وَلَد

4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89, 90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.

30:27.

Important Words:

قانتون (obedient) which is the plural of قانت is derived from قنت which means: (1) he obeyed; (2) he showed humility and submissiveness; (3) he remained silent, refraining from speech; and (4) he stood praying or he stood long in Prayer (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse speaks of the Christians with whom the Muslims were to come in contact in their great march as the torchbearers of Islam. Failing to get converts from among the Jews, the early Christians turned their attention to the Romans and the Greeks but succumbed to their philosophies and freely borrowed ideas from them, incorporating them into their own beliefs and doctrines. As a result of this, Jesus began to be represented as the Son of God and the dogma of Trinity became the basic doctrine of the Christian Faith. The expression "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5:9, 45, 48; Deut. 14:1; Exod. 4:22; Gal. 3:26; Wisd. 2:18, etc.). The Quran has exploded this doctrine and has, in the verse under comment, given several arguments to expose its falsity: (1) If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desires and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. But Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it, God is Holy and free from all defects and weaknesses. (2) One sometimes needs a son or a successor to extend one’s dominion and bring into subjugation such territories as do not acknowledge one’s rule. But God has no such need; for everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. (3) A son or helper is sometimes required to keep under control the turbulent or far-flung parts of one’s kingdom; but God has no such requirement, for "all are obedient to Him." Thus, from whatever angle we may view the question, God is proved to need no son, no helper or assistant to help Him in the work of controlling and managing the universe. In fact, it is blasphemy to say so. The argument is further elaborated in the next verse.

31:15; 46:16.

65:7.

2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.

Important Words:

یرضعن (give suck) is derived from رضع i.e. he (the babe) sucked. ارضعت means, she (the mother or the wet-nurse) gave suck to the child. استرضع means, he arranged for the suckling of the child; he engaged a wet-nurse for it. The infinitive-noun رضاعة signifies sucking. ھذا اخی من الرضاعة means, he is my foster-brother, both having sucked from the breast of the same woman (Aqrab & Lane).

حولین (two years) is the dual of حول (a year) which is the infinitive-noun from حال meaning, it passed and became complete, or it passed from one state to another, or it turned round. A year is called حول because it is a complete measure of time and turns round and round. حول also means strength and power to do a thing as in the well-known formula لاحول ولاقوة الابالله (Aqrab).

وسعھا (its capacity) is derived from وسع meaning, it was sufficiently capacious. وسعت رحمة الله کل شیء means, God’s mercy extends to, and covers, all things. وسع means capacity or power or strength. The infinitive-noun from it is سعة meaning, breadth; extent, capaciousness; capacity and power. ذوسعة means, a man of means or a man of ample means (Aqrab).

تکلف (is burdened) is derived from کلف. They say کلفه امرا i.e. he imposed on him the task of doing a thing, or he tasked him to do a thing. It also means, he ordered him to do a thing which was difficult or troublesome or inconvenient (Lane).

فصال (weaning the child) is derived from فصل which is both transitive and intransitive, meaning, he separated, he divided, he partitioned; or he got separated, he went forth from. فصلت المرأة رضیعھا means, the woman weaned her child, which is also a sort of separation between the woman and her suckling. ھذایوم الفصل means, this is the day when a decision or a distinction shall be made between the parties, i.e. the doers of good and the doers of evil. فصال means, the weaning of a child from its mother or from the woman who suckles it (Taj).

تشاور (consultation) is derived from شار. They say شارالعسل i.e. he extracted honey from the honey-comb. شارالدابة means, he rode the beast in order to try it and ascertain its worth. اشار besides giving the same meaning as شار, also means, he made a thing known, he pointed to a thing, he gave a word of good counsel to a person. شاوره means, he consulted him, he sought his advice and counsel. تشاور means, mutual consultation. مشورة and شوری give similar meanings, i.e. consultation (Aqrab).

Commentary:

If a woman is divorced while she is pregnant, the question of the suckling of the child and the expense of bringing it up naturally arises. The verse under comment supplies the answer. It points out that the suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of that period, if the father and the mother both agree on that course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.

The expression لاتضار is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause لاتضار والدة بولدھا may therefore mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally good and equitable. The words مولودله (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word والد (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.

The clause, and the same is incumbent on the heir, lays down an important social principle. If a father dies leaving behind a child, it is the duty of his heirs to bring up the child and maintain it until it reaches puberty. This shall not be considered an act of favour on their part, but an act of duty. One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind. He who receives a support from another must be prepared to give the same to him, when he may stand in need of it.

19:21.

See 2:118.

Commentary:

The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).

Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.

Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).

There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).

4:177.

Important Words:

ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).

ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).

Commentary:

This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.

Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).

The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.

The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.

The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).

The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.

4:177.

Important Words:

کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.

It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.

The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.

It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.

The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.

It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:

1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.

2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.

It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.

The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.

The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.

5:78.

58:23.

5:74.

2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.

Important Words:

کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.

روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).

Commentary:

From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.

In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).

The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.

4:13.

4:12.

4:27.

Important Words:

For the meaning of the word کلالة see 4:13.

Commentary:

ولد (child) means, child or children whether male or female, but as کلالة (kalalah) means, one having no child and no parent, the words ولا والد (and neither parent) may be taken as being understood after the words لیس له ولد. The word اثنتین (lit. two) here means two or more sisters. This meaning is supported by a verdict of the Holy Prophet in which he applied this verse to the case of Jabir who died, leaving seven sisters (Jarir, vi. 24). The word اخوة (brethren) here includes sisters and brothers both, as the words رجالا و نساء (both men and women), forming case in apposition with اخوة indicate.

This verse, placed as it is in between the verses dealing with the Christians and their false doctrines, appears to be rather misplaced. But as the following note will show, it is very fittingly placed here, furnishing a striking proof of the Quran as well as its present arrangement being the work of God.

In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah (one who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring) who had brothers and sisters from the side of his mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.

This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the main portion of the law dealt with in 4:12, 13 in the beginning of the Surah. The object in doing so is not far to seek. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews and clearing his position, the Quran reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw, by a most fitting parable, our attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who, in a sense, was also a Kalalah. He was born without the agency of a father, and he left behind no spiritual successor to succeed him in his prophetic office, which was, after his death, inherited by the Ishmaelites. In this case the words, If a man dies, leaving no child, may also signify that Jesus was a Kalalah, not in the sense that spiritually speaking he had neither parents nor child, but in the restricted sense that he had no child. See 4:13 under Important Words where Ibn ‘Abbas defines a Kalalah as simply one who leaves no child. Thus Jesus was spiritually a Kalalah in the sense that he left behind no spiritual successor. Compare also the prophecy, "I will raise them a prophet from among their brethren" (Deut. 18:18).

2:118.

Important Words:

ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).

Commentary:

After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.

There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.

2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.

Commentary:

In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.

Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.

The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.

The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.

The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.

The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.

12:57.

Important Words:

مثوی (stay) is derived from ثوی. They say ثوی بالمکان i.e. he remained, stayed or dwelt in the place; or he remained, stayed or dwelt long therein; or he alighted in the place. اثواہ means, he made him to stay, or dwell, or he made him to stay or remain long. ثوی means, a guest. مثوی means, a place where one remains, stays or dwells; it also means staying or staying long in a place (Lane & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The Egyptian who bought Joseph is known as Potiphar in Jewish literature (Enc. Bib. & Jew. Enc. under Potiphar; also Gen. 39:1). He was captain of the royal guard, an officer of high rank in ancient times. He seems to have been struck by the noble appearance of Joseph, and asked his wife to treat him with such honour and affection as are not ordinarily shown to a slave or servant. He expressed the hope that they might one day benefit by his ability or, if he proved to be worthy, might adopt him as their son. It appears that Potiphar had no issue.