Appearance
Sūrah Āl ʿImrān, verse 61
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءنَا وَنِسَاءكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ
Fa-man ḥājjaka fīhi min baʿdi mā jā’aka mina al-ʿilmi fa-qul taʿālaw nadʿu abnā’anā wa abnā’akum wa nisā’anā wa nisā’akum wa anfusanā wa anfusakum, thumma nabtahil fa-najʿal laʿnata Allāhi ʿala al-kādhibīn.
Should anyone argue with you concerning him, after the knowledge that has come to you, say, ‘Come! Let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, our souls and your souls, then let us pray earnestly and call down Allah’s curse upon the liars.’
Context and significance
Verse 3:61 occurs at the conclusion of the Qur’an’s debate with the Christians of Najrān concerning the nature of Jesus. After laying out decisive arguments that affirm Jesus as a servant and messenger of God, born miraculously yet not divine, the Qur’an presents a striking challenge
The significance of this verse lies in both its form and its consequence. Rather than prolonging abstract debate, it calls the disputants to a solemn act of invoking divine judgment, where truth and falsehood would be exposed by God Himself. By commanding the Prophet (s.a.w.) to bring those dearest to him—his sons, his woman, and his very self—the Qur’an shows that ultimate certainty in truth is demonstrated by one’s willingness to stake the lives of one’s most beloved.
The verse therefore raises pivotal questions: why did the Prophet bring only a select few to stand with him? What does their presence signify about their rank and role within his mission? And why did the Christians, when faced with this scene, withdraw from the confrontation?
In these questions lies the enduring significance of the verse of Mubāhalah. It is not merely a historical account of interfaith dispute but a moment where the Qur’an intertwines proof of prophethood with the revealed status of the Prophet’s household. The challenge crystallizes the themes of truth, sincerity, and divine testimony—making this verse a critical point of study for understanding the Prophet’s mission and the position of his family within it.
What the exegetes say
At a glance
Fakhr al-Dīn al-RāzīReads the mubāhalah as the final proof of the Prophet's truth, identifying the four with him; acknowledges ʿAlī's rank as his self but denies equality with the Prophet.
Al-QurṭubīReads the verse as proof of the Prophet's sincerity against the Najrān Christians, identifying Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, Fāṭimah and ʿAlī, and as showing his household's noble status.
ʿAllāmah ṬabāṭabāʾīArgues only these four qualified as sons, women and self, and that 'the liars' makes them partners in the Prophet's claim and mission, though not prophethood.
Al-ṬabarsīIdentifies sons, women and selves solely with Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, Fāṭimah and ʿAlī, citing Sunni and Shīʿī chains, and takes the verse as establishing their unparalleled rank.
How each exegete answers the question, in one line. Click a name to read his reading in full.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī
In his commentary on the verse of mubāhalah al-Rāzī sets forth a wide-ranging discussion that combines theological reasoning, historical reports, and rhetorical analysis.
Al-Rāzī begins by noting that Allah, at the outset of this sūrah, advanced decisive arguments against the false claims of the Christians regarding the nature of Jesus. Having established these proofs, Allah then concludes the matter with the challenge of mubāhalah. This represents the final, most decisive step in debate, for one who knowingly lies would never dare to invoke God’s curse upon himself and his loved ones. The Christians were thus invited to a confrontation whose very nature demonstrated the Prophet’s certainty in his truth and the futility of his opponents’ claims.
Al-Rāzī relates how, when the Prophet (s.a.w.) called the Christians of Najrān to mubāhalah, he brought with him his closest family: al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, Fāṭimah, and ʿAlī. He carried al-Ḥusayn in his arms, held al-Ḥasan by the hand, while Fāṭimah and ʿAlī followed. The Prophet told them: “When I supplicate, you say ‘Āmīn.’” The Christians, seeing their faces, were struck with fear. Their bishop declared: “I see faces which, if they prayed to God to move a mountain, it would be moved. Do not enter into mubāhalah with them, or you will perish.” They therefore refrained, choosing instead to pay the jizyah. Al-Rāzī observes that this abstention is itself proof of the Prophet’s truthfulness: had they believed him to be a liar, they would have engaged in the mubāhalah to expose him, but their fear showed that they recognized his prophethood.
From this narrative, al-Rāzī draws several theological points. First, the verse indicates the great rank of the Prophet’s family. Al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, though young, were called “our sons,” establishing that a grandson through the daughter may be considered a “son,” as in the Qur’an’s description of Jacob as Abraham’s son through Isaac. Fāṭimah was included as “our women,” and ʿAlī as part of “ourselves.” On this basis, some argued that ʿAlī was given equivalence with the Prophet himself, since Allah made him the Prophet’s “self.” While Shiʿi scholars take this as proof of ʿAlī’s superiority over all except Muḥammad, al-Rāzī acknowledges the exalted status it confers while maintaining that consensus affirms the Prophet’s superiority over all others, and that no prophet can be deemed inferior to ʿAlī. Nonetheless, the verse demonstrates beyond doubt the closeness and merit of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Al-Qurṭubī
In his commentary on the verse of mubāhala, al-Qurṭubī explains that it was revealed regarding the Christians of Najrān who disputed with the Prophet concerning the nature of Jesus. After Allah had clarified the truth to His Prophet, He commanded him, if they persisted in argument, to call them to a solemn invocation: both sides were to bring forward their closest family members and pray earnestly, asking Allah to curse the liars. This invitation was a test of truthfulness, for no false claimant would dare expose his loved ones to divine wrath.
Al-Qurṭubī records that the Prophet appeared for this event accompanied only by those dearest to him: al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn as his “sons,” Fāṭimah as his “woman,” and ʿAlī as his “self.” He carried al-Ḥusayn in his arms, holding al-Ḥasan by the hand, with Fāṭimah walking behind and ʿAlī following them. He told them: “When I supplicate, you say Āmīn.” This scene, according to al-Qurṭubī, is among the greatest proofs of the Prophet’s sincerity and of the elevated station of his family, Ahl al-Kisāʾ.
The Christians of Najrān, when they saw the Prophet’s resolve and whom he brought with him, withdrew and declined the mubāhala. Their leaders reasoned that if he were not truly a prophet, he would never risk invoking Allah’s curse upon his own family. Thus, the verse stood as a powerful confirmation of his prophethood.
Al-Qurṭubī further clarifies the meanings of the terms used in the verse. “Our sons” refers to Ḥasan and Ḥusayn; “our women” to Fāṭimah; and “ourselves” to ʿAlī. The phrase “let us pray earnestly” (nabtahil) denotes an intense form of supplication, marked by humility and persistence. The command to “invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars” indicates a plea for the destruction and removal of falsehood.
He emphasizes that the verse highlights both the Prophet’s truthfulness and the special rank of his household. He cites the Prophet’s well-known saying that al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn are “the leaders of the youth of Paradise” and recalls the tradition: “Every lineage and connection will be severed on the Day of Resurrection, except my lineage and my kinship.” For al-Qurṭubī, then, the verse of mubāhala establishes not only a proof against the Christians but also the noble status of the Prophet’s family within the Muslim community.
Source: Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī), vol. 5, under Chapter 3, verse 61, Pub. by Al-Risalah Foundation, Beirut.
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī
The verse of mubāhalah comes after a series of verses clarifying the reality of Jesus, culminating in the emphatic statement: “The truth is from your Lord, so be not among the doubters” (3:60). Hence, as ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī observes, the challenge of mubāhalah is directly linked to the clear proofs already given.
Ṭabāṭabāʾī explains the structure of the verse 3:61 carefully: the plural “let us call” refers to both parties—the Prophet and the Christians of Najrān—while the possessive plurals “our sons, our women, our selves” refer specifically to the Prophet’s side. The invitation is extended to sons and women in order to demonstrate the complete confidence of the claimant. A man will only expose his dearest kin to danger if he is certain of his truth. For this reason sons are mentioned first, for paternal love is strongest toward them.
The Qur’an uses plurals—“our sons, our women, our selves”—yet history records that when the Prophet came forth for the mubāhalah, he brought only ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them). This, Ṭabāṭabāʾī notes, is not unusual. Often the Qur’an uses plurals though the occasion of revelation concerns a single individual. Examples include verses about ẓihār (58:2–3) or those about spending (2:219). But in this case, the Prophet’s compliance shows that only these four persons were worthy to stand as his sons, woman, and self. Had they been mere “samples” of categories, the Prophet would have been obliged to bring others as well. That he did not, and yet fulfilled the command fully, indicates their exclusive excellence.
The final part of the verse—“and bring about the curse of God on the liars”—is also decisive. The wording does not say “on whosoever is lying,” but “on the liars,” plural. This shows that in each party there were multiple individuals who were claimants in the dispute. The Prophet’s companions at the mubāhalah were therefore not passive family members, but active partners in his claim. Their presence signified that the truth of Islam depended on them alongside the Prophet, just as the Christians’ collective claim depended on their own group. In this way, ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn were made partners in the Prophet’s mission, though not in prophethood itself. Prophethood remains exclusive to the Messenger, but the work of calling, propagating, and upholding the claim was shared with them.
Thus, the verse demonstrates two unique excellences: first, that the Prophet’s family were identified by God Himself as his “selves, women, and sons,” to the exclusion of all others in the ummah; and second, that by joining him in the mubāhalah, they were shown to be inseparable from his mission. The event of Najrān, therefore, was not simply a dramatic confrontation with Christians, but a divine declaration of the special rank of the Prophet’s Household, whose partnership in his claim and mission was made manifest in the most decisive way.
Source: Tafsir al-Mizan, Eng. Vol. 6 under Chapter 3, Verse 61 (WOFIS, Iran)
Read ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s full commentary in Tafsir al-Mizan: 3:61–63 on almizan.org ↗
Al-Ṭabarsī
Al-Ṭabarsī explains verse 3:61 in the context of the famous event of al-Mubāhala between the Prophet Muḥammad and the Christians of Najrān. When they persisted in disputing the truth about Jesus after the Qur’an had clarified his reality, Allah (s.w.t.) commanded the Prophet to invite them to a solemn test of truth. This was not to be a mere argument but an act of invoking divine judgment: both parties were to gather with their closest kin, pray together, and ask Allah to send His curse upon the liars. Al-Ṭabarsī stresses that this command shows the seriousness of the matter and the certainty of the Prophet’s truthfulness, for no prophet would risk exposing himself and his dearest ones to divine wrath if he were in doubt.
Al-Ṭabarsī draws particular attention to those whom the Prophet (s.a.w.) chose to accompany him. “Our sons,” he says, refers to al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (a.s.); “our women” refers solely to Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ (a.s.); and “ourselves” is none other than the Prophet himself together with ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (a.s.). By limiting the participants to these five—himself, ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn—the Prophet demonstrated that they were his truest family and the purest in faith, entrusted to represent Islam at such a decisive moment. Reports preserved by both Sunni and Shīʿī chains confirm this identification, with narrations from Ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and others affirming that no one else was brought to the field of Mubāhala.
Al-Ṭabarsī relates how, when the Najrān delegation saw the Prophet arriving with these chosen ones, they were struck with fear. Their leaders conferred and concluded that if Muḥammad were not confident of his truth, he would never bring these closest and most beloved of his household to such a perilous invocation. Convinced of the dire consequences, they withdrew from the challenge and instead sought a peace treaty. Thus, the event itself became a living testimony to the truth of the Prophet’s message and the exalted station of his family.
In his commentary, al-Ṭabarsī also highlights that this verse not only proves the truthfulness of the Prophet but also establishes the unique merit of the Ahl al-Bayt. The fact that the Qur’an designates ʿAlī as the Prophet’s “self,” that Fāṭima alone represents “our women,” and that al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn stand as “our sons,” elevates them to a rank unparalleled among the companions. The verse of Mubāhala, therefore, is both a theological proof against the Christians and an enduring Qur’anic testimony to the intimate bond and divine favor bestowed upon the household of the Prophet.
Source: Majmaʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, vol. 2 (Qom: Dār al-ʿIlm), commentary on Q. 3:61.
Our reflection
This is our own reflection on the readings above. It is one way of reading the comparison, offered to encourage further thought rather than as the final word.
Verse 3:61, known as āyat al-mubāhalah, stands at the culmination of the Qur’an’s argument with the Christians of Najrān regarding the nature of Jesus. After providing reasoned proofs, the Qur’an commands the Prophet (s.a.w.) to invite his opponents to a solemn test: both sides should bring their closest kin and invoke God’s curse upon the liars. The dramatic nature of this challenge—placing one’s most beloved family in the arena of divine judgment—serves as the final proof of conviction.
Across the tafsīr tradition, the exegetes agree on the essential narrative: the Prophet came forth with ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (a.s.), and the Christians, stricken with fear at his confidence and the purity of those who accompanied him, withdrew from confrontation. Yet within this agreement, the exegetes draw distinct theological and rhetorical conclusions.
Al-Rāzī frames the event as both polemic and proof of sincerity. He stresses that the Christians’ refusal to engage in mubāhalah itself testifies to the Prophet’s truthfulness, for had they been convinced of their own position, they would not have hesitated. His most significant insight is linguistic: the designation of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn as “our sons,” Fāṭimah as “our women,” and ʿAlī as “ourselves.” Al-Rāzī acknowledges that these designations elevate the family to extraordinary rank, particularly in making ʿAlī the “self” of the Prophet. While careful not to disrupt Sunni consensus on the Prophet’s absolute superiority, he concedes the verse as a decisive Qur’anic testimony to the Ahl al-Bayt’s closeness and excellence.
Al-Qurṭubī echoes this emphasis on truthfulness and honor. He interprets the Prophet’s choice of companions as the clearest sign of sincerity—one would not risk invoking divine wrath upon one’s dearest unless fully certain. For him, the verse not only defeats the Christians but also confirms the nobility of the Prophet’s household. He supports this with traditions praising al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn and with the saying that kinship with the Prophet will endure on the Day of Resurrection. Thus, while his tafsīr highlights the polemical success of the event, it also embeds the verse into a wider discourse of the Ahl al-Bayt’s elevated station within the ummah.
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī pushes the analysis further, giving the verse systematic theological depth. He argues that the plurals “our sons, our women, our selves” are not generic categories but exclusive identifications, for otherwise the Prophet would have brought more than these four. Their presence was not ornamental but integral: the Qur’an’s command to bring them into the mubāhalah made them partners in the Prophet’s claim. While prophethood is unique to the Messenger, the Ahl al-Bayt’s inclusion demonstrates that the truth of Islam was embodied in them as much as in him. For Ṭabāṭabāʾī, then, the verse discloses two profound realities: that the Prophet’s family are the only true referents of these designations, and that their role in safeguarding and propagating the message is inseparable from his own.
Al-Ṭabarsī, drawing on both Sunni and Shiʿi reports, anchors the verse firmly in the historical event. He stresses that the Prophet’s deliberate restriction to these four figures was itself revelatory, showing that they alone were worthy of representing Islam in the decisive confrontation. Their designation as “sons,” “woman,” and “self” establishes their rank beyond all companions. The Christians’ withdrawal, when they beheld these faces, turned the verse into a living proof not only of the Prophet’s mission but also of the exalted status of the Ahl al-Bayt. For al-Ṭabarsī, the verse is thus simultaneously polemical, historical, and doctrinal—a Qur’anic proclamation of the family’s unique station.
Taken together, the four exegetes illuminate different dimensions of the verse. Al-Rāzī highlights its rhetorical force, al-Qurṭubī its confirmation of prophetic sincerity and familial honor, Ṭabāṭabāʾī its theological structure and implications for the Prophet’s mission, and al-Ṭabarsī its enduring testimony to the singular excellence of the Ahl al-Bayt. Where some commentaries underscore polemical triumph or familial honor, Ṭabāṭabāʾī and al-Ṭabarsī insist that the verse contains a deeper declaration: that God Himself marked out the Household of the Prophet as inseparable from his mission and as partners in the manifestation of truth.
The verse of mubāhalah, therefore, is not merely an episode in interfaith debate, but a Qur’anic disclosure of authority, kinship, and divine choice. It simultaneously affirms the Prophet’s sincerity, disarms his opponents, and elevates his household in a way that has remained a cornerstone of theological reflection across Islamic traditions.
What is your reflection?
How do you read this comparison? Do you see it differently, or have other ideas to add? We would like to hear from you.
Email your reflectionor write to info@tafsircompare.com