Page 433
wa-ʾidhā tutlā ʿalayhim ʾāyātunā bayyinātin qālū mā hādhā ʾillā rajulun yurīdu ʾan yaṣuddakum ʿammā kāna yaʿbudu ʾābāʾukum wa-qālū mā hādhā ʾillā ʾifkun muftaran wa-qāla lladhīna kafarū li-l-ḥaqqi lammā jāʾahum ʾin hādhā ʾillā siḥrun mubīnun
When Our manifest signs are recited to them, they say, ‘This is just a man who desires to keep you from what your fathers used to worship.’ And they say, ‘This is nothing but a fabricated lie.’ The faithless say of the truth when it comes to them: ‘This is nothing but plain magic,’
— Ali Quli Qarai
Surah As-Saba- Verse 43
43. “And when Our clear signs are recited to them, they say: ‘This is naught but a man who desires to bar you from that your fathers used to worship’; and they say: ‘This (Qur’an) is nothing but a falsehood forged’. And the unbelievers say to the truth, when it has come to them: ‘This is nothing but a manifest sorcery’.”
The Arabic word /bayyinat/ is the plural form of the term /bayyinah/ and it is used for a proof that its truthfulness is manifest and the word /’ifk/ is used for something which has been reversed and its original shape has changed. The verses of Allah are clear, and the denial of disbelievers is because of their obstinacy. That is why the Qur’an says:
This is their first reaction in the face of these clear verses that they propounded among this fanatic tribe in order to move their bigotry. Specially the application of the term /’aba’ukum/ (your fathers) instead of ‘our fathers’ is mostly for this very purpose that they might make those fanatic people understand that the legacy of their ancestors was in danger and they should stand against that man and dismiss him. The application of the phrase:
has been used for the contempt of the Prophet (S) by means of two elements: one is the word /haŏa/ (this), and the other is /rajul/ (a man), in an indefinite form, while all of them knew the Prophet (S) very well and that he had a good background. This is also notable that the Qur’an qualifies the ‘signs’ by the word ‘clear’, which means the proofs of their legitimacy are accompanied with them and this fact does not need to be explained. Then the Qur’an refers to their second statement that they expressed in order to nullify the invitation of the holy Prophet (S).
It says:
The Arabic word /’ifk/, as was explained before, means: ‘anything that changes from its original form’. So, the opposite winds in Arabic are called /mu’tafikat/, then it has been used also for any falsehood, accusation, and any incorrect statement. Some others say that the word /’ifk/ is used for great lies. Although the application of the word /’ifk/ for accusing the Prophet of Islam (S) of falsehood was enough, they emphasized it with the Arabic word /muftara/ without having any document for this claim of theirs.
Finally, their third accusation to the Prophet (S) was the denigration of ‘sorcery’, as the last part of the verse under discussion says:
It is surprising that this aberrant group used to state these three accusations with the most explicit emphasis which was restriction. Once they said that it was only a manifest sorcery; in another place they said it was but a lie; and, finally, in the third place they said that he only wanted to bar them from the objects of worship of their ancestors. These three undue charges, of course, do not contrast with each other, although they did not refuse to say contradictory words. Therefore, there is no reason that, according to the statement of some commentators, we attribute each of these accusations to one group of the disbelievers.
This point is also notable that: in the first and second stages the Qur’an has used the word /qalu/ (they said), but in the third stage, instead of that, it has used the sentence: /qalallaŏina kafaru/ (those who disbelieved said), pointing to this fact that all these miseries originate from disbelief, denial of the Truth, and enmity with reality. Else, how is it possible that, without having any reasoning, one forges all these accusations, one after another, to a man that the proofs of legitimacy are clearly seen from his speech, his deed, and his background? As if, by these three accusations they followed an accurate program in conflicting against the Prophet (S).
On one side, they saw that it was a new religion and had a proper attraction. On the other side, the Prophet’s threats to Divine punishment in this world and the next, willy-nilly, had made some people terrified. On the third side, the Prophet’s miracles (S) affected on the minds of common people. They had devised a way in order to nullify each of these three subjects. So, in opposition to the new religion, they attached to protecting the heritage of the ancestors, while their ancestors were, as the Qur’an says, the extension of verse which says:
It does not matter that he restrains people from such superstitious customs which are the devise of the foolish ignorant ones, and that against the Prophet’s threats to Divine punishment, they had propounded the subject of mendacity in order to make people calm. In the face of miracles, they propounded the accusation of ‘sorcery’ so that they could justify it thereby and stop people from embracing it. But, as we know and history testifies it, too, none of these Satanic temptations did work effectively, and finally people accepted this pure religion in groups.
Footnotes