Āl ʿImrān 3:59-60

Inna mathala ʿĪsā ʿinda'llāhi ka-mathali Ādam, khalaqahū min turābin thumma qāla lahū kun fa-yakūn · Al-ḥaqqu min rabbika fa-lā takūna mina'l-mumtarīn

"With God the case of Jesus is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him 'Be'; and he was. · The truth is from your Lord; so do not be of those who doubt."

This verse is a proof, and proofs are read by being taken apart. I shall set out its structure step by step.

The objection is this (it is not stated in the verse, but this is what the proof answers): a human being born without a father is not an ordinary human being; therefore he is something else.

The answer of the proof lies in three steps:

And the force of the proof lies in the second step. This needs opening out.

In the birth of Jesus there is a mother; there is no father. In the creation of Adam there is neither mother nor father. That is, the instance brought is more extraordinary than the case under dispute.

The logic of the proof is this, and it can be seen in a table:

And the conclusion is unavoidable: if the absence of one cause puts a person outside humanity, the absence of two would do so all the more. But no such claim is made about Adam by any side. Therefore the measure is not the number of causes.

In classical logic this is called qiyās bi'l-awlā, an argument a fortiori: a ruling is voided in the weaker instance by being shown not to hold in the stronger one.

I record this way of taking the proof apart as my own reading; but the structure itself comes out of the wording of the verse, and it has been explained in this direction in the classical commentaries as well.

The root م-ث-ل: to resemble, to be equal. Mathal — a likeness, an instance; and the case, the condition of a thing.

And the work of the word in the sentence must be recorded: the verse does not say "Jesus is like Adam". Mathala ʿĪsā… ka-mathali Ādam — "the case of Jesus is like the case of Adam."

I record this as an observation about the word order: what is likened is not the persons but the manner of their coming to be. This also settles the extent of the proof: the verse is not comparing the attributes of two prophets.

And the caveat must be recorded: ʿinda'llāh — "with God". That is, the measure is not people's view.

It was treated at 2/117 in al-Baqara; I do not repeat it here.

Here I add the fact within the sūra: the expression occurs twice in the sūra, and the two occurrences are bound to each other.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: in the forty-seventh verse this expression conveyed a possibility; in the fifty-ninth it is used as a leveller. The same utterance ties two human beings to the same cause and renders the difference between them — one from dust, the other from a mother — ineffective as regards the outcome.

And a point of word order must be recorded: the sentence begins with khalaqahū min turābin (perfect) and ends with fa-yakūn (imperfect). The standing of perfect and imperfect side by side in the same sentence is striking in Arabic.

The explanation in the classical commentaries: the imperfect brings the event before the eyes (ḥikāyat al-ḥāl). I transmit this and add an observation: the sentence narrates a past event and then passes in its last verb to the present — that is, what is narrated is left not as a finished event but as a rule in operation.

The root م-ر-ي: to doubt; and to dispute. Form VIII: imtirāʾ — to fall into doubt. The root was treated at 19/34 in Maryam (yamtarūn) and at 53/55 in al-Najm.

And the word order of the sixtieth verse must be recorded: al-ḥaqqu min rabbika — "the truth is from your Lord". The sentence states a source; a prohibition follows.

I record this as an observation: the sentence that comes after the proof is given does not command that the proof be accepted; it commands not falling into doubt. And the one addressed is the side presenting the proof. That is, the sentence is spoken not to the person who keeps up the dispute but to the one conducting it.