379. Reports say that some Jews, notably Sukayn and `Adiy b. Thabit (`Adiy b. Zayd: Qurtubi, Alusi), claimed before the Prophet that God did not reveal anything to anybody after Musa. Allah revealed this verse in refutation. Another report, that of Ka`b al-Qurazi, says that when the Jews heard the previous verses, describing their corruption, some of them denied that anything had ever been revealed to anyone in the world: neither to Musa, `Isa, nor to anyone else (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

380. Zabur is the name of the Book revealed to Da’ud just as Al-Qur’an is the name of the Book revealed to our Prophet Muhammad (Ibn Jarir). Some parts, or the whole of what is known as the Psalms of David in the Old Testament, might or might not be a remnant of the Zabur given to Da’ud (asws) - Au.

381. In all, Allah spoke in the Qur’an of the following (twenty-four) Prophets and Messengers: Adam, Idris, Nuh, Hud, Salih, Ibrahim, Lut, Isma`il, Is-haq, Ya`qub, Yusuf, Ayyub, Shu`ayb, Musa, Harun, Yunus, Da’ud, Sulayman, Ilyas, Al-Yasa`, Zackariyyah, Yahya, `Isa and Dhu al-Kifl, with Muhammad as (the twenty-fifth, and) the most prominent of them all (Ibn Kathir). A long report in Ahmad has come from Abu Dharr. He says, ‘Once I entered the mosque to find the Prophet alone there. I asked him: “Messenger of Allah. (How about) the Prayers that you have commanded?” He said: “Prayer is the best thing. Therefore, Pray as much as you can.” I asked him: “Which is the most virtuous deed.” He said: “Belief in Allah and jihad in His path.” I asked: “Which believer is the best?” He replied: “The best of them in his morals.” I asked him: “Which Muslim is the most submitted?” He said: “One from whose tongue and hands other Muslims feel secure.” I asked him: “Which emigration is the best?” He replied: “He who gave up evil deeds.” I asked him: “Which is the best Prayer?” He said: “The one in which the standing is the longest.” I asked: “Which fast is the best?” He replied: “The obligatory ones which are best rewarded. And Allah has great quantities of reward.” I asked him: “Which jihad is the best?” He said: “He who slaughtered his beast and shed his own blood.” I asked him: “Which freeing (of a slave) is the best?” He replied: “The most expensive and the best among his folk.” I asked him: “Which charity is the best?” He said: “The efforts of the least possessed and the handing over in secrecy to the needy.” I asked him: “Which is the most magnificent verse revealed to you?” He replied: “Ayah al-Kursyyi.” Then he added: “Abu Dharr. The seven heavens are no more before the Kursiyy than a grain of sand in a patch of land. And the Kursiyy is no more before the `Arsh than a grain of sand in a patch of land.” I asked him: “How many Prophets have there been?” He said: “One hundred and twenty-four thousand.” I asked: “How many of them were Messengers?” He replied: “Three hundred and thirteen: a great lot and a good lot.” I asked him: “Who was the first?” He said: “Adam.” I asked: “Was he a Messenger too?” He replied: “Yes. Allah created him with His Hand, blew into him His spirit, and then straightened him up.” Then he added: “Abu Dharr. Four of them were Syrians: Adam, Shith, Khanukh, i.e., Idris who was the first to write with a pen, and Nuh. Four from the Arabs: Hud, Shu`ayb, Salih and your own prophet, O Abu Dharr. The first Prophet among the Israelites was Musa and the last `Isa. The first Messenger was Adam and the last Muhammad.” I asked: “O Messenger of Allah. How many books did Allah reveal?” He replied: “A hundred and four books: to Shith fifty, to Khanukh thirty, to Ibrahim ten. To Musa He revealed ten books before He revealed the Tawrah. And He revealed the Tawrah, the Injil, the Zabur and the al-Furqan.” I asked: “What was in the Scriptures of Ibrahim.” He replied: “(Allegories and paradigms) such as, ‘O proud, tyrannous, conceited king! I have not appointed you to amass wealth upon wealth. I have placed you there so that you may attend to the complaints of the oppressed. I myself do not reject the petition of the oppressed, even if it were to be from an unbeliever.’ And, ‘An intelligent man should divide his time into parts: A part in which he will address himself to his Lord. A part in which he will take stock of his deeds, another in which he will ponder over the creation of God, and a part devoted to earning his livelihood...’ And, ‘An intelligent man might not engage himself except in three things: Preparing for the Hereafter, working for the livelihood or enjoying that which is not forbidden.’ And, ‘An intelligent man ought to well understand his times, busy himself with his own affairs, safeguard his tongue; and surely, whoever realized that his words are equal to his deeds, will speak little but about affairs of importance.’” I asked him, “What was in the Scriptures of Musa?” He said, “Alert words (`ibar) such as: ‘I wonder at him who is certain of death yet opts for pleasure...’” I asked him, “And do we have such things in our Scripture?” He said, “Yes,” and recited these verses (87: 14-19),

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَنْ تَزَكَّى (14) وَذَكَرَ اسْمَ رَبِّهِ فَصَلَّى (15) بَلْ تُؤْثِرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا (16) وَالْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ وَأَبْقَى (17) إِنَّ هَذَا لَفِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَى (18) صُحُفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى [الأعلى : 14 ، 19]

‘Surely he prospered who cleansed, remembered his Lord’s Name and Prayed. But you prefer the life of this world, whereas, the Hereafter is better and longer lasting. This is in the Scriptures of old - Scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa.’" “I said: "Messenger of Allah. Advise me." He said: “I direct you to observe taqwa, for it is the pinnacle of all your affairs.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Recite the Qur’an and remember Allah much, for you will be remembered in the heavens and it will be a source of light in this life.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Avoid much laughter, for it deadens the heart and takes away the light of your face.” I said: “Tell me more, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “Observe silence for it drives away Satan and helps you in religious causes.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Look at him who is below you and not at him above you, for it is hoped that this way you will not belittle Allah’s favors to you.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Love the poor (masakin) and keep their company. This way it is less likely that you will belittle Allah’s blessings on you.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Join the kin even if they cut you off.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Speak out the truth, even if it were to sound bitter.” I said: “Tell me more.” He said: “Do not fear the censure of the critics in matters of religion” – shortened. Ibn Kathir presents several reports of this nature but points out that all of them may not be too trustworthy.

382. The words “spoke to Musa directly” are to emphasize the fact, and to leave no room for any conjecture, that the speaking was only allegorical (Shawkani).

383. The Sahihayn have preserved a hadith which says:

لَا أَحَدَ أَغْيَرُ مِنْ اللَّهِ وَلِذَلِكَ حَرَّمَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا شَيْءَ أَحَبُّ إِلَيْهِ الْمَدْحُ مِنْ اللَّهِ وَلِذَلِكَ مَدَحَ نَفْسَهُ

“No one has greater sense of honor than Allah. Accordingly, He has forbidden the obscene, both the open as well as the concealed. No one loves to be praised more than Him. Accordingly, He has praised Himself.” Another version of Bukhari adds:

وَلَا أَحَدَ أَحَبُّ إِلَيْهِ الْعُذْرُ مِنْ اللَّهِ وَمِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ بَعَثَ الْمُبَشِّرِينَ وَالْمُنْذِرِينَ

“And no one loves to complete the argument more than Him. Hence He sent the Prophets and Messengers, giving glad tidings and warnings” (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

384. The verse starts with a “but” as if to say that people might deny the sending down of Messengers, but Allah bears witness (Zamakhshari).

385. Ibn `Abbas has said that when a group of Jews visited the Prophet he told them: “I think you know in your heart that I am a Messenger of Allah.” The Jews denied this and Allah revealed this verse, which meant to say that even if the Jews denied the fact, Allah Himself bears witness to it (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

386. Everything has its limits, overstepping which is evil. Mutarrif b. `Abdullah has said that virtue lies between two vices (Qurtubi).

387. Our own Prophet Muhammad (saws) feared that his followers might also commit excesses of the same sort as the previous nations with their prophets, hence he said, in effect, in reports preserved in several books including Bukhari: “(In your veneration of me) Do not commit excesses of the sort the Christians committed with regard to `Isa ibn Maryam. I am no more than a slave, therefore, refer to me as a slave of Allah and His Messenger” (Ibn Kathir). As the Christians committed excesses with regard to Jesus, so did the Jews, who said (slanderous) things about him (Zamakhshari, Shawkani).

388. The “kalimah” of the original either stands for “Messengership,” or, as Qatadah has said, the allusion is to the “Word” of “kun” (i.e., “be”) by which Maryam became pregnant with `Isa (asws) - Ibn Jarir. But there is room to believe that the allusion by the word here is to “the signs” of Allah, as in surah al-Tahrim, verse 12 which says,

وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا [التحريم : 12]

“She (Maryam) believed in the signs (kalimat) of her Lord” Or, as in surah Luqman, verse 27,

مَا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ [لقمان : 27]

“Allah’s signs would never end” (Qurtubi, Shawkani).

389. Various views have been expressed about the original words “ruhan minhu” (i.e., a Spirit from Him). One opinion is that it means “a blow from Him,” since life was blown into the womb directly, without the part played by a sire. Others have said that it means “a life from Him” (Ibn Jarir). To be sure, there is no strangeness in the combination: “a spirit from Him.” It is in the same vein as: “Allah’s camels” in al-Shams, verse 13, or “Cleanse My House” in al-Baqarah, verse 125 (Ibn Kathir). It is said that a Christian physician in the court of Harun al-Rashid argued that the Qur’an confirmed that Jesus Christ is part of God. He used this verse to substantiate his claim. Hussein al-Waqidi al-Marwazi was present. He rejoined that if that was so then all of the creations have a part of God in them, in view of the verse (45: 13):

وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا مِنْهُ [الجاثية : 13]

“And He subjected to you what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, all together, from Him.” That convinced the man and he embraced Islam pleasing Harun so much that he rewarded Waqidi heftily (Alusi). Asad adds: “As regards the expression ”a soul from Him" ... it is to be noted that among the various meanings that the word ruh bears in the Qur’an (e.g., “inspiration” in 2: 87 and 253), it is also used in its primary significance of “breath of life”, “soul”, or “spirit”: thus, for instance, in 32: 9, where the ever-recurring evolution of the human embryo is spoken of: “and then He forms him [i.e., man] ... and breathes into him of His spirit” - that is, endows him with a conscious soul which represents God’s supreme gift to man and is, therefore, described as “a breath of His spirit”. In the verse under discussion, which stresses the purely human nature of Jesus and refutes the belief in his divinity, the Qur’an points out that Jesus, like all other human beings, was “a soul created by Him”. Rashid Rida writes: (If by the word Ruh we understand Ruh al-Qudus, (Holy Ghost) then the usage of the word is wide and varied in the New Testament. It has been used both in association with and without Jesus Christ. Matthew 1: 18 for instance, says: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Or, in Luke 1: 34-35: “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee ...” Or, in Luke 2: 25 it says: “And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” The first two quotes above clearly show that Jesus Christ was created through the agency of the Ruh al-Qudus (or Jibril).

390. The belief in Trinity is one of the several variant beliefs that various Christians hold as true. There are numerous such groundless notions. For example, some of them believe that Jesus was the son of God, others that He was God Himself, and so on. In fact, someone has put it aptly when he said that if ten Christians were to get together (and express their opinions about God) they would do it in eleven contradictory ways (Ibn Kathir). Thanwi adds: “The verse also refutes the entirely baseless notion of hulul held by the ignorant Sufis.” Trinity Rashid Rida writes: The belief in Trinity is not a novelty of the Christians. Researches undertaken by Western scholars show the idea prevalent among many peoples of the past. The Hindus, for instance, believe in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They call it “Trimurthy.” The Chinese Buddhists believe in a Trinity of their own. The basis of Tau beliefs and philosophy is also in trinity. Ancient Egyptian religious system, whose most holy temple was at Memphis, started the initiation of the freshers with the catechism that originally there was one God. He created the second. Then the two created the third and thus the “Holy Trinity” achieved completion. In fact, when their ruler asked the chief priest about God, he replied that the Godhead constituted of a Triad consisting of God, the Word and the Holy Ghost. Ancient Persians had their own trinity of Gods: Ozmerd, Matrat and Ahraman, although later they developed duality, with a god of good and a god of evil. Similarly, the writer of “The Development of Religious Thoughts” details that the ancient Greeks believed that god has three hypostasis. Therefore, when their chief priest offered the sacrifices of the worshippers to the deities they sprayed the sacrifice with three holy sprinkles, sprinkling those present three times, drawing incense with the help of three fingers, under the belief that everything holy has an aspect of three in it. The Hebrew dictionary says that the barbarians who lived in the north of Prussia worshipped a deity that had three heads. It was called “Triclave,” where “Tri” is three and “Clave” perhaps for god. Likewise the ancient Scandinavians worshipped three gods called Odin, Thor and Freyr which they believed were three aspects of one reality. Their temples as well as those found in Denmark used to be decorated with the figures of these three gods. With these findings before us, can we ask: Did the Europeans accept the religion of the Prophets of Israel who believed in One God, or did they continue with their ancient religions, adding Jesus Christ to the long list of deities?! Surely, had the Christians nothing else to check their beliefs against, except the Gospels, even then they should have been led to One God. The Gospel of John says, in ch.17, v.3: “(Jesus spoke thus) And this life is eternal, that they might know thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” And in Mark, ch.12, v.29, when Jesus was asked about God’s commandments, replied: “The first of all his commandment is, Hear O Israel: The Lord, our God, is one Lord.” To the above, this author would like to add the following: Although the importance of the subject demands an exhaustive presentation, we shall for the moment content ourselves with a few remarks. Any unprejudiced person who looks into the Gospels, will be amazed to find no support whatsoever for the concept of Trinity or the nature and mission of Jesus Christ as incorporated in the Christian creed. Nowhere does Christ claim himself a son of God, or possessed with divinity, or claim a part in a trinity of gods. It is true that he refers to God as the Father, and to himself as the Son, but the Scriptures use the terms in reference to many others. As for Trinity, the word does not find mention once in the Gospels. A single verse on which the Church rests its argument, could be speaking of anything but Trinity and which Biblical scholars have shown as of later introduction. The concept of Trinity, therefore, has its origin in anything but the Gospels. Western scholars have shown that early adherents of the Christian church from the northern sphere, were already familiar with the concept as a creed of their pagan religions, and so it was readily accepted by them when adopted by the Church, but opposed by the Eastern churches. Gibbon feels that Greek philosophy had influenced the early churchmen. Whatever the origin, one or many, historical accounts tell us that it was Paul of Jerusalem, formerly a Jew and persecutor of the Christians, who was the first to introduce the concept into Christian thought and non-Gospel Scriptures. Although initially a disciple of the disciples of Christ, he later claimed independence following revelations and inspirations to him. Ultimately he parted ways with a disciple, but not without a quarrel. Significantly, there must have been something seriously wrong, for a disciple of Christ, one who shared the Last Supper with his Master, whose feet his Master had washed, and who, after him, journeyed across the lands spreading his message on his bidding, should have disapproved of Paul. But, at least on this score, Paul, who never saw Christ, has been dearer to the Catholic Church than an Apostle of Christ. Expectedly, the ideas introduced by Paul were never accepted whole-heartedly by the Christians anytime in their entire history. Early Church was as divided over the nature of Christ, as the fingers of a hand. From the beginning, there was a strong faction opposed to Paul’s ideas. They held the belief that Christ was no more than a human and a Prophet. This faction came to be symbolized in the fourth century by a learned religious figure called Arius, whose piety no one ever questioned; it was of such order that he declined to contest for the grand office of the episcopal throne. He stood firm against Pauline ideas. He and his followers waged a struggle against the established Church. A large majority of the bishops of Asia appeared to support or favor his cause. In fact, the most learned seemed to be on his side. Arius’ ideas however, were not the only ones that were different from those of the established Church. Hillary, a Bishop of the fourth century, lamented that in the ten provinces of Asia that he had visited, “there could be found very few prelates who had preserved the knowledge of the true God.” The statement implies that either the prelates subscribed to the Arian creed, which refused to accept Jesus Christ as the son of God, or believed in Trinity. If we assume that the bishop was referring to Arian creeds, then we get some idea of the popularity of his beliefs. But if he was referring to the prevalence of Trinity, then his words acquire a chilling note, “there could be found very few prelates who had preserved the knowledge of the true God.” Such were the conditions when churchmen from over the world, gathered in Nicene in 325 A.C., to agree on a Christian creed. Arius was there. There are differences in opinion as to how many supported the Arian creed. Some accounts say they were in minority, while one or two accounts say they were actually in majority. Perhaps the confusion about the numbers is because of the fact that several such conferences were held and votes counted. According to one account, supporters to Arian cause at Nicene included two Bishops, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and, as Gibbon mentioned, seven hundred virgins. The stand taken by the Arians was that since the nature of controversy was too complicated and, in fact, incomprehensive to most who spoke on it in passionate terms, moderation was to be observed, and therefore, such terms of definitions must be avoided which could not be found in the Scriptures. Could he have asked for less? Yet, despite the plea, Homoousion (consubstantiality in a different guise) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost was established in the council of Nicea and declared a fundamental article of Christian faith. Arian was declared a heretic - for claiming oneness of Divinity! A modern scholar Brenton wrote: “Official Christianity finally accepted in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, near Constantinople, the Trinitarian, or Athanasian, position. According to this the persons of the Trinity, God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost are real persons, three in number, and yet they are also one. Christianity remained a monotheism, its Trinity well above Mathematics.” And, “... But the point must be made again firmly, for if Christianity is so regarded one would expect the triumphant Christianity of the Council of Nicaea, the official faith of the world’s greatest empire, to be quite different from Christianity of the fishermen of Galilee. On the other hand, if one takes the New Testament as the final assertion of Christian truth, one is bound to conclude, not just that the Christianity of the fourth century was different from that of the first, but that the Christianity of the fourth century was not Christian” (Ideas and Men, Brinton, Prentice Hall, p. 127). Arian’s cause however did not die out. When the next Council met in Rimini, forty of the bishops, of the total of four hundred bishops were Arians. Most of the non-Arians were, significantly, from the northern regions, who for the first time in their history, after emerging from their forests and caves as pagans, had embraced a divinely revealed religion. In contrast, Arian bishops were highly learned men of the East, from a region where Jesus Christ had appeared about whom the controversy was raging. In truth, the Western bishops, docile followers of the commands of the Latin Church, ignorant of the language of the texts, should have been disqualified from voting. Nevertheless, it seems the Arians seem to have had a better field day, and a more persuasive turn. The word “Homoousion” was dropped by common consent. It was only when the Western bishops had returned home, and perhaps held discussions with the lower clergy in the respective regions, that they realized that they had all become Arians by agreeing to expel the word. Homoousion was therefore hurriedly and more firmly replanted into the churches of the West. Yet, the issue was far from settled and had not gained popularity. Thirty years after the council, even Hillary the important religious figure we have quoted above, was himself unaware of the exact requirements of the Nicene Creed. The following excerpt from him gives us a view of the then Christian world’s confusion over its creeds: “It is a thing, equally deplorable and dangerous that there are so many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily and explain them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion (consubstantiality: Au.) is rejected, and received, and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute for these unhappy times. Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, and anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, abridged version, p. 397). The divisions among the Christians, the infighting, the struggle to control the Church, were threatening to tear apart the Roman Empire in the fourth century. The emperor, Constantine, could not sit idle while the inner turmoil weakened the strength of his empire. He decided to act. He called for another conference and got three hundred bishops assembled together for a fresh attempt at the resolution of the problem of creed. This time, the recent convert to the faith – the Emperor - decided to be the arbiter and the judge. What was to many a question of life and death, hell or heaven, he attributed its origins to a trifle point, at best a subtle question but incomprehensible to the best minds. Ignorant, not of the language of the holy texts, but of the text itself, and disadvantaged by translations into erroneous Latin, he was far from qualified to judge over a credal matter and its metaphysical dimensions. While the issue was being debated hotly, he must have listened more with curiosity than with a sharp sense of right and wrong. Yet, in his resolve to end all controversies, he ratified the older Nicene creed and threatened those who disagreed with him with exile and confiscation of all property. The Arian votes immediately dropped down from seventeen to two. If majority counts in religion, the Nicene creed was reconfirmed by the majority. Arius himself was banished to a distant province, his writings put to flame and capital punishment pronounced for anyone in possession of them. However, the edict ink had hardly dried when the Emperor discovered that his own sister was an Arian. We do not know of the happenings, discussions and talks within the palace, but, to be sure, Arian was recalled and reinstated in Royal favor. He was received in court respectfully and his creed approved by the synod of Jerusalem, the seat of Christian learning, if not of political power. But the day he was to be readmitted into the Church of Constantinople, Arius suddenly collapsed and died while walking through the streets of the capitol. It was suspected that the holy Church personalities had done more than merely praying for his death. Three principal enemies of Arius, who had opposed him tooth and nail for decades, Athanasius, Eusthatius and Paul (of Constantinople) were deposed by the Church councils on various counts and banished to distant lands. Constantine himself, the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire, who was the author of the Christian creed as held true by the Catholic Church, received the rites of baptism from an Arian bishop shortly before his death. His sons who ascended the throne, and grandsons, remained Arian and the faith of the royals spilled into the following centuries. But the ultimate triumph, thanks for the numbers in the West, was for the Nicene Creed, and for consubstantiality. Such are the ironic historical details of a Creed held dear and true by the Roman Catholic Church (Au.).

391. That is, Jesus is not the Guardian of the people, rather, it is Allah who is the Guardian, and One who suffices as a Guardian. (Nevertheless, the word “wakil” can also lend the meaning of “a Disposer of affairs.” In that case the interpretation would be: Au.): Allah does not need a son to dispose off His affairs. He suffices for that Himself (Alusi).