وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَآ ءَايَةً مَّكَانَ ءَايَةٍ وَٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍۭ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ · قُلْ نَزَّلَهُۥ رُوحُ ٱلْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ
Wa idhā baddalnā āyatan makāna āyatin wa'llāhu aʿlamu bimā yunazzilu qālū innamā anta muftar, bal aktharuhum lā yaʿlamūn · Qul nazzalahū rūḥu'l-qudusi min rabbika bi'l-ḥaqqi li-yuthabbita'lladhīna āmanū wa hudan wa bushrā li'l-muslimīn
"When We put one verse in the place of another — and God knows best what He sends down — they say: 'You are only an inventor.' No, most of them do not know. · Say: rūḥ al-qudus brought it down from your Lord in truth, to make firm those who believe, and as guidance and glad tidings for those who submit."
The verse records an objection, and the logic of the objection is this: if a text changes, its source cannot be divine.
| Part | Expression | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wa'llāhu aʿlamu bimā yunazzil | A parenthesis — it comes into the middle of the objection |
| 2 | Qul nazzalahū rūḥu'l-qudusi min rabbika bi'l-ḥaqq | The naming of the source |
The place of the first part must be recorded: it comes into the middle of the sentence, before the objection has been reported. The lexicographers call this iʿtirāḍiyya (a parenthetical clause).
I give this as an observation about the word order: in reporting the objection the verse has already put the answer in place beforehand. The reader reads the objection knowing the answer.
In the second verse bi'l-rūḥ occurred, and the disagreement was tabulated there (revelation / Gabriel / prophethood). In the hundred and second verse the construction becomes definite: rūḥ al-qudus.
| View | Who rūḥ al-qudus is |
|---|---|
| 1 | Gabriel — transmitted as the view of the majority |
| 2 | Revelation itself — the same as the use of the word rūḥ in the second verse |
But an internal note must be entered: in the second verse it was yunazzilu'l-malāʾikata bi'l-rūḥ — the angels and the rūḥ were named separately. In the hundred and second the one who brings it down is rūḥ al-qudus. There is a tension between the two verses, and the exegetes resolve it in two ways. No resolution is imposed in this commentary.
The root ث-ب-ت occurred in the ninety-fourth verse (baʿda thubūtihā — the foot's standing firm). In the hundred and second the same root appears again, this time of the believers: li-yuthabbita — to make firm.
This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra. And I give this as an observation: in the ninety-fourth verse firmness was being lost; in the hundred and second it is given. The same root, in two opposite directions.
And the closing is the same as that of the eighty-ninth verse: wa hudan wa bushrā li'l-muslimīn. This is a repetition verifiable within the sūra.