Quran 3:61 - Ali at the Mubahala

The two branches of Islam, Sunni and Shia, fractured upon the death of Prophet Muhammad. The disagreement was on the legitimate caliph to succeed him. The Sunni claim is Abu Bakr, the father-in-law of the Prophet. The Shia claim is Imam Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet. Abu Bakr in Sunni Islam occupies the same place as Imam Ali in Shia Islam, as the chief support of the Prophet, whose commitment was unwavering, and who was the foremost companion in merit. The Quran shone a spotlight on both of them, with Abu Bakr in 9:40 and Imam Ali in 3:61. Both 9:40 and 3:61 were revealed in the final year of the prophetic mission, as if Allah was preparing us for the looming fracture. So, never mind what the Muslims say, we find out what Allah has to say about Abu Bakr and Imam Ali.

The Quran Verse

In the Name of God, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

“Then whoever argues with you [Muhammad] about it after [this] knowledge has come to you - say, ‘Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars.’” (3:61).

The Context

The consensus, across Sunni and Shia books of hadith literature, is that when the verse 3:61 was revealed in the year 9 AH, the Prophet took his cousin and son-in-law Ali, his daughter Fatimah, and his young grandsons Hasan and Husayn [Sahih Muslim 2404]. To overrule that, you must provide clear evidence to the contrary, and there is none. To give a backdrop for the event, a delegation of Christians from Najran had arrived in Medina to visit the Prophet. The Sunni scholars Ibn Kathir and Abul Ala Maududi reference the early historian Ibn Ishaq in their Quranic commentaries on 3:61. These sources show Najran was a prosperous province comprised of 73 villages and towns, capable of raising an army of 100,000 men. Their population was wholly Christian and their visitation consisted of 60 men, including 14 chiefs and 3 leaders, one of whom was their bishop. The delegation wore robes and garments and arrived on camels and horses.

The wider passage 3:33-63 declared the Islamic position on Jesus, and it created a dispute over his status, with the Christians claiming he was a deity and the Muslims claiming he was a prophet. A rational dialogue between the sides proved ineffective, so the Quran instructed the Prophet in 3:61 to settle the dispute with a mubahala. The two parties would call their nearest and dearest of people, who share their belief, for a spiritual battle to prove the truth, by invoking God to curse the side upon falsehood. The Christians accepted the invitation, but backed down at the event, upon seeing the Prophet had arrived with his family. As the Shia scholar Allamah Tabatabai said in his Quranic commentary on 3:61, the Prophet’s approach proved his absolute conviction, because the instinct of a man is to protect his family from danger, placing them above and beyond his own wellbeing, so it showed he knew they were safe. Hence, the Christians feared the outcome of him invoking God to curse them. It proved to be the sole mubahala for the Prophet, taking place in the final year of his life.

The Wide Dimension

The Christian delegation consisted of only men, whereas 3:61 requested the attendance of women. Najran and Medina are 1000 kilometres apart, so it was too impractical for the men to return and bring their women. We can infer, as others have claimed, that a mubahala was a pre-existing custom in Arabia, which the Quran had invoked, similar to how Hajj was a pagan pilgrimage repurposed by Islam towards monotheism. If 3:61 was the first application of a mubahala, then the Christians would’ve been confused by the criterion, but we find they understood and applied the generic prescription, arriving for it as a group of men. The generic prescription was to bring your nearest and dearest of people, in order to show your conviction. The typical Quranic approach is that what can be inferred need not be explained. The terms are mentioned in their order of importance to the claim; sons then women then selves. Each term needs clarification.

Sons had precedence in the culture for two reasons. Firstly, a son would continue the lineage, whereas a daughter would be subsumed into a different family upon marriage. Secondly, a son was important for survival, providing for his parents when they reached old age and the father was no longer able to work, whereas a daughter would not earn an income. There were exceptions but that was the rule. The Prophet had no biological sons, so he took his only biological grandsons, Hasan and Husayn. This application has a precedence in the Quran, for we find Abraham addressed his sons and grandson together as “O my sons” (2:132).

The term “your women” in 3:61 could include wives, sisters, daughters, aunts and mother, since they all served the purpose. This application has a precedence in the Quran too, for we read “And [recall, O Children of Israel], when We saved you from the people of Pharaoh, [who were] afflicting you with the worst torment - killing your sons and keeping your women alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord.” (7:141). Pharaoh had ordered male infanticide to cut off their lineage, in an attempt to wipe the Children of Israel off the face of the earth and resign them to a forgotten history. In 7:141, “your women” clearly denoted the women of their community. Hence, the Prophet was instructed in 3:61 to take the women from his community, the Muslims, who were near and dear to him. He took his daughter Fatimah, seemingly as a sample, because it could apply to other women, notably his wives.

The literal meaning of “self” in the Quran is the individual, like in 5:105 where it says “upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves”. Each person will only be held accountable for their own soul, imploring us to be critical of ourselves rather than concerned with judging others, to lash our ego not act self-righteous. However, 3:61 says to call yourselves, not to bring yourselves, so the Prophet was required to take people other than himself. We realise the term “selves” here must have a metaphorical meaning. The term is polysemous in the Quran, taking on different meanings based on the context. For example, we read “there has certainly come to you a Messenger from yourselves” (9:128). The Prophet was not an angel from above, or a foreigner from abroad, but one of them. In 9:128, the scope for “selves” was the Arabs.

Elsewhere, the scope for “selves” was the Muslims, encircling them to create a group conscience and a sense of shared purpose. You see yourself in them and they see themselves in you. To be joyous together and to grieve together. The Prophet said: “the believers are like one person; if his head aches, the whole body aches with fever and sleeplessness” [Sahih Muslim 2586]. We find verses criticising believers who didn’t embrace this spiritual solidarity, like when a wife of the Prophet was falsely accused of adultery: “Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think well of their own selves and say, ‘this is an obvious falsehood’?” (24:12). However, neither of these scopes for “selves” applied to 3:61. Its categorisation, into sons and women and selves, shows the Quran created a new definition here for “selves”, which we must derive from the context.

In the fiercely tribal culture of Arabia before Islam, the men of a clan put on a united front. A dispute with one was taken as a dispute with all. The notion of standing for what is right, or standing against what is wrong, was secondary to tribal loyalty. The individual would be vulnerable so he gained strength in numbers. The wolf pack as opposed to the lone wolf. This is how lawless societies self-organised into peace and order, because a minor action could provoke a major reaction, so it was a deterrent. Hence, the term “selves” in 3:61 was an intimidating way of referring to the men who were like them, and could include brothers, cousins, friends, uncles and father. The Prophet was instructed to take the men who were near and dear to him. He took his cousin and son-in-law Ali, seemingly as a sample, because it could apply to other men, notably his fathers-in-law. So, we derived the meaning of “sons” and “women” from elsewhere in the Quran, but the terms “selves” was defined in 3:61.

Then how can we understand the plurality of pronouns in 3:61? In Arabic grammar, the singular form applies to one person, the dual form applies to two people, and the plural form applies to three or more people. So, we expect to see the dual form for Hasan and Husayn as his sons, the singular form for Fatimah as his woman, and the singular form for Ali as his self. Yet the three categories of 3:61 are all in the plural form? In Arabic grammar, the plural is often applied to the singular or the dual, to focus on what was said and not who said it, or to show it was said by one or two but conveyed the mindset of many, or to transcend the context for wider applicability. The singular draws your attention to one person, the dual draws your attention to two people, but the plural can be three people or three thousand people, so the individuals are lost in the crowd so to speak. This application has a precedence in the Quran, like in the verse: “They are the ones who say ‘Do not spend on those who are with the Messenger of Allah until they disband’” (63:7). The pronoun here is plural (they), but the hadith literature informs that it was a quote from a single individual, Abdullah bin Ubai [Sahih al-Bukhari 4902]. 

It raises the question, why did the Prophet not take any other people? Zayd was his adopted son. Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama were his wives among others. Abdullah ibn Abbas was his cousin, and Abu Bakr and Umar were his fathers-in-law. They were all believers. The categories in 3:61 set the stage for them, yet the Prophet excluded them. The dispute over the status of Jesus, whether he was a deity or a prophet, was effectively a dispute over the legitimacy of Muhammad, because he claimed that God had sent him as a messenger to correct them. Bringing greater numbers to a mubahala conveys greater conviction, putting everything on the line so to speak. The Muslims could have outnumbered the Christians, yet the Prophet let the Christians outnumber the Muslims. To see a young family supporting their old patriarch is unsurprising. Hasan and Husayn were aged seven and five at the time, respectively. So, why did the Prophet not bring the others too and put everything on the line, with elders testifying to his credibility not just youths, in an effort to prove himself?

Excluding others actually gave the Prophet credibility. His bloodline was only through the matrimony of Ali and Fatimah, so they were the best argument, and the Arabs took pride in their lineage, so they were a sufficient argument. A simultaneous curse upon his household and demonstration of his fraudulence would resign the Prophet to a forgotten history. The Christians of Najran didn’t need to visit Medina as a big delegation of noblemen flaunting their prosperity. They were posturing and expected to find the Prophet posturing. A mubahala was an ineffective custom for invoking pagan deities, a show of bravado. By excluding the others, the Christians saw the Prophet had no interest in posturing and bravado. He was not there to prove himself, the talking was done. They realised he was actually taking it seriously. So they felt fearful and backed down.

In general, people practiced a religion then like they do now, not because they aligned their heart to the truth, but because they liked the status, structure, community, traditions and comfort it gave them. The Christians rode off back to Najran in denial, rejecting what they couldn’t refute, because they only cared to preserve their status quo. They wanted a god who served that purpose and scoffed at any notion that challenged their identity. Rather than sincerely engaging in the rational dialogue, they attempted to instil in the Prophet doubts about himself, so Allah exposed their sinister tactics with the Mubahala. They only cared for self-preservation so the Mubahala addressed this root cause. A true servant of God is humble, listening attentively to what He has to say, and questioning themselves. For the Christians of Najran, their status quo has now perished and the people whose arrogance reassured them have now dispersed. They must stand alone before Allah, to confront what they shrugged off. They were documented in 3:61 as a sombre lesson, because 3:61 now turns its attention to the Muslims, and asks them “will you react like they did?”. But people were heedless then and they are heedless now.

The Narrow Dimension

We understood the wide dimension of the terms sons, women and selves. But the Quran also has a narrow dimension. It differentiates between sons and grandsons (16:72), and between adopted sons and biological sons (33:4). It deems “your women” as a reference to wives only. A clear example is the verse 4:23. It lists the females that are prohibited for men in marriage, specifying their mothers, daughters, sisters and aunts, among others. The list includes “the mothers of your women”, where the term “women” cannot mean daughters, rather it must mean wives. The verse 65:4 on the topic of divorce is another instance, applying to wives only. In fact, we find the Prophet’s women defined in the Quran. In the passage 33:28-35, the Quran instructed “O Prophet say to your wives” and then addressed the wives directly as “O women of the Prophet”. In the case of the Prophet’s wives, to stay at home was the rule (33:33) and to leave the home was the exception, for we know they completed the Hajj pilgrimage after 33:33 was revealed. The Prophet could have taken a wife with him to the Mubahala, like he took his wife Umm Salama with him to Hudaybiyyah.

Put simply, the verse 3:61 instructed the Prophet to call his biological sons but he had none, and to call his wives but he called his daughter instead. There appears to be a mismatch between the Prophet’s application of the terms and their narrow Quranic definitions. How can it be harmonised? Recall that the term “selves” is metaphorical, and it means to see one in the other, depending on the scope. Here, the Prophet applied the Quranic definitions by taking Ali as his self. Fatimah was the wife of Ali. Hasan and Husayn were the sons of Ali. By Ali being his self, they then applied to the Prophet as wife and sons. So, the narrow dimension has the same pattern as the wide dimension. We derive the meaning of “sons” and “women” from elsewhere in the Quran, but the term “selves” doesn’t match a Quranic definition. Instead the Quran created a new definition in 3:61, and we again derive its meaning from the context. Here it took on the meaning of husband and father.

We notice 3:61 could only harmonise through Ali. Suppose the Prophet called Umar ibn Al-Khattab, and Zainab the wife of Umar, and their sons Abdullah and Abd ar-Rahman. These two sons were unrelated to the Prophet, but he had to take people near and dear to him, so they weren’t relevant to the Mubahala. Suppose the Prophet took just Aisha or Abu Bakr alongside the household. It wouldn’t have been posturing and it would’ve refuted this narrow dimension. The natural explanation of the verse would’ve applied through them, yet they were excluded. 3:61 could've easily said "men" instead of "selves" and this understanding wouldn't apply. The Quran doesn’t lead to misguidance; it would’ve steered us away from a false interpretation, not steered us towards it. So, from the people taken and the people not taken, we realise this narrow dimension was an intended meaning. Here Ali was the exclusive self of the Prophet. The verse is Allah honouring Ali. But what is the significance of it? We realised the term “selves” has the meaning of husband and father, and by definition, what applies to one self applies to the other self, within the defined scope. The verse 3:61 put the Prophet in the place of Imam Ali. And there is only one verse in the Quran which portrays the Prophet as a husband and father, for us to then place Imam Ali in it.

So it brings our attention to this verse: “The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers. Blood relatives are closer to one another in the Book of Allah than the believers and the emigrants, except that you do good to your friends. This is written in the Book.” (33:6). This is a multi-layered verse requiring clarification. We again see the precedence of nearest and dearest, but this time for the Muslim nation. The Quran often differentiates between the refugees who fled from Mecca and the locals in Medina who helped them, defining them as the emigrants (Muhajirun) and the helpers (Ansar), respectively, like in the verse 9:100. The refugees had arrived empty-handed, so the locals welcomed them into their homes and provided for them. But 33:6 was revealed five years after the migration. Now the refugees were back on their feet, with homes and livelihoods, so the society reorganised into normality and a permanent paradigm, a succession from the temporary to the status quo. 33:6 gave the helpers primacy, because the Muslim nation was built on their land, and it referred to them as the believers, to honour their sacrifice in the old paradigm, which they made because of their faith. The lives of the emigrants and helpers had initially become intertwined, living under the same roof, so this verse made clear that only blood relatives are entitled to inheritance, but friends can be bestowed a gift.

The verse 33:6 says the Prophet’s wives are the mothers, so the believers are the sons and daughters, and the Prophet is the father. Previously we saw that 24:12 unified the believers as selves. Now we see that 33:6 delineated the believers, portraying the nation in the imagery of a family. It was the beautiful society, built on love. They faced an unimaginable struggle for survival, but overcame it together to find prosperity and establish a kingdom. As the Quran promised, people are tested with both hardship and blessings (21:35). 33:6 says the Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves. Elsewhere we read that he was their nearest and dearest (9:24), and commanded their holistic obedience (33:36). So, being “closer” in his case means love and submission. The true believers would sacrifice their life to protect his life and abandon their desires to enact his will. He was their beloved authority, which is precisely the role of a father and husband in a Muslim family. The future Muslims could be emigrants and helpers in an exceptional circumstance, but they are brothers and sisters in every circumstance.

The reason 33:6 sheds light on 3:61 is because we see the same shifting in relationships. For example, in 3:61, Fatimah was the literal daughter of the Prophet and his metaphorical wife, and in 33:6, Aisha was the literal daughter of Abu Bakr and his metaphorical mother. The Prophet could not love his daughter like a wife, nor could Abu Bakr love his daughter like a mother, and the literal rights do not apply. So the metaphors convey how they should be honoured and treated. The Quran in 33:6 is teaching the believers to look at each other with two eyes. In one eye, you see your biological father as your beloved authority. In the other eye, you see your biological father as your brother in faith. It leads us to understand why the term “selves” in 3:61 is significant. What applies to one self applies to the other self, within the defined scope. You see one in the other. So, if the Prophet is husband to Ali’s wife, then Ali is husband to the Prophet’s wives.

When 33:6 was revealed in 5 AH, Ali was a son to the Prophet’s wives and a brother to the believers, Fatimah was a daughter to the Prophet’s wives and a sister to the believers. Then 3:61 was revealed in 9 AH, in the final year of the prophetic mission, and it elevated their rank in 33:6. Recall the term “selves” in 3:61, for Ali, took on the meaning of husband and father. Ali now became a husband to the Prophet’s wives and therefore a father to the believers. Fatimah now became a wife to the Prophet and therefore a mother to the believers. It’s similar to how the roles of people change over time in any family. So 3:61 unveils a succession. As the self of the Prophet, it places Ali in 33:6 as a beloved authority. In one sense, that of the wide dimension, the Prophet was the self of the believers, and Ali was a sample. In another sense, that of this narrow dimension, the Prophet was closer to the believers than their own selves, and Ali was the exclusive. But there is no basis to claim they are selves beyond this scope. Hence, in the Shia hadith literature, we find the Prophet told his community: “Ali and I are the fathers of this nation”.

In 3:61, Fatimah was the literal wife of Ali and the metaphorical wife of the Prophet, so you see the Prophet in Ali. In 33:6, Aisha was the literal wife of the Prophet and the metaphorical wife of Ali, so you see Ali in the Prophet. Before, the term “selves” represented a shared trait among a group, in a loose intimation. Here, invoking marital relations morphed two men together, in a tight intimation. The family imagery of the nation was heartwarming and idyllic. This marital imagery is striking and uncomfortable. It feels threatening in how it gives no flexibility. It couldn’t have been further emphasised and it can’t be downplayed. As if to say: you do not separate the selves, there are no ifs or buts or maybes. If you love the Prophet then you love Ali. If you reject Ali then you reject the Prophet. But the unaware are not culpable like the aware, because an unbeliever in the Quran is somebody who recognises the truth and covers it in their heart, being ungrateful to their Lord when He showed them the light.

The objection against the Shia faith, who hold this belief on Ali, is that a matter of this gravity would’ve been made explicit in the Quran. It resembles the objection of atheists, who ask why a message was not written upon the sky, for all to realise since our eternal fate is at stake, rather than revealed to one man 1400 years ago. It unveils their arrogance. As if people can decide the rules and Allah has to conform. It is based on a delusion of grandeur; the assumption that they can comprehend the mind of God. The literal meaning of “Islam” is submission, so the humble submit to His guidance in whichever form it comes. Nevertheless, a glimpse into the wisdom here is apparent from what transpired, because history is written by the victors and the Quran was preserved through natural causation. So, if Ali was named in the Quran, they probably would’ve replaced his name in the verse to Abu Bakr. Look who the hadith literature portrays as inseparable: “The Prophet said ‘if I were to choose from my nation anyone as my bosom friend I would have chosen Abu Bakr’.” [Sahih Muslim 2383]. Yet, when the Prophet called upon his nearest and dearest, Abu Bakr was not among the chosen, and any narration contradicting the Quran is a fabrication.

The household came together in another verse, 33:33, in a beautiful statement on their purity: “Allah only intends to keep every impurity away from you, O people of the household, and to purify you with a complete and utter purification”. 3:61 says the Prophet honoured and treated his grandsons, Hasan and Husayn, as if they were his own sons. A father feels a burden of responsibility, to raise his sons in the best manner. A grandfather doesn't feel this burden of responsibility, and simply loves his grandsons. This dynamic is particularly evident in Arab culture, where you often see the grandfather is soft with the children when their father is stern. So why did Allah burden the Prophet with this responsibility? They already had a father in Ali, and the Prophet was a busy man as a messenger, politician, military commander and husband to multiple women. Clearly it was an important matter, requiring his dedication. We saw the context was succession, for Ali and Fatimah, and now this implies it was generational, for Hasan and Husayn. A spiritual lineage not merely a physical lineage. The society was again reorganising into normality and a permanent paradigm, a succession from the temporary, that of a prophet in their midst, to the status quo, that of governance through his lineage.

The narrow dimension of “selves” was meaningless in the Mubahala itself, not even recognised by the Christians. It was imposed on the situation, not demanded by the situation. Allah used the Mubahala to make a different point, to the Muslims, on the position of the household. They were raised to inherit the religion and its kingdom, effectively becoming the royal family of Islam. It was the norm across world history, where specific people in a bloodline have a special standing. Even the Islamic empire adopted it with the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. Historically, a royal family often claimed to have been chosen by God, to elicit obedience and quell any rebellion. Here they actually were chosen by Allah. The Prophet took the royal family to the Mubahala, for who else could represent Islam? It was the ideal occasion to introduce them. We saw the verse 33:6 touched on the topic of inheritance. The blood relatives are entitled to the physical inheritance of property. The royal family are entitled to the spiritual inheritance of leadership.

Then how can we understand the plurality of pronouns in 3:61? In the wide dimension, the Quran shifted our focus towards what happened at the Mubahala and away from the individuals who attended it. But that cannot be the explanation for the narrow dimension, because to harmonise 3:61 required a specific man, Ali. Allah and the Prophet already drew our attention to the individuals, so we can’t say Allah and the Prophet are diverting our attention away from the individuals. It leaves only one explanation. Here we notice something extraordinary. Allah in the Quran frequently refers to Himself with a metaphorical device, the majestic plural (royal we), like in the phrase "We created the heavens and earth". The majestic plural was adopted in Arabia before Islam and it can be found in modern cultures. It conveys grandeur, honour, glory and authority, to inspire reverence in us. This same majestic plural, which Allah reserved for Himself in the Quran, He cloaked the household in. The majestic plural was applied in 3:61 to Husayn, Hasan, Fatimah, and the two selves, Ali and the Prophet.

Notice the usage of plurality in 3:61. In the wide dimension, the focus is on the event and its place in the dialogue with Christians, so never mind the people taken by the Prophet. In the narrow dimension, the focus is on the people taken by the Prophet and positioning them in Islam, so never mind the event. You can only marvel at the eloquence of the Quran. And it leads to a sad realisation. Allah warned the emigrants and helpers that every nation sent a prophet began to differ because of envy (2:213). Then see how the Muslim nation treated the household after the Prophet, from Saqifah to Karbala. They wanted the religion and its kingdom for themselves. The warning was in fact a prophecy. The beautiful society disintegrated and the Muslims fractured, waging war against each other in the Battle of the Camel. Islam had become dominant in Arabia and the Muslims then strove for world domination, forgetting the real victory is to be in paradise, near and dear to Allah. The Muslims who had passed the test of struggle had now failed the test of prosperity. The world opened up to them and they fell in love with it. The right of Ali was not respected on the ground by the elders, but Allah forever honoured Ali in the hearts of the true believers, as a beloved authority.

It brings to mind a verse: “Then do they not reflect upon the Quran, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (47:24). 3:61 didn’t say which Quranic dimension the Prophet must apply to the terms, the wide or the narrow. His application is compatible with both dimensions, and it derives two interpretations that complement each other. Both can apply, and without a basis to accept one and reject the other, we must apply both. To be selective is leading the Quran to your desired interpretation, which the Prophet severely warned against, instead of letting the Quran lead you to its interpretation. It brings to mind the Prophet’s sermon at Ghadir Khumm in the lead up to his death: “O people, I am leaving behind two weighty things among you,­ if you follow them you will never go astray. These two are the book of Allah and my household. Be careful how you treat these two after me, for verily they will not separate from each other until they come back to me by the side of the heavenly pond. […] Do you know that I am closer to the believers than their own selves? For whoever I am his master then Ali is his master.”

Note: It is customary to write “peace be upon them” whenever mentioning the prophets and the household. I refrained in this analysis, as it hinders the fluency of reading, but I share the admiration.