and peace—is a messenger sent to humankind and the jinn. Allah Most High sent him to humankind and the jinn from the time he was commissioned until the Day of Resurrection. It is evident to us what honor and distinction is implied by attributing him to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, in the words, “His Prophet and His Messenger.”
His statement, “Muhammad”: how is it parsed grammatically? It is an explanatory apposition, because a substitute generally conveys the same meaning as that which it replaces, whereas an explanatory apposition adds clarification of meaning. Here it adds clarification by identifying the proper name of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: Muhammad. It is a passive participle, for his Lord has praised him, and the earlier and later peoples have praised him. His complete praise will become manifest on the Day of Resurrection, as Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, says:
“Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station.”
Hassan ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
He derived for him a name from His own, to exalt him:
The Lord of the Throne is Mahmūd, and this is Muhammad.
How many times is the name Muhammad mentioned in the Quran? Four times. The name Ahmad is mentioned once. What, then, is the wisdom in Allah’s inspiring Jesus to say Ahmad rather than Muhammad?
The wisdom is that Ahmad is an unrestricted elative form; that is, the object of comparison is not mentioned, so he is the most praiseworthy of all creation without qualification. Does it have the sense of an active participle, a passive participle, or both? Does Ahmad mean that he praises Allah more than anyone else, or that he is the one most praised by people? Both meanings undoubtedly apply. Rather, he was named Ahmad in order to establish the proof against the Children of Israel: Jesus affirmed this name, and Muhammad is the best of creation because he named him Ahmad.
He says: “and his family, his Companions …” and so on.
Is the coordination of “his family and his Companions” an instance of coordinating the particular with the general, or the general with the particular, or what? It is an instance of coordinating the general with the particular, since it is followed by, “and upon his followers.” Thus, it is coordination of the general with the particular. Who, then, are his family? Clearly, it is not sound to say that his family are his relatives, for that would include Abu Lahab and others among the disbelieving relatives of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. That is not intended, and we do not invoke blessings upon members of the Prophet’s family who are not believers. So what should we say? We say: his family are the believers among his relatives. In this way, the poet’s objection is answered in his words:
The Prophet’s family are the followers of his religion—
Whether non-Arabs, black people, or Arabs.
Had his family been only his relatives,
Every worshipper would invoke blessings upon the tyrant Abu Lahab.