طه

See 1:1.

Commentary:

See 1:1.

1:1.

Important Words:

طه (Ta Ha) is a combination of Ta and Ha. In the dialect of ‘Akk, an Arab tribe, it means یا حبیبی i.e. o my beloved or یا رجلwhich means, "o great man", or "o perfect man". The expression طه was so much in vogue among the ‘Akk tribe, that one of them would not answer if he were called by the words یا رجل but would only answer if he were addressed as طه (Ta Ha). The author of Kashshaf interprets it as یا ھذا i.e. "O you". By some the expression is interpreted as, "be thou at rest" (Qadir). This last interpretation seems to be quite in harmony with the significance of the next verse, which contains a message of comfort, solace and good cheer for the Holy Prophet (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The combined letters طه point to the fact that the Holy Prophet was gifted, in full measure, with all those natural faculties, qualities and attributes which contribute to the building up of a man’s full moral stature. The Holy Prophet was indeed a complete and perfect man in the fullest sense of the word. He possessed in full measure moral qualities such as boldness and bravery; generosity, beneficence, fidelity, forbearance and fortitude; pity and compassion; self-abnegation, honesty, brotherliness, humility, honour, gratitude, hospitality, magnanimity, firmness and steadfastness; dignity and decorum; love and sympathy for relatives and mankind at large; high resolve, patience and power to resist evil; an infinite capacity for hard work; simplicity and truthfulness; love for the poor and the down-trodden, respect for the old and kindness towards the young; an unbounded love for his Creator and complete devotion to Him and trust in Him, etc. A reference to the possession by the Holy Prophet of all the highest moral excellences that a human being is capable of possessing is also to be found in vv. 33:22 & 68:5.

Moreover, it is of interest to note that whereas the angel who brought the tidings of the birth of a son to Mary has been called بشر (man) in the Quran (19:18), implying that Jesus was at best possessed of qualities which a بشر (man) could possess, the use in the present verse of the expression طه (O perfect man) for the Holy Prophet indicates that he possessed in the fullest measure all the moral excellences that a human being is capable of possessing.

Ta Ha is a combination of ta and ha. In the dialect of ‘Akk, an Arab tribe, it means, 'O my beloved,' or 'O perfect man.' The author of Kashshaf interprets it as 'O you.' By some, the expression is interpreted as, 'Be thou at rest' (Bayan & Lisan). The expression points to the fact that the Holy Prophet was gifted, in the fullest measure, with all those natural faculties, qualities and attributes which contribute to the building up of a man’s full moral stature. The Holy Prophet was indeed a complete and perfect man, a perfect human specimen, in the fullest sense of the word. See also {2343} and {3091}.

Commentary:

As hinted above, the present verse contains a message of comfort and hope for the Holy Prophet and Muslims. It means to suggest that it is incompatible with the perfect and unerring Quranic revelation that its bearer should fail in his mission. The cause of the Holy Prophet, therefore, will triumph and his followers after passing through severe trials and tribulations will achieve success, prosperity and glory. This Surah was revealed at Mecca in the very early period of the Call when the Muslims were being mercilessly harassed and harried and the persecution to which they were subjected was very severe and organized and seemed to know no end. Hence the need for these comforting words.

The verse also refutes and rebuts the Christian dogma that the Law or the Shari‘ah is a curse. It purports to say that the Law has been revealed as a source of Divine mercy and blessing. There is nothing in it which is repugnant to human nature and which if acted upon should put man into trouble and distress.

The verse contains a message of comfort and hope for the Holy Prophet and Muslims. It purports to say that it is incompatible with the perfect and unerring Quranic revelation that its bearer should fail in his mission. The cause of the Holy Prophet, therefore, must triumph. The verse also refutes the Christian dogma that the Law or the Shari‘ah is a curse. There is nothing in the Qur’an which is repugnant to human nature and which, if acted upon, should put man into trouble.

73:20; 74:55; 76:30; 80:12.

Commentary:

The word تذکرة (exhortation) being derived from ذکر and meaning eminence and honour (Lane), the verse purports to say that Muslims will achieve honour and eminence by following the teachings of the Quran and that their enemies will come to grief by rejecting it. The expression یخشی (who fears) implies that for achievement of the great and noble object of the establishment of Divine Unity on earth, which the Muslims have in view, the perfect teaching of the Quran alone is not sufficient unless it is accompanied by the purification of their hearts. The verse further says that the Quran not only guides to the right path those who grope in the darkness of doubt and disbelief but also leads the believers to the highest pinnacles of spiritual eminence and glory.

73:20; 74:55: 76:30; 80:12.

Commentary:

The verse gives the reason why revelation of the Quran will bring success to the Holy Prophet and his followers. It is that the Quran has been revealed by the Creator of heavens and earth i.e. the Source of all power, and that its teachings possess all those qualities and characteristics that go to make a people strong and powerful.

7:55; 10:4.

Important Words:

For a detailed explanation of عرش (Throne) see 7:55 and 10:4. Briefly, the word represents the transcendent attributes of God, i.e. the attributes which are technically known as صفات تنزیھیة. These attributes which are eternal and unchangeable and are God’s exclusive possession are manifested through God’s other attributes which are known as صفات تشبیھیة i.e. such attributes as are found more or less in other beings also. The former attributes i.e. transcendent attributes, are said to constitute God’s Throne and the latter attributes i.e. صفات تشبیھیةare the bearers of His Throne.

Commentary:

The verse continues the theme of the previous and the succeeding verses—the theme of the Almightiness and Majesty of God.

As this chapter, like its predecessor, Surah Maryam, primarily contains a repudiation of Christian dogmas and doctrines, the Divine attribute الرحمن (the Gracious) has been repeatedly mentioned in both of them because this attribute demolishes the basic Christian doctrine of Atonement. It further points to the fact that the revelation of the Quran, in fact of all Divine Scriptures, is subject to this attribute. This subject has also been dealt with in some detail in vv. 55:2-3.

7:55; 10:4.

Briefly, "The Throne" represents the transcendent attributes of God, i.e. the attributes which are technically known as Siffat-e-Tanzihiyyah. These attributes, which are eternal and unchangeable and are God’s exclusive prerogatives are manifested through His other attributes which are known as Siffat-e-Tashbihiyyah, i.e. such attributes as are found more or less in human beings also. The former attributes, i.e. transcendent attributes, are said to constitute God’s Throne and the latter attributes are the bearers of His Throne. See also {986}& {1233}.

2:285; 3:130; 5:19.

Important Words:

الثری (moist sub-soil) is derived from ثری (thariya). They say ثریت الارض i.e. the earth or land became moist and soft after drought or dryness. ثری means moisture; humidity of the earth; moist earth. The Arabs say یبس الثری بینھم i.e. the fresh, vigorous friendship between them withered—they became enemies after they were friends. The word also means, good or anything good. They say فلان قریب الثری i.e. such a one is a person from whom good is easy of attainment. تحت الثری means, what is beneath the earth (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse means to say that as the Quran has been revealed by God Whose dominion and control extend to all that is in the heavens and the earth, so all the celestial and terrestrial forces will be pressed into service to further the cause of Islam.

2:285; 3:130; 5:19.

2:78; 6:4; 11:6; 67:14.

Commentary:

Whereas the word السر (secret thought) signifies the thoughts that lie hidden in a man’s breast which he alone knows, the word أخفی (more hidden) comprises all those ideals, thoughts and ambitions of a person which lie hidden in the womb of futurity and have never crossed his mind.

2:78; 6:4; 11:6; 67:14.

The word Sirr (secret thoughts) signifies the thoughts that lie hidden in man’s breast which he alone knows, and Akhfa (more hidden) comprises all those ideals, ideas and ambitions of a person which lie hidden in the womb of futurity and have never crossed his mind.

7:181; 59:25.

Commentary:

The verse contains the quintessence and kernel of the Quranic revelation referred to in v. iii, above. It is that God exists. He is One. He possesses all perfect attributes and is completely free from all conceivable defects and imperfections and therefore He alone is entitled to our worship and adoration.

19:52.

The verse contains the quintessence and kernel of the Quranic revelation referred to in v. 3, above. It is that God exists. He is One. He possesses all perfect attributes and is completely free from all conceivable defects and imperfections and, therefore, He alone is entitled to our worship and adoration.

19:52; 79:16.

Commentary:

موسی (Moses), the founder of Judaism, lived about 1400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet and the founder of a great religious system. As for the name Moses, it may be briefly stated that موسی (Moses) is really a Hebrew name having definite derivation in both Hebrew and Arabic. In Hebrew it is pronounced and written as موشی (Moshe) and means, "a thing drawn out of water" or "saved from water" (Enc. Bib.). See also 2:54.

Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange and baseless claim:

1. That Moses is an Egyptian name.

2. That the idea of the Oneness of God is originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). Moses himself being an Egyptian borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites.

3. That, being an Egyptian, Moses popularized the Egyptian custom of circumcision as a religious rite among the Israelites.

4. That like the teaching of the Egyptian king, Akhenaten, there is no mention of the life after death in the teachings of Moses which also shows that he was an Egyptian.

5. That the Egyptians had a very strong dislike for swine and its flesh and that the Israelites developed this dislike as a result of the teaching of Moses.

6. That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.

1. Firstly, all these arguments in fact possess no basis. As stated above and also in 2:54, Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if we admit that the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under the rule of the Pharaohs, it seems quite plausible that they should have adopted Egyptian names. The members of a subject race generally feel a particular delight in adopting the names and imitating the customs, modes of living and dress etc., of their rulers. But the actual fact is that موسی (Moses) is a Hebrew name and Pharaoh’s daughter, who very probably gave him that name, must have certainly been influenced to give the child a Hebrew name, as having taken him out of water she thought that he belonged to the Israelite people. It is also possible that the name might have been suggested by Moses’ mother or sister.

2. The second argument that the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian king, and preached by him among the Israelites, is equally wrong. In the first place it is manifestly unreasonable to suppose that a certain concept is the monopoly of one people. Different peoples may independently form similar ideas without having borrowed them from one another. Secondly, even supposing that the idea of God’s Unity is of Egyptian origin, the inference cannot be justified that Moses was an Egyptian. If an American or a German can borrow an idea from an Englishman and vice versa why cannot an Israelite borrow an idea from an Egyptian? The truth is that the idea of God’s Oneness was neither conceived by Egyptians nor by Syrians or any other people. It has its origin in Divine revelation.

3. The contention that circumcision was an old Egyptian practice and Moses being an Egyptian borrowed it from his people and popularized it among the Israelites also possesses no substance. Supposing that the practice of circumcision was Egyptian, how does this fact show that Moses was an Egyptian? Do not one people adopt the customs of another people? Could not the Israelites, during their stay in Egypt, have borrowed this practice from the Egyptians, particularly in view of the fact that the Israelites were a subject race and the subject race have a special liking for the ideas and practices of their rulers. In any case it is not a fact that the practice of circumcision was in vogue among the Egyptians alone. According to the Bible, in pursuance of God’s command, Abraham had himself and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac circumcised and had made the observance of the rite of circumcision incumbent upon his posterity long before Moses was born (Gen. 17:11). This practice was also in vogue among the Arabs who never had good social relations with the Israelites and never had gone to Egypt. Even among the wild tribes of Africa and the aborigines of Australia circumcision is not unknown (Jew. Enc. vol. 4, p. 97 and "Tribes of Central Australia" by Spencer and Gillen, p.323). The earliest traces of this practice among Egyptians are to be found in the 16th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. vol.4, p.97), when the Israelites had already been living there. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that, if at all, the practice was borrowed by the Egyptians from the Israelites and not by the Israelites from the Egyptians. The practice seems to have been introduced into Egypt by the Prophet Joseph who commanded great respect and prestige with Egyptian monarchs. Under his influence it must have become popular among the upper strata of Egyptian society as research scholars are of the view that this practice was much more in vogue among the upper sections of the Egyptian people to which Joseph himself belonged than among the poor classes.

4. Another argument that has been advanced in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that like the teaching of Akhenaten no reference is to be found in the teachings of Moses about life after death. That this argument is quite weak and flimsy is clear from the fact that Akhenaten has left no book, no teaching and no community of followers from whom his views about life after death might be ascertained. Moreover, there are references to life after death in the teaching of Moses. The Bible says: "And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people" (Deut. 32:50) and "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (Psalms 17: 15). The misconception may have arisen from the absence of any marked emphasis on life after death in the Old Testament. This lack of stress might have been due to the fact that in the course of time the Old Testament had become subject to much interpolation and had been tampered with and many parts of it had been lost during the miseries and misfortunes that overtook the Israelites in the period of their dispersion and captivity. When, however, the Jewish scholars and savants re-edited the Bible, they left out from it those passages which did not quite suit the Jewish temper and genius. The passages dealing with the subject of life after death seem to have been among the parts left out as the Jews, being a particularly worldly-minded people, did not relish its repeated mention.

5. The fifth argument given in support of this thesis is that the Israelites, like the Egyptians, had an extreme dislike for pork. This argument, too, seems to stand on a flimsy ground. Though Egyptians did not like pork, pigs were kept and reared in Egypt and were even offered as sacrifice at the altars of the Egyptian gods (Enc. Bib. cols. 4825, 4826). Thus the reason for the Egyptians to refrain from slaughtering pigs seems to have been that they considered it a sacred animal unlike the Israelites to whom its eating was forbidden on account of its being filthy and abominable.

6. The sixth argument given in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that he could not properly speak Hebrew, the language of the Israelites. This argument is based on Exod. 4:10 where it is stated that Moses was not eloquent and was slow of speech and of a slow tongue. It is true that Moses suffered from an impediment in his speech and could not freely express himself. But how could the fact that Moses was not fluent and was slow of speech prove that he was slow of speech in Hebrew and therefore was not an Israelite. On the contrary, as it appears from the Bible and the Quran, when commanded by God to go to Pharaoh to preach his mission to him, Moses requested to be excused on the plea of his inability to express himself adequately. This fact, if anything, shows that Moses could not freely talk in the tongue which Pharaoh spoke and understood i.e. the Egyptian tongue, and therefore he was not an Egyptian.

In short, there is no reason or justification for supposing that the name Moses is of Egyptian origin or that the man Moses was not an Israelite. The linguistic evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, combined with reason and the evidence of Jewish history and tradition, added to the account of Moses as given in the Bible and the Quran, all go to substantiate and support the fact that Moses was not an Egyptian nor was his name of Egyptian origin.

19:52; 79:16.

Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and that he did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange claim: (1) That Moses is an Egyptian name. (2) That the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). (3) That Moses, himself being an Egyptian, borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites. (4) That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.

All these arguments possess no basis in fact. Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under