Āl ʿImrān 3:61

Fa-man ḥājjaka fīhi min baʿdi mā jāʾaka mina'l-ʿilmi fa-qul taʿālaw nadʿu abnāʾanā wa abnāʾakum wa nisāʾanā wa nisāʾakum wa anfusanā wa anfusakum thumma nabtahil fa-najʿal laʿnata'llāhi ʿala'l-kādhibīn

"Whoever disputes with you about this after the knowledge that has come to you, say: 'Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves; then let us pray with all our hearts and call down the curse of God upon the liars.'"

Per the method (Method) I draw a boundary here, and I write it plainly: a wide literature of reports and a dispute between the schools have formed around this verse. Those reports and that dispute are not entered in this commentary; no personal names are given. I keep within the wording of the verse.

The concrete sense of the root is worth recording, and the lexicographers dwell on it: ب-ه-ل — to let a thing loose, to leave it unrestrained. Bahala'n-nāqata — he did not keep the she-camel from her young but let her loose; he undid her halter.

From this comes ibtihāl: to entreat with abandon, keeping nothing back. The word occurs only here in the Qurʾān.

I record this as an observation: the picture of the root is an untying — the lifting of a restraint. And this is what is asked in the verse: that both sides turn directly to God with no reservation held back.

Those called are counted in three pairs, and the word order must be recorded:

All three pairs are symmetrical: each designation is applied to both sides in the same way. And the order is worth recording: sons, women, selves.

I record this as my own reading, and it is not binding: the order runs from what a person guards most towards himself. That is, the call does not mean "come, let us argue with each other"; it means "let each side put forward what it values most."

And the logic of the proposal lies here: if a man knows that he is lying, he will not call the price of that lie down upon his own child. That is, the proposal is not a method of debate but a measure of sincerity.

And the verse does not narrate the outcome of the proposal. I record this as an observation: the text does not say whether the encounter took place or not. This silence of the text is preserved in this commentary.

There is an indeterminacy in the sentence: ḥājjaka fīh — "disputes with you about this". What does the pronoun refer to?

All three are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ — and the most repeated note of the sūra once more: the dispute comes after knowledge has arrived. The same note stood at verse 19; it will come once more at verse 105. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.