Back
You are here: Home 
Articles The Event of Mubahila The Event Of Mubahila (Tafsir Al-Mizan)
Articles The Event of Mubahila The Event Of Mubahila (Tafsir Al-Mizan)
The Event Of Mubahila (Tafsir Al-Mizan)
- Details
- Hits: 15743
The Event Of Mubahila (Tafsir Al-Mizan)
The agreement contains the phrase, "one thousand in Safar;" it means al-Muharram of Islamic calender, 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- Thdni. 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 (al-Muharam), month of Allah;" then it became known as al-Muharram.
'Amir son of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqq:as narrates from his father that he said: "Mu':iwiyah ibn Abi Sufyan ordered Sa'd telling him, 'What prevents you from abusing Abu Tur:ab ('Ali, a.s.)?' 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 livestocks.'
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. ..", the Messenger of Allah called 'Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and said: O Allah! These are the People of my House.' "(as-Sahih, Muslim)
The author says: This tradition has been narrated by at-Tirmidhi in his a-Sa!zi!z, Abu 'I-Mu'ayyad al-Muwaffaq ibn Al:lmad in his Kitiib Fa{iii'il li, Abu Nu'aym in his /filyatu 'l-awliyt:l , (from the same narrator as above), and al-l:Iammuyi in his Fart:l'idu 's-sim!ayn.
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." (Hilyatu 'l-awliya)
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. Jabir further said "ourselves 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- Fusulu'l-muhimmah from the same; by Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi from the same; and by as-Suyuti in his ad-Durru 'l-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 'ilu 'l-khayrat)
Abu Nu'aym has narrated in his Dala 'ilu 'l-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.) (ad-Durru 'l-manthur)
al-Bayhaqi has narrated in his Dala 'ilu 'n-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 Sulayman [4] 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 this verse: Surely the likeness of 'Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust. ..and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars.
"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 upto 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."
(ad-Durru 'l-manthur)
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. .." the Messenger of Allah (s) sent (someone) to (call) 'Ali, Fatimah and their sons, a1-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)."
(ibid.)
The author says: This tradition supports the view that the pronoun "this" in the opening sentence, disputes with you in this, 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 story [5] after the events which took place with the delegation of Najran as narrated in numerous traditions which supports each other, and a large portion of which has been quoted above.
Ibn Tawus has written in Sa'du 's-su 'ud: "I saw in the book Manazala mina 'l-Qur'ani fi 'n-Nabiyyi wa Ahli baytih (by Muhammad ibn al-'Abbas ibn Marwan) 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' (slave of the Prophet), 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-Durru 'l-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 ourselves 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 which the verse shows is that tile 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 of the truth of his claim and had utmost confidence in it. And likewise, the desistence of 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 more mocking to 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; because knowledge in matters of belief means certainty only.
"The words of Allah, let us call our sons and your sons..., 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 non-sense 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 Iowa 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:-
1. 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.
2. 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. Arid 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 above-mentioned 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 traditionalists 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-Taban, Abu'l-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: "Ourselves 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 was the only one qualified for the category ourselves; 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: "ourselves 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 -in spite of their numerousness, in spite 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 of rhetorics, 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 Tafsiru 'l-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 rhetorics 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. ..'
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 an unheard of thing -it has no justification at all. However, it was this trend 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 talk conforms with the situation which it is related to, and throws light on what in a given context is important to explain. 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 on 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 principal. 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 ...", 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 which 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 which 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 more mocking to the Divine Power and Majesty than this? "
In short, the verse invites both parties to gather together 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 which he talks about.
Was it a call to gather together all the believers and all the Christians? But the believers at that time [6] 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 an 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 their 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 shows at all 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"
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 II ( 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! ...Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes
(47:20- 23).
Most of us have heard and know about Mubahila in Madina between Holy Prophet (saw) and Christian leaders of Najran. Lot of us don’t know what happened in Najran before they decided to come to Madina. There was a very interesting meeting held for four days in Najran in which Religious, Political leaders and scholars were invited to discuss on the letter they had received from Holy Prophet (saw).
This was a very interesting meeting in which a great debate took place where one will learn:
•How political leaders push their hypocritical agenda.
•How military leaders get emotional and forward their war agenda.
•How sincere people try to bring the truth out and convince leaders to take the correct actions
•How the religious leaders distort the facts in order to keep their leadership intact for selfish reasons and
•How history repeats and will help in understanding of what is going on at present
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. ..", the Messenger of Allah called 'Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and said: O Allah! These are the People of my House.' "(as-Sahih, Muslim)
The author says: This tradition has been narrated by at-Tirmidhi in his a-Sa!zi!z, Abu 'I-Mu'ayyad al-Muwaffaq ibn Al:lmad in his Kitiib Fa{iii'il li, Abu Nu'aym in his /filyatu 'l-awliyt:l , (from the same narrator as above), and al-l:Iammuyi in his Fart:l'idu 's-sim!ayn.
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." (Hilyatu 'l-awliya)
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. Jabir further said "ourselves 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- Fusulu'l-muhimmah from the same; by Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi from the same; and by as-Suyuti in his ad-Durru 'l-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 'ilu 'l-khayrat)
Abu Nu'aym has narrated in his Dala 'ilu 'l-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.) (ad-Durru 'l-manthur)
al-Bayhaqi has narrated in his Dala 'ilu 'n-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 Sulayman [4] 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 this verse: Surely the likeness of 'Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust. ..and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars.
"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 upto 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."
(ad-Durru 'l-manthur)
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. .." the Messenger of Allah (s) sent (someone) to (call) 'Ali, Fatimah and their sons, a1-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)."
(ibid.)
The author says: This tradition supports the view that the pronoun "this" in the opening sentence, disputes with you in this, 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 story [5] after the events which took place with the delegation of Najran as narrated in numerous traditions which supports each other, and a large portion of which has been quoted above.
Ibn Tawus has written in Sa'du 's-su 'ud: "I saw in the book Manazala mina 'l-Qur'ani fi 'n-Nabiyyi wa Ahli baytih (by Muhammad ibn al-'Abbas ibn Marwan) 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' (slave of the Prophet), 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-Durru 'l-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 ourselves 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 which the verse shows is that tile 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 of the truth of his claim and had utmost confidence in it. And likewise, the desistence of 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 more mocking to 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; because knowledge in matters of belief means certainty only.
"The words of Allah, let us call our sons and your sons..., 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 non-sense 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 Iowa 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:-
1. 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.
2. 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. Arid 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 above-mentioned 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 traditionalists 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-Taban, Abu'l-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: "Ourselves 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 was the only one qualified for the category ourselves; 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: "ourselves 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 -in spite of their numerousness, in spite 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 of rhetorics, 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 Tafsiru 'l-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 rhetorics 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. ..'
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 an unheard of thing -it has no justification at all. However, it was this trend 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 talk conforms with the situation which it is related to, and throws light on what in a given context is important to explain. 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 on 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 principal. 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 ...", 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 which 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 which 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 more mocking to the Divine Power and Majesty than this? "
In short, the verse invites both parties to gather together 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 which he talks about.
Was it a call to gather together all the believers and all the Christians? But the believers at that time [6] 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 an 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 their 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 shows at all 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"
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 II ( 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! ...Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes
(47:20- 23).
Most of us have heard and know about Mubahila in Madina between Holy Prophet (saw) and Christian leaders of Najran. Lot of us don’t know what happened in Najran before they decided to come to Madina. There was a very interesting meeting held for four days in Najran in which Religious, Political leaders and scholars were invited to discuss on the letter they had received from Holy Prophet (saw).
This was a very interesting meeting in which a great debate took place where one will learn:
•How political leaders push their hypocritical agenda.
•How military leaders get emotional and forward their war agenda.
•How sincere people try to bring the truth out and convince leaders to take the correct actions
•How the religious leaders distort the facts in order to keep their leadership intact for selfish reasons and
•How history repeats and will help in understanding of what is going on at present
