A Precise Deduction by ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī from the Expression “al-kādhibīn” (the liars)

ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī establishes a great virtue for the People of the House of infallibility and purity (a.s.) from “al-kādhibīn” (the liars), because firstly, a “liar” like a truthful person, is an attribute of someone who has a message; a person without a claim is neither truthful nor a liar. Indeed, truth and falsehood are privation and possession, not contradictories of each other, thus their mutual absence is possible. Secondly, “al-kādhibīn” is plural, so there must be message-bearers in both groups, so that whichever side is truthful and right, the other would be an instance of “liars” and falsifiers. Therefore, the companions of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) like himself had claims and messages, and if only the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) had a message and others were mere spectators, the sentence could have been expressed as: “Let God’s curse be upon the one who is lying,” to encompass both singular and plural.(734)

On this basis, “Let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, our souls and your souls” (3:61) means we call those who have two conditions: 1. They must be a son, daughter, or like our own soul. 2. They must possess a message.

Accordingly, the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.) said: “You hear what I hear and see what I see, except that you are not a prophet, but you are a vizier and you are upon goodness”,(735) and the other companions of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), in addition to being qualified, must also possess a message, otherwise worthy individuals like Salmān and Abū Dharr should have also come to the scene of mubāhala.

ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī then raises and answers four objections:

First objection: In many verses of the Qur’an, we see that a plural word has only one instance, therefore the word “kādhibīn” (liars) could have multiple instances regarding the Christians of Najrān, while in the opposing group, only the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself could be its instance; like the word “nisāʾ” (women) which is plural or a collective noun, but its instance was only Lady Fāṭima (a.s.).

Answer: There is a difference between these two situations. The use of plural for one person in those verses is because the truth that those verses express could potentially be realized by others, and this requires that they be joined to the subject of the verse in ruling. For example, in “Yet you see those in whose hearts is a sickness rushing to them, saying, ’We fear lest a turn of fortune should visit us’” (5:52),(736) the speaker was ʿAbdallāh ibn Ubayy, but the plural expression was used considering the agreement of his like-minded companions, thus making the plural usage correct. However, in verses like the one under discussion, where the ruling does not extend beyond the subject of the verse and the attribute does not include others, such usage is not permissible. The verse of mubāhala did not extend beyond its own subject (the Prophet’s mutual imprecation with the Christians), so if there were not multiple claimants on both sides, “kādhibīn” in plural form would not have been appropriate.

Second objection: If having a message is a condition, then the call to God’s oneness, rejection of polytheism, belief in Jesus (a.s.) being created, and the prophethood of the Messenger (s.a.w.) could be the message of any Muslim, so the Prophet (s.a.w.) brought these individuals as examples.

Answer: Not just any message was intended in the mubāhala scene, and the action of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) shows that the message of his companions had to be the same as the message of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.). If an ordinary message was intended and if representatives from among the Muslims were to accompany the Prophet (s.a.w.), then given the many Muslims in early Islam who called others to monotheism, at least the minimum number for a plural (3 people) should have been brought for each of the categories mentioned in the verse. In other words, there should have been at least three women, three children, and two men alongside him for the plural expressions (abnāʾ, nisāʾ, anfus) to be correct. The fact that this did not happen shows that bringing those specific companions was only because they were the exclusive instances of those categories. The verse of mubāhala describes a specific event and is technically a “particular case” (qaḍiyyat fī wāqiʿa), not a “universal proposition” (qaḍiyya ḥaqīqiyya) whose content is a general law, like the law of ẓihār. So when God commanded His Messenger to “bring the women,” specific women were intended, and thus he (s.a.w.) only brought Fāṭima (a.s.). Therefore, only Fāṭima (a.s.) among the women had the message.(737)

The point is that the dispute and invitation of the companions of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) was equivalent to the dispute and invitation of the person of the Messenger of God himself, or in other words, his dispute and invitation was established through himself and these few individuals.

Third objection: Even assuming they were brought because they were of him and that attribute was exclusive to them, bringing one’s dearest ones into dangerous situations shows confidence in the absence of danger and the safety of the companions, not evidence of their participation in the call or any other virtue.

Answer: The beginning of the verse indicates no more than this, so he had faith in the truthfulness of his claim and consequently was confident in the safety and well-being of his loved ones. However, as explained before, “the liars” indicates that there are liars on one of the two sides of the mubāhala, and this is only correct if on each side there is a group making claims and invitations, whether truthful or lying. Therefore, those whom the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) brought with him were partners with him in the claim and invitation.

Fourth objection: This statement necessitates that his companions also shared in his prophethood.

Answer: Not at all. Invitation and propagation are not identical to prophethood and divine mission, although they are among its aspects and requirements, and among the positions that a prophet undertakes. There is no problem with a non-prophet undertaking this by God’s specific command, just as these two are not identical to the imamate, though they are among its aspects. Therefore, the companions of the Messenger (s.a.w.) are among the instances of “such as deliver the messages of God and fear Him, and fear no one except God, and God suffices as reckoner” (33:39).(738) They deliver the messages, but they receive the message from the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), and having a message does not necessitate being originally a message-bearer. Thus, they are lower than the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), but higher than all other people, and their message is equivalent to the message of the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) himself.