A Response to Three Questions of a Christian — Page 37
Reply to the Third Question 37 presented by the deniers would be as follows: ‘And We were not prevented from sending Signs by anything and by the rejection of the deniers. ’ Thus the ‘and’ would serve to specify the particular individuals over the general public. Think about it! The rejection of deniers can’t possibly prevent miracles. If their denial had stopped miracles, then did Pharaoh’s rejection of the immensely great miracles of Moses, peace be upon him, cause Almighty Allah to refrain from granting miracles upon Moses? On the contrary, the deniers kept rejecting and the mira- cles kept coming. الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ. وھٰذَا بِتَأْيِیۡد ِ رُوۡح ِ الۡقُدُسِ. ِّ وَالۡحَمۡد ُ ل ِِّٰ رَب [And all praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. And this (explanation) is through the help from the Holy Spirit. ] Third, I concede that the word ill a here is neither زائد [addendum], nor a conjunction; it is for استثناء [exception]. The ألف — alif and the الم — l a m of َات ي ٰۡ ال اَ — al- a y a t will refer to the word a yat which is already in the reader’s mind and is for specificity, or for generali- zation encompassing all types of a yat. If it is the first case, that is, what already exists in the reader’s mind and specificity, the verse would mean: ‘And nothing pre- vented Us from sending specific Signs, except the rejection of the earlier peoples. ’ Thus, it follows that specific signs and specific