3:54, 194.

Commentary:

The description given in this verse of some of the Christians of the time of the Holy Prophet applies to all those who have a real hankering after truth and are ready to accept it wherever they find it. The verse has also been applied to Najjashi in particular. When Ja‘far, a cousin of the Holy Prophet and the spokesman of Muslim refugees to Abyssinia, tried to make clear their attitude towards Jesus and to dispel the suspicion caused by the Meccan emissaries about the alleged derogatory language used by the Quran concerning Jesus and read to Najjashithe opening verses of the chapter Maryam, the latter, along with such of his companions as feared God, was visibly moved, and tears rolled down his cheeks and he said in a voice full of pathos that that exactly was his belief about Jesus, and that he did not look upon him by even a twig more than that (Hisham, i. 305, 306).

26:52.

Commentary:

The verse may be regarded as constituting the substance of the words, referred to in the preceding verse, which Najjashi spoke to those of his courtiers who remonstrated with him, saying that Jesus was God, and not a human being as represented in the Quran, and urged him to deliver the Muslim refugees to the Meccans. At this Najjashi is reported to have said that nothing could prevent him from accepting truth.

See 2:26.

5:87; 6:50; 7:37; 22:58.

10:60.

Commentary:

Just as the making of a forbidden thing lawful is an act of excess and transgression, similarly the declaring of a good and lawful thing to be unlawful, or practically treating it as such, is an act of sin. Both these acts are acts of transgression. The verse may have a figurative sense also. In this case the expression, make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, would mean "do not shut the door of God’s favours on yourselves by rejecting the Prophet of Islam".

2:169; 8:70; 16:115.

2:226.

Commentary:

The verb عقد (‘aqqada) is the intensive form of عقد (‘aqada) for which see 5:2. It conveys the idea of greater deliberation and solemnity. Hence the expression بما عقدتم الایمان (oaths which you take in earnest) would really mean, oaths which you swear solemnly and deliberately.

The use of the word اوسط (average) means both 'middle', (i.e. average) and 'best' (see 2:144) and is thus meant to imply that an oath may be regarded as expiated if ten poor men are fed with food the expiator ordinarily provides for his family, but that it is better to feed them with the best food with which he feeds his own family.

The pronoun ھم (their) in کسوتھم (their clothing) may refer either to families or to poor persons. In the former case, the sentence would read, "the clothing (of ten poor men) with the average (or the best) kind of clothing which you provide for your families". In the latter case, it would simply mean, "the clothing of ten poor men".

The verse should not be taken as describing three different ways by which a person can expiate a broken oath. The different ways are intended to represent three progressive stages of expiation, the third alternative being better than the second, and the second better than the first.

The injunction to expiate oaths does not mean that they may be broken with impunity and then expiated. The prescription of penalties is merely meant to meet a possible eventuality. But oaths contrary to Islamic Law are no oaths. They must be broken. Then there are oaths that pertain to the rights of individuals. These cannot be expiated even by adopting any of the above-mentioned three courses. If, for instance, a man promises on oath to give to a person certain sum of money, and then breaks his oath, and makes the prescribed expiation, the expiation will not absolve him from his obligation to make the promised payment. He must pay the man the promised sum, notwithstanding the expiation. The expiation will only atone for the sin he committed against God by breaking his oath.

2:220; 5:92.

5:4.

Important Words:

الخمروالمیسر (wine and games of hazard). See note on 2:220.

انصاب والازلام (idols and divining arrows). See note on 5:4.

رجس (abomination) is derived from رجس which means, it was or became unclean or dirty or filthy or disliked or hated; he performed a bad or evil or abominable action. رجس means, it made a sound or noise. رجس means, dirt or filth; or a dirty or filthy thing; anything or any action that is disliked or hated for its uncleanness or filthiness; a sin or crime; an action that leads to punishment; punishment; unbelief and infidelity; suggestion of the devil (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

See 2:220 & 5:4. Almost all the meanings of رجس are applicable here.

Commentary:

After stating that the four things mentioned in the previous verse are all رجس (abomination) in one sense or another, the present verse confines itself to two of the four mentioned things—wine and games of hazard—and gives additional reasons against them. These reasons are, as stated in the verse, four in number and rest on political, social, spiritual and socio-religious grounds, this being hinted in the words "enmity and hatred and keeping back from the remembrance of Allah and from Prayer". The interrogation in the clause, But will you keep back?, embodies a strong admonition not to do the thing, the use of the interrogative form being the most effective form of exhortation. See also 2:220.

3:133; 4:70; 64:13.

5:100; 16:83; 36:18; 64:13.

Commentary:

The words, be on your guard, may either mean, "you should be on your guard against evils" or they may signify that if you obey Allah and obey the Prophet, the result will be that you will be able to guard yourselves against evil.

The concluding part of the verse means that the duty of a Messenger of God is only to convey to men His commandments. It forms no part of his work to force them to follow him. This exposes the absurdity of the objection that Islam enjoins the use of force for its propagation. Elsewhere the Quran says: There should be no compulsion in religion (2:257). Both these verses and many similar others were revealed at Medina when a state of war existed between disbelievers and believers, which clearly shows that the Holy Prophet took up arms only to defend himself and his followers and not to propagate his religion at the point of the sword, as is often maliciously alleged by the opponents of Islam.

Commentary:

The verse does not mean, as may be wrongly inferred, that if a person believes and does good works, he can take any food. On the contrary, it purports to lay down a condition the observance of which can secure a person against using a forbidden food, i.e. a food which is calculated to do him physical or spiritual harm. The condition is that he should fear God and believe and do good works; and it is evident that those who really fear God and believe in Him and do good works can never think of eating forbidden food. Indeed, a person may eat anything, if his partaking of it leads to his becoming pious and God fearing; and it is clear that such food, the eating of which makes a person pious and God-fearing, cannot but be pure and clean, for it is only clean food which can bring about such a result.

Two important principles emerge from this verse: (a) that the things of this world having been made for the use and benefit of man are, as a rule, pure and clean; the forbidden things being only exceptions; (b) that clean and pure food exercises a beneficial influence on man’s spiritual development, while unclean and impure food produces an adverse effect upon it.

Moreover, the verse lays down three stages of spiritual progress for believers. In the first stage, believers fear God and believe and do good works, while in the second stage they fear God and believe, their belief being at this stage so strong as to become a natural and constant source of good works which become, as it were, part and parcel of their belief, and in the third and final stage they fear God and do good to others which is not possible without perfect belief and good works, the mention of both of which has consequently been here left out as being understood. Thus, the words "and do good works" have been omitted in the description of the second stage, while the words "and believe" have been replaced with the words "and do good" in the description of the third stage.

It should be noted that the expression اتقوا (fear God), which has been repeated three times in the verse under comment, is peculiar to the Arabic language and gives a very vast meaning, the root idea underlying the word being "to be ever watchful and to be ever taking God for shelter" (see 2:3). Similarly, the expression احسنوا (do good) is very vast in its significance, for which see 2:113.

57:26.

Commentary:

As hunting is ordinarily done in a jungle where one is generally alone and where there is none beside God to observe one’s breaking Divine commandments, the verse fittingly mentions hunting to illustrate تقوی or God-fearingness. While engaged in hunting, man’s abstention from violating Divine commandments would show that he has really done so out of the fear of God. It is thus that, by an outward act, the inner condition of a man’s heart may become revealed.

The verse also serves as an introduction to the commandment that follows in the next verse and prepares believers for the acceptance of an injunction which ran counter to the prevalent practice.

5:2, 97.

Important Words:

انتقام (retribution) is derived from نقم. They say نقم الیه i.e. he exacted vengeance upon him; he punished him. انتقمت منهmeans, I took vengeance on him; I inflicted penal retribution on him or I punished him. انتقام thus means, vengeance, punishment or penal retribution (Lane & Aqrab). See also 3:5 and 5:60.

Commentary:

If a man kills game, when he is in the state of احرام (pilgrimage), he should give as compensation a like animal to be taken to Mecca for sacrifice. For instance, if the game killed by him is a deer, he should offer a goat. If the like of the game killed cannot be found, then an animal costing approximately as much as the game killed should be offered, or failing that, the pilgrim should spend the estimated price of the game in feeding the poor, which is two مد per head according to some theologians and one صاع according to others, a مد being roughly two handfuls of corn while a صاع is four times as much as a مد. If, however, the pilgrim is unable to do even that, he should fast for as many days as the number of the poor he could feed with the estimated price of the game killed. The fasting and the feeding of the poor, as the case may be, should preferably be done at Mecca.

5:2, 96.

Commentary:

The word بحر (sea) here includes rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc. See 7:139.

As during the time of Pilgrimage, hunting on land is likely to prove inconvenient and even dangerous to pilgrims visiting the Ka‘bah, whereas the catching of sea-game does not interfere with traffic, so the former has been prohibited and the latter allowed.

2:126; 3:97-98.

5:3.

Important Words:

قیاما (means of support and uplift) is the noun-infinitive from قام meaning, he stood up, or he stood still. They say: قام المرأةi.e. he (the husband) supported or maintained the woman. قام به قیاما تاما means, he managed it (an affair, etc.) perfectly. قیاماtherefore signifies, means of support and uplift (Lane, Aqrab & Zamakhshari). See also 4:6.

Commentary:

God has made Pilgrimage to the Ka‘bah a sign for the progress and prosperity of Muslims. So long as they will continue to perform Pilgrimage, God’s grace will continue to attend them. But it is regrettable that wealthy Muslims have now generally grown negligent in this respect, with the result that their glory has departed.

Pilgrimage is also a means of support for men in a material sense. Muslims from all parts of the world visit the Ka‘bah and this serves as a means of support for the people of Mecca. Abraham left his wife Hagar and his son Ishmael in the wilderness of Paran near Mecca, apparently to die from starvation. But God made provision not only for Hagar and Ishmael in that barren and bleak desert but also for their posterity for all times to come. See also ch. 106. But to say that the promise that the Pilgrimage will continue to prove a means of subsistence for Meccans only is to limit its vast scope and application. It certainly is not confined to the people of Mecca but encompasses all mankind. It is clear from the verse that not only will the Pilgrimage to Mecca with its attendant rites continue till the end of time, but that the world itself will last only so long as the Pilgrimage to the Ka‘bah continues and that it will come to an end when the Pilgrimage ceases to be performed. This is indeed a great prophecy; for there have been many places in the world which were the resorts of pilgrims in their own time but which have long ceased to be so and are now deserted and forgotten. But the Ka‘bah is meant to remain for all times "an inviolable house and a means of support and uplift for mankind".

15:50-51.

Commentary:

The Divine attributes of forgiveness and mercy are given great prominence in the Quran. My mercy encompasses all things, says the Holy Book (7:157). Therefore, whenever God warns people of His punishment in the Quran, He also makes it a point to remind them of His attributes of forgiveness and mercy, thus showing that these attributes predominate over His other attributes and only await a gesture of goodness on the part of man to show themselves.

16:83; 36:18; 64:13.

2:78; 6:4; 11:6; 16:20.

Commentary:

This verse sheds some light on the responsibility and duty of a Prophet. With the deliverance of the message entrusted to a Prophet, his duty ends, and he is not responsible if, in spite of his clear warnings, the people reject his mission. He has not been given the power to force them to believe. In fact, each Divine Message serves as a guidance for the people to whom it is given. If they live upto it and repent of their evil ways, they find God Forgiving and Merciful; but if they persist in their wicked practices, they are punished and God makes another people take their place.

2:268.

Commentary:

Being naturally influenced by his environment, man is prone to follow and imitate what others do, particularly when they happen to be in the majority. This verse, however, is a warning against unthinking and blind following of the majority. The real criterion by which the worth of a thing is to be judged is not how many people do it, but what good it contains; and, God being the source of all good, the only true and unfailing test is, as the verse puts it, تقوی or God-fearingness.

2:109.

Commentary:

The verse is important, as it sheds light on the principle underlying the Shari‘ah, i.e. the code of Divine Laws. The bases of the Islamic Shari‘ah are threefold: (1) the Law embodied in the Quran, (2) Sunnah or the practice of the Holy Prophet, and (3) the injunctions and precepts contained in his sayings. These three sources of Islamic Law deal with all the fundamental problems of man, but minor details are left to be thought out by man himself in the light of the above three torch-bearers of guidance, aided and assisted by his own God-given intellectual powers and faculties. It is to matters relating to minor details that the present verse refers and God warns the Faithful that the habit of asking questions about such matters will do them more harm than good.

As a matter of fact, God, in His infinite wisdom, leaves sufficient room for individuals to exercise and develop their power of judgement and their reasoning faculty. When man is confronted with situations and circumstances about which he finds no definite and clear-cut guidance in the Quran, or in the practice or sayings of the Holy Prophet, he has to find a way for himself in order to meet them as best he can, keeping always in view the guiding and unalterable principle that nothing is to be done which runs counter to any Quranic injunction or to the established practice and the authentic sayings of the Holy Prophet. Islam is thus not a hard and fast code of laws, for it does not lay down rigid injunctions regarding minor and ever-changing details. On the contrary, it affords sufficient scope for individ-uals to exercise their judgement in order to adapt an injunction of a general nature to meet a new and changed situation. The basic principles, however, are unchangable. But as details continue to change, Islam has not resorted to rigid legislation with regard to minor details and has forbidden Muslims to ask for legislation regarding them. Indeed, it was about filling up these very details to meet new and altered conditions that the Holy Prophet said اختلاف امتی رحمة i.e. "The difference of opinion among my followers is, indeed, a source of mercy". This hadith meant that as it had been left to Muslims to chalk out a way for themselves with regard to such minor details about which no definite pronouncement is to be found in the Shari‘ah, there was bound to be a difference of opinion among Muslim theologians about them, but that this difference would prove a blessing for them because it would afford opportunities for the exercise and cultivation of their reasoning faculties as well as a suitable and flexible law about ever-changing details.

The reader will see that this verse also incidentally refutes the allegations of those who say that the laws of Islam, being rigid and unchangeable, afford not room for the exercise of individual judgement, and that they fetter humanity for all time to hard and fast rules and are thus calculated to impede the intellectual advancement of man rather than help it.

The expression, which if revealed to you would cause you trouble, means that if God or His Prophet had legislated about minor details and had not left such matters to individual discretion so that people might formulate law concerning them according to their own judgement and their own circumstances, they would have found it troublesome and the development of man’s intellect would have become seriously hampered.

2:109.

Commentary:

Unnecessary questioning about minor details and seeking legislation on them is always to the detriment of the questioner himself. It limits his discretion and fetters his judgement, besides binding him and his co-religionists to unnecessary and irksome legislation. The Israelites are reported in the Quran to have put unnecessary questions to Moses in regard to minor details with the result that they created difficulties for themselves and became more and more perplexed and confounded and ended with breaking the commandments of God and drawing His displeasure on themselves (e.g. 2:109).

6:137.

Important Words:

بحیره (Bahirah) is derived from بحر which means, he cut or slit lengthwise; he split or clave. Bahirah was a name given by the pagan Arabs to a camel (or a goat) which they let loose to feed, after slitting its ears. The word may be applied both to males and females, but in practice it was only the females that were thus let loose to pasture where they liked. They were dedicated to some god and their milk was not used nor their back. The description of Bahirah varied among different tribes.

سائبة (Sa’ibah) is derived from ساب which means, it or he went away at random or went wherever it or he liked. سائبة was a name given to a she-camel set free to go wherever she pleased. She was generally let loose as an offering to the gods when one recovered from a sickness or returned safe from a journey. Often a she-camel having given birth to 10 female young ones was let loose to pasture where she would, and she was not ridden nor was her milk drunk except by her young.

وصلیة (Wasilah) is derived from وصل which means, he connected or joined. وصیلة was the name given to a she-camel that was let loose in the name of a god after she had consecutively given birth to seven female young ones. If at the seventh birth, she bore a pair, male and female, each of the latter was also let loose.

حام (Ham) is derived from حمی. They say احمی الشیء i.e. he prohibited the thing; or he protected it; or defended it against encroachment, invasion or attack. حام which is really حامی therefore means a stallion camel that has his back prohibited or interdicted to be used for bearing a rider or carrying a burden; such camel was neither ridden nor shorn of his fur; he was left at liberty and was not debarred from pasturage or from water. The word is also used about a stallion camel whose offspring’s offspring has conceived (Lane).

Commentary:

After having said that minor matters and details should be left to man to legislate as he thinks proper, the Quran, in the present verse, fittingly draws our attention to the fact that such freedom and discretion cannot be allowed to man in fundamentals and things of importance, because in such matters unanimity is essential and divergence of opinion may prove immensely harmful. The verse under comment gives an illustration to show that human intellect cannot be trusted with the making of laws on fundamental matters, for, if left to itself, it is likely to make laws that would lead man to perdition. An instance of such laws is given in this verse. It is really Christians for whom the address in this verse is meant; but instead of drawing attention to the laws devised and invented by Christians, the Quran very wisely refers here to certain practices of the pagan Arabs, for one can more easily see a mote in another man’s eye than a beam in one’s own. The Arabs used to let loose the animals mentioned in the verse in honour of their idols. Besides being based on disbelief and superstition, the practice was also highly foolish. The animals thus let loose wrought great havoc wherever they went. They devastated field crops and gardens and killed children. The Quran refers to the letting of these animals as an example of man-made laws and warns Christians who question the wisdom and blessings of a revealed Law to learn a lesson from the degrading practices to which the pagan Arabs had fallen victim, because they had no revealed Law to guide them.

2:171; 31:22.

Commentary:

It is indeed strange that when science and knowledge advance and new discoveries and new inventions are made, people are quick to throw overboard worn out ideas and theories tenaciously held by their forefathers and hasten to accept and benefit by the new inventions and discoveries; but when a Prophet brings to them a new guidance from God, they refuse to accept it on the ground that it does not agree with the beliefs and ideas held by their ancestors and with their own time-honoured notions and theories. How foolish is this attitude and how lame and absurd the excuse for the rejection of divine truths! This is how the Quran exposes the untenability of the position of the rejecters of truth.

2:138.

Commentary:

This verse tells us that though man can sacrifice his worldly interests for the sake of others, yet he cannot so sacrifice his beliefs and religious principles. In religious matters our duty is only to show people the right path and exhort them to follow it; but we should not ruin or wrong our souls for their sake. It cannot profit mankind nor ourselves if we lose our own soul in trying to save others. The body may be sacrificed but not the soul. Christians abandoned some of the fundamental principles of their religion, hoping to win over certain heathen nations to Christianity. But in doing so they lost the truth and struck a very bad bargain.

The verse, however, should not be understood to mean that we should not preach the truth to others, and should confine our attention to saving our own souls only and have no thought for others. In fact, the Quran enjoins upon every Muslim to try his utmost to make others see truth, because firstly, it is our duty to propagate truth; and secondly, placed as we are, we cannot properly save ourselves unless we also save those among whom we live. What the verse, therefore, means is that our duty is only to preach truth to others. If they accept it, well and good; but if, in spite of our efforts, they refuse to be weaned from their evil course, their rejection of the truth will do us no harm. But in no circumstances should we compromise our principles in order to win others over to our way of thinking. That would be ruining our own souls to save others.

There is a hadith to the effect that once the Holy Prophet explained this verse as meaning that you should preach truth under all circumstances but when you see that the person to whom you preach truth persists in following his own evil inclinations and does not listen to you, then your duty will have ended by your having preached to him the truth, and in this case his evil practices would do you no harm, if only you yourselves scrupulously follow the truth (Tirmidhi, ch. on Tafsir).

The words, He who goes astray cannot harm you when you yourselves are rightly guided, may also mean that if you do the right sort of preaching and try to find the right way of approach to a person and even then he does not accept the truth, then his going astray will not harm you and you will not be held responsible for it. In this case, the words, when you yourselves are rightly guided, would mean, "if you succeed in finding out the right way of preaching and put in the right sort of effort".

2:141, 284.

Commentary:

See collective note on 5:109 below.

Important Words:

اَولیان (the two who were in a better position) is derived from ولی being the dual of اولی which means, one more worthy or more competent or more entitled or more deserving or better fitted or having a better claim to do a thing, etc. (Lane). See also 4:136.

استحقااثما (the two are guilty of sin) and استحق علیھم (against whom they sinfully deposed). The word استحق is derived from حقwhich means, it was or became suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right and truth; it was or became right, proper, correct or true; it became established as a truth. استحقه means, he demanded it as his right or due; he had a right or title or claim to it; he deserved or merited it. They say استحق اثما i.e. he did what necessitated sin; or he was guilty of a sin and deserved it being said of him that he was a sinner. The expression علیھم added the word استحق means "against them", the particle علی sometimes meaning "against". استحقھا علی المشتری means, he has a right to it in preference to the purchaser, i.e. he has a better claim to it as against the buyer. The words استحق علیھم therefore, would mean, they (the two witnesses who were in a better position to give true evidence) gave false evidence against their just rights, seeking to deprive them (heirs of the deceased) of their rights by giving false evidence against them.

Commentary:

See collective note on 5:109.

Commentary:

The Arabic words ترد ایمان بعد ایمانھم rendered as "other oaths will be taken after their oaths" literally means: (1) "oaths will be repeated, i.e. taken again, after their oaths"; or (2) "their oaths will be rejected after their (other witnesses’) oaths", the significance in both cases being practically the same, i.e. the oaths of the first two witnesses will be rejected and two other witnesses called in to give true evidence on oath.

The purport of this and the preceding two verses is that when a person is about to make his will at the time of his death, he should have as witnesses to his statement two just men, who should testify to the validity of his will after his death. But if death comes upon a person suddenly when he is away from home and no Muslim witnesses are at hand, then two trustworthy non-Muslims may be asked to serve as witnesses. If, however, the veracity of the witnesses is called into question by the heirs of the deceased, the former should be asked to prove their truthfulness by a statement on oath made after the time of Prayer. But if the persons in whose favour the will was made have good reason to believe that the witnesses have been guilty of perjury, then they can state on oath that their statement is truer than that of the two witnesses, and in that case the qadi or judge, if satisfied, will give his decree in their favour.

An incident is reported to have occurred in the days of the Holy Prophet which throws some light on the verses under comment. A Muslim who died away from home entrusted his goods to two men before his death and asked them to deliver the same to his heirs at Medina. On receiving the goods, the heirs found that a silver bowl was missing. The two men were thereupon called upon to explain the loss of the bowl, but they denied all knowledge of it on oath. Later, the heirs of the deceased person happened to see the bowl with some persons at Mecca who told them that it had been sold to them by the two men to whom the deceased had entrusted his property. Thereupon the two men were again summoned, and in their presence the heirs of the deceased stated on oath that the bowl was theirs, whereupon it was handed over to them (Manthur).

The Prayer mentioned in 5:107 above may be any Prayer but preferably it should be the ‘Asr or late afternoon Prayer, because it was after this Prayer that the Holy Prophet summoned the two witnesses to whom reference has been made above and who were believed to have stolen the silver bowl. The time after Prayer has been chosen with a view to inspiring witnesses with ideas of piety and God-fearingness and inclining their minds to truthfulness. If the witnesses be non-Muslims, then they may be called upon to swear after the time of their own worship, so that the solemnity of the hour may incline them to make a true statement, because the worship of God is calculated to exercise a purifying influence on the human mind, and men fresh from Prayer are expected to fear God and make a true statement.

The word اَولیان (the two, who were in a better position) occurring in 5:108 above is the dual of اولی which means more competent or more worthy. It refers to the first two witnesses and signifies that these two were in a better position to give true evidence, being the persons who were with the deceased at the time of his death and in whose presence the will was made and to whom the property was entrusted to be handed over to the heirs of the deceased. The expression also serves as a sort of veiled reproach to them that, in spite of being in a better position and more competent to give true evidence, they stumbled and drifted away from truth.

The second two witnesses should be from among the deceased person’s heirs, whom the first two witnesses deprived of their right by bearing false witness regarding the will of the deceased.

7:7; 28:66.

Commentary:

The words, We have no knowledge; it is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things, constitute both a sort of veiled recommendation and a glorification of God. The Prophets will, in effect, say, "The people did indeed reject us; but Thou art the Knower of secrets. We do not know what was in their minds and whether they rejected us from their hearts or only expressed disbelief out of the fear of others. It is, therefore, for Thee to decide what their real attitude was and what treatment should be meted out to them." This recom­mendation seems to run counter to 4:42, which shows that the Prophets will bear witness against their people. The study of the relevant verses, however, shows that the occasions are different. The above-mentioned reply of the Prophets will be made when in the beginning God will question them in a general way; whereas the tendering of evidence will come at a later stage when God will call upon them definitely to come forward and give the required evidence about those who rejected them. There is, thus, no real conflict between the two verses.

The answer given by the Prophets is also in harmony with the dignity of God and constitutes an act of His glorification on the part of the Prophets. God perfectly knows what reply the people made to the Prophets, but, in spite of this, He will ask the Prophets to say what answer they were given by the people, as if He Himself was not aware of that answer. The Prophets, therefore, will very appropriately remove this apparent implication of ignorance on the part of God, by attributing all knowledge to Him.

The answer of the Prophets also implies that the object of God’s question was not to elicit information from them or to supplement His own knowledge, for He knew what answer they were given. In fact, there was some other purpose behind His question which was that they should give their testimony against the disbelievers, as is clear from 4:42, and thus carry out the Divine command referred to in the latter verse.

2:88; 2:254.

3:47.

3:49.

3:50.

5:12.

Commentary:

In the clause, thou didst speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, the act of speaking in the cradle signifies speaking words of wisdom and piety in childhood. This sort of speaking on the part of Jesus reflected great credit on his mother, who, herself being wise and pious, brought him up as a wise and pious child. And the speaking of good words in middle age shows that not only was Mary a pious woman, but Jesus, too, was a righteous man so that even when he was of middle age and was no longer under the direct influence of his mother, he spoke words of piety and wisdom to men. See also 3:47 & 3:49, 50, where similar works of Jesus, i.e. the creation of birds and the quickening of the dead, etc. have been discussed.

Protection similar to that alluded to in the latter part of this verse in the words, I restrained the Children of Israel from putting thee to death, was promised to the Holy Prophet as well (5:68). This promise met with a remarkable fulfilment. Though, even at Mecca, his life was in constant danger, at Medina that danger very much increased. The Holy Prophet led many expeditions in person and several attempts were made on his life. At Uhud, he was severely wounded and at Hunain he was left alone among a large host of bloodthirsty archers. Yet amidst all these dangers he remained safe, and after having triumphed over his enemies, passed away peacefully in his house at Medina. The reference in the present verse is to the attempts of the Jews to kill Jesus on the cross, from which—accursed death—God delivered him. The words, I restrained the Children of Israel, should not, however, be understood to mean that Jesus suffered even no persecution at the hands of his enemies. A similar expression has been used with regard to early Muslims in the Quran (5:12), but it is a well-known fact that they had to pass through grievous trials and tribulations. The expression thus only means that the enemy will fail to kill Jesus, whom God will protect from being destroyed.

3:53-54; 61:15.

Important Words:

The verb اوحی (inspired) does not always mean verbal revelation. It sometimes simply means to inspire a person with an idea, or to suggest it to him; and it is in this sense that the word is used here. The word has also been used with reference to the bee (16:89).

الحوارین (disciples). See 3:53.

Commentary:

The words, send down to us a table spread with food from heaven, show that it was not a single meal that the disciples of Jesus asked for, but a permanent provision of sustenance which might be had without any trouble or hardship. The words "from heaven" denote a thing that is obtained without trouble and is sure and lasting.