وَقالوا أَآلِهَتُنا خَيرٌ أَم هُوَ ۚ ما ضَرَبوهُ لَكَ إِلّا جَدَلًا ۚ بَل هُم قَومٌ خَصِمونَ
They say: ‘Are our gods better or he?’ They only cite him to you for the sake of contention. Rather they are a contentious lot.
EXEGESIS
Their question, Are our gods better or he? can be read as either an affirmative rhetorical interrogation (istifhām taqrīrī) which would give the meaning ‘you admit, don’t you, that our gods are better than Jesus?’ or it can be read as a negative rhetorical interrogation (istifhām inkārī) which would give the meaning ‘surely, he is not better than our gods’.
Jadalan (for the sake of contention) is a causative object indicating that they only cited this example for the purpose of quarrelling and opposing truth with falsehood.[1]
The phrase, Rather they are a contentious lot is a retraction (iḍrāb), which shifts from treating this obstinacy as a mere incidental occurrence in this debate to clarifying that this is not unusual for them. Rather, by their very nature, they are a people given to dispute and bigotry, refusing to submit to clear truth.[2]
Khaṣimūn (contentious) is the plural of the adjective khaṣim which means one who is intensely argumentative[3] or one who is characterised by disputation,[4] or tends to argue a lot.[5] Perhaps Irving’s translation reflects this emphasis more: ‘Indeed they are such quarrelsome folk!’
EXPOSITION
When They say: ‘Are our gods better or he?’ they were claiming that their objects of worship were superior to Prophet Jesus (a) and more worthy of being taken as objects of devotion. The basis for this claim was that the idols, in the understanding of the polytheists, were not merely lifeless stones. Rather, they functioned as representations of the angels. The polytheists worshipped these idols because they believed them to represent angelic beings who were close to God. Therefore, when they said, Are our gods better or he?, they meant: ‘Our gods – that is, the angelic beings represented by these idols – are surely better than Jesus.’
They only cite him to you for the sake of contention: the response given to them is that they only cited this example for the sake of argument, for they were well aware that the foundation of monotheism is the absolute rejection of divinity for anyone other than Allah, and that there is no justification for anyone to claim divinity for Prophet Jesus (a) or any other messenger or angel. Thus, citing the divinity of Jesus (a) has no valid basis whatsoever; but they are a contentious people, and argumentation and obstinacy are part of their nature.[6]
This understanding is in line with those exegetes who opine that these verses were revealed after the description of Prophet Jesus (a) in Sūrat Maryam. Their argument relied on the Christian characterisation of Jesus (a) as a god or son of God and ignoring the Quranic account. While the Quran presents the Son of Mary as an example affirming monotheism, they turn him into a symbol of polytheism. The example of truth is transformed into an example of falsehood, with the intent of mockery. This type of argumentation is among the most frivolous kinds. That is why they deserve to be described as a contentious lot, meaning that their nature is to dispute and argue, not to seek the truth.[7]
Some exegetes suggest that their basis for considering their deities as better than Jesus (a) was because their idols represented affluence and power whilst Jesus (a) was a symbol of ascetism and purity.[8] Others postulate that it is based on the idea that their deities were still present in front of them whilst Jesus (a) was no longer visible and had departed.[9]
This kind of obstinate contention is a universal characteristic of the adversaries of divine apostles, Every nation attempted to lay hands on their apostle, and disputed erroneously to refute the truth (40:5).[10]
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: ‘No people go astray after having been guided except through engaging in contentious disputation.’ He then recited, They only cite him to you for the sake of contention. Rather they are a contentious lot.[11]
[1] Hadi, 3/244.
[2] Hadi, 3/244.
[3] Lisan, 12/181.
[4] Raghib, 1/285.
[5] Amthal, 16/79.
[6] Hadi, 3/244; Qutb, 5/3198.
[7] Munyah, 25/226-227.
[8] Mudarrisi, 12/502.
[9] Ahsan al-Hadith, 10/43.
[10] Mudarrisi, 12/503.
[11] Ibn Majah, 1/76; Ahmad, 36/493; Tirmidhi, 5/217.