The Qur’anic Root B R Ṣ (Baraṣ and Abraṣ)
Visible changes in skin color; from contrasting patches and older Arabic uses to Jesus’ healing and the distinction between historical disease names and modern medicine
Qur’anic and lexical forms
الْأَبْرَصَ
(al-abraṣa)
Definite accusative description of the affected person; both Qur’anic occurrences
بَرَص
(baraṣ)
Lexical name of the condition; this form does not occur in the Qur’an
بَرْصَاء
(barṣāʾ)
Lexical feminine form; not Qur’anic
بَرِصَ
(bariṣa)
Lexical verb for developing baraṣ; not Qur’anic
بَرِيص
(barīṣ)
Gleam in lexical sources; not Qur’anic
سَامّ أَبْرَص
(sāmm abraṣ)
Lexical animal name; neither Qur’anic occurrence refers to it
الْأَبَارِص
(al-abāriṣ)
Plural animal name in the rajaz witness; not Qur’anic
الْبِرَاص
(al-birāṣ)
Patchy, bare ground in lexical sources; not Qur’anic
1. Introduction and Qur’anic forms
The Arabic root B R Ṣ concerns a patch or area whose color differs from the surrounding surface. Its best-known use concerns human skin, where areas develop a visible change of color, especially conspicuous whiteness.
In Arabic, بَرَص (baraṣ) names a recognized condition, and أَبْرَص (abraṣ) describes someone affected by it. The feminine form is بَرْصَاء (barṣāʾ). Other recorded uses concern contrasting patches on animals, the gleam of certain surfaces, and ground with pale patches.
The root occurs twice in the Qur’an, in two verses from two surahs:
Both occurrences use the same form in the same subject: Jesus’ healing. No independent verb from B R Ṣ occurs in the Qur’an.
الْأَبْرَصَ is a descriptive form on the pattern أَفْعَل (afʿal), used here substantivally for the person affected by baraṣ. The article al- makes it definite, and the final accusative vowel reflects its position as an object.
In both verses, الْأَبْرَصَ stands beside الْأَكْمَهَ, describing a person affected by blindness or severe impairment of sight.
The healing verbs in these verses, أُبْرِئُ and تُبْرِئُ, belong to B R ʾ, not B R Ṣ. Healing must therefore remain distinct from the meaning of abraṣ itself.
2. The semantic core in older Arabic
A patch contrasting with its surroundings
In Maqāyīs al-lughah, Ibn Fāris defines the root’s central meaning as follows:
«أَنْ يَكُونَ فِي الشَّيْءِ لُمْعَةٌ تُخَالِفُ سَائِرَ لَوْنِهِ»
an yakūna fī al-shayʾi lumʿatun tukhālifu sāʾira lawnihi
Translation: “For something to contain a visible patch whose color differs from the rest of it.”
He treats baraṣ as one instance of this meaning and then mentions other uses in the family, including descriptions of the moon and patchy ground.
This definition offers more than a restriction of the root to “becoming white.”
Its starting point is the difference between one area’s color and its surroundings. In the familiar medical use, this takes the form of white skin patches; other uses concern brightness, mottling, or the emergence of visibly contrasting areas.
This semantic core does not establish that every skin spot or every contrasting surface color was necessarily called baraṣ. The disease name has a particular use and is not identical with every kind of spotting.
Baraṣ in human skin
Lisān al-ʿArab defines baraṣ as follows:
«الْبَرَصُ دَاءٌ مَعْرُوفٌ ... وَهُوَ بَيَاضٌ يَقَعُ فِي الْجَسَدِ»
al-baraṣu dāʾun maʿrūfun … wa-huwa bayāḍun yaqaʿu fī al-jasadi
Translation: “Baraṣ is a recognized condition … a whiteness that appears on the body.”
The same source records بَرِصَ (bariṣa) for developing baraṣ, and أَبْرَص and بَرْصَاء for describing the affected person.
Here baraṣ is more than a natural skin color: it denotes a recognized alteration of color described as a physical condition or disease.
Abraṣ cannot therefore simply mean “a fair-skinned person.” Someone may naturally have light skin without having baraṣ.
The distinction is that abraṣ describes a condition in which the skin’s color has changed in an abnormal, contrasting way.
The word alone determines neither the cause, the presence or absence of pain, contagiousness, extent, nor prospects of treatment. Older lexical definitions do not specify these matters precisely.
3. Other uses of the family in older Arabic
Pale patches on animals
Lisān al-ʿArab uses حَيَّةٌ بَرْصَاءُ (ḥayyatun barṣāʾu) for a snake with white patches on its skin.
The B R Ṣ family is thus not confined to humans. The same material can describe a conspicuous difference in an animal’s skin color.
Barṣāʾ applied to a snake need not mean that it has the recognized human disease. It may describe the animal’s naturally mottled appearance.
The human disease name and the description of contrasting color on an animal should consequently be distinguished.
The shared lexical element is the differently colored patch or area; the human medical condition should not be extended to every animal use.
Sāmm abraṣ: the name of a lizard
One familiar Arabic use of the family is the name سَامّ أَبْرَص (sāmm abraṣ), applied to a small lizard, especially a gecko or wazaghah.
Lisān al-ʿArab records sāmm abraṣ as the animal’s established name; some descriptions count it among the larger geckos.
Al-Aṣmaʿī also transmits the name but explicitly says he does not know the precise reason for it.
Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī offers resemblance between the animal’s mottled appearance and human baraṣ as an explanation of the name.
The resemblance is intelligible, but the explanation does not establish that the animal has the human skin disease.
An animal name may draw on a comparison of appearance without transferring every property of what it resembles to the animal.
Sāmm abraṣ is also an established compound name. Translating its parts literally should not replace the animal’s recognizable name with an unfamiliar expression.
A witness from Arabic rajaz
In Jamharat al-lughah, Ibn Durayd transmits the following rajaz on the authority of Abū Ḥātim:
وَاللَّهِ لَوْ كُنْتُ لِهَذَا خَالِصَا
wa-llāhi law kuntu li-hādhā khāliṣā
لَكُنْتُ عَبْدًا يَأْكُلُ الْأَبَارِصَا
la-kuntu ʿabdan yaʾkulu al-abāriṣā
Translation: “By The God, if I were suited to this work, I would be a slave who eats lizards.”
Here al-abāriṣ is a plural used for sāmm abraṣ. Ibn Durayd records it as an irregular plural.
The witness matters because it shows the family’s use in naming a particular animal in Arabic.
The poet and precise date of the rajaz are unknown in the transmission examined. It cannot therefore be presented as securely pre-Islamic poetry. Eating the animal is also part of the verse’s subject, not the root’s meaning.
Neither Qur’anic use of abraṣ refers to this animal.
Barīṣ: gleam and visibility
Lexical sources also record بَرِيص (barīṣ) for gleaming.
Ibn Fāris compares barīṣ with بَصِيص (baṣīṣ), a glint or gleam; al-Rāghib likewise mentions shining among the family’s uses.
Tāj al-ʿarūs transmits a verse in the following form:
وَتَبَسَّمَ عَنْ نَوَاسِعَ شَاخِصَاتٍ
wa-tabassama ʿan nawāsiʿa shākhiṣātin
لَهُنَّ بِخَدِّهِ أَبَدًا بَرِيصُ
lahunna bi-khaddihi abadan barīṣu
Meaning: “He smiled, revealing loose, projecting teeth, which always have a gleam beside his cheek.”
Some words in this verse have variant readings and explanations. The printed Tāj al-ʿarūs marginal note takes nawāsiʿ as the plural of nāsiʿah and relates it to teeth becoming loose. The verse’s attribution and date are also unclear in the transmission examined. It witnesses the meaning “gleam” in the lexical tradition, rather than securely proving pre-Islamic usage.
This use is semantically connected with brightness and a visibly contrasting area, but the disease sense of baraṣ does not thereby mean that the skin shines.
A gleaming surface and discoloration caused by a skin condition are different states, even if a lexical explanation relates them through a shared visual field.
Ground with pale patches
Ibn Fāris and Ibn Manẓūr also mention الْبِرَاص (al-birāṣ): places in sandy terrain with pale patches and areas without vegetation.
Some descriptions identify these areas as white and bare of plants.
This use likewise shows how the family could describe a conspicuous difference in the color of part of the ground.
Lack of vegetation is not a fixed component of the human disease baraṣ. It belongs to the description of that kind of ground.
Nor does this recorded use establish that the root originally meant bare ground and was later transferred to skin. The available evidence does not prove such a historical sequence.
Personal and family names
Al-Abraṣ also appears in older Arab personal and family names. ʿUbayd ibn al-Abraṣ, for example, is a well-known pre-Islamic poet.
The name shows that the form al-abraṣ was familiar in personal naming and affiliation.
The name alone does not establish that the poet or his father had a particular disease. Names, epithets, and family designations may survive across generations without their original descriptive meaning still applying to each bearer.
The witness matters for the historical presence of al-abraṣ, rather than for diagnosing a historical person. This investigation found no independent poetic witness for these uses with secure attribution and dating before the Qur’an; that evidential limit does not mean the word was absent in that period.
4. Baraṣ, bahaq, waḍaḥ, and modern disease names
This distinction matters especially in Qur’an translation: an older Arabic disease name should not be equated with a modern diagnosis without sufficient evidence.
B R Ṣ (baraṣ) and B H Q (bahaq)
In Lisān al-ʿArab, بَهَق (bahaq) denotes a whiteness described as less severe than, or distinct from, baraṣ.
The same source states:
«الْبَهَقُ بَيَاضٌ دُونَ الْبَرَصِ»
al-bahaqu bayāḍun dūna al-baraṣi
That is: “Bahaq is a whiteness short of baraṣ.”
The expression records a recognized distinction between two historical terms.
It should not be turned into an exact modern medical classification.
Older lexicographers named conditions through observable signs, such as color, shape, extent, and severity. That approach need not correspond to present classifications involving cellular examination, immunology, and microbial causes.
In some contemporary Arabic regional uses, bahaq may also name conditions that physicians identify by a different term.
The older distinction between baraṣ and bahaq can be documented, but its boundary should not be equated precisely with that between two modern diagnoses without independent examination.
B R Ṣ (baraṣ) and W Ḍ Ḥ (waḍaḥ)
Waḍaḥ concerns brightness and visibility and also denotes conspicuous whiteness in some Arabic uses.
A baraṣ patch may be bright and conspicuous because of its color, but waḍaḥ is not always a disease name.
Whiteness can therefore describe a feature of baraṣ without every instance of whiteness being baraṣ.
This matters in translation. Rendering abraṣ simply as “someone with light skin” erases the difference between natural skin color and the recognized condition.
B R Ṣ (baraṣ) and J DH M (judhām)
Some English Qur’an translations render الْأَبْرَصَ as “the leper.”
That word is historically associated with leprosy, or Hansen disease. Historical disease names must nevertheless be distinguished from present medical diagnoses.
Modern leprosy is a bacterial infectious disease that can affect peripheral nerves as well as skin. Pale skin patches with reduced sensation may be among its signs.
Vitiligo, by contrast, involves the loss of skin pigment and is a different condition from leprosy. Vitiligo is not contagious.
Older Arabic definitions of baraṣ emphasize whiteness and contrasting skin patches. This definition alone does not identify exactly which modern disease every person described as abraṣ would have had.
An unqualified translation as “a person with leprosy” can thus impose a specific diagnosis that the Qur’anic word itself does not establish.
“A person with vitiligo” is closer to the association with altered skin color, but it too should not become a claim that the Qur’an necessarily identifies a specific disease with all the features recognized today.
A lexical study should retain baraṣ and explain its historical meaning. A general translation may use a description of the skin condition, with the limits of its equivalence explained in the article.
Does every white patch identify the same disease?
It does not.
Pale skin patches can have different causes. Vitiligo, loss of pigment following inflammation, and certain skin infections may initially produce superficially similar signs.
Present medical diagnosis does not rest solely on an area appearing white.
The same point matters in Qur’anic interpretation: an older name based on appearance does not disclose an exact cellular, genetic, or microbial cause.
The lexical study of B R Ṣ should therefore follow the word’s meaning and historical usage rather than take the place of medical diagnosis.
5. The first Qur’anic use: Āl ʿImrān 3:49
وَرَسُولًا إِلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنِّي قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِآيَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ ۖ أَنِّي أَخْلُقُ لَكُمْ مِنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ فَأَنْفُخُ فِيهِ فَيَكُونُ طَيْرًا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَأُبْرِئُ الْأَكْمَهَ وَالْأَبْرَصَ وَأُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَأُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا تَأْكُلُونَ وَمَا تَدَّخِرُونَ فِي بُيُوتِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ
wa-rasūlan ilā banī isrāʾīla annī qad jiʾtukum bi-āyatin min rabbikum annī akhluqu lakum mina al-ṭīni ka-hayʾati al-ṭayri fa-anfukhu fīhi fa-yakūnu ṭayran bi-idhni llāhi wa-ubriʾu al-akmaha wa-al-abraṣa wa-uḥyī al-mawtā bi-idhni llāhi wa-unabbiʾukum bi-mā taʾkulūna wa-mā taddakhirūna fī buyūtikum inna fī dhālika la-āyatan lakum in kuntum muʾminīna
Translation: “And as a Messenger to the Children of Israel: ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I fashion for you from clay something in the shape of a bird, then breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by the permission of The God. I heal the blind and the person affected by baraṣ, and I bring the dead to life by the permission of The God. I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you, if you are believers.’”
Al-abraṣ in the sentence
Here الْأَبْرَصَ is an object of أُبْرِئُ (ubriʾu), coordinated with الْأَكْمَهَ.
Abraṣ identifies the person affected by baraṣ. The Qur’an does not use the verbal noun baraṣ to name the disease here; it speaks of the affected person.
This distinction can be retained in translation.
أُبْرِئُ الْأَبْرَصَ can mean “I heal the person affected by baraṣ.”
“I treat baraṣ,” though conveying the broad idea, changes the sentence’s direct object from the person to the disease.
In the Arabic, the object is the person; the condition is identified through the description of that person.
Al-akmah and al-abraṣ
The words appear together, but describe two different physical conditions.
Akmah, from K M H, concerns blindness or severe visual impairment. Lexical and exegetical sources discuss whether it refers specifically to congenital blindness or has a broader range.
Abraṣ, from B R Ṣ, concerns the recognized condition of altered skin color.
The descriptions are not synonymous. One concerns sight and the other skin.
In his discussion of this verse, al-Ṭabarī treats healing blindness and baraṣ as signs of Jesus’ mission as a Messenger, emphasizing the power granted to him by The God.
The pairing does not establish that both conditions share a medical cause or that everyone affected by baraṣ was also blind.
The Qur’an names two groups or conditions alongside one another, rather than a single combined disease.
Study of K M H (Not yet published)
Ubriʾu: the act of healing
أُبْرِئُ belongs to B R ʾ and here concerns removing the condition and healing the person.
Abraṣ itself does not mean “healed.”
The Qur’anic phrase contains two distinct concepts: the affected person and an action that changes that person’s condition.
Confusing these roots could suggest that baraṣ itself means receiving healing or returning to health. That is morphologically incorrect.
Abraṣ describes the affected person; ubriʾu expresses healing.
This distinction is especially useful in studying the verse word by word.
Jesus’ healing and divine permission
Jesus speaks of fashioning a bird’s shape, breathing into it, healing the blind and the person affected by baraṣ, bringing the dead to life, and revealing some matters hidden in his hearers’ daily lives.
These actions are presented as signs from the Lord.
The phrase بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ, “by the permission of The God,” recurs in the verse. The ability to perform these acts is thus presented within divine permission.
This follows from the complete sentence and verse, rather than from the root B R Ṣ.
The definition of baraṣ should consequently remain distinct from questions about miracles, divine power, or Jesus’ status.
Abraṣ identifies the affected person. The act of healing and the wider context of Jesus’ mission make the person’s healing a sign for the hearers.
6. The second Qur’anic use: Al-Māʾidah 5:110
إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ اذْكُرْ نِعْمَتِي عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ وَالِدَتِكَ إِذْ أَيَّدْتُكَ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ تُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا ۖ وَإِذْ عَلَّمْتُكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ ۖ وَإِذْ تَخْلُقُ مِنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ بِإِذْنِي فَتَنْفُخُ فِيهَا فَتَكُونُ طَيْرًا بِإِذْنِي ۖ وَتُبْرِئُ الْأَكْمَهَ وَالْأَبْرَصَ بِإِذْنِي ۖ وَإِذْ تُخْرِجُ الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِي ۖ وَإِذْ كَفَفْتُ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَنْكَ إِذْ جِئْتَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْهُمْ إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ
idh qāla llāhu yā ʿīsā ibna maryama udhkur niʿmatī ʿalayka wa-ʿalā wālidatika idh ayyadtuka bi-rūḥi al-qudusi tukallimu al-nāsa fī al-mahdi wa-kahlan wa-idh ʿallamtuka al-kitāba wa-al-ḥikmata wa-al-tawrāta wa-al-injīla wa-idh takhluqu mina al-ṭīni ka-hayʾati al-ṭayri bi-idhnī fa-tanfukhu fīhā fa-takūnu ṭayran bi-idhnī wa-tubriʾu al-akmaha wa-al-abraṣa bi-idhnī wa-idh tukhriju al-mawtā bi-idhnī wa-idh kafaftu banī isrāʾīla ʿanka idh jiʾtahum bi-al-bayyināti fa-qāla alladhīna kafarū minhum in hādhā illā siḥrun mubīnun
Translation: “When The God said: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit: you spoke to people in the cradle and in maturity. And when I taught you the Book, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. And when you fashioned from clay something in the shape of a bird by My permission, then breathed into it, and it became a bird by My permission. You healed the blind and the person affected by baraṣ by My permission, and brought forth the dead by My permission. And when I restrained the Children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with clear signs; those among them who rejected said: This is nothing but evident magic.’”
The same two descriptions repeated
The combination الْأَكْمَهَ وَالْأَبْرَصَ occurs again here.
The lexical meaning of abraṣ has not changed. The reference is still to the person affected by baraṣ.
The principal difference between the verses lies in their perspective.
In Āl ʿImrān 3:49, Jesus describes the signs of his mission to the Children of Israel.
In Al-Māʾidah 5:110, The God reminds Jesus of His favors and support.
The first verse uses the first-person singular أُبْرِئُ: “I heal.”
The second uses the second-person singular تُبْرِئُ: “you healed.”
The change of person reflects a difference in speaker and addressee, rather than a change in the disease’s meaning.
The emphasis on divine permission
In Al-Māʾidah 5:110, بِإِذْنِي, “by My permission,” follows immediately after the mention of healing the blind and the person affected by baraṣ.
The verse thus explicitly associates the healing with the permission of The God.
Fashioning a bird’s shape from clay and bringing forth the dead are likewise described within divine permission.
This emphasis does not imply that the person developed baraṣ because of sin, rejection of faith, or a moral failing.
The verse makes no such attribution.
The person’s healing is a sign of the support given to Jesus by The God. Nothing is said about the cause of that person’s condition, life history, or moral character.
This distinction matters because visible skin conditions have carried blame and stigma in some societies. The root B R Ṣ itself does not mean sin, moral contamination, or exclusion from divine mercy.
In these verses, the person is the recipient of healing rather than moral condemnation.
7. Lexical meaning, medicine, and theology
Does the Qur’an name an incurable disease?
Older exegesis treats healing a person affected by baraṣ as an extraordinary sign of Jesus’ mission as a Messenger.
In his commentary on Āl ʿImrān 3:49, al-Ṭabarī presents the healing of baraṣ and the blindness in question as beyond the capacity of ordinary healers of that time.
This is an exegetical argument about the action’s function as a sign.
It should not become a timeless medical proposition that every condition called baraṣ must be incurable in every age and by every treatment.
Advances in medicine and differences between conditions historically described under one name make that generalization unwarranted.
Conversely, the present treatability of some skin conditions does not justify reducing the Qur’anic account of Jesus’ healing to an ordinary treatment.
The verse includes Jesus’ action among the signs of his mission. Identifying the patients’ precise medical conditions is a separate question whose details the Qur’an does not give.
Does baraṣ imply human impurity?
Baraṣ itself denotes a skin condition, rather than moral impurity.
The affected person is mentioned alongside the blind person in both verses. The Qur’an condemns neither for their physical condition.
The usage therefore does not establish that disease signals a negative judgment by The God on someone’s character.
Baraṣ is also not lexically synonymous with rijs, kufr, fisq, or laʿnah: uncleanness, rejection, transgression, or a curse.
These are independent words and concepts that require study through their own Qur’anic uses.
9. Translation proposals for Forqan
Baraṣ can be retained as an Arabic disease name and explained as a condition involving contrasting white skin patches.
“Vitiligo” is a recognizable modern term associated with loss of skin color, but it is also a specific medical diagnosis. The historical meaning of baraṣ should therefore be explained before using a modern equivalent.
Several renderings of abraṣ deserve consideration.
“A person affected by baraṣ” is lexically cautious and leaves room to explain the historical condition.
“A person with vitiligo” may communicate the association with white patches more readily, but requires a qualification against identifying the ancient term conclusively with the modern diagnosis.
A description centered on the person, such as “a person affected by baraṣ,” is also preferable in research prose to turning a physical condition into the person’s entire identity.
“Leper” occurs in historical translations, but is not preferred for Forqan’s base text because it may impose a different, specific diagnosis.
“White-skinned” is likewise unsuitable: it confuses natural skin color with a skin condition.
For both verses, the principal English proposal is:
الْأَبْرَصَ: “the person affected by baraṣ.”
A word note can explain: “A person affected by baraṣ, a condition described in older Arabic through the appearance of whiteness or contrasting patches on the skin.”
A natural rendering of وَأُبْرِئُ الْأَكْمَهَ وَالْأَبْرَصَ is:
“And I heal the blind and the person affected by baraṣ.”
In Al-Māʾidah 5:110, the same combination uses a verb addressed to Jesus:
“And you healed the blind and the person affected by baraṣ.”
These renderings preserve the difference between B R Ṣ and the healing verb from B R ʾ, keeping the disease name distinct from the act of healing.
10. Conclusion
In older Arabic, B R Ṣ concerns a patch or area whose color differs from the surrounding surface. Ibn Fāris identifies this contrast as the family’s semantic core and treats baraṣ as one of its familiar uses.
In human use, baraṣ denotes a skin condition involving conspicuous whiteness contrasting with the body’s natural color. Abraṣ describes the affected person, and barṣāʾ is its feminine counterpart.
Other Arabic uses concern white patches on animals, the name sāmm abraṣ for a lizard, patchy and bare ground, and descriptions involving gleam and visible contrast.
These branches should not all be converted into a single disease. Mottled animal skin and contrasting ground color need not indicate the human condition.
The root occurs only twice in the Qur’an, both times as الْأَبْرَصَ. Both verses concern Jesus’ healing and mention the affected person alongside the blind person.
In Āl ʿImrān 3:49, Jesus presents the healing among the signs of his mission. In Al-Māʾidah 5:110, The God recalls the same act among His favors and support for Jesus.
Both verses present healing within divine permission. Permission, healing, and the action’s function as a sign are not components of baraṣ’s lexical meaning; they follow from the complete verses.
Medical caution is also necessary. Without sufficient evidence, older Arabic baraṣ cannot be restricted to a present diagnosis such as leprosy or a particular pigment disorder. Historical descriptions based on visible signs need not match current diagnostic criteria exactly.
Neither verse presents physical disease as a sign of sin or moral impurity.
A suitable final definition for Forqan:
B R Ṣ in Arabic concerns a patch or area whose color differs from its surroundings. In its familiar human use, baraṣ is a skin condition involving whiteness contrasting with the body’s natural color, and abraṣ describes the affected person. The Qur’an uses the root only in two verses concerning Jesus’ healing. The word’s lexical meaning is not restricted to a conclusive modern medical diagnosis, moral impurity, or perpetual incurability. Healing and its relationship to divine permission follow from the verbs and the verses’ context, rather than from B R Ṣ itself.