يَٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَٰبِ لِمَ تُحَآجُّونَ فِىٓ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَتِ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةُ وَٱلْإِنجِيلُ إِلَّا مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦٓ
Yā ahla'l-kitābi lima tuḥājjūna fī Ibrāhīma wa mā unzilati't-Tawrātu wa'l-Injīlu illā min baʿdih, a-fa-lā taʿqilūn · Hā-antum hāʾulāʾi ḥājajtum fīmā lakum bihī ʿilm, fa-lima tuḥājjūna fīmā laysa lakum bihī ʿilm, wa'llāhu yaʿlamu wa antum lā taʿlamūn · Mā kāna Ibrāhīmu yahūdiyyan wa lā naṣrāniyyan wa lākin kāna ḥanīfan musliman, wa mā kāna mina'l-mushrikīn · Inna awla'n-nāsi bi-Ibrāhīma la'lladhīna'ttabaʿūhu wa hādha'n-nabiyyu wa'lladhīna āmanū, wa'llāhu waliyyu'l-muʾminīn
"People of the Book! Why do you dispute about Abraham? Both the Torah and the Gospel were sent down only after him. Will you not use your reason? · There you are: you disputed about what you had knowledge of; why then do you dispute about what you have no knowledge of? God knows, and you do not know. · Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a ḥanīf, one who had handed himself over, and he was not of the mushrikūn. · The nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him, and this prophet, and those who believe. God is the protector of the believers."
These four verses build the first proof of the third block. And the kind of proof must be recorded: this is not a proof from history but a proof from the logic of time. I shall treat it in detail, because the form of reasoning built here does not come again so plainly in the sūra.
| Element | Wording | What it conveys |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lima tuḥājjūna fī Ibrāhīm | There is a dispute, and its subject is a person |
| 2 | Wa mā unzilati't-Tawrātu wa'l-Injīlu illā min baʿdih | The two books came down after him |
| 3 | A-fa-lā taʿqilūn | Let the reader draw the conclusion |
And the second element carries the whole sentence. Its word order must be recorded separately: mā … illā — negation and exception. In Arabic this pattern sets up restriction (ḥaṣr): "not otherwise, but only thus." That is, the sentence does not say "they came down afterwards"; it says "they came down only after him". No other possibility is left.
A person cannot be assigned to an identity that arose after him. The two adjectives set before Abraham's name (yahūdī, naṣrānī) cannot be attached to a person who lived before the two books that gave rise to those two adjectives. For a name cannot exist before the thing that brings it into being.
This is an objection that removes not the subject of the dispute but the possibility of the dispute. Before saying "Abraham was such and such", the verse says "what you are putting forward cannot be set up in point of time".
I record this as an observation about logic, and its ground is the verse's own wording: the sentence names the error of anachronism (placing a thing in a time that is not its own). And it does so not by a term but by a date: the time when the two books came down.
And I draw a boundary: the verse is not disputing the worth of the two books. In the third verse both were named as hudan li'n-nās (3/3-4). What is at issue here is not the truth of the books but the fact that a person lived before them. The two questions must not be confused.
And the verse does not state the conclusion. The sentence "therefore Abraham was of neither of the two" is not in verse 65; it is held back until verse 67.
I record this as an observation about the word order: verse 66 comes in between, and there the method of disputing is discussed. That is, the order is this — first the proof, then the method, then the conclusion. The conclusion is put last.
The root ع-ق-ل: to bind. ʿIqāl — the cord that binds a camel's knee. The root was treated in many places in the series; I do not repeat it here. What belongs here is this: the picture of the root is binding, and what is asked to be bound here are a date and a claim.
| Kind | Wording | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Disputing that rests on knowledge | Fīmā lakum bihī ʿilm | Not forbidden — it is recorded that it happened |
| Disputing that does not rest on knowledge | Fīmā laysa lakum bihī ʿilm | Lima — "why?" |
And this is one of the most notable notes of the sūra in point of method. I give it as my own reading, and its ground is the opposition of the two sentences: the verse does not forbid disputing in itself. What it forbids is groundless disputing. And the measure is not which side one is on but whether one has knowledge in hand.
هَٰٓأَنتُمْ هَٰٓؤُلَآءِ — the coming of two particles of attention (hā) and two demonstratives one after another conveys in Arabic a direct confrontation: "there you are, you of all people." The same pattern will come once more in the sūra: at verse 119, hā-antum ulāʾi tuḥibbūnahum. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra, and in both the addressee is confronted with a false position.
| Step | Wording | Its work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mā kāna… yahūdiyyan wa lā naṣrāniyyā | It removes both names |
| 2 | Wa lākin kāna ḥanīfan musliman | It puts two attributes in their place |
| 3 | Wa mā kāna mina'l-mushrikīn | It closes a third possibility too |
And the real point is the difference between the first and second steps: what is removed are names, what is set down are attributes.
Yahūdī and naṣrānī are relative nouns conveying membership — they state belonging to a community. Ḥanīf and muslim, on the other hand, are each a quality: one conveys a turning, the other a handing over. Neither of them points to a group, nor does the plural of either give a list of members.
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the difference between the two kinds of word: the verse does not answer a claim of membership with another claim of membership. The kind of answer is changed — what was asked was "of which side?", and what is given is "of what quality?".
And per the method (Method) I record this plainly: no ruling about any community follows from this verse. The verse removes two names from Abraham; it says nothing about those who bear those names. Verse 113 of the sūra will enter the note on this separately.
The root was analysed in detail at 30/30 in al-Rūm (ḥanīfan fiṭrata'llāh) and at 2/135 in al-Baqara. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat it here. The summary recorded there:
ح-ن-ف — to incline in one direction, to turn away from crookedness. The lexicographers tie the word to a concrete usage: aḥnaf is a person whose feet turn inward. The idea that comes out of this: a ḥanīf is one who parts from what is common and inclines in another direction.
And what belongs here is this, which I give as an observation about the word order: ḥanīf conveys a parting; and the verse uses it in the very sentence in which two memberships are refused. That is, the picture of the word itself coincides with the work of the sentence: a turning that goes outside the two names.
مُسْلِمًا — root س-ل-م. It was analysed at verse nineteen; I do not repeat it here. The only note belonging here is this: the word comes here indefinite and as an attribute — musliman, as an adjective. That is, the sentence points not to an institution but to a state.
The root و-ل-ي: nearness, adjacency. Walī — the one who is near. Awlā — the elative: the one who is nearer.
And the verse sets the measure of nearness plainly: alladhīna'ttabaʿūh — "those who followed him". Not descent, not a name, not membership — ittibāʿ.
I record this as an observation: the measure of nearness is drawn out of the dispute itself. The sides were disputing who belonged to Abraham; the verse turns the measure to who followed him. And this measure is not something that can be claimed but something that can be observed.
And the end of the verse must be recorded: wa'llāhu waliyyu'l-muʾminīn — a word from the same root (و-ل-ي), this time of God. That is, the verse closes a dispute about nearness by naming the source of nearness. The use of the same root twice in one verse, in two different directions, is a fact of word order.