بَاب

7:162.

Important Words:

سجدا (submissively) is derived from سجد which means: (1) he showed submissiveness and humility. The Quran says ولله یسجد من فی السماوات والارض And to Allah submits whosoever is in the heavens and the earth (13:16); (2) he fell prostrate (Mufradat). In the verse under comment the word is used in the first mentioned sense; for, besides other reasons pointing to this significance, one cannot pass through a gate while fallen prostrate on the ground.

حطة (forgive us our sins) is derived from حط which means: (1) he descended or came down; (2) he brought down, or caused to fall, or removed a burden, etc. استحط فلانا وزره means, he requested that person to take down or relieve him of his heavy burden (Aqrab). As in theology, to seek relief from a burden is to seek forgiveness of sins, the expression حطة(literally the bringing down of a burden) would mean, remove our burden of sins or forgive us our sins.

نغفر (We shall forgive) is derived from غفر. They say غفرالشیء meaning, he covered or concealed the thing. غفرالمتاع فی الوعاءmeans, he put the things in the bag and thus covered and protected them. غفرالله له ذنبه means, God covered up his sin and forgave it. غفرالامر بغفرته means, he rectified or reformed the matter suitably (Aqrab & Lane). غفران and مغفرة both infinitives, signify God’s forgiveness or His protection of a person against the punishment of his sins (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The Bible is here again at fault and makes no direct mention of this incident. It, however, speaks of a battle which in those days took place between the Amalekites and the Israelites in Rephidim (Exod. 17:8) which shows that the Amalekites inhabited certain parts of this land. Though the land was a desert, yet here and there habitations were also to be found (Enc. Bib. IV. 4036, 37). In fact, the presence of a desert does not preclude the existence of habitations, because even wandering tribes make here and there small habitations which, serve as meeting places for their scattered clans.

As the Israelites were eager to live in inhabited places owing to the facilities they afforded and owing also to their previous mode of living, they were bidden to go to some neighbouring village where they would combine the life of the desert with that of a habitation and would be free to eat wherever they liked, as is usual in a desert place where there is no private ownership.

But as this change was to bring them in contact with other people and was likely to affect their morals, they were at the same time bidden to be careful about themselves and to be submissive and obedient to God and also to pray to Him that He might forgive them the sins they might commit. If they acted upon this injunction, God would be kind to them and would forgive them their sins. Nay, He would further bestow on those who acted righteously His added favours and blessings.

The words "this village" need not refer to any specified village. According to the Arabic idiom the words may mean "any village that may be near" or "the nearest village".

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

28:64, 65; 34:33, 34.

Important Words:

تبرأ (disown) is derived from بری. They say بری من العیب او الدین i.e. he became free from defect or got clear of debt. بارأ شریکهmeans, he became separated from his partner. تبرأ من فلان means, he separated from such a one; he got clear of him; he declared to have no connection with him; he renounced or disowned him (Aqrab).

اسباب (ties) is the plural of سبب which signifies: (1) a tie or a rope; (2) a means which helps a person to reach his destination; (3) a way or a path, leading to something; (4) love or relationship (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse vividly describes the scene when those guilty of idolatry will be called to account for their evil beliefs and practices. They will look to their leaders for help and guidance, but the latter will disown them and all ties of love and kinship between them will be cut asunder and all supports and all means of rescue will be lost. The verse is a stern warning to those who blindly follow their leaders and, being misled by them, reject God’s Messengers.

9:31.

Important Words:

اربابا (Lords) is the plural of رب (Lord) for which see 1:2. رب means, lord, master or owner; a chief or ruler to whom obedience is rendered; one who fosters, brings up, or nourishes (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these faiths become united in the doctrine of the Oneness of God, the verse permits the sacrifice of other Islamic teachings as being of comparatively little importance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The Quran, the Hadith and the facts of history are all united in belying this ridiculous assumption. It is simply unthinkable that compromise in matters of faith could be allowed by any religion worth the name, particularly with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer contest to invoke the curse of God upon those who lie in their beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in the Oneness of God could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save Heraclius from God’s punishment. Elsewhere the Quran emphatically declares that, Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, (i.e. complete submission); and whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers (3:20 & 86). Can anything be clearer?

The truth is that this verse is intended to suggest an easy and simple method by which Jews and Christians can arrive at a right decision regarding the truth of Islam. Christians, in spite of claiming belief in the Unity of Godhead, felt satisfied in believing in the divinity of Jesus; and Jews, notwithstanding their claim to be monotheists, gave blind allegiance to their priests and divines, practically placing them in the position of God Himself. The verse exhorts both these communities to come back to their original belief in the Oneness of God and give up the worship of false deities who stand in the way of their accepting Islam. Thus, instead of seeking a compromise with these faiths, the verse virtually invites Christians and Jews to the faith of Islam, by drawing their attention to the doctrine of the Oneness of God which being, at least in its outer form, the common fundamental doctrine of all, could serve as a meeting ground for further approach.

It was exactly on these lines that Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in his "Message of Peace", made an offer to the Hindus of India to enter into an agreement with the Muslims of his way of thinking to the effect that they (Hindus) would respect and honour the Holy Prophet of Islam and would look upon him as a true Messenger of God, even as he and his followers believed in Rama and Krishna as God’s Elect.

Special emphasis has been laid in the verse under comment on the Oneness of God—a doctrine on which in theory all revealed religions seem to agree, but regarding the details, of which no two Faiths are found to concur. Most religions claim to be monotheistic; but under the outer veneer of monotheism, polytheism very often lies hidden in most hideous forms. It is the simple faith of Islam alone which is really and truly monotheistic in all its aspects and which strongly condemns the association with God of anything or any being in His person, attributes, worship or works. It is most unfortunate, however, that in spite of Islam being such a strictly monotheistic faith, a section of present-day Muslims has drifted away into the quagmire of what cannot but be termed idol-worship in the wider sense of the word.

Incidentally, it may be noted that the letter mentioned by Bukhari and other Muslim traditionists as having been addressed by the Holy Prophet to Heraclius in the words of this verse inviting him to accept Islam has recently been discovered and found to contain the exact words quoted by Bukhari (R. Rel. vol. V. No. 8). This furnishes a strong proof of the essential authenticity of Bukhari and, for that matter, of other accepted works of Hadith.

Commentary:

It is an act of great infidelity to regard angels and Prophets as Lords, and to put them in the place of Almighty God. A true Prophet can never be guilty of such an offence. It is the height of unreason to believe that a person whose very mission is to turn infidels into believers and who does not hesitate to defy the whole world for the achievement of this noble end should first make men the devotees of God and then seek to turn them into his own adorers.

2:64, 94.

2:59; 7:162.

2:66; 4:48; 7:164; 16:125.

Commentary:

See and compare 2:59, 64, 66 & 4:48.

3:161; 5:12; 9:51.

Important Words:

علیھم (against them). The word علی as a particle has several meanings. Here it gives the meaning of "against" (Lane). The Quran says: ولھم علی ذنب i.e. and they have a crime or offence standing against me (26:15). In his Arabic Grammar, Wright says that the particle علی is sometimes used in "a hostile sense in which case it can be generally rendered as 'against' or 'upon', as in خرج علیه i.e. he went out against him or he rebelled against him."

Commentary:

The two "men" spoken of here are generally supposed to be Joshua, the son of Nun, and Caleb, the son of Jephunneh (Num. 14:6). But from the context Moses and Aaron appear more likely to be the two "men" here referred to.

The word رجل (man) is thus here expressive of manliness and courage. By using this word, the Quran means to say that of that big host of cowardly people there were only two men who were truly brave and courageous. That these two brave men were Moses and Aaron themselves may also be inferred from the fact that when these two "men" spoke to their people, and urged them to "enter" the land, the latter, in reply, addressed none other but Moses, saying, O Moses, we will never enter it so long as they remain in it (5:25), thus making it clear that it was Moses himself who had spoken to them the words contained in this verse. Again, when the people refused to obey Moses, he is reported to have prayed to God, saying, My Lord, I have power over none but myself and my brother, therefore make Thou a distinction between us and the rebellious people (5:26). Now, if the two "men" had been other than Moses and Aaron, they should have certainly been included in his prayer by Moses, because they had deserved it by boldly offering to enter the land in spite of resistance, exhorting others also to do so. But Moses prayed only for himself and his brother, which shows that the two men whom God praises as "men", (i.e. brave men) and of whom He speaks as His favoured ones were Moses and Aaron themselves. God does not name them but simply speaks of them as رجلان i.e. "two brave men" in order to praise their manliness and courage and at the same time to condemn by implication the cowardice of the other Israelites who were with them.

The expression, enter the gate advancing against them, possesses a spiritual connotation as well. For every person there is a "holy land", which is his goal and paradise. Allah has "ordained" this "holy land" for man (5:22) because he has been created for it. But the cowardly and the low-spirited are always afraid of entering it. They are too timorous to face "the rebellious ones", i.e. the evil ones and their own evil inclinations. They desire to enter Heaven without deserving it, without any exertion on their part, without facing and fighting their evil passions and without fighting those who stand in their way. They tremble and quail before the trials and tribulations that confront them. But here, too, God has created for every person "two men", i.e. two wise counsellors who encourage him and exhort him not to be afraid of difficulties and to follow undauntedly the path that leads to eternal happiness and everlasting bliss. These two counsellors are (1) human reason and (2) man’s pure and unsullied nature. These two go on telling man and urging him that he need only be up and doing and God will help him. He should boldly face trials and God will make everything easy for him, and he will come out of the struggle victorious and triumphant. Most men, however, wish that the power of their enemies should break of itself, but it cannot break without their using the weapon of self-sacrifice. "Forty years", as hinted in 5:27 below, is the time required by man to attain to perfect manhood. This is a sufficiently long time. If he does not mend his ways during this period and defies the dictates of reason and conscience, he is lost, and there is little hope for him. But if he makes up his mind boldly to meet the evil influences, he may be saved. He need only take heart and make bold to enter the struggle, and what appears to him to be a thick jungle of difficulties will turn out to be a garden, the seeming "Hell" assuming the form of a veritable "Heaven".

2:59.

Commentary:

See note on 2:59.

12:41; 17:24; 98:6.

Important Words:

For احبار (learned men) and رھبان (monks) see 5:45 and 5:83 respectively.

Commentary:

احبار (learned men) belonged to Jews and رھبان (monks) to Christians. Both these people virtually looked upon their religious leaders as so many gods besides the true God.

Commentary:

When Joseph saw that all his exhortations and admonitions to his master’s wife to desist from her evil course were of no avail, he thought he should no longer stay in the room, lest it might give rise to unfounded suspicions. So he hastened to leave her presence. Thereupon the woman, in order to prevent him from leaving the room, ran to the door to reach it before Joseph succeeded in getting out. There was thus a sort of race for the door. It was most probably at the door that the woman pulled Joseph’s shirt in order to pull him back and in so doing she tore his shirt at the back.

Here, again, the Bible differs from the Quran. The Bible says that when the woman caught hold of Joseph’s garment, he left it in her hand (Gen. 39:12). But as the Hebrews used to wear one garment only, which was generally long enough to cover the whole body, it is inconceivable that Joseph should have run away naked, leaving the only garment he was wearing in the woman’s hand. So the Quranic account that Joseph’s shirt was torn in the scuffle seems to be more reasonable.