مُسۡرِف

7:102; 9:70; 14:10; 40:23.

Commentary:

This verse draws a great moral from the simple incident related in the foregoing verses. The incident of the two sons of Adam had a parallel in the history of nations, as hinted in the words, On account of this We prescribed for the Children of Israel, etc. If the incident simply related to "the two sons of Adam" it had obviously no direct bearing on the Israelites.

As a matter of fact, what is hinted at is that an incident similar to that of the two sons of Adam mentioned here, but of much greater import, was to take place later. There was to appear among the brethren of the Israelites a Prophet whose offering God was to favour with acceptance, while that of his brethren, the Israelites, was to be rejected owing to their impiety and lack of righteousness. This was to enrage the Israelites against that Prophet and they were to become thirsty for his blood on account of envy, even as Cain had become thirsty for the blood of his brother Abel. The story of Cain and Abel was, therefore, intended, as hinted in the opening words of this verse, to serve as a warning for the Israelites. The Prophet meant to be raised from among the brethren of the Israelites was to be no ordinary soul. He was to be a World-Reformer ordained to bring the eternal Law for mankind whose entire future depended on him and, therefore, his slaying was equivalent to the slaying of the whole of mankind, and the preservation of his life was, as it were, the preservation of the life of the whole of mankind. This great soul had killed no person, nor had it created disorder in the land.

The advent of this Prophet was foretold in the Bible (Deut. 18:18-22), and therein it was also announced that God would demand requital of those who did not hearken to this Prophet.

6:100; 13:5; 16:12; 35:28; 36:35-36.

Important Words:

معروشات (trellised) is the plural of معروشة and is derived from عرش which means, he built or constructed a frame work or a trellis for supporting grapevines; or he built a shed or an enclosure, etc. So معروشة means, furnished with or trained on trellises. They say کروم معروشات i.e. grapevines furnished with or trained on trellises which are a framework for supporting the vines. عریش means, structure or trellis made for supporting grapevines; an enclosure made for beasts to protect them from cold. عرش means, a shed or booth, etc. constructed for shade; a hut; a house or a dwelling; the roof of a house; a throne (Lane).

حصاد (harvest) is derived from حصد i.e. he reaped or cut a seed-produce or herbage, etc. حصید means, reaped produce; حصادmeans time or season of reaping; also fruit or produce (Lane).

Commentary:

In the foregoing verses the Quran referred to some of the laws which pagan Arabs, unaided by Divine revelation, haddevised for themselves. Now, the Quran proceeds to give some of its own laws, so that the reader may contrast them with the man-made laws alluded to above. One of the man-made laws pertained to the fruits of the earth (6:141 above). Therefore, the Quran gives here its laws about these. It declares them to be lawful and pure, subject only to the condition that in eating them we should "not exceed the bounds", i.e. we should only eat as much of them as is not injurious to our health and morals.

The pronoun in the words حقه (His due) may either refer to God, or to ثـمر (fruit). In the former case, the sentence would mean that on the day of reaping we should give what is due to God as alms. In the latter case, it would mean that on the day of reaping we should give as charity a portion of the fruit which is in the nature of something due against it in order to make it pure.

It may be noted here that there are two kinds of charity in Islam–– obligatory and optional. But as, according to the practice and sayings of the Holy Prophet, زکاة i.e. obligatory charity or legal alms, is not due from all the fruits named in the verse but only from the fruit of the palm tree, so if it is the obligatory charity that is meant here, then the commandment to "pay His due" will apply only to the fruit of palm trees. It is, however, better to take the verse as referring to optional charity which may be given from all kinds of fruits. The use of the imperative mood in the words "pay His due" does not necessarily make it an obligatory command, for this form of the verb is also freely used in the Quran for the purpose of exhortation. This interpretation is in keeping with the practice of the Holy Prophet’s Companions who were in the habit of setting apart a portion of their produce for the poor, and such is also the practice of pious Muslims today.

17:28; 25:68.

Commentary:

The adornment mentioned in the verse may either be physical or spiritual. Taking it in the physical sense, the verse enjoins believers to go to a place of worship, as far as possible, in a clean and decent dress, free from physical impurities and evil smell. The Holy Prophet is reported to have forbidden Muslims to go to a mosque after having eaten onions, garlic, etc., as the bad smell of these things causes discomfort to others. He is also reported to have enjoined the Faithful to take frequent baths, especially before the great congregational Prayer on Friday. Taken in the spiritual sense, the verse would mean that Prayers should be offered with a pure and sincere heart free from distracting thoughts.

The latter part of the verse embodies a basic commandment about eating and drinking. It has been joined to the commandment relating to "adornment at a place of worship", firstly because clothing and eating are allied subjects, and secondly to indicate that while issuing a commandment about Prayers, which is a spiritual matter, Islam does not overlook man’s physical requirements.

The words, exceed not the bounds, signify: (1) that one should not over-eat oneself and (2) that one should not always use the same kind of food, but should vary it from time to time. Animal foods, vegetables, fruits, etc. should all be eaten in proper quantity and proper proportion. In this connection see The Teachings of Islam by Ahmad, the Promised Messiah.

30:34; 39:9, 50.

Important Words:

مسرفین (the extravagant) is the plural of مسرف which is the active participle from اسرف which again is derived from سرفmeaning, he was ignorant; or he was unmindful or heedless. سرف الطعام means, the wheat or food became cankered or eaten away. اسرف means, he exceeded or transgressed the just or right limit or measure; he acted extravagantly or immoderately. They say فلان اسرف فی ماله meaning, such a one was hasty in respect of his property i.e. he expended his property extravagantly without keeping within proper bounds. اسرف فی القتل means, he exceeded the due bounds or just limits in slaying. اسراف, which is the noun-infinitive from اسرف, also signifies the committing of many faults, offences, or crimes and sins. مسرف means, one exceeding or transgressing the right limit or measure; one acting extravagantly; one unmindful, negligent or heedless; one denying or disacknowledging the favours or benefits or the Unity or the Prophets or the Law of God; a disbeliever or an unbeliever (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse describes the different attitudes which a man assumes when he is stricken with distress. Sometimes the blow is so hard that he falls to the ground. This state is described in the words, lying on his side. Again, sometimes distress renders a man restless and uneasy. This state is described in the words, sitting or standing, because the constant changing of posture is a sure sign of restlessness.

The verse means that, although disbelievers continue to demand that if the Prophet of Islam is really sent by God, they should be visited with punishment for their rejection of him, yet when Divine punishment actually overtakes them, they are seized with despair. It thus embodies two important lessons. The first is that we should not be hasty in attacking the motives of other people, because the verse clearly says that the disbelievers do not commit evil deeds deliberately, knowing them to be so, but only do what appears good in their eyes, i.e. their evil deeds are the result of faulty reasoning and defective vision. It may be asked here, why then will disbelievers be punished for doing what appears good in their eyes. The answer to that question is that the verse does not say that the evil deeds of each and every individual appear good in his sight but that it is only to the extravagant that they so appear. The offence of the disbelievers lies in the fact that they become extravagant, and so they justly deserve to suffer the consequences of an extravagant life.

The second important lesson contained in this verse is that the plea of good motives is not always acceptable and therefore it cannot always save a person from the consequences of his actions. It is only when the motives themselves become vitiated on account of corrupt living or when it is in our power to rectify our motives but we fail to do so, that we become deserving of punishment. In the law of nature, as against the law of Shari‘ah, motives count for nothing, the consequences being invariably determined by the nature of one’s actions. He who takes a fatal dose of poison must die, no matter what his motives are and no matter what kind of life he leads. But in the law of Shari‘ah due allowance is made for the circumstances in which a certain deed is done and for the motives that prompt it.

28:5.

Commentary:

It appears from this verse that all the Israelites had not believed in Moses. Only a part of them had really believed in him. The rest followed him from only political or national considerations. The pronoun "his" in the clause, from among his people, may also refer to Pharaoh. In that case the clause would mean that some youths of the people of Pharaoh also believed in Moses. But the former interpretation seems to be more correct and is therefore preferable.

This verse also brings to light the fact that not unoften an appreciable number of the people to whom a Prophet of God preaches his Message become convinced of his truth, but they dare not profess their faith openly for fear of their leaders and chiefs. The pronoun "their" in the words "their chiefs" may refer either to the Israelites or to the people of Pharaoh. Preferably it refers to the people of Pharaoh. The chiefs of the people of Pharaoh have been called the chiefs of the Israelites because the latter were a subject people. But the pronoun need not necessarily be taken as referring to any particular people. The great men of a country are regarded as chiefs not merely because they belong to any particular community but also because, being members of the government, they possess influence and authority. Hence the high officials of the State, whether they belonged to the people of Pharaoh or the Israelites might rightly be called the chiefs of the Israelites and it was through both that Pharaoh tyrannized over the Israelites.

The words, Pharaoh was a tyrant in the land, show that Pharaoh was not a wise and sagacious monarch. He had embarked upon a policy of open repression and persecution which was calculated to incite the people to rebellion. This policy eventually led to the downfall of the dynasty.

Commentary:

The verse embodies an effective answer to all the objections that were raised in v. 6 above, viz., (a) "these are but confused dreams," (b) "nay, he has forged it;" (c) nay, "he is a poet." The answer consists in the fact that every Prophet receives from God certain promises and prophecies about the ultimate success of his mission and the defeat and discomfiture of his enemies, and that these prophecies are literally fulfilled. The truth of this fact has been demonstrated throughout the ages in the time of every Prophet of God. The verse purports to say that if what the Holy Prophet claims to have received from God are mere confused dreams and not Divine revelations and if he is an impostor and a liar then how could the great prophecies about the triumph of his cause and the failure of his opponents made at a time when there appeared no likelihood of their being fulfilled, come to be true? Moreover, as a poet the Prophet could only compose elegant verse or could play with the emotions of men as poets generally do, but he could not bring about a wonderful change in the lives of his followers as he did and could not see into the future and make prophecies which in the teeth of the opposition of his powerful enemies and in spite of his own utter helplessness were fulfilled to the very letter. The answer seems to be as emphatic and effective as the objections are foolish and flimsy.

69:45, 47.

Commentary:

It seems that under the influence of Pharaoh’s wife who was a very righteous woman (66:12) some other members of his household had also believed in Moses and the "believing man" might have been one of them. The good man kept his faith concealed in order to give expression to it on a suitable occasion. The bold manner in which he expressed his belief and spoke to the people of Pharaoh shows that the concealment was not due to fear.

The verse also embodies an infallible criterion to test the truth of the claim of a Divine Reformer viz. that (1) a forger of lies is never allowed to grow and prosper and that (2) the opponents of a Divine Reformer do not go unpunished.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that Prophets have been coming in the world from time immemorial but men are so constituted that whenever a Prophet came they rejected and opposed him and when he died they said that no more Prophets would come and that the door of revelation was shut forever. This attitude of disbelievers has led to the rejection of every Prophet.