In the third verse of Surah al-Jumu‘ah, the Holy Quran speaks of the Messenger (sa) of Allah as one who was “raised among the unlettered (people)”, meaning among the first recipients of his message, and adds in the next verse, “and (among) others from among them who have not yet joined them.” The Arabic phrase translated here as “and (among) others from among them” is wa-akharina minhum. Arabic grammar allows wa-akharina minhum to be attached to the verse before it in more than one way.
Earlier Muslim grammarians and exegetes preserved two readings. On the genitive (khafd/jarr) reading, wa-akharina is coordinated (‘atf) with “the unlettered (people)” (al-ummiyyin), so that the verb “He raised” (ba‘atha) carries over: God raised the Messenger (sa) of Allah among the unlettered and He raised him among others from them. On the accusative (nasb) reading, wa-akharina is coordinated with the object pronoun in the verbs “purifies them” (yuzakkihim) and “teaches them” (yu‘allimuhum), so that the later people are purified and taught by the Messenger (sa) of Allah as the first people were purified and taught.
Earlier exegetes stated the two readings as part of the grammatical inheritance. They then explained the consequences in ways that sat within their own wider theology. The Messenger (sa) of Allah could be a teacher in potentiality (bi-l-quwwa), later believers could become “from among them” by entering Islam, or the later people could be reached through the teaching and purification that began with him. The grammar was preserved. Its sharper implication remained latent, awaiting the figure in whom it could be drawn out.
The decisive change came in what Ahmadi authors did with these readings. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah, did not invent either grammatical route. Ahmadi literature accepts both. What he did was draw out the consequence with a force earlier exegetes had not given it. If the verse places the Messenger (sa) of Allah himself in relation to the later people, whether through the second raising or through the later people being taught and purified by him, then his relation to those later people cannot be reduced to a message travelling through history.
This is no small claim. It links Surah al-Jumu‘ah, the second raising (ba‘th) of the Messenger (sa) of Allah, the finality of his prophethood and the office of the Promised Messiah (as) in a single chain. And it rests on grammatical readings that earlier scholars had treated as ordinary.
By buruz is meant a representative-spiritual coming, in which the spiritual presence of the Messenger (sa) is renewed in a later figure who appears in his colour, his law and his name without bringing a new shari‘a. The doctrine preserves the seal of prophethood by leaving the bearer of the buruz without an independent prophetic office of his own.
The figure on whom this article turns is the Tunisian exegete Muhammad at-Tahir Ibn ‘Ashur (d. 1393/1973). In his Quranic exegesis at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir, at this very verse, he made a move earlier exegetes had not made. He said, in the strongest grammatical language, that the genitive reading is “not permissible” (la yajuz). He did not adopt the inherited accusative reading in its old form either. Instead, as the survey below will show, he rerouted the syntax through “unto them” (‘alayhim) and through an “object accompanying the action” (maf‘ul ma‘ah). The inherited field of possibilities was no longer left open.
In what follows, I argue that Ibn ‘Ashur’s move is best understood against the use Ahmadi authors had made of these inherited readings. Earlier exegetes had let both readings stand because no claimant had yet come in upon whom their fullest implication could be pressed. Ahmadi authors, beginning with the Promised Messiah (as) himself, drew the implication out plainly and built doctrinal weight on it. Ibn ‘Ashur, writing after Ahmadi material had circulated for decades, closed precisely the field on which that doctrinal weight rested. That is why the recognised status of the readings matters: Ibn ‘Ashur’s prohibition and rerouting demand explanation. The argument proceeds in steps. The next sections survey the inherited grammatical field across schools and centuries. The article then examines Ibn ‘Ashur’s move in detail. Only after that does it trace what Ahmadi authors made of the same inherited field and ask why Ibn ‘Ashur’s prohibition appeared in his own lifetime.
The verse and the question
The verse in full, together with the verse before it, reads:
هُوَ ٱلَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي ٱلۡأُمِّيِّـۧنَ رَسُولٗا مِّنۡهُمۡ يَتۡلُواْ عَلَيۡهِمۡ ءَايَٰتِهِۦ وَيُزَكِّيهِمۡ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ وَٱلۡحِكۡمَةَ وَإِن كَانُواْ مِن قَبۡلُ لَفِي ضَلَٰلٖ مُّبِين۔ وَءَاخَرِينَ مِنۡهُمۡ لَمَّا يَلۡحَقُواْ بِهِمۡ ۚ وَهُوَ ٱلۡعَزِيزُ ٱلۡحَكِيمُ۔
“He it is Who has raised among the unlettered (people) a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them His Signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest misguidance; And (among) others from among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.”1
A word on tense. Ba‘atha is a verb in the perfect tense. Its English rendering throughout this article is “He raised.” The verse, however, does not let the verb sit purely in the past. The clause that follows, “have not yet joined them” (lamma yalhaqu bihim), places the akharin in a not-yet-realised state at the moment of revelation. Lamma is the particle of expectation: it negates a completed past while keeping the realisation open. The two clauses therefore stand in deliberate tension. The perfect-tense ba‘atha governs, in its second occurrence, a group some of whom lamma yalhaqu, i.e., have not yet arrived. Arabic grammar handles this tension routinely. The perfect tense is used not only of events that have already happened but of events decreed in the divine knowledge and certain of fulfilment, narrated as already done because the decree is settled. The exegetes whose work the next section sets out treat the perfect-tense ba‘atha at this verse accordingly, leaving the verb in the past and letting the future-realised force be carried by lamma yalhaqu in the clause around it. The translations in this article do the same. The temporal pliancy of the verse is in the grammar of the second clause, not in the verb.
The grammatical question is what “and (among) others from among them” (wa-akharina minhum) is coordinated with. Muslim scholars proposed two readings.
The first is that wa-akharina is coordinated with al-ummiyyin under the preposition “among” (fi) that introduces the unlettered. In this reading, the meaning is: God raised the Messenger (sa) of Allah among the unlettered and raised him among others from them. This is the genitive (majrur) reading, in which wa-akharina is coordinated (‘atf) with al-ummiyyin.
The second is that wa-akharina is coordinated with the object pronoun in the verbs that follow, “purifies them” (yuzakkihim) and “teaches them” (yu‘allimuhum), the pronoun being “them” (-him/-hum). In this reading, the meaning is: he teaches and purifies them and teaches and purifies others from among them. This is the accusative (mansub) reading.
One reading places the later people under the force of ba‘atha, “He raised”. The other reading places them under the teaching and purification of the Holy Prophet (sa).
In the early literature, the two readings are stated as ordinary grammatical possibilities, often in the same paragraph, with the genitive reading regularly placed first.
What earlier scholars allowed
The two inherited readings appear in the earliest surviving works of Quranic grammar and in the major classical works of Quranic exegesis.
The Kufan grammarian al-Farra’ (d. 207/822) writes in his Ma‘ani al-Qur’an:
(وآخرين) في موضع خفض بعث في الأميين وفي آخرين منهم۔ ولو جعلتها نصبا بقوله: ويزكيهم ويعلمهم۔ ويعلم آخرين فينصب على الرد على الهاء في: يزكيهم، ويعلمهم۔
“Wa-akharina is in the position of genitive (khafd): He raised him among the unlettered and among others from among them. And if you read it as accusative (nasb) by His saying wa-yuzakkihim wa-yu‘allimuhum, then the meaning is: ‘and he teaches others’ (wa-yu‘allimu akharina). Thus, it is accusative by referring it back to the object pronoun (ha’) in yuzakkihim and yu‘allimuhum.”2
Two things are worth noting in the wording of al-Farra’. The genitive reading is given first and it is paraphrased in plain words: God raised the Messenger (sa) of Allah among the unlettered and among others from among them. The accusative reading is then introduced as another possible reading one may take: “if you read it as nasb”. Al-Farra’ is recording the two syntactic routes: one through the genitive relation to al-ummiyyin and one through the object pronoun in the later verbs.
A generation later, the Basran grammarian az-Zajjaj (d. 311/923) makes the same point even more explicitly:
«آخرين» في موضع جر. المعنى هو الذي بعث في الْأميين رسولا منهم وبعث في الذين لم يلحقوا بهم، أي في آخرين منهم لما يلحَقوا بهم۔ فالنبي عليه السلام مبعوث إلى من شاهده وإلى كل من كان بعدهم من العرب والعجم۔ ويجوز أن يكون (وآخرين) في موضع نصب على معنى يعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة ويعلم آخرين منهم لما يلحقوا بهم۔
“Akharina is in the position of genitive (jarr). The meaning is: He it is Who raised among the unlettered a Messenger from among them and He raised him among those who have not yet joined them, that is, among others from among them who have not yet joined them. Thus, the Prophet (sa) is raised for those who saw him and for everyone who came after them, of the Arabs and the non-Arabs. And it is permissible (yajuz) for wa-akharina to be in the position of accusative (nasb), in the sense of: He teaches them the Book and Wisdom and He teaches others from among them who have not yet joined them.”3
Az-Zajjaj states the same field more fully than al-Farra’. He does not merely say that akharina is genitive. He explains the genitive reading by repeating the verb ba‘atha: ba‘atha fi l-ummiyyin […] wa-ba‘atha fi lladhina lam yalhaqu bihim, so God raised a Messenger among the unlettered and raised him among those who have not joined them. The perfect-tense ba‘atha is used twice. Its second occurrence governs a group whom lam yalhaqu – have not (yet) arrived – using lam in the equivalent sense of the verse’s lamma established by the early tradition.4 Az-Zajjaj does not re-tense the verb, and he does not need to: the particle in the surrounding clause carries the future-realised force for him. The accusative reading then comes after this, with the expression “it is permissible” (yajuz). His wording gives the inherited field in compact form: genitive through ba‘atha fi, accusative through yu‘allimu. That is the inherited two-route grammar which Ibn ‘Ashur later refuses to leave standing.
The Egyptian grammarian and Quranic philologist Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhas (d. 338/950), in his I‘rab al-Qur’an, sets out the same two readings in compact form:
وآخرين منهم في موضع خفض؛ لأنه عطف على الأميين، ويجوز أن يكون في موضع نصب معطوفا على «هم» من «يعلمهم» أو على «هم» من «يزكيهم»۔
“Wa-akharina minhum is in the position of genitive (khafd), because it is coordinated (‘atf) with al-ummiyyin and it is permissible that it be in the position of accusative (nasb), coordinated (ma‘tufan) with the -hum in yu‘allimuhum or with the -him in yuzakkihim.”5
The Andalusian grammarian and Quranic scholar Makki b. Abi Talib (d. 437/1045), in Mushkil i‘rab al-Qur’an, records the same inherited pair. The genitive and accusative stand as grammatical options, and nothing in his discussion narrows the field.6
The Baghdadi grammarian and jurist Abu al-Baqa’ al-‘Ukbari (d. 616/1219), in at-Tibyan fi i‘rab al-Qur’an, gives the genitive in compact form: “His saying wa-akharina is in the position of genitive (jarr), coordinated (‘atfan) with al-ummiyyin.”7
The Mamluk grammarian al-Samin al-Halabi (d. 756/1355), in al-Durr al-masun, gives the now-standard double formula: “His saying wa-akharina has two analyses. The first is that it is genitive (majrur), coordinated (‘atfan) with al-ummiyyin. The second is that it is accusative (mansub), coordinated (‘atfan) with the accusative pronoun in yu‘allimuhum.”8
The same understanding also appears beyond grammatical works.
Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 310/923), in his Jami‘ al-bayan, takes the genitive as the meaning of the verse:
«وآخرون» في موضع خفض عطفا على «الأميين»
“Wa-akharuna is in the position of genitive (khafd) by coordination (‘atfan) with al-ummiyyin.”9
The earliest surviving full Sunni tafsir gives the genitive plainly, without weighing alternatives. For at-Tabari, this is what the verse says.
A generation later, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333/944), in Ta’wilat Ahl as-Sunna, sets out both readings together and states what each yields. If the meaning is genitive, it is connected with “He it is Who raised among the unlettered a Messenger from among them” and tells us that his Messengership remains until the end of time. If the meaning is accusative, it is connected with “He purifies them and teaches them the Book and Wisdom” and gives glad tidings of later scholars, righteous ones and wise ones. Both routes stand.10
The same openness continues across the central Sunni exegeses.
Al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076) preserves the two readings in at-Tafsir al-basit.11 Al-Baghawi (d. 516/1122) does the same in Ma‘alim at-tanzil.12 In al-Kashshaf, az-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144) gives the same two routes.13 Ibn ‘Atiyya (d. 542/1148) follows in al-Muharrar al-wajiz14 and Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201) in Zad al-masir.15 Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi (d. 606/1210) repeats the two readings in Mafatih al-ghayb and explains how later believers become “from them”.16 Al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273) gives both readings in al-Jami‘ li-ahkam al-Qur’an and then explains how later teaching can be attributed to its origin.17
The same field continues in al-Baydawi’s (d. 685/1286) Anwar at-tanzil,18 an-Nasafi’s (d. 710/1310) Madarik at-tanzil,19 Abu Hayyan’s (d. 745/1344) al-Bahr al-muhit,20 Abu as-Su‘ud’s (d. 982/1574) Irshad al-‘aql as-salim,21 ash-Shawkani’s (d. 1250/1834) Fath al-qadir22 and al-Alusi’s (d. 1270/1854) Ruh al-ma‘ani.23
They differ in how they explain the later people, in which route they place first, and in which consequence they hold in the foreground. The inherited field, i.e., genitive through al-ummiyyin and accusative through the later verbs, remains open across all of them.
Siddiq Hasan Khan (d. 1307/1890), the Bhopal scholar of the Ahl-i Hadith tradition writing on the very eve of the Promised Messiah’s (as) claim, preserves the same grammar in Fath al-bayan:
(وآخرين منهم) مجرور عطفا على الأميين، أي بعثه في الأميين الذين على عهده، وبعثه في آخرين منهم، أو منصوب عطفا على الضمير المنصوب في يعلمهم، أي ويعلم آخرين
“Wa-akharina minhum is genitive (majrur), coordinated (‘atfan) with al-ummiyyin, that is, He raised him among the unlettered of his time and He raised him among others from them or accusative (mansub), coordinated (‘atfan) with the accusative pronoun in yu‘allimuhum, that is, and he teaches others.”24
Here again, the order matters. Siddiq Hasan Khan gives the genitive first and then states the accusative route. His Arabic, like az-Zajjaj’s, keeps ba‘atha in the perfect and lets lamma yalhaqu bihim in the verse carry the future-realised force. A scholar writing on the very eve of the Promised Messiah’s (as) claim still treats the two-route grammar and the perfect-with-lamma construction as ordinary Arabic.
The Twelver Shi‘i exegetes tell the same story. At-Tusi (d. 460/1067), in at-Tibyan fi tafsir al-Qur’an, treats both the genitive and the accusative readings as permissible.25
At-Tabrisi (d. 548/1153), in Majma‘ al-bayan, gives the genitive through an omitted noun: “wa-akharina is in the genitive because it is the qualifier of an omitted noun coordinated (ma‘tuf) with al-ummiyyin, that is, ‘and among another people’.”26
At-Tabataba’i (d. 1401/1981), writing in essentially the same generation as Ibn ‘Ashur, also treats the genitive as the natural reading in al-Mizan and explains “from” (min) simply as partitive.27
Among the Ibadi exegetes of North Africa, Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari, an early exegete of the third Hijri century, paraphrases the verse in Tafsir Kitab Allah al-‘Aziz in the same plain form: God raised the Messenger (sa) among the unlettered and among others who have not yet joined them.28 Even in the early Ibadi tradition of North Africa, the inherited field that Ibn ‘Ashur would later block was being stated as ordinary grammar.
The two readings are found in grammar, in full exegesis, in compact exegesis and in later summaries. They are preserved across the centuries and across the schools – the inherited grammar that Sunni, Twelver and Ibadi exegetes repeatedly state, whether in full or in compact form. The most these earlier exegetes do is offer alternatives, prefer one reading for stylistic reasons or hold one of the inherited consequences in the foreground while leaving the field itself open. None of them closes the inherited field. That is the move Ibn ‘Ashur will make, and the next section examines exactly how he makes it.
Ibn ‘Ashur closes the inherited field
Ibn ‘Ashur’s exegesis on verse four of Surah al-Jumu‘ah, in at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir, opens with this paragraph on the grammar of wa-akharina minhum:
لا يجوز أن يكون «وآخرين» عطفا على «الأميين»، لأن «آخرين» يقتضي المغايرة لما يقابله، فيقتضي أنه صادق على غير الأميين، أي غير العرب، والرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يكن بين غير العرب، فيتعين أن لا يعطف «وآخرين» على «الأميين»، لئلا يتعلق بفعل «بعث» مجرور بـ«في»، ولا على الضمير في قوله «منهم» كذلك۔
“It is not permissible (la yajuz) for wa-akharina to be coordinated (‘atfan) with al-ummiyyin, because akharin requires otherness with respect to its counterpart and so requires that it apply to those other than al-ummiyyin, that is, to other than the Arabs. The Messenger (sa) was not amongst those other than the Arabs. Hence it is settled that wa-akharina must not be coordinated (yu‘taf) with al-ummiyyin, lest it become governed in the genitive by the fi attached to the verb ba‘atha and it must likewise not be coordinated (yu‘taf) with the pronoun in His saying minhum.”29
Three things in this paragraph deserve a slow reading.
First, he shuts the genitive route with prohibitive language. Ibn ‘Ashur does not say that the genitive reading is less elegant or less likely. He says it is not permissible. The verb yajuz, in classical grammar and in legal-theoretical (usuli) literature, is technical. It draws the line between syntactic options that are open and those that are not. He repeats the prohibition for the second possible link, coordinating (yu‘taf) wa-akharina with the pronoun in minhum, with the word “likewise” (ka-dhalika).
Second, the argument he gives for shutting this route, when followed through, blocks more than its surface grammatical claim. His stated reason is linguistic: akharin requires otherness (mughayara) with respect to its counterpart, and on his gloss, he then takes the akharin to be those among whom the Messenger (sa) was not raised. The operative step in the argument, however, is wider than that gloss. By severing the verb “He raised’ (ba‘atha) from akharin altogether, the argument forecloses any reading on which the Messenger (sa) himself stands raised among the later people whom the verse names. He does not begin by showing that this route is impossible in Arabic. He begins from the meaning he cannot accept and then constructs the grammatical case that the syntax producing it cannot stand. The genitive route shows this implication with particular force, and his subsequent rerouting makes clear that he does not leave the accusative route in its inherited form either.
Third, Ibn ‘Ashur also moves away from the inherited accusative reading. The old accusative reading was: he teaches them and teaches others, or he purifies them and purifies others. Ibn ‘Ashur does something else. He attaches wa-akharina not to the object pronoun in yu‘allimuhum or yuzakkihim, but to the pronoun in “unto them” (‘alayhim) in “recites unto them” (yatlu ‘alayhim). Or he treats wa-akharina as an “object accompanying the action” (maf‘ul ma‘ah), so that the later people are connected with the acts of reciting, purifying and teaching together. He then explains “from them” (minhum) in ways that support the same rerouting. If min is partitive, the later people are part of the wider group once in error. If min is connective, minhum describes their connection and “who have not yet joined them” fits because joining carries the meaning of connection.30
Ibn ‘Ashur is correct on one point that the earlier exegetes had passed over. The phrase wa-akharina minhum names a mughayara. The akharin are other than al-ummiyyin. That the word “others” (akharin) itself presupposes the distinction is a feature of the lexicon, and Ibn ‘Ashur is right to take it seriously. Earlier authorities had passed over the structural force of the mughayara by reading the akharin as continuous with al-ummiyyin: later members of the same community, later believers entering the same faith, a single body of people extended through time. On each of those readings, the akharin sit within the same community as those who were the Messenger’s (sa) first Companions and no fundamental distinction is drawn between the two groups. Ibn ‘Ashur draws the distinction. The Ahmadi reading draws it too.
The two readings divide on what the mughayara entails. Ibn ‘Ashur, whether he glosses the akharin as the non-Arabs or as the later believers, treats their otherness as entailing absence: the Messenger (sa) was raised in al-ummiyyin, the akharin are other than al-ummiyyin, and therefore the Messenger (sa) was not raised in them. From this it follows, on his analysis, that the inherited grammatical field cannot stand. The genitive coordination with al-ummiyyin, which would place the verb ba‘atha over both groups, is prohibited. The second genitive route, i.e., coordination with the pronoun in minhum, is prohibited, likewise, with the word kadhalika. The inherited accusative coordination with the object pronouns in yu‘allimuhum and yuzakkihim, which would place the later people under the same Messenger’s (sa) teaching and purification, is silently replaced: Ibn ‘Ashur reroutes the syntax through the pronoun in ‘alayhim in yatlu ‘alayhim or by treating wa-akharina as an object accompanying the action (maf‘ul ma‘ah). The two genitive routes are prohibited; the inherited accusative is bypassed. Neither inherited route by which the verse names the second ba‘th survives in his analysis: the genitive route names it through ba‘atha reaching the akharin directly, and the accusative route names its lived acts through the Holy Prophet’s (sa) teaching and purification of the akharin as he taught and purified al-ummiyyin.
The Ahmadi reading accepts both inherited routes and takes the same mughayara in the opposite direction. Otherness does not entail absence. The Messenger (sa) is raised in a community other than his first, and the verse, on its plain syntax, names exactly this: through buruz, the representative-spiritual coming in which the spiritual presence of the Messenger (sa) is renewed in a later figure who carries his colour, his law and his name without bringing a new shari‘a. The Promised Messiah (as) is the buruz of the Holy Prophet (sa), and through him the Messenger (sa) stands in direct relation to the akharin exactly as the verse names. On the genitive coordination, the verb ba‘atha reaches the akharin directly. On the inherited accusative coordination, the same Messenger (sa) teaches and purifies the akharin as he taught and purified al-ummiyyin. Either inherited route preserves the mughayara together with the Messenger’s (sa) direct relation to the later people. Both are exactly the routes Ibn ‘Ashur cannot leave standing.
The three settlements of the same grammar can be set side by side. The earlier exegetes preserved the syntax by reading the akharin as continuous with the community of the first ba‘th. Ibn ‘Ashur preserved the mughayara by blocking the syntax. The Ahmadi reading is the only one that holds both at once, preserving the mughayara with the syntax intact, and it does so by drawing on the doctrine of buruz to explain how the Messenger (sa) can be raised in a community other than his first.
The whole Ahmadi position on the verse can be stated in a single line. The Messenger (sa) is among the akharin, because the akharin are the community of his second ba‘th and the bearer of that ba‘th is the Promised Messiah (as) in his form of buruz. Ibn ‘Ashur could not allow this. The only way for him to keep the Messenger (sa) out of the akharin was to close the syntax that put him there.
The effect of this rerouting can now be stated. The inherited genitive reading lets the verb ba‘atha, “He raised”, carry over from al-ummiyyin to wa-akharina: God raised the Messenger (sa) of Allah among the unlettered and He raised him among the others. The inherited accusative reading lets the teaching or purification of the Holy Prophet (sa) reach the later people through the same old verbs. Ibn ‘Ashur’s alternatives do not preserve that field. The genitive is forbidden and the old accusative formula is left behind for a different construction. That is why his rerouting matters for the Ahmadi argument. Ibn ‘Ashur does not name Ahmadis directly, but his grammar removes both old syntactic routes by which the verse can be read as placing the later people in a direct relation to the Messenger (sa) of Allah himself.
The form of this removal is itself testimony. A reading that could be shown as a forced inference from the grammar does not need a grammatical prohibition. Had the Ahmadi reading rested on a misreading of the syntax, Ibn ‘Ashur could have said so and moved on. The inherited literature contained ample tools for marking one reading as preferred over another, less elegant or contextually unsuitable. He used none of them. He raised la yajuz against the syntax itself, on the genitive route explicitly and likewise (kadhalika) on the second genitive route and replaced the inherited accusative rather than preserving it. He could not close the inference below the level of the grammar, because the grammar produced it on each of its inherited routes when read straight. He stands, therefore, as an unwilling witness to the soundness of what he refuses to allow: the inherited grammar of wa-akharina minhum, on each of its inherited routes, yields what Ahmadi authors say it yields.
What Ahmadi authors did with both readings
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah, returns to this verse repeatedly in his Urdu, Arabic and Persian writings. The argument he draws from it is short and direct. The verse places the Messenger (sa) of Allah in relation to a later people. If the Holy Prophet (sa) is placed in relation to a later people, then, in some sense, he must be present to them. Bodily presence is impossible after his death and after the seal of prophethood. But the verse must still mean what it says. The only way to honour both the verse and the seal is to read the second presence as a representative-spiritual (buruzi) coming, that of one who appears in his colour, his law and his name, but is not a separate prophet. The Promised Messiah (as) gives the argument in its most compressed form. Every prophet has one raising (ba‘th), but the Holy Prophet (sa) has two. The decisive Quranic text for this is wa-akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim. Once the verse proves that the later community receives the same spiritual grace as the Companions, “it became necessary to accept another ba‘th of the Holy Prophet (sa)”. That second coming cannot be bodily. It is possible only through buruz: his spiritual power selects a person who resembles him in character, nature, resolve and sympathy for creation and gives him, figuratively, his own names, Ahmad and Muhammad. The point is precise: the verse is not being used merely to say that later Muslims would receive Islam. It is being used to argue a second ba‘th of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself.31
The argument is short, but it carries considerable theological weight. The verse wa-akharina minhum is treated as decisive evidence for the second ba‘th. Spiritual outpouring requires ba‘th, ba‘th requires life and the only living Messenger in this fullest sense is Prophet Muhammad (sa). The verse therefore places this same Holy Prophet (sa) in relation to the later people, and that relation is fulfilled in a representative-spiritual (buruzi) coming.
The Promised Messiah (as) also uses the other inherited route. In A’ina-e kamalat-e Islam, he says that the word akharin occurs “in the position of the object” (maf‘ul ke mahall par) and gives the implied wording as wa-yu‘allimu al-akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim: “and he teaches the later ones from among them who have not yet joined them.” The Ahmadi claim can be argued through either inherited route. The Promised Messiah (as) can use the object-reading and still keep the later relation of the Holy Prophet (sa) at the centre.32
The same point is made still more sharply in Aik ghalati ka izalah, the short tract in which the Promised Messiah (as) explains what he means by the word prophet (nabi) in his own case. The verse mentions the later people, but it does not name the person through whom they become like the Companions. Instead, it puts forward the Holy Prophet (sa) himself:
لیکن ایک بروزی نبی اور رسول کا آنا قرآن شریف سے ثابت ہو رہا ہے جیسا کہ آیت وَآخَرِيْنَ مِنْهُمْ سے ظاہر ہے اس آیت میں ایک لطافت بیان یہ ہے کہ اس گروہ کا ذکر تو اس میں کیا گیا جو صحابہ میں سے ٹھہرائے گئے لیکن اس جگہ اس مورد بروز کا بتصریح ذکر نہیں کیا یعنی مسیح موعود کا جس کے ذریعہ سے وہ لوگ صحابہ ٹھہرے اور صحابہ کی طرح زیر تربیت آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سمجھے گئے۔ اس ترک ذکر سے یہ اشارہ مطلوب ہے کہ مورد بروز حکم نفی وجود کا رکھتا ہے اس لئے اس کی بروزی نبوت اور رسالت سے مہر ختمیت نہیں ٹوٹتی۔ پس آیت میں اس کو ایک وجود منفی کی طرح رہنے دیا اور اس کے عوض میں آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو پیش کر دیا ہے۔
“The coming of a Prophet and Messenger in the form of buruz is substantiated by the Holy Quran, as is evident from the verse: wa-akharina minhum. There is a beautiful subtlety of expression in this verse. While it clearly mentions the people who will be counted among the Companions (ra), it does not expressly mention the person who was to come as the buruz, i.e., the Promised Messiah, and through whom those people would come to be counted among the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) and considered to be under his guidance. This deliberate omission is intended to signify that the buruz in his own right would be a non-entity, therefore, his prophethood or messengership in the form of buruz would not break the seal [of finality]. This is why the verse treats him as a non-entity and presents the Holy Prophet (sa) in his place.”33
What the Promised Messiah (as) is explaining here is the theological reading that makes the verse workable within the seal of prophethood. The verse presents the Holy Prophet (sa) in relation to the later people, but it does not name the bearer of the buruz. This omission matters. The bearer of the buruz is treated as having the ruling of non-existence in his own right, and in his place, the verse puts forward the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. The reading is not that an independent prophet is raised after the Holy Prophet (sa). The reading is that the same Holy Prophet (sa) is presented twice: once in his historical mission and once through one who appears in his colour without bringing a new law.
This is the point in the argument at which the syntactic and the theological become inseparable. If the Holy Prophet (sa) himself is what the verse “puts forward” in relation to the later people, then both inherited grammatical readings matter. The genitive gives the most direct form: the verb ba‘atha reaches the later people. The accusative gives the same later relation through the teaching and purification of the Holy Prophet (sa). Take those relations away, as Ibn ‘Ashur does by forbidding the genitive and replacing the old accusative formula with his own rerouting, and the verse no longer says what Ahmadi literature says it says.
The same understanding appears in Hazrat Mirza Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra). He renders the verse as God raising this Messenger (sa) among another community whose members have not yet joined the first and then states the conclusion: “These verses mention the two ba‘ths of the Holy Prophet (sa).” The same verse is explained a few pages later in the same direction: “This Messenger (sa) will also come in the last age and will make the people of that time like the first.”34
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) is not setting out a technical parsing. He is paraphrasing the verse on what the inherited grammar implies: that the Holy Prophet (sa) himself is raised among another community in the latter age. By this point, “He will raise this Messenger (sa) among another community” has become a settled Ahmadi rendering of the verse.
The same technical formulation is given repeatedly across Ahmadi periodical and exegetical literature. To take one early instance, Tashhidh al-adhhan, the Qadian-era Ahmadi journal, carries it in a November 1917 article by Qadi Muhammad Zahir ud-Din Akmal titled Rasul-e karim ki ba‘that-e thani (“The Second Raising of the Noble Messenger”). The article gives the two readings of wa-akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim as equally available. On the first, the word is genitive (majrur), coordinated (‘atf) with al-ummiyyin. The implied wording (taqdir) is ba‘atha fi l-ummiyyin wa-ba‘athahu fi akharina minhum, “He raised him among the unlettered and raised him among others from them.” On the second, the word is accusative (mansub), coordinated with the object-pronoun in yu‘allimuhum or yuzakkihim: the Holy Prophet (sa) recites the verses, teaches the Book and Wisdom and purifies the unlettered and on the same analysis does so for the akharin as well. The Arabic taqdir keeps ba‘atha in the perfect tense throughout. The verse’s lamma yalhaqu bihim carries the future-realised force, as in the inherited classical grammar. The article then draws the boundary: these are the only two translations the verse can bear according to the rules of morphology and syntax.35
The same answer is given in numerous Ahmadi defences against the charge that wa-akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim was being read to mean that other prophets would come after the Holy Prophet (sa). To take one later instance, in October 1972, Al-Furqan, the Rabwah-based Ahmadi monthly, returns to the verse and gives the Ahmadi argument in two equally available forms. On the first, wa-akharina minhum is coordinated with ba‘atha fi l-ummiyyin: God raised Muhammad (sa) among the unlettered and the same God will raise him among another group of Companions who have not yet joined them. In this meaning, the verse gives news of the second ba‘th of the Holy Prophet (sa) and of a later group of his community in the colour of the Companions. In the second, wa-akharina minhum is taken instead as mansub rather than majrur, coordinated with the object-pronoun in yuzakkihim and yu‘allimuhum: another group of the community will be purified and taught by the Holy Prophet (sa) as the Companions were purified and taught. The answer is not that other prophets will come after him. The answer is that the verse speaks of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself.36
Why the two readings mattered theologically
The reason Ibn ‘Ashur’s move is intelligible as an answer to the Ahmadi argument, rather than as a small grammatical adjustment, is that the Ahmadi reading is not a claim about the spread of the message alone. It is a claim about the Holy Prophet (sa) himself.
Earlier exegetes who recognised the inherited readings explained their consequences in ways available within their own theological horizon, without reaching for the implication the Ahmadi reading would later draw out, that the Holy Prophet (sa) himself is present to the later people. Siddiq Hasan Khan’s principle of teaching in potentiality is one such explanation: the later teachers and learners stand under the messengership of the Holy Prophet (sa) in potentiality, because he is the source of the good they transmit. Al-Qurtubi’s principle that “if teaching reaches the end of time in unbroken sequence, all of it is attributed to its origin” is another: the chain of transmission is named after its first link. Ar-Razi takes a third path, holding that later believers become “from them” by entering Islam. Al-Wahidi takes a fourth: the Holy Prophet (sa) is raised for “those who saw him and for all who came after them, of the Arabs and the non-Arabs”, because they all enter the same community by faith. In each of these explanations, the later people receive what is derived from the Holy Prophet (sa).
The Ahmadi argument presses the relation further: the verse itself puts the Holy Prophet (sa) forward in relation to the later people. It says that the only living Messenger in this fullest sense is the Holy Prophet (sa), that the verse wa-akharina minhum gives the glad tidings of his second ba‘th and that this second ba‘th is fulfilled in the form of buruz. It says that the verse leaves the bearer of the buruz as having the ruling of non-existence and in his place puts forward the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. These are not statements about a teaching tradition. They are statements about who the verse names. The Holy Prophet (sa) is the figure the verse wa-akharina minhum puts forward in relation to the later people, the Promised Messiah (as) is the bearer of the buruz through whom that relation is realised, and the seal of prophethood is preserved precisely because the bearer of the buruz is not an independent prophet with a separate law.
This is what the inherited grammar allows the Promised Messiah (as) to say, and it is precisely what Ibn ‘Ashur blocks. His grammatical rerouting keeps the later people in the verse, but it changes how they are connected. The genitive route through ba‘atha is forbidden. The old accusative route through yu‘allimuhum and yuzakkihim is not preserved in its inherited form. The later people are now reached through Ibn ‘Ashur’s new syntactic arrangement. That route is no longer carried by the old grammar.
That the closure had to be raised at the level of the grammar itself, explicit prohibition on the genitive routes, silent replacement of the inherited accusative, tells what his text never says: the inherited grammar of wa-akharina minhum, on each of its inherited routes, yields the Ahmadi inference when read straight.
Earlier exegetes allowed the readings that Ahmadis later used. Ibn ‘Ashur alone blocked the inherited field. Why did he block it?
The historical conditions for exposure
One could say that Ibn ‘Ashur saw the implication for himself, on his own grammatical and theological grounds, and made the move out of his own resources. He was an unusually careful grammarian, and the force of the inherited readings is not hidden. But that answer leaves the timing and the shape of the prohibition unexplained. Once Ahmadi authors had pressed the inherited readings as proof of the second ba‘th of the Holy Prophet (sa), the old permissive grammar was no longer harmless.
A second answer is that the move was occasioned by the Ahmadi use of the verse. This is plausible. Ibn ‘Ashur completed at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir in 1960 after almost forty years of work, and the relevant pages on Surah al-Jumu‘ah may have been written or revised within a period in which Ahmadi readings of Ch.62: V.4 had long been in print. The Promised Messiah (as) first brought the verse to bear on a second ba‘th of the Holy Prophet (sa) in Ayyam as-sulh, written in 1898 and published in January 1899. Ibn ‘Ashur was nineteen at the time. By the time he began work on at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir in the early 1920s, the reading had been in Ahmadi print for over twenty years and by the time he completed it, for over sixty. By that time, the Arabic-speaking world around him had already encountered Ahmadi arguments and anti-Ahmadi replies. That matters because his grammatical prohibition and rerouting are not aimed at a minor variant. They block the inherited field by which the verse can be made to say that the Holy Prophet (sa) himself is in relation to the later people.
These circumstances make the question serious. The argument does not require proof that a particular Ahmadi tract lay before Ibn ‘Ashur. The point is wider: by the time his commentary reached this verse, the Arabic exegetical field was no longer innocent of the doctrinal consequences of this grammar. Ahmadi authors had made those consequences explicit. The old permissive grammar could no longer be repeated with the same innocence with which earlier exegetes had repeated it. And what Ibn ‘Ashur actually wrote on this verse is exactly the kind of grammatical barrier against the Ahmadi reading that one would expect a scholar writing in this modern field to build. The shape of his move is not the shape of a casual disagreement. It is the shape of a defensive grammatical move tailored to a specific theological implication. By 1960, that implication had been in Ahmadi print for sixty years.
Conclusion
The conclusion is simple. Earlier Muslim grammarians and commentators allowed the two inherited readings of wa-akharina minhum. They allowed them across schools, across centuries and across regions. They allowed them, knowing what their plainest paraphrases implied, and they explained that implication within their own theological horizon without forbidding the syntax. The Ahmadi reading of the verse, beginning with the Promised Messiah (as) and continuing through later Ahmadi literature, drew the implication out plainly and built doctrinal weight on it. It said, in the most direct way, that the verse presents the Holy Prophet (sa) himself to the later people, fulfilled in the representative-spiritual (buruzi) coming of the Promised Messiah (as). Ibn ‘Ashur, writing in a milieu in which Arabic Ahmadi material had been in circulation for decades, blocked precisely the inherited grammatical field on which that reading depends.
The more plausible reading of the episode is that Ibn ‘Ashur’s block belongs in the history of the Ahmadi argument’s pressure on the verse. He blocks the inherited field Ahmadis pressed, he does so on the very ground by which the Ahmadi argument had gained its force, and he does it in an exegesis completed at the end of nearly forty years of work, in an Arabic scholarly field in which the Ahmadi argument had already made the old grammar consequential.
That earlier scholars had let the readings stand is central to the literature. It is the reason the Ahmadi argument rests on recognised grammatical possibilities. It also makes Ibn ‘Ashur’s prohibition and rerouting read as the closing of a field that had been open since al-Farra’. What he had to close at the level of the grammar, the grammar plainly produced. A reading dismissible at the level of the inference would not have required prohibition at the level of the syntax.
Endnotes
1. Surah al-Jumu‘ah, Ch. 62: V. 3-4.
2. Al-Farra’, Ma‘ani al-Qur’an, ed. Muhammad ‘Ali an-Najjar et al. (Cairo: al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-‘Amma li-l-Kitab, 1980), Vol. 3, p. 155.
3. Az-Zajjaj, Ma‘ani al-Qur’an wa-i‘rabuhu, ed. ‘Abd al-Jalil ‘Abduh Shalabi (Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1988), Vol. 5, p. 169-170.
4. The early exegete Yahya b. Sallam (d. 200/815) lists the verse under consideration among a series in which lamma yalhaqu bihim is glossed as lam yalhaqu bihim. “And there are many like it” (wa-nahwuhu kathir), he closes. The mechanism he invokes is the alif in lamma serving as a sila, a connector letter without independent semantic weight. On this analysis, lamma and lam are interchangeable in the construction. See: Yahya b. Sallam, at-Tasarif tafsir al-Qur’an mimma ishtabahat asma’uha wa-tasarrafat ma‘anihi, ed. Hind Shalabi (Tunis: ash-Sharika at-Tunisiyya li-t-Tawzi‘, 1979), p. 142.
5. An-Nahhas, I‘rab al-Qur’an, ed. Zuhayr Ghazi Zahid (Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1985), Vol. 4, p. 532.
6. Makki b. Abi Talib, Mushkil i‘rab al-Qur’an, ed. Hatim Salih al-Damin (Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risala, 1984), Vol. 2, p. 733.
7. Al-‘Ukbari, at-Tibyan fi i‘rab al-Qur’an, ed. Ali Muhammad al-Bijawi, Cairo: ‘Isa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1976, Vol. 2, p. 1222.
8. As-Samin al-Halabi, ad-Durr al-masun fi ‘ulum al-Kitab al-maknun, ed. Ahmad Muhammad al-Kharrat (Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1986), Vol. 10, p. 325.
9. At-Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, ed. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Muhsin at-Turki (Cairo: Dar Hajr, 2001), Vol. 22, p. 653.
10. Al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat Ahl as-Sunna, ed. Majdi Basallum (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2005), Vol. 10, pp. 7-8.
11. Al-Wahidi, at-Tafsir al-basit, ed. Muhammad b. Salih b. ‘Abd Allah al-Fawzan et al. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad b. Sa‘ud al-Islamiyya, 2009), Vol. 21, pp. 446-448.
12. Al-Baghawi, Ma‘alim at-tanzil, ed. Muhammad ‘Abd Allah an-Nimr et al. (Riyadh: Dar Tayba, 1997), Vol. 8, pp. 111-114.
13. Az-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf ‘an haqa’iq ghawamid at-Tanzil (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1987), Vol. 4, p. 530.
14. Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Muharrar al-wajiz, ed. ‘Abd as-Salam ‘Abd ash-Shafi Muhammad (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1422 AH), Vol. 5, pp. 306-307.
15. Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-masir, ed. ‘Abd ar-Razzaq al-Mahdi (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1422 AH), Vol. 4, pp. 280-281.
16. Ar-Razi, Mafatih al-ghayb (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1999), Vol. 30, pp. 538-539.
17. Al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, ed. Hisham Samir al-Bukhari (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 2003), Vol. 18, pp. 92-93.
18. Al-Baydawi, Anwar at-tanzil wa-asrar at-ta’wil, ed. Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Mar‘ashli (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1418 AH), Vol. 5, pp. 211-212.
19. An-Nasafi, Madarik at-tanzil wa-haqa’iq al-ta’wil, ed. Yusuf ‘Ali Badawi (Beirut: Dar al-Kalim at-Tayyib, 1998), Vol. 3, p. 480.
20. Abu Hayyan, al-Bahr al-muhit, ed. Sidqi Muhammad Jamil (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1420 AH), Vol. 10, pp. 169-170.
21. Abu as-Su‘ud, Irshad al-‘aql as-salim (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.), Vol. 8, p. 247.
22. Ash-Shawkani, Fath al-qadir (Damascus: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1993), Vol. 5, p. 268.
23. Al-Alusi, Ruh al-ma‘ani, ed. ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Bari ‘Atiyya (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1415 AH), Vol. 14, p. 289.
24. Siddiq Hasan Khan, Fath al-bayan fi maqasid al-Qur’an, ed. ‘Abd Allah b. Ibrahim al-Ansari (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, 1992), Vol. 14, p. 131.
25. At-Tusi, at-Tibyan fi tafsir al-Qur’an (Najaf: Maktabat al-Amin, 1963), Vol. 10, p. 5.
26. At-Tabrisi, Majma‘ al-bayan fi tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ulum, 2005), Vol. 10, p. 7.
27. At-Tabataba’i, al-Mizan fi tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A‘lami li-l-Matbu‘at, 1997), Vol. 19, p. 265.
28. Al-Huwwari, Tafsir Kitab Allah al-‘Aziz, ed. Balhajj Sa‘id Sharifi (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1990), Vol. 4, p. 397.
29. Ibn ‘Ashur, at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir (Tunis: ad-Dar at-Tunisiyya li-n-Nashr, 1984), Vol. 28, p. 210.
30. Ibn ‘Ashur, at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir, Vol. 28, pp. 211-212. The technical pair Ibn ‘Ashur invokes is “partitive min” (min tab‘idiyya) versus “connective min” (min ittisaliyya). The Arabic “joining” (luhuq) and “connection” (ittisal) carry the lexical link he relies on between lamma yalhaqu bihim and the connective reading of minhum.
31. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), Tohfa-e-Golarhviyyah, in: idem, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 17, pp. 248-249, 262-263.
32. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), A’ina-e kamalat-e Islam, in: idem, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 5, p. 209.
33. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), Aik ghalati ka izalah, in: idem, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 18, p. 216.
34. Hazrat Mirza Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), Anwar-ul-Khilafat, in: idem, Anwar-ul-‘ulum, Vol. 3, pp. 114, 210.
35. Qadi Muhammad Zahir ad-Din Akmal, “Rasul-e karim ki ba‘that-e thani”, Tashhidh al-adhhan, Qadian, Vol. 12, No. 11, November 1917, pp. 2-3.
36. Al-Furqan, Rabwah, October 1972, p. 27.