Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (3)

Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (3)

 

65:4"And (as for) those of your women/nisaa who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair".

The verse comes in the context of divorce obviously as seen from the preceding verses, and is an expounding of the general rule mentioned prior in 2:228. It speaks of nisaa. Nisaa' only means mature women, not atfal/children who havent reached puberty 24:58, and obviously only nisaa can menstruate 2:222.

Even the commentators often quoted to support child marriages never speak of children in their analysis of 65:4 and "those who have not had their course". Ibn Kathir or ibn Abbas for instance infer that the reason for delayed menses is them being young. Since when did youth only cover children? ibn Abbas himself states that the age of nikah spoken of in 4:6 is puberty. 

Girls can reach puberty without menstruation. Body changes like body shape, breasts or pubic hair happen around 2 years before the first period. Sometimes menstruation is delayed longer due to medical and environmental reasons. But the girl will still be of marriageable age despite the delay, provided that she is also mentally ready. Those who often accuse Islam of allowing "pedophilia" have in mind sex with non-menstruating girls. The age of consent in some European countries today like Italy, France or Germany is 14-15. Yet, as stated earlier, many girls reach those ages without menstruation. Would this entail that even those most secular countries allow pedophilia? Those who defend that system would then argue that consent only applies to boys and girls of similar ages. It is thus better morally, spiritually and for the fabric of society to have 2 minors fornicating than a minor marrying an adult with her and her guardians' consent? Where are the parents in the equation, can they disagree and prevent a girl of 15 to have sex with another teenage boy? Does "age of consent" implies knowing what is good for oneself, especially in our modern societies where boys and girls are everything but mentally mature at this stage? Also, a 17 year old boy fornicating with a non menstruating girl of 14 is fine but if the boy is 18 he becomes a pedophile? Even more absurd is that a girl of 17 marrying a man of 25 is pedophilia while the same girl at 18 marrying a man of 50 is fine.

Yes, even in the patriarchal model, abuse is possible. Parents can be corrupt or careless and agree to a bad marriage. Just as they could be abusive and irresponsible to their children even while under their care. But at least they always are part of the equation whenever it comes to deciding for their well being, contrary to secular Judeo-Christian societies. And parents, for the most part will always do and agree only for what is best for their children. The premise of parenthood and guardianship in the Quran and every healthy society is that of care and protection of those under authority. These are the people who are intended in the spirit of the shariah, not abusive and careless guardians.

From a purely medical perspective, pelvic and general body size, as well as fat deposits are almost complete when the first period occurs, mostly between the 8-13 age range. In other words a girl reaches her adult shape at menarche, hence the reason they generally appear bigger than boys of the same age. There is no evidence of minor marriage and consummation at menarche intrinsically causing any more psycho-physical harm than for a girl in her mid 20s, especially not in a traditional backgrounds where girls are safeguarded by their guardians, only married depending on their overall readiness. The statistics showing harmful early marriages do not occur in such contexts and are most often due to poverty, improper medical care, absence of specialists, trained midwives etc. Such social factors elevate the risks associated with pregnancy and delivery across all age ranges. Spiritually, even evolutionary speaking it makes no sense that a girls' body is made capable of childbearing but that this potential is negated. Peak attractiveness of females is considered to be youth and fertility, not maturity, status or college education. Clear studied have shown that the majority of mature men have sexual thoughts and desires at the sight of minor and early pubescent girls. Due to  post-modern social stigma, these men for the most part did not openly admit it, unless the ages of the girls were hidden. Attractiveness of males generally occurs in the late 20s, with features such as status, maturity, and general manliness like facial hair, bone and muscle density.

The secular and modern Judeo-Christian argument boils down to saying that humanity has only now discovered that early marriages are harmful, even deadly due to physical and mental effects, than later marriages.

Going back to the classical jurists, al Shafi'i states that no virgin is to be given in marriage "until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission". Same for ibn Taymiyya. This is based on the Quran's clear statement in 4:5-6 as well as the prophetic practice, who disolved arranged marriages where the bride wasnt asked permission and seemed unhappy. An nawawi quotes al Shafi'i and agrees with him "what they said does not go against the hadith of Aisha". 

Of course the classical scholars used ijtihad to apply the verse to marriages of interest done very early on in the ancient times. These unions were contracted but not consummated until both parties were physically and mentally mature. As ibn battal says "The scholars agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their young daughters even if they are in the cradle, except it is not permissible for their husbands to consummate the marriage with them until they are prepared to safely have intercourse". 

The jurists stipulate that in such situation, the girl remains in her guardians' home until they deem her mature enough to consummate the marriage. This is established on physical appearance and mental development, which varies depending on many factors, internal to the person and environmental. At that point, and as shown earlier, the girl is free to reject the marriage proposal, prior to consummation as unanimously agreed. The prophet said 

"A previously married woman has more right (to decide) about herself (with regard to marriage) (than her guardian), and a virgin should be consulted by her father. [Sunan an-Nasa’i 3264]" 

"A virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted. [Sahih al-Bukhari 6970]". 

Consent, which obviously implies mental maturity, is therefore always understood as part of the equation whenever the jurists discussed marriage procedures. Even if she accepts the marriage, no complete intercourse is allowed to occur if there is fear of physical and mental harm. And this can be due to many reasons besides youth, including illness or thinness. What is allowed then, are other type of harmless sexual acts husband and wife normally happily consent to.

When the classical jurists practiced ijtihad to determine the minimum age of marriage, they did not use Aisha's age as reference. Hanafi for instance define it as puberty based on 65:4. Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki place it at what they deem the average age of mental/physical maturity as per Quran 4:5-6, at around 15years old. Marrying a 9, 15 or 40 year old is not more of a command Muslims must follow than riding camels for transport or searching for a well to fill a bucket with water, just because the prophet did what was appropriate to his time, needs, context.

Thus the Muslim layman, scholars and jurists never saw the early marriage of Aisha to the prophet as sunna, a practice incumbent on Muslims to emulate. This is seen by the fact that statistically and since the beginning of Islam, girls being fully married around the early age of 9 was very rare. The numbers are dwarfed in comparison to the rapes and abuses of prepubescent boys and girls and minors, institutionalized and covered for centuries by the Catholic Church throughout the world and till this day. Yet these are the people who would like to paint Muslim societies in light of their own failures.

The words of the Quran have no specificity of age and are interested in dealing with determination of pregnancy via menstruation -a device that cannot cover prepubescent girls, unless they are well into the age of puberty but did not have their first period yet- and in addition the conditions are attached to the word nisaa in the beginning of the sentence, which only means physically mature women.

The 2 potential roots of the word nisaa denote either forgetfulness (n-s-y) or delay (n-s-hamza) and the manner in which these meanings relate to a physically mature women is that she has either forgotten when she had her last period or that her period is delayed. Both situations describe a woman who is potentially pregnant or that may become one. In the verse, there is no shift from talking about women to talking about children. A woman divorced prior to having her period should wait 3 menstrual periods to significantly reduce the chance of a pregnancy wrongly associated with the new husband. 

There are several physiological reasons for otherwise normally menstruating women that might cause them to fail having their courses, including pregnancy, medical conditions, hormonal dysfunctioning, stress, too much physical exertion, diet etc. It can be delayed and some women may not bleed very much, to the point its hardly noticeable such as what happens in the menopausal stage, before the postmenopause which is the period where women cannot get pregnant anymore.

Those women "who have not had their courses" therefore covers all these categories. The verse also speaks of those that might be in postmenopause and unable to carry children anymore but one isnt 100% sure they have reached such stage, hence the words "if you have a doubt" in the phrase 

"And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt".

 It speaks of women in a condition of despair as regards their monthly courses, women who are beyond the normal age limit and who have not had their courses anymore as they should. Any woman who has seen the effects of that natural phase in other women knows how well off she was during her menstrual phase and relatively mild bothersome symptoms that she experienced.

In comparison there are much more increased risks of health issues to a postmenopausal woman, like heart and bone diseases among many other conditions, not to speak of the mental factor of having to accept infertility, especially for those women without children and who married late. Some unsuccessfully tried to argue that since postmenopausal women must wait 3 idda despite them not having had their courses for a long time and having only a slight chance at pregnancy, then nothing negates that prepubescent girls must also wait 3 idda since, just like the former case, they too have not menstruated for long and in addition they too have a little chance of pregnancy about a month prior to their first courses.

However the wording denies their inclusion. Although one may "doubt" whether a pre-pubescent girl with whom one had intercourse is pregnant or not, just like one may doubt if a woman in postmenopause is pregnant, a pre-pubescent girl is certainly not one who has "despaired of her menstruation". Only one who is well into, if not already passed the normal age range at which women become postmenauposal, qualifies as "despaired of her menstruation". And besides, to include prepubescent girls among those who have "despaired of their menstruation" would entail they are well into, if not passed the normal age limit at which girls get their first period, ie the very late teens. This of course, doesnt serve the purpose of those claiming the Quran allows sex with females regardless of age and psycho-physical readiness.

An important thing to note here, in regards to the precision of the verse's wording, is that "doubt" over "possible" menstruation doesnt cover 

"those too who have not had their (menstrual) courses". 

The advocates of sex with psycho-physical immature females, need the "doubt" to cover them but it doesnt. It only concerns the women who are in postmenopause as described earlier. 

"those who havent had their courses" are women, again, flagged as NISAA', of menstrual age and in addition have already actually menstruated. They are fully expected to keep on menstruating, but they are not currently for the physiological reasons already given.

The purpose of the 3 month waiting period of idda is to determine if the woman about to divorce is pregnant 2:228. For a woman who is expected to menstruate normally, such delay might almost certainly mean pregnancy and also the womb starts to take on visible signs of pregnancy at that stage. This is why 33:49 states those that are divorced prior to sexual intercourse do not have to go through the idda waiting period. Obviously without sexual intercourse, there is no possibility of pregnancy.

That the issue of idda is all about ascertaining potential pregnancy via menstruation is also seen with the second part of the verse 65:4 which mentions the case of confirmed pregnant women, while the first part dealt with those that were potentially pregnant, saying their waiting period is no longer 3 months, but the whole length of the pregnancy.

In light of the above, the lack of menstruation concerns specifically women who are EXPECTED to have their period, which isnt the case of pre-pubescent girls. There is a reason the Quran contrasts the menstruation in terms of expectation (potential pregnancy) versus non-expectation (confirmed pregnancy). The fact that one claims such a verse refers to girls that can't even get pregnant is the utmost absurdity, because nobody expects them to get pregnant. Additionally, if one argues it does refer to pre-pubescent girls, then it renders the whole argument that consummation can only happen after puberty as null and void.

During both cases -that of a woman potentially pregnant having to wait for 3 idda and a confirmed pregnant woman having to wait until delivery- the man must fully sustain the woman without any kind of oppression, though they are going through a hard phase that will probably end in divorce 65:6-7.  

Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (2)

Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (2)

The Quran ties puberty with intellectual maturity together as a prerequisite for starting one's own life, showing that marriage is not only a question of physical maturity 4:5-6. Wealth is handed back to them when they reach maturity/rushd, determined intellectually, as well as a mariageable age, determined physically. If, by the way, the "reaching" of that age isnt determined through observable physical signs as occurs at puberty, but rather the reaching of a specific age, why doesnt the verse simply give that age? The reason is that these bodily changes occur at different ages. Further, to specify an age of marriage would be unpractical. Life expectancy varies depending on many factors. Some countries' average is in the 30s, even today. These conditions necessitate childbearing to happen at the earliest possible time so as to avoid demographic decline. Also, this marriageable age does not have to be at the very start of puberty. It is left to the parent's appreciation who must also evaluate mental readiness. This is done by talking and interacting socially with a person. By their behaviours in different situations and answers to topics like married life, one can evaluate readiness. Anyone who has children understands this process of maturity. The approach to marriageable age in Islam is thus holistic, instead of arbitrary as is the case in modern, secular societies. Muslim fathers, and traditional fathers in general are very protective towards their children and girls in particular. They will never just give away their daughters in marriage without making sure they are ready for full marital life, which includes being capable of shouldering multiple household tasks. Neither would they accept anyone marrying their daughters who is not in the best interest, spiritual, physical, material, to their daughter.

Age of consent in non-muslim countries has varied greatly throughout recent history. It went from "undefined" (ie during puberty) to around 15 years old. The reason they began raising the age was to avoid abuse and child prostitution. On the flip side, these unnatural regulations generated other problems. A child of 8-15 hitting puberty starts experiencing strong sexual desires. The best course of action is to have the consensual option of channeling those desires within the safe bonds of marriage. But modern societies prefer having their children engaging in hidden deviations including fornication, masturbation, pornography. Abstinence is a known failure in this age range and especially in our time of overexposure to information and temptations, as well as almost limitless gender mixing. The true fact is that in these Judeo-Christian liberal societies, by the time a girl reaches what is considered an acceptable marriage age in her mid 20s, she would have already accumulated multiple sex partners. The burden is thus on Judeo-Christian and secular societies to propose an alternative to the Islamic solution.

Also, and as is obvious in our modern times, mental maturity occurs much later than it did in earlier societies. In Islam however there is no such thing as age of consent. Sex is only possible if both parties enter into a marriage agreement. And this necessitates mental readiness as amply seen from the Quran and sunna. Neither the Quran nor the prophet ever allowed abusing anyone.

The verses 4:5-6 state that the orphans about to live independently are to be put through intellectual trials prior to their reaching the age of nikah

"And test the orphans until they attain mariageable age".

If the orphan reaches the age but fails those tests then he cannot be left to fully unite with another and consume the marriage, since starting a life of married couple necessarily includes managing a family and property. A woman receives the dower agreed upon with the husband, either before or after the marriage but always before there can be sexual contact 2:236-7,4:4,19,24-25,5:5. This is a very important point.

The husband cannot retain this amount under any circumstances unless the wife willingly chooses to remit some part of it. An immature woman cannot freely dispose of her wealth, not even a portion of it, meaning her mental maturity is a prerequisite for releasing the dower which must happen before sexual contact.

This shows again that mental and physical maturity are tied together as a prerequisite for living together as a married couple and starting one's own life. All this is demonstrated in the case of female orphans whom the guardian is taking care of and managing the property. The verses 4:5-6 are part of a passage dealing with the well being of orphans. It urges the guardian to make sure the orphans under his care are fully able to enter independently into society. Why would the same guardian do any differently with his own children? This is why commentators including ibn Abbas and ibn Kathir argue for the general application of the verse 4:5-6 to any immature individual. Similarly in 60:12 there is nothing specific for believing women. Bukhari reports that the Prophet, based on this verse addressing women, used to take pledge from believing men on exactly the same terms as believing women.

Elsewhere the Quran refers to marriage as a covenant/mithaq 4:21. As there can be no agreement unless both parties give their consent to it, marriage in Islam can only be contracted with the free consent of the two parties.

The fiqh of even the classical schools argue that a female needs to be consulted regarding her marital status. There is absolutely no such concept as a forced marriage in Islam and every female enters into the contract willingly and mentally capable to understand the situation she is getting into. The actual complete expression is mithaq ghaleezan/a solemn covenant and is used elsewhere to denote a serious bilateral agreement unbefitting of a child 4:154,33:7.

A Girl once came to the prophet, anxious and saying she dislikes the man her father has arranged for her, the Prophet answered

“If you do not like him, that is an end to the matter. You have full authority. Go and make the choice of man whom you would like to marry.”

This attitude from the Prophet was unheard of in a time where girls had nothing to say in that matter. His daughters married the men of their choice, when Ali came to him asking the hand of Fatima, he answered

"Several persons have come to me to ask the hand of az-Zahraa but by the displeasure of her countenance she has refused them. Now I shall inform her of your request.”

Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (1)

Sam Shamoun "Was Aisha really only Nine?" (1)

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. The prophet Muhammad married her 2 years after Khadija's death. As a prelude, it is important to note, the companions of the prophet were cconcerned for his emotional health, seeing how his sadness wouldnt go away following Khadija's passing away, even after marrying Sawda. It was Khawla, a prominent Muslim female companion that suggested Aisha. Being a known tactful person the prophet did not approach Abu Bakr directly but told Khawla to go back and

"mention me to them".

Abu Bakr then doesnt object, otherwise he would have simply said that she was already engaged at the time to Jubayr, whose family was non-Muslim. The only objection voiced by him was

“Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter”.

Nothing about inapropriatness based on age, rather Abubakr assumed that the false preislamic notion that assigned blood ties between people which do not actually exist, such as in adoption, still applied. The prophet corrected that false notion, again through Khawla. Abu Bakr was honored but never broke his pledge to Jubayr's father, it is he who later broke it as he did not want his son to be married in a Muslim family. Jubayr's father knew nothing of Abu Bakr's desire to give his daughter to the prophet. Even the consummation itself was urged by Abu Bakr, which disproves any reluctance from his side.

Not only did Abu Bakr consent, but the initial idea, the engagement and the consummation were all initiated and urged by people other than the Prophet. As to Aisha, in her own words, not only did she consent but actually overjoyed at the initial idea.

The prophet Muhammad proposed to her father Abu Bakr at a time when Muslims were facing the most tormented time of their history. Muslims had to be closer than ever and the Prophet, after being rejected by all influential men and tribes had to strengthen his ties with his few companions. Abu Bakr was still a respected man among the Quraysh and could therefore provide Muhammad with some protection. After Khadija's death, and following his marriage to Sawda, the widow of a companion that died in Abyssinia, he thus asked Aisha's hand.

God breathes the spirit into Mary

The term used in the Quran in the context of Mary conceiving of Jesus is RUH. It is used in many different contexts and for different purposes.

When Allah sends ALRUH for divine inspiration, it executes its purpose as commanded by Him 40:15,42:52. It is important to emphasize that whatever it does and the effect it has, it is by the will of Allah alone, not its own intrinsic will or power. This is particularly made clear with what the RUH, that manifested in human form to Mary, told her in regards her miraculous conception 3:47,19:21. 

The angels of revelation then descend with the RUH upon those whom God deems fit 

77:5,97:4,16:2"He sends down the angels with the RUH by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me". 

RUH stems from r-w-h meaning anything that blows as in a wind/breeze/breath. It also carries the meaning of life giving breath. The word is always associated with a kind of breeze that brings something good such as life, rest or inspiration. Upon the prophet Jesus, the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did 2:87,253,5:110. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications. 

The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their Bible, let alone the Quran. Christians feel comforted whenever they superficially approach the Quran and find these familiar Christological themes. They are sometimes bold enough to assume the Quran is confirming their doctrines. After all, none other than Jesus is referred to as God's word, His messiah or a RUH from Allah. But by doing so Christians are missing the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". Jesus is not the literal nor metaphorical "son of God" but simply, the son of Mary as Christians themselves cannot deny. Similarly, Jesus is stripped from any intrinsic power as regards his ascension and ability to perform miracles. Being the muhaymin/guardian of the previous scriptures and traditions, the Quran could not leave those themes unaddressed. And it does so in an impactful way, using them just as is done in Christian scriptures, while redefining them so as to deny their Christological background.

That corrective function goes beyond these aforementioned pillars of Christology. In the Gospels' eschatology, the trinitarian godhead is at the forefront and Jesus is given the leading role of judgement by his "father" Matt25,26. In the Quran, no possible ambiguity exists as to Allah's supremacy on that day, whether in terms of glory, authority or judgement.

The sending of revelation upon a prophet is carried out by an angelic delegation accompanying the spirit/RUH 16:2. In 16:102,26:192-4 that particular descending spiritual entity is not named, in another place God singles out the descending entity by name as Gabriel 2:97. The Quran describes the eminence of that particular messenger of revelation 

81:19-21"honored messenger, the posessor of strength, having an honorable place with the Lord of the Dominion, One (to be) obeyed, and faithful in trust". 

He is one who is mutaAA 81:21 denoting authority and the angels are created in different grades 35:1. His power, honor and unfaltering trustworthiness 26:192-4, his sacredness 16:102, means he is most fit to accomplish this noble task. That is why the Quran always singles him out from among the angels of revelation 2:98,66:4,97:1-4. The mention of an angelic delegation descending with the revelation expresses the prestige of Allah's word and the singling out of one entity from among them denotes the distinct nobility of the one selected to carry it. As noble and honored the carrier of revelation is, He remains under God's authority in the process 

2:97"he made it descend to your heart by Allah's command". 

This emphasis is meant at dispelling any doubt, in the minds of those that dislike the indirect manner in which God communicates with His prophets, making clear Who the ultimate source of that message is. Not only is the descent commanded by Allah, but it in addition originates from Him 

2:99"And certainly WE descended to you clear communications" 

2:105"Those who disbelieve..do not like..that the good should be brought down to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace" 

26:192-4"And most surely this (ie Quran) is a sending down from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit/RUH has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners". 

The Quran originates from Allah, was commanded to be sent down by Him, through the trustworthy RUH, elsewhere named Gabriel, who is accompanied by a delegation of angels. Elsewhere the Quran, in its surgical use of words and in a similar context of attesting to the otherworldly origin of the Book, says that it is 

53:4"a revelation revealed". 

Since the most obdurate could still find a way to disbelieve, admitting to the divine origin of the Quran but rejecting the legitimacy of the prophet who could have been given the revelation by an inspired human, God makes it clear, it is a process twice revealed. The first time to the medium, that is Gabriel, and the second time to the prophet's heart, by the inspired medium. Sure no explicit statement says that Gabriel or holylspirit is an angel. Strong indications however point to the descending delegation as always and exclusively angelic. Throughout the Quran, no entity carrying God's will from heaven (revelation, punishment or else) is ever said to be other than angels. It is known that the descending entities fully encompassed by Allah's will in 19:64-5 are angels for whom Gabriel is speaking in the passage. What those attempting to deny Gabriel's identification with the holy spirit are left with is a slightly ambiguous statement in 97:4. And that is if one disregards the aforementioned patterns, as well as linguistic reasons for singling out the spirit from among the angels.

The WAW in 97:4 which is translated in general as AND, also often means inclusion of a particular entity within the general more encompassing entity. The purpose is to create a distinction in terms of prominence relevant to the context. For example the Quran says "and the prophets and Jesus and Moses" 2:136,3:84. It mentions the two in WAW/AND form to mean that they are included but to bring particular attention to those two amongst the prophets. Elsewhere it says 69:14"the earth and the mountains are lifted" or in 55:68"In both of them are fruit and dates and pomegranates". See also 31:16.

Finally, the attempted parallel of the syntax in 97:4 (separating entities part of the same angelic group) with 3:87 fails for the reason that in this verse God, angels and humans are explicitly stated elsewhere as being different entities. No statement in 97:4 or indications elsewhere say that the descending spirit and the angels are different entities, quite to the contrary as previously demonstrated.

The description of Gabriel with "RUH" denotes that angels are breeze like entities of the unseen realm. In this world they can take any form or be used for any purpose according to God's will. To Mary, that immaterial entity appeared as a human being 19:17-9. Then this immaterial entity, which assumed human form, blew a part of itself into her, so that she might conceive 

21:91"So We breathed into her from/MIN Our RUH". 

The Quran does not detail how that process was executed in relation to Mary. It uses the euphemism "farj" for the location where the breath was sent 66:12 a word referring to the space between 2 things, in this instance the legs. Farj is used for both men and women 23:5,33:35 eloquently but indirectly alluding to the private parts, which are located between that space. This process does not make Mary nor any part of her divine, just as God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 

58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". 

And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102.

The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity. Again, it is the RUH that breathed a portion of it into Mary, not Allah 

19:19"He (the RUH) said: I am only a messenger of your Lord, that I will give you a pure boy". 

The RUH is consistently described as in Allah's control and command. God in 21:91 attributes to Himself the breathing of a portion of the RUH into Mary, because the whole process is under His control. He commands the RUH to blow into Mary, and God alone gives power to the RUH to have the intended effect on Mary. The RUH has no intrinsic ability by itself other than what Allah grants it 

19:21"She said, when shall I have a boy when no mortal has touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He (the RUH) said; Even so; Your Lord says "It is easy to Me"

 3:47"He (the RUH) said; Allah creates what He pleases, when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it "BE" and it is".

The RUH, like the prophets of old, is a vessel through which God manifests His will. There are no ambiguities the like of which trinitarians have read into passages of the HB. It doesnt even say that this RUH is an emanation FROM Allah, but that it is something TO Allah, meaning belonging to Him, in His possession and full control. The RUH breathed into every human being just as the RUH breathed into Mary is said to be OF God because it BELONGS TO God. The action of God blowing the RUH does not hint to it emanating from inside of Him. The RUH is a breeze-like entity external to Allah. The action of God breathing it for the performance of a task, means He creates the conditions external to Him that make blowing to happen, so that the RUH is transferred from its location to where He wants it to be. For example God, whether in the times of Moses as depicted in the HB or the times of Muhammad as described in the Quran, is said to be literally fighting the disbelievers in battle, although the physical reality was that the believers were the ones waging war. Religious scriptures are repleat with such usage of God acting, and His actions manifesting through conditions external to Him. So, instead of naively imagining a human like deity blowing air out of its lungs, one can easily preserve the overall Quranic axiom of divine transcendence, by paralleling what causes the RUH to be sent, to the meteorological causes that send the wind on earth 

30:46"And one of His signs is that He sends forth the winds bearing good news.."

Lastly, what should be kept in mind as regards the RUH, is that it is an issue of which very little knowledge has been imparted to the humans, other than it is an entity under Allah's complete grasp and control 17:85 as demonstrated earlier. Therefore, like every reality pertaining to the Hereafter or the heavenly realm, only a glimpse of its true nature and manner in which it operates can be accessible to our perception in this life.

Jesus is no different than Yahya and Adam

The particularities of Yahya/John and Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature, neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accomodate some false notions retrospectively applied to these special circumstances. 

Jesus did not need to come from a virgin so that he might circumvent inherited human depravity, which is an unscriptural idea, alien to Jesus' teachings. Neither did Jesus need to be a combination of the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine. 

Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72. 

The Quran thus establishes that man is hardwired with a connection to its Creator. In reference to that intimate relation, the prophet said

 "He who knows his soul knows his Lord". 

On the other hand the Quran warns 

59:19"And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget their own souls". 

Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72. A similar notion can be found in the Hebrew Bible in 

Ecc12:7"The body reverts to the dust that it was before, and the ru'ah returns to God who gave it".

 Nafs and ruh are 2 different but interrelated entities. Nafs is the receptacle that allows physical life to be combined with the spiritual entity with which every human being is endowed with, the ruh. It is man's principal nature. It is thus only the nafs that breaks down and dies, the receptacle allowing the biological and spiritual to be interwoven 3:185,21:35. The soul, the ruh does not die. It is this spirit coming from Allah, infused into Adam for the first time, to inspire him the understanding of good and evil that creates the human thirst for guidance and worship 

91:7-10"And (by) a soul and He Who proportioned it. And inspired it with its wickedness and its virtue. One has succeeded whoever purified it. And one has failed whoever corrupted it". 

Contrary to the convoluted HB, this peculiar human feature was not hidden  in a forbidden "tree of knowledge" but hardwired in mankind, since its inception. This is the spark, when nurtured and developed, that leads one to fulfil the goal of human creation; the worship of God.

Jesus' very first words in the Quran were to declare his servitude to God, besides declaring other lofty aspects of his identity, as well as empasizing the tenets of monotheism 19:30. The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their own Bible, let alone the Quran. It is interesting noting the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". 

Jesus and John were mortals, made from exactly the same elements as other humans, and could not have come into existence without God's word 2:117"Be". The word symbolizes that nothing escapes His grasp in the chain of causality. He may use His command to initiate the chain by creating out of nothing, or He may us it to intervene in a pre-existing chain of causality so as to result in the outcome that He wills

3:59"Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be", and he was". 

This is an instance of Allah using His word to complete a process. Both Adam and Jesus came to completion through Allah's word. Prior to that completion Adam was fashionned from inorganic earthly elements, or as the Quran quotes Allah 

38:75"him whom I created with My own hands". 

All things were, and are created by Allah's direct involvement. Mankind is no different but because it is a specie with a special connection with its Creator, the Quran uses the image of Allah using His own hands doing so, as a metaphor of special care in fashioning and forming it. When that fashionning process reached physical completion, Adam was ready to receive the spirit from Allah 38:71-2. It is at that point that Allah "said to him, "Be", and he was". That command is what triggered all components within Adam, the physical and the spiritual to fuse and ignite, resulting in what is understood by a "human being"; a creature whose flesh and spirit function simultaneously and interdependantly. 

Without God's word, the mere entry of the spirit within the flesh would not cause this creature to function as a human being. One can finish building a robot, then place its batteries, but it will only function once the switch is turned on. God's word is the switch that ignites the human being, allowing its material and spiritual components to work together.

The process that preceded Allah's command was different in Jesus' case. Unlike Adam, he was not first fashionned from earthly substance, but through the RUH that entered the body of his mother so as to allow her to conceive. At some point during the development of the fetus, Allah's word was cast towards Mary. This was the trigger allowing the fusion of the RUH that had entered her prior, with the fetus, resulting in a creature whose flesh and spirit function together.

A question one might ask is why, if all human beings, including Adam and Jesus, were brought to completion through Allah's word, why did the Quran choose to parallel Adam specifically with Jesus in order to deny Jesus' divinity? Adam is the archetypical human being, made from the dust of the earth. No human being after Adam, endowed with the spirit of Allah, is closer to its original earthly substance than him. In the context of refuting Jesus' divinity, and stressing his humanity, no point of reference among any human being is more appropriate than the human who is closest to its wordly, earthly, humble origins than Adam. Further, the one who is alleged to be a god-man, is as helpless in the process of his completion than a human being made of dust. What kind of deity cannot come into existence in whatever shape and nature, without the intervention of a higher power?

The main idea behind the statement, "then said to him "Be" and he is", often used for God's creative action, is that Allah masters the laws of causality. The imperative form gives a sense of absolute control, contrary to the similar but softer Biblical "Let there be". Grammatically, the statement "kun fa yakun/be and he is" is an idiom. Its constituents, like the gender/tenses/persons remain unchanged regardless of the sentence in which the idiom is integrated. The present tense, although speaking of a past event, also serves as a literary device to involve the audience/reader, making him the spectator of the event as it is unfolding, as if the coming to existence is happening now, in front of him.

Jesus is the word/kalima of Allah

3:45"Allah gives you good news with a word/kalima from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa son of Marium". 

Kalimatun, which means word or statement has a feminine designation. But what follows is in the masculine, making Jesus and word/statement 2 distinct entities. This is because Jesus is the product of the creative word, not the word itself 

4:171"The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary was none other than Allah's envoy and His statement/kalima, He casted it towards Mary including a life giving breath from Him (Allah)". 

It literally says Jesus, the human prophet, born of Mary, was a statement cast towards his mother. It does not say the intangible "pre-incarnate" Jesus was a word cast to Mary. This is what one with a hellenistic theological background would read into the verse. 

The precision of the verse does not end here. It does not say the word was cast inside of Mary, rather ila/towards Mary. For that "pre incarnate" Jesus to become flesh, it would have necessitated for it to enter Mary. So clearly, no human being was literally cast to Mary, and neither does it say it entered her. Simply, Allah cast his statement, His command to Mary. That statement allowed the miraculous process by which a particular human being came to existence. 

Jesus was not God's word, as denoted in 3:45 but became God's word. Exactly as Adam manifested the creative word of God. Or as the prophet Yahya/John was the manifestation of God's word, given the particular circumstances of his birth

3:39"Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a word/kalima from Allah". 

Kalimatullah in these contexts is thus not some pre-existing entity separate from God in an intangible shape before becoming physical. It is a command from God that allows a process by which certain physical entities come into being. Adam, Jesus or John did not pre-exist as intangible entities prior to manifesting God's word in physical form. 

Further, the word of God manifests in different ways in this world, not only physical. Kalimatullah is also used in the sense of God's promise 6:34,115,10:64,18:27 etc. Such divine word is a command that can never be reversed or altered once issued 13:41, it can be the promise of victory and assistance to the messengers and their followers 37:171-2 or the promise of chastisement to the rejecters 58:21 or again the promises of miracles or blessings whether in this life or the next. This is because, as repeatedly said in the Book, Allah's statement is truthful and He never breaks His promise

10:55,33:4,38:34"The truth then is and the truth do I speak" 39:20"Allah will not fail in (His promise)".

The association of the kalima of Allah with something also seems to imply truth. This is highly appropriate in light of the descriptions made of Jesus in the NT where he makes false prophecies. Only truth emanates from Allah and Jesus' association with the kalima makes him the embodiment of truth.

The particularities of Yahya/John and Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature. Neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accommodate the false notions retrospectively applied to them. For example Jesus did not need to come from a virgin to circumvent human depravity, something Jesus never even spoke of. Neither did Jesus need to combine the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine. Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72.

The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their Bible, let alone the Quran. Christians feel comforted whenever they superficially approach the Quran and find these familiar Christological themes. They are sometimes bold enough to assume the Quran is confirming their doctrines. After all, none other than Jesus is referred to as God's word, His messiah or a RUH from Allah. But by doing so Christians are missing the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". Jesus is not the literal nor metaphorical "son of God" but simply, the son of Mary as Christians themselves cannot deny. Similarly, Jesus is stripped from any intrinsic power as regards his ascension and ability to perform miracles.

Being the muhaymin/guardian of the previous scriptures and traditions, the Quran could not leave those themes unaddressed. And it does so in an impactful way, using them just as is done in Christian scriptures, while redefining them so as to deny their Christological background.

That corrective function goes beyond these aforementioned pillars of Christology. In the Gospels' eschatology, the trinitarian godhead is at the forefront and Jesus is given the leading role of judgement by his "father" Matt25,26. In the Quran, no possible ambiguity exists as to Allah's supremacy on that day, whether in terms of glory, authority or judgement.

Jesus and John were mortals, made from exactly the same elements as other humans, and could not have come into existence without God's word 2:117"Be". The word symbolizes that nothing escapes His grasp in the chain of causality. He may use His command to initiate the chain by creating out of nothing, or He may us it to intervene in a pre-existing chain of causality so as to result in the outcome that He wills

3:59"Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be", and he was". 

This is an instance of Allah using His word to complete a process. Both Adam and Jesus came to completion through Allah's word. Prior to that completion Adam was fashioned from inorganic earthly elements, or as the Quran quotes Allah 

38:75"him whom I created with My own hands". 

All things were, and are created by Allah's direct involvement. Mankind is no different but because it is a specie with a special connection with its Creator, the Quran uses the image of Allah using His own hands doing so, as a metaphor of special care in fashioning and forming it. When that fashioning process reached physical completion, Adam was ready to receive the spirit from Allah 38:71-2. It is at that point that Allah "said to him, "Be", and he was". That command is what triggered all components within Adam, the physical and the spiritual to fuse and ignite, resulting in what is understood by a "human being"; a creature whose flesh and spirit function simultaneously and interdependently. 

Without God's word, the mere entry of the spirit within the flesh would not cause this creature to function as a human being. One can finish building a robot, then place its batteries, but it will only function once the switch is turned on. God's word is the switch that ignites the human being, allowing its material and spiritual components to work together.

The process that preceded Allah's command was different in Jesus' case. Unlike Adam, he was not first fashioned from earthly substance, but through the RUH that entered the body of his mother so as to allow her to conceive. At some point during the development of the fetus, Allah's word was cast towards Mary. This was the trigger allowing the fusion of the RUH that had entered her prior, with the fetus, resulting in a creature whose flesh and spirit function together.

A question one might ask is why, if all human beings, including Adam and Jesus, were brought to completion through Allah's word, why did the Quran choose to parallel Adam specifically with Jesus in order to deny Jesus' divinity? Adam is the archetypical human being, made from the dust of the earth. No human being after Adam, endowed with the spirit of Allah, is closer to its original earthly substance than him. In the context of refuting Jesus' divinity, and stressing his humanity, no point of reference among any human being is more appropriate than the human who is closest to its worldly, earthly, humble origins than Adam. Further, the one who is alleged to be a god-man, is as helpless in the process of his completion than a human being made of dust. What kind of deity cannot come into existence in whatever shape and nature, without the intervention of a higher power?

The main idea behind the statement, "then said to him "Be" and he is", often used for God's creative action, is that Allah masters the laws of causality. The imperative form gives a sense of absolute control, contrary to the similar but softer Biblical "Let there be". Grammatically, the statement "kun fa yakun/be and he is" is an idiom. Its constituents, like the gender/tenses/persons remain unchanged regardless of the sentence in which the idiom is integrated. The present tense, although speaking of a past event, also serves as a literary device to involve the audience/reader, making him the spectator of the event as it is unfolding, as if the coming to existence is happening now, in front of him.

Reason for Ambiguous verses in the Quran

5:15"O people of the Book! Indeed Our Messenger has come to you, to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the Book and pardoning much, indeed there has come to you from Allah a light and a clear book/mubin".

When the Quran describes itself with mubin, it always is in the context of declaring that it is clearly a book from God, not man made. The root is B-Y-N and it means between. The action of the verb is "betweening". This betweening can mean clarifying because one can know better the difference between two things. It also can mean distancing because the betweening makes things become apart. The Quran clearly separates what is human and what is divine, and it is in that sense that it is mubin, not in the sense of "easy to understand". 

To wholly grasp the Quran certainly is not an easy task and one must beware of a hasty approach to it, drawing wrong conclusions from isolated verses or sentences taken out of their context. One must take the time, allow the whole of the Quran to be revealed to one's mind before attempting to interpret its message 

75:16,20:114"and do not make haste with the Quran before its revelation is made complete to you and say: my Lord, increase me in knowledge". 

This is how the Quran is 

54:17"facilitated/yassarna for remembrence". 

The "taysir" of the Quran doesnt refer to it being made easy but rather facilitated, ie the means to grasp are within reach but require personal effort.

When the Quran says that it contains the explanation of everything 6:38,16:89 like the previous revelations 6:154,7:145, it means it answers all questions pertaining to salvation, as can be seen from the direct context let alone by having a basic grasp of the book's explicitly stated purpose. These important issues have been made easy to grasp and devoid of any possible room for ambiguity. These crucial matters are expressed in the form of concise and straightforward statements 

19:97,44:58,11:1"a Book, whose verses are made decisive/uhkimat, then are they made plain, from the Wise, All-aware" 3:7"He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis/mother of the Book". 

UMM al Kitab literally translates to MOTHER of the book. In the highly conceptual language of the Arabs, because the mother takes her child to his goal of physical development, the word came to be used in other contexts for that which help in attaining a goal. In this case, the decisive verses help us reaching to the truth. These decisive verses are well obvious and scattered throughout the Quran. Each of these verses on its own, is Umm al Kitab, just as a group of them is Umm al Kitab. The 7 verses of sura Fatiha are Umm al Kitab but this does not negate that other verses in the Quran are Umm al Kitab.

Islamic tenets arent the result of centuries of conjectures and proof texting from ambiguous verses, as is the case with Trinitarianism. Containing "all things" thus means all that pertains to spiritual betterment. The HB similarly says Ps119"all your precepts concerning all things". The obvious intent is that it  encompasses all religious matters relevant to the addressees, it is not referring to spiritually irrelevant matters like medicine or cooking recipes.

3:7"He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive (muhkamaat)..and others are allegorical (mutashabihaat); then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding".

The mutashabihat literally means "look alike". They have a range of understandings that are similar but not entirely the same. They are verses open to several understandings because of the subject treated. All of these similar understandings are correct so long as they agree with the rules of the language and most of all, the muhkamat verses. The muhkamat, contrary to the mutashaabihat, only allow one interpretation. They are firm and decisive verses. It is nothing strange for a communication relating knowledge of higher realities outside the reach of current human perception, to address the people in such manner. Previous scriptures are replete with such verses, and all previous prophets were inspired with that mode of expression that gives way to several interpretations 

Hos12:10"And I spoke to the prophets, and I increased their visions; and to the prophets I assumed likenesses".

It was part of Allah's plan to include such verses in order to reveal those 

"in whose hearts there is perversity..seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation".

It is a device out of many, that God has put in place in this world, so as to expose the perversity of the heart. A blatant example of people failing the test is that of trinitarian christians, typically looking to proof text their doctrines within verses open to a wide variety of interpretations, in disregard of the muhkamat/decisive verses of their own books. 

To pass this test, humanity has been explained that "none knows its reality/ta'wil except Allah". Ta'wil doesnt refer to the meaning, but the reality, the ultimate conclusion of the verses. God is saying only He knows their true reality, obviously since they are referring to things beyond the realm of human perception and experience. For instance anyone can understand the meaning of the mutashabihat speaking of the angels, heaven or hell but none knows their true manifestation other than God, since these things are still beyond any experience or human imagination. 

It is no coincidence that 3:7 belongs to sura Aele-Imran which relates the story of Mary and Jesus, as well as of Zachariah, all of whom belonged to the House of Imran. As already noted the deification of Jesus by his later followers is one of the most outstanding instances of how people might interpret revelation in a manner that disagrees with the true nature and purpose of the divine message. The realm of the unseen will always retain an aspect that is beyond our grasp. This does not however justify one building doctrines majoritarly based on those passages, while disregarding the unambiguous guiding principles that are easily found throughout the book, even within those speculative passages. 

For instance, if Jesus gave life, it was by Allah's permission. He had no independent ability to do so, not anymore than the staff of Moses had the intrinsic capacity to change shape. And if Mary conceived of Jesus in an unusual way, it was, again, by Allah's will. Even while there still remains a "grey area" as to the "how" these things occurred, this does not compromise Allah's unity since they are only possible by His permission, having no intrinsic power 

5:17"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things"

But to the ones bent on denying the truth in pursuit of their paradigms, they will still give primary importance to the speculative parts through which the decisive information is reinterpreted, exactly as the Quran depicts them in 3:7. Sura aal imran, following the argumentation against Jesus' divinity, issues an impactful challenge 3:61 that came to be known as al mubahala. Will those whose salvation depends on piecing together obscure passages of their books be willing to come forth and call for God's curse upon the liars? The verse mentions "the liars". Only those present at the imprecation among the husbands, wives and sons, who are making the false claim, will merit God's curse.

The miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth, his life, and until he was taken by Allah provide a fertile ground for speculation and deviation, as soon as one loses sight of the decisive verses and principles through which one is to interpret those passages. 

Historically the context in which the mubahala occured is when Islam had become an undeniable power knocking at the doors of the neighboring empires of the time. The prophet had to preemptively protect the borders of the growing Islamic state either by conquering new territories or by forming alliances with the tribes and nations bordering those kingdoms. Among them the Christians of Najran with whom he expected to find common spiritual grounds. After sending them a letter inviting them to Islam, they came back to Mecca with a delegation to inquire of his message. They were received at his mosque where they were allowed to pray and reside. Then began the theological debate which ended with the challenge of mubahala. The Christians declined it and preferred agreeing on an amount of Jizya in exchange of keeping their religion and forming an alliance of common interest with the Muslim state. Had they been convinced of the truth they were arguing for, they wouldnt have hesitated taking the oath of the mubahala. But since truth did not matter to them, only the luxurious life their position as clergymen conferred them in their society, they preferred not taking any risks. So they bargained the truth against keeping their position of power. 

Like the elite of all times who clinged to their ways when a prophet came to them, they knowingly maintained a falsehood in place, corrupting the laymen, because it benefited them. The Quran thus ends the argument with a powerful and pertinent statement 

3:62-3"This is indeed the truth of the matter. There is no deity save God. Indeed, it is God Who is the Mighty, the Wise. And if they turn away, God has full knowledge of those who spread corruption".

Again, a powerful illustration of this concept of testing the hearts through the ambiguous verses is in 74:30-31. It speaks of Hell, the place containing all the evil of the past present and future, as being guarded by 19 angels. Hell is not the kingdom of the devil. It is a place sustained by God, guarded by angels and where punishment is inflicted, including to the devil. Although the mention of the guarding angels' numbers was apparently unnecessary, it later states the purpose as being a trial to both believers and disbelievers. 

When the disbelievers who were threatened with this abode and who used to boast about their own armies over those of the Believers heard this, they laughed that the prophet proclaimed hell was only guarded by an army numbering nineteen beings. They implied they would have no problems in handling them. 

This type of Quranic argumentation exposes those with a materialistic mind frame which cannot posit what is beyond their own experiences. The one approaching the book with an attitude of negativity and rejection will be misguided by it, unable to objectively ponder on it, leaving the intended meaning aside, solely going after the parts in a comprehensive and intricate argument that are open to speculation in order to discredit the deeper sense or corrupt it 

2:26"Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that (in humbleness); then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this (the gnat or any other illustration) as a parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors".  

On the other hand when the believers, who have faith that there is a world beyond their own experience and far beyond what they visualize in their ordinary lives heard this reality, they shuddered with fear at the message of the might of Allah and increased in faith. 

There are other similar instances of the Quran relating the disbelievers' skepticism of certain apparent impossibilities of the Hereafter. In a context of reminding that the water coming down from the cloud is a process established by God who could turn its sweetness into bitterness as He turned its bitterness into sweetness, He allows the process by which fire is ignited 56:68-74. Besides the obvious message of gratitude, these verses speaking of God being the originator and constant maintainer of the most basic to the the most complex phenomena we know, also convey the message that none should disbelieve in God's ability to reverse, or modify these realities. 

To a believer, the fact that Hell will be a place where both trees and fire will mingle 17:60 or that only 19 angels oversee hell is an insight into the nature of the Almighty's unseen kingdom, for his hosts in this realm act on a scale unimaginable for our current existence "and none knows the hosts of your Lord but He Himself". 

The Quran is stating in that verse that this phenomenon of relating the unseen, in and of itself is a trial, for it brings forth the opponents' actual malice towards the Quran. At the same time it benefits the believers in the process, those who already have affirmed the possibility of the unseen. When 74:31 speaks of the People of the Book being certain after hearing this parable, it refers to their knowledge of this phenomenon of God separating the good from the evil through this process of trial as well. The HB and NT refer to the manifestation of God's might on the last Day, as well and how they were ordered to await that Day. It also reveals how the believers rejoiced when told this news by their respective prophets.