سُوْرَةُ النَّحْلِ
Surah An-Nahl (16) — Ayah 103
وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُۥ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِّسَانُ ٱلَّذِى يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِىٌّ وَهَـٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِىٌّ مُّبِينٌ ﴿103﴾
Translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan & Dr. Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali
And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur’ân) is a clear Arabic tongue.
Word by Word — Arabic, Transliteration & Meaning
وَلَقَدْ
walaqad
And certainly
نَعْلَمُ
naʿlamu
We know
أَنَّهُمْ
annahum
that they
يَقُولُونَ
yaqūlūna
say
إِنَّمَا
innamā
Only
يُعَلِّمُهُۥ
yuʿallimuhu
teaches him
بَشَرٌۭ ۗ
basharun
a human being
لِّسَانُ
lisānu
(The) tongue
ٱلَّذِى
alladhī
(of) the one
يُلْحِدُونَ
yul'ḥidūna
they refer
إِلَيْهِ
ilayhi
to him
أَعْجَمِىٌّۭ
aʿjamiyyun
(is) foreign
وَهَـٰذَا
wahādhā
while this
لِسَانٌ
lisānun
(is) a language
عَرَبِىٌّۭ
ʿarabiyyun
Arabic
مُّبِينٌ
mubīnun
clear
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran — Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani
Tafsir Taiseer ul-Quran (Facilitation of the Quran) is a comprehensive Quran commentary by Maulana Abdul Rahman Kilani, a renowned Salafi (Ahl al-Hadith) scholar from Pakistan. Known for his eloquent and accessible writing style, Kilani authored this tafsir with a focus on clarity — making Quranic meanings understandable to the common reader. The tafsir provides detailed historical context for verses related to battles and expeditions, and firmly refutes modernist ideologies using strong scriptural evidence. It is widely regarded as an invaluable resource for understanding the Quran and countering deviant interpretations. The tafsir is originally written in Urdu, translated to English by tohed.com.
We certainly know that the disbelievers say, "It is only a human who teaches him (the Prophet)." But the person they refer to is foreign, while this (Quran) is in clear Arabic [108] language.
[108]
The Response to Learning the Quran from a Non-Arab:
In this regard, the disbelievers of Makkah would mention the names of several non-Arab slaves who were familiar with the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel. Whenever the disbelievers saw that you ﷺ went to them for the call to Islam, or that those slaves came to you ﷺ, the disbelievers would spread the rumor that this Prophet listens to the stories and tales of previous nations from such-and-such a person and then relates them to us. However, those non-Arab slaves could only converse in their own language; they could not even speak Arabic properly. That is why Allah Almighty gave this response to their objection: the language of the Quran is so eloquent and articulate that, despite your pride in your own eloquence, you Arabs are unable to produce anything like it—so how could a non-Arab person teach this speech, when he himself cannot even speak Arabic properly and manages with a few broken sentences? The second answer to this objection is that if that non-Arab slave was such a great scholar, then why did he not present this speech himself? Or at the very least, he should have become renowned in that era, whereas their anonymity was such that the disbelievers could not even specify the name of any one of those three or four slaves who, according to them, was teaching you ﷺ the Quran.
[108]
The Response to Learning the Quran from a Non-Arab:
In this regard, the disbelievers of Makkah would mention the names of several non-Arab slaves who were familiar with the teachings of the Torah and the Gospel. Whenever the disbelievers saw that you ﷺ went to them for the call to Islam, or that those slaves came to you ﷺ, the disbelievers would spread the rumor that this Prophet listens to the stories and tales of previous nations from such-and-such a person and then relates them to us. However, those non-Arab slaves could only converse in their own language; they could not even speak Arabic properly. That is why Allah Almighty gave this response to their objection: the language of the Quran is so eloquent and articulate that, despite your pride in your own eloquence, you Arabs are unable to produce anything like it—so how could a non-Arab person teach this speech, when he himself cannot even speak Arabic properly and manages with a few broken sentences? The second answer to this objection is that if that non-Arab slave was such a great scholar, then why did he not present this speech himself? Or at the very least, he should have become renowned in that era, whereas their anonymity was such that the disbelievers could not even specify the name of any one of those three or four slaves who, according to them, was teaching you ﷺ the Quran.
