ROOT ن ك ر

3:111, 115; 7:158; 9:71; 31:18.

Commentary:

The word خیر (goodness) here signifies Islam, because goodness in general is included in the word معروف (equity) used immediately after it. In fact, the true Faith (Islam) is the only goodness in the true sense of the word. The verse purports to say that as by making you enter the fold of Islam God has delivered you from a pit of fire, you should also try to deliver others from the fire of disbelief.

The words, And let there be among you a body of men who should invite to goodness, do not mean that the duty of preaching is only confined to a few. What is meant is that, whereas all should try to preach and propagate the truth of Islam, there should be a party of men among Muslims who should be wholly and solely devoted to this work.

As for the method of preaching, the Quran says elsewhere, Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them (the disbelievers) in a way that is best (16:126). And the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "If anyone of you sees anything evil, let him remove it with his hand. If he cannot do it with his hand, then let him forbid it with his tongue. If he cannot do even that, then let him at least detest it in his mind, and that is the weakest kind of faith" (Muslim).

The verse also suggests a way by following which Muslims can maintain their unity. So long as a Muslim people have their attention concentrated on the preaching of Islam and doing good, they will live in peace among themselves, for disunion is mostly born of idleness and a false sense of security.

Each and every individual Muslim is not enjoined here to devote himself wholly to the preaching of Islam; for if it were so, Muslims could not earn their livelihood nor take part in other healthy pursuits of life. So, though all must contribute their quota, only a section of the community is required to devote itself exclusively to the work of preaching.

2:144.

3:105, 115; 7:158; 9:71; 31:18.

Commentary:

The verse not only claims that the Muslims are the best people—a great claim indeed—but also gives reasons for it. These reasons are: (1) Muslims have been raised for the good of others; (2) they have been raised not for the good of any one people or any one country but for the good of all mankind; (3) it has been made their duty to enjoin what is good and forbid evil and believe in one God. The history of Islam bears ample testimony to the fact that Muslims fulfilled all the hopes expressed in this verse. They were not only the torch-bearers of Islam to the four corners of the world but they also contributed to the betterment of other peoples in a most remarkable manner. The renaissance of the west was mostly, if not entirely, due to their influence (The Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault).

The greatness of a people is proportionate to the magnitude of their work. As Muslims were to bring about the good of all mankind, they have been declared the greatest of all peoples. In fact, the real purpose of a Muslim’s life is to do good for humanity. As Islam is the greatest good, so Muslims have been enjoined to convey its message to the whole world. They are also required to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. There are other people also who claim to enjoin good and forbid evil, but their aim in doing so is to contribute to the strength or betterment of their own respective communities. The Quran warns Muslims against having such restricted motives by adding the words, and you believe in Allah, i.e. your preaching should only be for God’s sake Who is the Lord of the worlds.

The assignment of this great task to Muslims also implies the appearance of Divine Messengers among them from time to time, for it is heavenly Messengers alone who can best perform this duty; and it is through them that we can properly realize the true significance of this task.

It may also be pointed out here that, according to this verse, the excellence of the Muslim people is governed by, and is subject to, the above conditions, i.e. preaching Islam to mankind and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil; mere lip-profession of Islam cannot entitle anyone to claim excellence.

3:105, 111; 9:71.

21:91; 23:62; 35:33.

5:64.

Commentary:

One of the great sins which drew the wrath of God upon the Jewish people was that they did not prohibit one another from the evil practices which were so rife among them. While some simply connived at these evil practices, others actually encouraged them. Unfortunately, Muslim scholars and priests of the present day are also guilty of this deadly sin. They will not preach against the evils to which the wealthier and the more powerful Muslims are addicted.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

59:20.

Important Words:

المنافقون (the hypocrites) is derived from نافق which is derived from نفق. They say نفق الشیء i.e. the thing became diminished; or it became spent up and perished. نفقت السلعة means, the merchandise was in much demand. نفقت السوق means, the market became brisk, its goods selling quickly. نفق الرجل means, the man expired. نفق الیربوع means, the rat came out of its hole in the earth. انفق ماله mean, he spent freely and constantly so as to reduce or exhaust his wealth. نافق فی المحبة means, he acted hypocritically in respect of love. نافق الرجل فی الدین means, the man concealed disbelief in the heart and expressed belief with his tongue. نافق الیربوع means, the rat known as yarbu‘ betook itself to its hole. النافقاء means, a hole in the earth having two open ends which the rat enters concealing one end and leaving the other exposed, so that in time of danger it may avail itself of the concealed end and escape through it. النفق means, a hole or passage through earth leading up to some place through an opening at the other end. النفاق means, entering faith through one door and leaving it through another; acting hypocritically. المنافق means, one who conceals disbelief in his heart and expresses belief with his tongue; a hypocrite (Aqrab, Taj & Mufradat). Though hypocrites have been mentioned in the Quran as early as in 2:9, the word منافق(hypocrite) has been first used in 4:62.

نسیھم (He has neglected them). نسیان generally meaning "forgetfulness", does not always signify the act of forgetting. Truly speaking, نسیان means, one’s ceasing to think of a person or a thing either owing to loss of memory or owing to negligence. The Quran says لا تنسوا الفضل بینکم i.e. do not cease (lit. do not forget) to do good to one another. In fact, when the word نسیان is used about God, it never means "forgetting" but simply cutting off connection by way of punishment or ceasing to think of a person with feelings of love and affection (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse mentions some of the signs by which hypocrites can be distinguished from true believers. These signs are: (1) that the hypocrites form a sort of inner society among themselves, shunning true believers and being inter-connected with one another; (2) that they enjoin evil; (3) that they forbid good; (4) that they do not spend in the cause of God, keeping their hands closed; (5) that they neglect Allah and His commandments; (6) that, as a consequence, God too neglects them and they do not enjoy Divine help in their works; and (7) that they are disobedient to God, always seeking to evade His behests.

3:105,111; 7:158; 9:112; 31:18.

2:4.

2:44.

8:2.

Commentary:

Compare this verse and the next with 9:67, 68 above. The present verse enumerates some of the signs of true believers. These signs are:(1) that they are friends to one another; (2) that they enjoin good; (3) that they forbid evil; (4) that they are steadfast in the performance of Prayers (5) that they give the prescribed Zakah; (6) that they obey God and His Messenger; and (7) that they are recipients of God’smercy.

33:36.

3:105,111,115; 7:158; 9:71; 31:18.

Important Words:

سائحون (who go about in the land serving Him) is the plural of سائح which is the active participle from ساح which means, it flowed. They say ساح الماء علی وجه الارض i.e. the water flowed or ran freely on the surface of the earth. ساح فی الارض means, he went or journeyed through the land for the purpose of devoting himself to the service of religion, etc. سائح means, one who journeys through or goes about the land as a devotee or otherwise; one who goes forth or journeys through the land to war against disbelievers or to seek knowledge; one who fasts much and keeps to the mosques (Lane).

Commentary:

The present verse, which is a continuation of the previous one, shows that it is the Companions of the Holy Prophet and those who follow them righteously that are meant here.

The noble qualities of believers, as mentioned in the verse under comment, have been put in order of merit. The first stage of spiritual development is that of توبة i.e. repentance of one’s sins. The second stage is that of عبادة i.e. Divine worship, which implies that after having repented of his sins, a Muslim becomes resigned to the Will of God. The third stage is that of حمد i.e. glorifying God, which means that a Muslim is not only resigned to the will of God, but he praises and glorifies Him even in adversity.

The fourth stage pertains to the attribute of سائح which means that in this stage a believer forsakes his home for the sake of God and devotes his whole attention to Him. The fifth spiritual stage which a Muslim attains is that of راکع which signifies that he begins to serve God with all his soul and body, every part of his body being dedicated to His service. See also note on 2:44. In the sixth stage the believer becomes a ساجد (one who falls prostrate before God) which symbolizes the highest stage of nearness to God, when a believer not only severs, as it were, his connection with the world, but also loses his ownself, and throws himself on the earth, mixing with the dust. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that in the attitude of prostration a believer is in a position of extreme nearness to God.

When a true believer has reached the stage of ساجد i.e. close nearness to God, his next duty is to bring the straying sheep into the fold of the Master. So now he becomes God’s preacher, enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. This is the seventh stage to which a true Muslim can and should rise. The next, and in a way the final, stage is that of God’s Khalifah, i.e. Divine Reformer, which is referred to in the words, "Who watch the limits set by God," i.e. those who are, as it were, the guardians of the Law of God. The expression الحافظون لحدود اللّٰه may also mean, those who strictly observe the ordinances of God.

51:28-29.

Important Words:

لوط (Lot) may etymologically be taken to have been derived from لاط. They sayلاط الشیء i.e. he concealed the thing. لاط بهmeans, it (the thing) stuck or adhered to it. لوطه بالطیب (lawwata-hu) means, he smeared him or it with much perfume. The Prophet Lot, who was the contemporary of Prophet Abraham, was the ancestor of the Palestinian peoples, Moab and Ammon. As the son of Haran and the grandson of Terah, he was Abraham’s nephew. He joined Abraham in the land of Canaan and in the time of famine went with him to Egypt. He preached to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah but they refused to listen to him and ridiculed and persecuted him; and though Abraham, to whom Lot was a junior and subordinate Prophet prayed for these wicked people and interceded with God on their behalf, they were destroyed on account of their iniquities and transgression (Lane, Enc. Bri. & Jew. Enc.).

Commentary:

Abraham at first took the "messengers" to be ordinary way-farers, but when they refrained from eating of the roasted calf he had placed before them (see the preceding verse), he realized that they were on some special mission which he had failed to understand. He knew that as ordinary wayfarers they could not refuse his hospitality, for wayfarers in that arid land entirely depended on the hospitality of the inhabitants for their food.

The words, conceived a fear of them, do not mean that Abraham was afraid of the strangers but that, when they did not partake of the food, he feared that he might have done something against the etiquette of hospitality and thus had displeased them. He did not, however, express his fear, for such an expression would have implied that he perhaps took them to be mean and greedy. The guests, it appears, read Abraham’s perturbed state of mind from the uneasy expression of his face, so they at once removed his anxiety by telling him that they were in no way displeased and that the reason why they did not partake of food was that their dreadful mission had made them disinclined to eat.

This answer of the visitors also shows that they were not angels; for had they been angels, they would have said that being not human they could not partake of the food.

12:16.

Commentary:

The incident related in this verse pertains to the time when there was famine in the country and Joseph was at the height of his power.

The verse also provides the fourteenth point of resemblance between Joseph and the Holy Prophet. Joseph had risen to such eminence that his brothers could not recognize him because they could not imagine that he whom they had cast into a well and who was sold as a slave could rise to so eminent a position. Much in the same way, the Meccans marvelled at the power and prestige that the Holy Prophet had gained. This is apparent from the spontaneous expression of amazement and surprise by Abu Sufyan, a Meccan chief, at the remarks which Heraclius, the Christian Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, made when he received the Prophet’s epistle inviting him to accept Islam. Heraclius, after making some enquiries about the Holy Prophet from Abu Sufyan who then happened to be in Syria, said that if what Abu Sufyan had said regarding the Prophet was true, the latter would one day become master of the land under his feet. This remark about the Prophet spontaneously uttered by a mighty monarch filled Abu Sufyan with surprise and he exclaimed, 'The affair of the son of Abu Kabshah has indeed become great' (Bukhari, ch. on Jihad). Ibn Abi Kabshah was a term of contempt applied to the Holy Prophet by the Meccans.