Dreams, Visions and Revelation Islam Languages

The Promised Messiah’s (as) English Revelations: Divine Inspiration & Human Limits (Part III)

This is part three of a longer article titled “The Truthfulness of the English Revelations of the Promised Messiah (as)”.

© Shutterstock

Azhar Goraya, Puerto Rico

Divine Revelation is not bound by Conventional Rules of Grammar and can Follow an Archaic Form of the Language

Another possibility that the Promised Messiah (as) expressed was that some of the English revelations he received could be following older conventions of the English language which were no longer in common use. The wisdom in doing so would be to demonstrate the All-Encompassing knowledge of God. In this case, it would demonstrate that not only could God reveal foreign phrases to His messenger, but that He could reveal them in a form that was unknown to both the recipient and the people of the age. Nevertheless, on deeper study, the brilliance and correctness of the revelation would shine through, silencing critics and elevating the remarkable nature of the revelation even more.

By the grace of Allah, all of the revelations that have been objected to based on modern English grammar find precedence for their structure in older forms of the language.

Grammatical Intricacies in the Holy Qur’an

There are numerous cases in the Holy Qur’an where the divine revelation did not follow the standard rules of grammar as was understood by the Arabs. One of the most famous examples of this is:

إِنْ هَٰذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ يُرِيدَانِ

“They said, ‘Certainly these two are magicians. . .’ ” (20:64)

If standard rules of grammar applied to this sentence, then the sentence should have been ان ھذین لساحرین, seeing as ان is part of the حروف ناصبہ.

There are other incidents of where the Qur’anic revelation has not followed the standard rules of Arabic grammar, such as in the verse:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

“Surely, those who have believed, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians — whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds, on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (5:70)

Here the word الصَّابِئُونَ should have been written as الصابئين, owing to the ان at the start of the sentence, which changes the noun after it into the condition of nasb. The Holy Qur’an has used the standard form of grammar for the exact same wording in another place:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئِينَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالْمَجُوسَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَفْصِلُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

“As to those who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Magians and the idolaters, verily, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection; surely Allah is Witness over all things.” (22:18)

Here الصَّابِئِينَ is written as it would otherwise normally be written according to the rules of grammar.

Grammatical experts and commentators of the Holy Qur’an have sought out explanations for these and other anomalies and have offered several solutions. For example, in the first example given above, Imam Razi of Tafseer-e-Kabeer fame has noted that “this is the language of some of the Arabs”. The writer of Tafseer Qurtabi has noted that “in the language of some of the Arabs, it is permissible to say جاء الزیدان و رأیت الزیدان و مررت بالزیدان”. Of course, this is done against the standard rules of Arabic, which would have placed all the relevant nouns in the case of nasb or jarr, making the sentence جاء الزیدان و رأیت الزیدین و مررت بالزیدین .

Opponents of Islam retort that resorting to such grammatical acrobatics to legitimize the perfection of the language of the Holy Qur’an is dubious practice and a sleight of hand. The answer that is given to them is that the language of the Qur’an is revealed by Allah, who is the originator of the Arabic language and the All-Knowing, and therefore cannot be incorrect.

The rules of grammar are not set in stone nor divinely revealed, rather they are an imperfect, human attempt to encapsulate as much as possible the different ways in which a language is used. This is a difficult if not impossible task, owing to the fluid nature of language and its vast expanse. Linguist John Algeo writes:

“Change is normal in language. Every language is constantly turning into something different, and when we hear a new word or a new pronunciation or use of an old word, we may be catching the early stages of a change. Change is natural because a language system is culturally transmitted. Like other conventional matters—such as fashions in clothing, hairstyles, cooking, entertainment, and government—language is constantly being revised. Language evolves more slowly than do some other cultural activities, but its change is continuous and inevitable.” [76]

Grammatical rules therefore cannot be arbitrarily defined by grammarians. Far from grammarians setting down how a language must be used, they attempt to express how people have come to use the language to express their ideas. As the use of the language changes, so too do the rules of grammar. Then there are the different dialects and colloquial or “slang” forms of the language which are used and understood by the people, though they may not come into formal writing or fall within the standard rules of the language [77].

Based on the same principles, the English revelations granted by Allah to the Promised Messiah, wherever they were correctly recorded, must be correct as well, whether they follow any known convention of grammar or not.

With this short preamble, we turn to those English revelations that have been objected with an eye to older forms of the English language and the tool of etymology, which is the study of the origin and evolution of a word’s semantic meaning across time.

I can what I will do. We can what We will do

The Promised Messiah (as) has recorded these two revelations in his work Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya:

“Then came the revelation:

[English] I can what I will do.

Thereafter, with such emphasis that made my body tremble, came the revelation:

[English] We can what We will do.

At the time, the tone and pronunciation made me feel as if an Englishman was standing over me and uttering these phrases. Despite the awe-striking tone, there was a pleasure in it, giving comfort and satisfaction to the soul even before the meanings had been ascertained. Such revelations in English have often been repeated.” [78]

It seems that these revelations would be among those whose wording could not be easily forgotten, owing to the implication that they were repeated, their brevity, and moreover their simple wording. Though some may object to their grammatical structure according to current conventions, the above phrases are perfectly intelligible according to older forms of English.

Linguistically, “can” had the meaning of “to know” in Old English: The Online Etymology Dictionary states under “can”:

Old English 1st and 3rd person singular present indicative of cunnan “to know,” less commonly as an auxiliary, “have power to, to be able,” (also “have carnal knowledge”)… It holds now only the third sense of “know,” that of “know how to do something” (as opposed to “know as a fact” and “be acquainted with” something or someone). Also used in the sense of “may”, denoting mere permission [79].

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology states under “can”:

“†know; (with inf.) know how, (passing into) have power, be able. One of the group of preterite-present verbs… the primary meaning was ‘have learned’, ‘come to know’. OE. cunnan, OS. cunnan, OHG. kunnan (G. können), ON. kunna, Goth. kunnan.” [80]

The 1913 Webster’s dictionary gives the following examples of its use in the sense of “know” from Old English:

can rimes of Rodin Hood. [I know rhymes of Robin Hood]

Piers Plowman.

can no Latin, quod she. [I don’t know Latin, she said]

Piers Plowman[81]

Shakespeare also used the word in the sense of knowing. He writes:

“Let the priest in surplice white,/ That defunctive music can…” Phoen, 13–14.[82]

Therefore, one possible meaning of the above two revelations would be:

know what I will do

We know what We will do

With this definition of the word ‘can’, the sentences become perfectly intelligible.

God is coming by His army. He is with you to kill enemy.

For the sake of simplicity, we shall deal with each of the above sentences individually.

The first sentence is:

            God is coming by His army [83].

It seems at first glance that the sentence should read “God is coming with His army”.

The word “by” is a preposition. As early as the Elizabethan era (16th – 17th century), which was known as the golden era of English literature and in which Early Modern English was in use, their use was far vaster than it is now. E.A. Abbott writes in his work A Shakespearean Grammar:

“…many of the meanings of “by ” have been divided among “near,” “in accordance with,” “by reason of,” “owing to;…”[84]

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, “by” has the meaning of “alongside; in the course of; according to; in relation to; marking the means or instrument.”

According to the Dialect Dictionary by Joseph Wright, the word ‘by’ also denotes “together with” or “in company with”.[85]

Shakespeare used the word in in the sense of ‘near’, or ‘being near to’:

“For gazing on your beams, fair sun, being by.” Errors, III, ii, 56.

“. . . go with me, and with this holy man,/ Into the chantry by . . .” T Night, IV, iii, 23–24.[86]

Therefore, possible meanings of this sentence would be:

God is coming alongside His army.

God is coming together with His army.

God is coming in company with His army.

God is coming near His army.

All these meanings are acceptable.

The second part of the revelation is:

He is with you to kill enemy.[87]

Modern grammar would probably restructure this sentence with the addition of an article before the noun ‘enemy’. For example:

He is with you to kill the enemy.

He is with you to kill an enemy.

The English language has precedence for dropping the article “a” and “the” before not only the word “enemy”, but all nouns. E.A. Abbott writes in his work A Shakespearean Grammar:

“A” and “The” omitted in archaic poetry.

In the infancy of thought nouns are regarded as names, denoting not classes but individuals. Hence the absence of any article before nouns. Besides, as the articles interfere with the metre, and often supply what may be well left to the imagination, there was additional reason for omitting them. Hence Spenser, the archaic poet, writes

“Fayre Una whom salvage nation does adore.”

“And seizing cruell clawes on trembling brest.”

Faire virgin, to redeem her deare, brings Arthure to the fight.”

” From raging spoil of lawlesse victors will.”

” With thrilling point of deadly yron brand.”[88]

Therefore, the omission of the article before the noun ‘enemy’ would have been common practice in Elizabethan English. We also find this construction in Old English in reference to the word enemy. In the text A Book of London English 1384-1425:

if any of þe forsaide bretherhede be enpresoned falslich by enme, oþer by fals conspiracie.[89]

The relevant portion, be empresoned falslich by enme, means be imprisoned falsely by [an/the] enemy.

Shakespeare also used the term without its accompanying article in The Merchant of Venice:

“That ‘scuse serves many men to save their gifts.

An if your wife be not a mad-woman,

And know how well I have deserved the ring,

She would not hold out enemy for ever,

For giving it to me. Well, peace be with you!”[90]

It is also possible that this is a form of an ellipse. Grammatically, an ellipse is the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction. They were commonly used in Elizabethan era grammatical constructions. According to E.A Abbott in A Shakesperean Grammar:

“Several peculiarities of Elizabethan language have already been explained by the desire of brevity which characterised the authors of the age. Hence arose so many elliptical expressions that they deserve a separate treatment. The Elizabethan authors objected to scarcely any ellipsis, provided the deficiency could be easily supplied from the context.

“Vouchsafe [to receive] good-morrow from a feeble tongue.”

“When shall we see [one another] again?’

“You and I have known [one another], sir.”

“On their sustaining garments [there is] not a blemish, But [the garments are] fresher than before.”[91]

Since the context of the sentence is readily understandable, the ellipse in the sentence “He is with you to kill enemy” could be the word ‘the’, making the complete sentence “He is with you to kill the enemy”.

Who is this enemy? The Promised Messiah (as) did not mention any specific individual when he penned this revelation, but it could easily be interpreted as regarding any number of his well-known opponents.

I am quarreler.

The same explanation of ellipses and dropping articles before a noun would hold true for this revelation. The revelation could thus be understood in modern English as:

I am a quareller, or

I am the quareller.

Who is this quarreler, in the case of an ellipse? When the Promised Messiah (as) received this revelation, it was clear in his mind that it was a prophecy which referred to someone who was involved in some dispute. This prophecy was subsequently fulfilled [92].

Words of God not can exchange.

This revelation is quoted from a letter sent by the Promised Messiah (as) to Mir Abbas Ali, recorded in the compilation Maktubat-e-Ahmadiyya, which is dated December 12, 1883. In that letter, the Promised Messiah (as) sent him some revelations and asked that he revise their wording since the revelations had come to him quickly and he was unsure of their exact phrasing. He indicated that he wished to include them in his subsequent work.

This same revelation seems to have been recorded in the work of the Promised Messiah (as) Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya vol. 4, which was published in 1884. Here there seems to be a slight change in the wording, from “not can” to “can not”:

“Though all men should be angry but God is with you. He shall help you. Words of God can not exchange.[93]

It’s possible that there was a scribal error when the text of the letter to Mir Abbas Ali was copied to the original compilation of Maktubat-e-Ahmadiyya. In this case, there is no actual discrepancy between what was written by the Promised Messiah (as) in the letter and what was subsequently published in Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya [94].

Even if Mir Abbas Ali did suggest that the word order be changed in a subsequent exchange (of which there is no evidence), and that suggestion was accepted by the Promised Messiah (as), there is no cause for objection. The explanation for him consulting others about the foreign language revelations he received has already been provided.

There remains the matter of the word “exchange”, which seems to be a bit out of place. The more common word here would be ‘change’. Nevertheless, we find that the word ‘exchange’ was at times used in place of ‘change’.

The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology states that the word ‘change’ has historically been used to mean alteration, substitution, or exchange [95].

The Online Etymology Dictionary states under “change”: 

from Latin cambire “to exchange, barter”… From c. 1300 as “undergo alteration, become different.” In part an abbreviation of exchange.[96]

Shakespeare also used the words interchangeably. Eugene F. Shewmaker in his glossary of Shakespearean words, notes under ‘exchange’:

“to change; alter: “Just to the time, not with the time exchanged . . .” Sonn 109, 7” [97]

In modern English, the revelation could therefore be understood as:

Words of God can not change.

He halts in the zilla Peshawar.

In this revelation [98], “zillah” is originally an Urdu word that was subsequently adopted into the English language. The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary states:

“Zillah: an administrative district in India, containing several parganas.” [99]

You have to go Amritsar;

The above revelation [100] seems to lack the preposition ‘to’ after the verb “go”. Nevertheless, this omission was commonly observed in Elizabethan English. E.A. Abbott explains in his book A Shakespearean Grammar that “prepositions are frequently omitted after verbs of motion”. He then provides the following examples of how the prepositions are dropped after the verb of motion ‘to’:

“That gallant spirit hath aspired [to] the clouds”

“Ere we could arrive [to] the point proposed”

“Arrived [to] our coast” [101]

Having recourse to etymology to understand the works of great English authors is quite common. Shakespeare is considered one of the finest playwrights and geniuses in the English language who appeared during the golden era of English literature. Nevertheless, author Charles Mackary explains that many of the words and phrases he and his contemporaries used are unintelligible today without recourse to etymology and other linguistic investigations. He writes:

“All Students and lovers of Shakespeare are aware that there are many obscure and unintelligible words and phrases in his Plays and Poems, as well as in those of his most eminent contemporarieswhich his editors and commentators have hitherto been unable to explain. Critical examination proves that a large proportion of these are traceable to the Keltic, Gaelic, or Gallic spoken by the Britons who possessed the country before the irruption of the Danes and Saxons, or the formation of the actual English language. This ancient, but long unwritten speech, though Dr. Samuel Johnson and others, who spoke without knowledge, were of a contrary opinion, was not wholly superseded by the Anglo- Saxon, but remained to a very considerable extent in use among the labouring classes and the unliterary population, until long after the time of Shakespeare, and exists to the present day in many slang and unliterary words and the colloquial language of the uneducated or semi-educated vulgar. By the lights derived from these hitherto-neglected sources, the Author has been enabled to explain many passages in these immortal works, which have been puzzles and stumbling-blocks to English scholars for nearly three centuries. The work, of which the following pages are offered as a specimen, appeals to all admirers of the poet, and to such students of philology as are ready to receive the truth whencesoever it may come, and however much it may run counter to the preconceived opinion that the English language is wholly of Saxon or Anglo-Saxon derivation; and that it is in no way indebted to the original speech of the British people [102].

Unintelligibility, Rareness or Strangeness of the Language of the Revelation is not a Reason for Rejecting It

Muslims would take care to remember that there are many linguistic intricacies in the Qur’an and hadith and should therefore not be in a haste to disavow the validity of those revelations of the Promised Messiah (as) which they may see as linguistically problematic.

For example, many volumes have been written under the branch of Islamic science known as غرائب القرآن و الحدیث والآثار (strange or archaic words in the Qur’an, Hadith and narrations of the companions and later generations) as a concerted effort to precisely define the sometimes-obtuse words that are found in the Islamic literature. To do so, recourse is made to classical Arabic poetry, lexicons, Arabic roots, different dialects of the Arabs, and etymology.

Sometimes, these terms and words were unknown to even the close companions of the Prophet Muhammad (sa), yet this never caused them to doubt the validity of the revelation. Ibn-e-Abbas (ra) is reported to have stated that he did not know the meaning of the word فاطر which occurs in the 6:15 of the Qur’an [103]. Hazrat Umar (ra) according to one narration did not know the meaning of the word ابّا which occurs in 80:32 of the Qur’an and concluded that it was a form of linguistic intricacy [104].

We also find that there is no universally accepted exact meaning of the Muqatta’at, or disjointed Arabic letters, at the start of several chapters of the Holy Qur’an. Amongst the many possible interpretations put forward is one which was held by many eminent companions and commentators: that these letters are a mystery of Allah. Nevertheless, despite not being able to decipher their meaning, they were universally accepted as being part of the revelation of Allah.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) is reported to have stated, “Allah has a secret in every book, and His secret in the Qur’an is the beginning of the Surahs [i.e. the Muqatta’at]” Hazrat Ali (ra) made a similar statement, “Every book has a secret, and the secret of this book are the Huruf-e-Tahajji (Muqatta’at)” Imam Shafi is reported to have stated, “They are a secret of Allah, so don’t delve into them”. Ibn Abbas (ra) stated, “The scholars have been unable to decipher them” [105]. Tabri in his commentary states that a group amongst the Muslims maintains, “Every book has a secret. And the secret of the Qur’an are the Muqatta’at” [106]. Al-Qushairi states in his commentary, “These letters at the beginning of the Surah are from the Mutashabiha, whose interpretation can only be known by Allah.” [107]

Therefore, even if someone were to state that the language of some of the English revelations of the Promised Messiah (as) were incomprehensible to them, they would still have no right to object to them if they were otherwise accompanied by heavenly signs of truthfulness. In the case of the Promised Messiah (as), the truth of his mission was demonstrated through not just a few, but rather thousands of clear signs and miracles. He writes in his work Haqiqatul Wahi:

“God has shown so many signs in my support that if I were to count them one by one up to this day, 16th July, 1906, I can swear by God that they are in excess of three hundred thousand. And if someone does not believe in my oath, I can provide him with proof. Some of these signs are to do with occasions when God Almighty, in keeping with His promise, protected me from being harmed by the enemy. Some of the signs are such that, in keeping with His promise, God always fulfilled my needs and my wishes. And some are of the kind whereby, in keeping with His promise “I will humiliate him who seeks to humiliate you” God brought humiliation and disgrace upon those who tried to harm me. Some signs are of the kind in which, according to His Prophecies, He made me victorious over those who filed lawsuits against me. Some are of the kind that pertain to the length of my ministry, for ever since the world was created no impostor has ever been allowed such a long period of respite. Some signs are of the kind that are manifested through observing the condition of the age—that this age is in need of an Imam. Some signs are of the kind which represent the fulfilment of my prayers in favour of my friends. Some signs are of the kind which represent the fulfilment of my prayer against malicious enemies. Some signs are of the kind in which terminally ill patients were cured and I was informed of their recovery in advance. Some signs are of the nature whereby, for my sake, God caused a number of heavenly and earthly calamities as a testimony to my claim. Some are of the sort whereby many eminent and renowned saints saw dreams in which the Holy Prophet (sa) appeared to them and testified to my claim, among these is the Sajjadah Nashin Sahib-ul-‘Alam of Sindh who has nearly one hundred thousand followers, and Khawaja Ghulam Farid of Chachrań. Some signs are such that thousands of people pledged Bai‘at at my hand only because they were informed in a dream of my truthfulness and of my being from God; while some others did so because they saw the Holy Prophet (sa) in a dream, and he told them that the end of the world is near and that this man is the last Vicegerent of God and the Promised Messiah. Some signs relate to certain eminent saints who mentioned me by name even before my birth, or before I came of age, and spoke about my being the Promised Messiah. Among these are Ne‘matullah Wali and Mian Gulab Shah of Jamalpur, District Ludhiana.” [108]


In conclusion, the revelations of the Promised Messiah (as) are true because they follow the paradigm of revelation as set out in the Qur’an and Sunnah. They were in many cases prophetic and were fulfilled in an extraordinary fashion – the hallmark of genuine revelation vouchsafed to a prophet of Allah.

Those revelations which seem to be contrary to current conventions in English grammar are not false. They either weren’t recorded perfectly owing to a slight lapse in memory or follow an older form of the English language. Both cases find their precedence in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Even if they are deemed to not follow any known conventions in the English language, they still cannot be rejected as false since they are accompanied by clear external signs of their truthfulness.

About the AuthorAzhar Goraya is a graduate from the Ahmadiyya Institute of Languages and Theology in Canada. He is currently serving as an Imam of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Puerto Rico. He is also the Central American Coordinator for The Review of Religions en Español.


[76] John Algeo, The Origins and Development of the English Language 6th Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010. Pg. 10

[77] See also Alhaqul Mubahitha Dehli, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 4, pg.183

[78] Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah part 4, Eng. Trans. Pg. 363

[79] Online Etymology Dictionary. Under “can”. Accessed October 7, 2023.

[80] T.F. Hoad. Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology. Reissued 1996.

[81] www.websters1913.com, under “can”. Accessed October 7, 2023.

[82] Eugene F. Shewmaker. Shakespear’s Language: A Glossary of Unfamiliar Words in His Plays and Poems. 2008. Pg. 76, under ‘can.

[83] Tadhkirah, pg. 81

[84] E.A Abbott, M.A. A Shakespearean Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. London, Macmillon and Co. 1870. Pg. 94.

[85] See Dialect Dictionary by Joseph Wright, referenced from Tadkhkirah, pg. 81, note by Jalal-ud-Din Sham.

[86] Eugene F. Shewmaker. Shakespear’s Language: A Glossary of Unfamiliar Words in His Plays and Poems. 2008. Pg. 73, under ‘can.

[87] Tadhkirah, pg. 81

[88] Abbott, E.A, M.A. A Shakespearean Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. London, Macmillon and Co. 1870. Pg. 58

[89] (1389) Lond.Gild Ret.in Bk.Lond.E. (PRO C 47/var.) A Book of London English, 1384-1425, eds. R. W. Chambers and M. Daunt (1931).41-60. Accessed via Middle English Compendium, under enemī. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary.

[90] The Merchant of Venice, Act 4, scene 1, line 2399

[91] E.A Abbott, M.A. A Shakespearean Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. London, Macmillon and Co. 1870. Pgs. 279-280.

[92] SeeTadhkira, pgs. 67-69

[93] Tadhkirah, pg. 123

[94] This is the explanation given by Syed Abdul Hayee. See Tadhkirah, pg. 144 footnote.

[95] C.T. Onions. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press, reprinted 1994.

[96] https://www.etymonline.com/. Accessed October 8, 2023.

[97] Eugene F. Shewmaker. Shakespear’s Language: A Glossary of Unfamiliar Words in His Plays and Poems. 2008. Pg. 185, under ‘exchange’.

[98] See Tadhkirah, pg. 145.

[99] Joyce M. Hawking and Robert Allen. Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, reprinted 1994.

[100] Tadhkirah, pg. 144.

[101] E.A Abbott, M.A. A Shakespearean Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. London, Macmillon and Co. 1870. Pg. 131-132.

[102] Charles Mackary. New Light on Some Obscure Words and Phrases in the Works of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. London, Reeves and Turner, 1884. Preface


كنت لا أدري ما”فاطر السماوات والأرض”، حتى أتاني أعرابيّان يختصمان في بئر، فقال أحدهما لصاحبه:”أنا فَطَرتها”، يقول: أنا ابتدأتها

See Jamiul Bayan fi Ta’wilil Qur’an, Ibn Jarir At-Tabari, under 7:14, narration 13111.


عن أنس، قال: قرأ عمر بن الخطاب رضى الله عنه (عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّى) فلما أتى على هذه الآية (وَفَاكِهَةً وَأَبًّا) قال: قد عرفنا الفاكهة. فما الأبّ؟ قال: لعمرك يا بن الخطاب إن هذا لهو التكلف.

See Tafseer At-Tabari, under 80:31


وَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: لِلَّهِ فِي كُلِّ كِتَابٍ سِرٌّ وَسِرُّهُ فِي الْقُرْآنِ أَوَائِلُ السُّوَرِ، وَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: إِنَّ لِكُلِّ كِتَابٍ صَفْوَةٌ وَصَفْوَةُ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ حُرُوفُ التَّهَجِّي۔۔۔وَسُئِلَ الشَّعْبِيُّ عَنْ هَذِهِ الْحُرُوفِ فَقَالَ: سِرُّ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَطْلُبُوهُ، وَرَوَى أَبُو ظَبْيَانَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: عَجَزَتِ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَنْ إِدْرَاكِهَا

Tafsir Mafatihul Ghaib, At-Tafsir Ul-Kabeer, under الم, 2:1, vol. 2 pg. 250


وقال بعضهم: لكل كتاب سرٌّ، وسرُّ القرآن فواتحه

Tafseer Tabri, under 2:1, الم, vol. 1 pg. 209


هذه الحروف المقطعة فى أوائل السورة من المتشابه الذي لا يعلم تأويله إلا الله

Tafsir Al-Qushairi Lataiful Ishara’at, vol. 1, pg. 53

[108] Essence of Islam, vol. 5, pgs. 2-4, referenced from Haqiqat-ul-Wahi, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 22, pp.70-71