Then Al-Husayn (may God be pleased with him) came and he took him in. Then Fatimah, then Ali (may God be pleased with them both). Then he said: {Allah only intends to remove from you the impurity, O people of the Household, and to purify you with [complete] purification} (Al-Ahzab: 33). Know that this narration is considered agreed upon as authentic by the scholars of Tafsir and Hadith.

Issue 3

{So whoever argues with you concerning him}: Meaning, concerning Jesus (peace be upon him). It is also said that the pronoun refers back to the Truth, in the phrase {The Truth is from your Lord} (Hud: 17), {after the knowledge has come to you} (Al-Baqarah: 145), meaning that Jesus is the servant and messenger of God (peace be upon him). What is not intended here by 'knowledge' is mere knowledge, because the knowledge in his heart does not affect this matter. Rather, 'knowledge' here refers to what was mentioned through rational proofs and the proofs conveyed to him through revelation and descent.

{Say: Come!} (Ta'aalaw): Its origin is Ta'aalawu (تعالوا), as it is the tafa'ul form derived from al-'Uluw (rising/exaltation). The dammah on the yaa' became heavy, so the yaa' was made quiescent, and then it was dropped due to the meeting of two quiescent letters. Its origin is rising and ascending. Thus, the meaning of Ta'aal is 'ascend,' but it became so common in usage that it came to mean any kind of coming, taking the place of Ha'umma (come on).

Issue 4

This verse indicates that Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn (peace be upon them) were the sons of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him). He promised to summon his sons, and he summoned Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn; therefore, they must be his sons. What reinforces this is the Almighty's saying in Surah Al-An'am: {And of his descendants, David and Solomon...} (Al-An'am: 84) until His saying: {and Zechariah, and John, and Jesus} (Al-An'am: 85). It is known that Jesus (peace be upon him) is attributed to Abraham (peace be upon him) through the mother, not the father. Thus, it is established that the son of a daughter may be called a son. And Allah knows best.

Issue 5

There was a man in Rayy named Mahmud ibn Al-Hasan Al-Homsi, who was a teacher of the Twelver Shi'a. He claimed that Ali (may God be pleased with him) was superior to all prophets except Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). He argued: What indicates this is the Almighty's saying: {and our souls and your souls}. What is meant by {our souls} is not Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) himself, because a person does not summon himself. Rather, it refers to someone else, and they are unanimous that this 'other' was Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him). Thus, the verse indicates that the soul of Ali is the soul of Muhammad. It cannot mean that this soul is identical to that soul; rather, it means this soul is like that soul, which necessitates equality in all aspects. They abandoned applying this generality regarding prophethood and superiority because proofs exist that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a prophet while Ali was not, and because there is consensus that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was superior to Ali (may God be pleased with him). Therefore, what remains outside this is acted upon. Furthermore, consensus indicates that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was superior to all other prophets (peace be upon them), so it must follow that Ali is superior to all other prophets. This is the line of reasoning based on the apparent meaning of this verse.

He also said: What supports the reasoning from this verse is the Hadith accepted by both opponents and proponents: The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever wishes to see Adam in his knowledge, Noah in his obedience, Abraham in his intimate friendship (khullah), Moses in his awe-inspiring majesty, and Jesus in his purity, let him look at Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him)." This Hadith indicates that what was scattered among them was gathered in him, which proves that Ali (may God be pleased with him) is superior to all prophets except Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

As for the rest of the Shi'a, they have always argued from this verse that Ali (may God be pleased with him) is like the soul of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), except in what is specified by evidence. And the soul of Muhammad was superior to the Companions (may God be pleased with them), so the soul of Ali must also be superior to the rest of the Companions. This is the structure of the Shi'a argument.

The Response: Just as there is consensus among Muslims that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is superior to Ali, there was consensus among them before the emergence of this individual that a prophet is superior to one who is not a prophet. They also agreed that Ali (may God be pleased with him) was not a prophet. Therefore, it is necessarily concluded that the apparent meaning of the verse, just as it is restricted concerning Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), is also restricted concerning all other prophets (peace be upon them).

Issue 6

{Then let us supplicate} (Thumma nabhil): Meaning, let us engage in mutual imprecation, just as it is said: Iqtal (they fought each other), taqatalu (they fought), isthahabu (they accompanied each other), tasahabu (they befriended each other).

There are two interpretations for Ibtihal:

1. Ibtihal is striving in supplication, even if it does not involve cursing. One does not say Ibtahala fi ad-du'a (he supplicated in prayer) unless there is striving involved.
2. It is derived from their saying: Alayhi bahlatu Allāh (May the curse of God be upon him). Its origin is derived from what relates to the meaning of cursing, because the meaning of cursing is expulsion and driving away. Bahalahu Allah means God cursed him and drove him away from His mercy, derived from the saying abhala-hu (he neglected him). A nāqah bāhil is one without a tether on her udder; rather, she is left free, like an expelled, banished man.

The precise meaning of the word is that if Bahal means sending off and leaving free, then whoever God bahala-hu (sends him off) has been left by God and entrusted to himself, and whoever is entrusted to himself is surely doomed. So, whoever engages in Mubaahalah with a person, saying: "May God's Bahalah be upon him if he is lying," means: "May God entrust me to myself, and leave me to my own strength and power," meaning away from His protection and guardianship, like the nāqah bāhil which has no protector for her udder, so whoever wishes can milk her and take her milk, as she has no power to defend herself. It is also said that a rajul bāhil is one who has no stick, meaning he has nothing to defend himself with. The first interpretation is preferable, as the meaning of {Then let us supplicate} becomes: "Then let us strive in supplication," and {and let us lay the curse of God upon the liars} becomes a repetition.

Four questions remain regarding the verse:

If the children are young, the punishment of annihilation is not permitted to descend upon them. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) included Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn (peace be upon them) in the Mubaahalah. What is the benefit of this?

Answer: The custom of God Almighty is that when the punishment of annihilation descends upon a people, the children and women are destroyed along with them. This serves as punishment for the adults, but for the children, it is not punishment but rather falls under the category of causing their death and inflicting pain and illness upon them. It is known that a person's compassion for his children and family is extremely intense; sometimes, a person makes himself a ransom and shield for them. Since this is the case, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought his children and women with him and commanded them to do the same, so that it would be a stronger deterrent, more powerful in frightening the opponent, and more indicative of his confidence (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that the truth was with him.

Does this incident indicate the truthfulness of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)?

Answer: It indicates his prophethood (peace be upon him) in two ways:

1. He threatened them with the descent of punishment. If he were not certain of this, it would be an attempt to expose his own falsehood, because if they agreed to the Mubaahalah and the punishment did not descend, his falsehood would become apparent in what he had informed them. It is known that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was one of the most rational people, so it is not fitting for him to undertake an action that would lead to the exposure of his lie. Since he insisted on it, we know that he insisted only because he was certain that the punishment would descend upon them.
2. When the people refrained from the Mubaahalah, if they had not known from the Torah and the Gospel what indicated his prophethood, they would not have hesitated to engage in Mubaahalah with him.

If it is argued: Why is it not possible that they were doubtful, so they refrained from Mubaahalah for fear that he might be truthful and the mentioned punishment would descend upon them?

We reply: This is refuted in two ways:

1. The people were expending their lives and wealth in disputing with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). If they were doubtful, they would not have done such a thing.
2. It has been narrated from those Christians that they said: "By God, he is indeed the prophet foretold in the Torah and the Gospel. If you engage in Mubaahalah with him, annihilation will occur." This was an explicit admission from them that their refusal to engage in Mubaahalah was due to their knowledge that he was a messenger sent from God Almighty.

Did not some disbelievers engage in Mubaahalah with Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) when they said: {O Allah, if this is indeed the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky} (Al-Anfal: 32)? Yet, the punishment did not descend upon them at all. So, why here? Furthermore, assuming the punishment descended, it would contradict His saying: {But Allah would not punish them while you were among them} (Al-Anfal: 33).

Answer: The specific ruling takes precedence over the general ruling. Since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them of the descent of punishment in this specific instance, it must be believed that this is the case.

Is the saying {Indeed, this is the true account} connected to what precedes it or not?

Answer: Abu Muslim said that it is connected to what precedes it, and it is not permissible to stop at the word {the liars} (al-kadhibin). The structure of the verse would be: "And let us lay the curse of God upon the liars, that this is the true account." Under this structure, the hamzat al-wasl of Inna (إنّ) should have been hamzat al-qat' (open 'A'), but it was made kasrah due to the entry of the lam in {lahu} (لهو), similar to His saying: {Indeed, your Lord is over them that Day fully aware} (Al-'Adiyat: 11).

The rest of the scholars said that the speech concluded at {upon the liars}, and what follows is a separate, independent clause not connected to what preceded it. And Allah knows best.

**{Indeed, this is the true account, and there is no deity except Allah. And indeed, Allah is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. But if they turn away, then indeed, Allah is knowing of the corrupters.}*