ROOT ز و ج

3:16, 134, 196, 199; 4:14, 58, 123; 5:13, 86; 7:44; 9:72, 89, 100; 10:10; 13:36; 22:15, 24; 25:11; 32:20; 47:16; 58:23; 61:13; 64:10.

3:16; 4:58.

Important Words:

بشر (give glad tidings) is derived from بشر (bashshara), i.e. he gave glad tidings, which again is derived from بشر(bashara). They say بشر i.e. he laid bare its skin. Thus البشرة means, the outer and visible part of the skin. So بشر(bashshara) means, he gave or imparted news which changed the colour of the listener. The word has generally come to be used in connection with good or happy news. But it is also sometimes used in connection with bad news (e.g. 3:22). بشیر means, one who announces good news to a people or a person. All Prophets are spoken of as بشیر and نذیر i.e. givers of good news to those who believe in them and givers of bad news to those who reject them (Aqrab & Mufradat).

الصالحات (good works) is the plural of الصالحة which is derived from the verb صلح (the opposite of فسد) meaning, he or it became good or suitable and proper. ھذا الشیء یصلح لك means, this thing is suitable to you or is fit or meet for you (Aqrab). So الصالحات would be used about all those deeds and actions which are not only good intrinsically but are also meet and suitable. See also under 2:12.

جنات (gardens) which is the plural of جنة (a garden) is derived from جن meaning, it veiled, concealed, or covered a thing. So جنة means, any garden having trees by which the ground is covered or concealed; an orchard or garden having luxuriousness and denseness of verdure (Aqrab & Lane). Heaven has been called جنة or garden, because: (1) the mercy of God will 'cover' its dwellers just as trees in an orchard cover the ground thereof; or (2) because the blessings of Heaven are 'hidden' from the eyes of man"; or again (3) because Heaven is like a garden in which the trees represent good faith and the streams good actions.

الانھار (streams) is the plural of نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar). They say نھرالماء i.e. the water flowed on the earth and cut out a channel for itself. Thus نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar) means, a channel through which a stream or a river flows; a stream or river itself. نھر (nahar) also means, abundance (Aqrab).

ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج which signifies, anything that is one of a pair or couple; it does not mean a pair but only one of a pair, whether male or female (Aqrab). The word زوج also means, a comrade (Lane).

خالدون (shall abide) is derived fromخلد which means, he remained and lived on. خلدبمکان means, he stayed or abided in a place. خلود means, staying on, or living without change or deterioration for a long time but not necessarily forever (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse gives a brief description of the rewards which the believers will have in the next world.

Critics of Islam have raised all sorts of objections to this description. They say that: (1) The promise of such rewards is only an appeal to greed and a faith based upon greed is not worth the name. (2) The Quran promises material rewards to the believers and this is objectionable. (3) If the rewards of the next world are going to be material, then it must be supposed that the same body which one has in this life will be resurrected after death and this is against all reason, because this body perishes and the particles of one body are used in the making of several other bodies. To whom and to how many will then the same body be given in the next world? (4) Believers are promised wives in Heaven which shows that sex relations will continue in the next world. An appeal to sex is very objectionable for spiritual ends. Sex relations are necessary only for the continuation of the race in this world. Why should there be such a thing in the next? (5) The Quranic Paradise appears to be a place of luxury and sensual pleasures. There is thus nothing spiritual about the Islamic conception of the next life.

This criticism is based on a failure to understand the real Islamic teaching. The Quran has made it clear that in this life it is not possible for man to comprehend the nature of the rewards of the next. It says: No soul knows what joy of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward for their actions (32:18). That is to say, whatever the Quran says about Heaven and Hell is only metaphorical. The descriptions are not to be taken in the sense in which they are ordinarily taken in this world. The Holy Prophet says of the blessings of the next world: "No eye has seen them, nor has any ear heard of them; nor can the mind of man form any conception of them" (Bukhari). If the blessings of the next life are to be like the joys of this life, we should be able to form some idea of them, no matter how remote they may be. The blessings of the next life, therefore, must be quite different from the blessings of this life.

At another place in the Quran we read: The similitude of the Heaven promised to the God-fearing is that through it flow streams; its fruit is everlasting, and so is its shade. That is the reward of those who are righteous, and the reward of the disbelievers is Fire (13:36). Now the fruit of this world is not everlasting, so in order to be everlasting the fruit of the next world as well as its streams will have to be taken as something other than material. Again we read: A similitude of the Paradise promised to the righteous: Therein are rivers of water which corrupts not; and rivers of milk of which the taste changes not; and rivers of wine, a delight to those who drink; and rivers of clarified honey (47:16). There is nothing material in this. About the wine of Heaven we read: Wherein there will be no intoxication, nor will they be exhausted thereby (37:48). Again, And their Lord will give them to drink a beverage that is pure (76:22). Thus, wine in Heaven will not only be pure itself but will purify the drinkers as well. Elsewhere the Quran says that the pure wine of Paradise will be tempered with Tasnim (83:28), which means 'abundance' and 'height '. In the cup of wine that will pass from hand to hand in Heaven God says there will be neither vanity nor sin (52:24). As against this, the wine of this world is described in the Quran as: Wine and the game of hazard and idols and divining arrows are only an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So shun each one of them that you may prosper. Satan desires only to create enmity and hatred among you by means of wine and the game of hazard and to keep you back from the remembrance of Allah and from Prayer (5:91, 92). This proves that the wine of the next world is quite different; it is pure and purifying and nothing material.

The blessings of Heaven have indeed nothing in common with their counterparts of this world except the name. Ibn ‘Abbas, the Prophet’s cousin, also says the same thing (Jarir).

Now the question arises: Why have the blessings of Heaven been given the names used of material things in this world? This is so because Islam is meant for all kinds of people. It does not address only the intellectually advanced but also all others. Therefore it uses simple words which can be understood by all. The disbelievers used to say that the Prophet disallowed the good things of the world, and his followers were thus deprived of all blessings. Therefore, while describing the blessings in store for the Muslims, God used the names of things generally looked upon as good in this world and told the believers that they would get all these things in a better form. The water of this world spoils, but believers would have water in the next which will not spoil. Gardens are blessings but they decay; so believers will have gardens which will last forever. The unbelievers drank intoxicating wine which made them drunk and which dulled their senses; but the wine which the believers will get in Heaven will be pure and purifying. It is to bring out this important contrast that familiar words are used; otherwise there is nothing common between the delights of this world and the blessings of the next.

It may be added here that, according to Islam, the next life is not spiritual in the sense that it will just consist of a mental state and nothing else. Even in the next life the human soul will have a kind of body; only, it will not be material. One can glean some idea of this from the phenomenon of dreams. The Quran says: Allah takes the souls of human beings at the time of their death; and (He also takes the souls of), those that have not died, during their sleep. Then He retains those against which He has decreed death, and sends (back) the others till an appointed term. In that surely are signs for a people who reflect (39:43). Death and sleep resemble each other, the difference being that whereas in death the human soul is completely and permanently severed from the body, in sleep the severance is only temporary and partial. Now the scenes which a man witnesses in a dream cannot be called purely mental or spiritual, because he has a body also in his dreams and finds himself sometimes in gardens and streams, and eats fruits and drinks milk. It is hard to say that the contents of dreams are only mental states. The milk enjoyed in a dream is no doubt a real experience, but no one can say that it is the material milk found in this world. Dreams have a meaning of their own. For instance, eating mangoes in a dream symbolizes a righteous child or a righteous heart; eating grapes signifies love and fear of God; and eating bananas, a good and lawful subsistence which is also easy of attainment. In short, the spiritual blessings of the next life will not be a mere subjective realization of the gifts of God with which we become familiar in this world. As a matter of fact, what we enjoy here is just a representation of the real and true gifts of God which man will find in the next world.

Again, gardens represent faith; and streams, good actions. Gardens cannot prosper without streams, nor faith without good actions. Therefore faith and actions are inseparable for the attainment of salvation. In the next world, gardens will remind the believers of their faith in this life and streams will remind them of their good works. They will know, then, that their faith and good works have not gone in vain.

The flowing of streams or rivers beneath the gardens also implies that every person in Heaven will have a free and unrestricted enjoyment of his portion. In this world, a single stream often serves several gardens and there is the possibility of a quarrel over it; but in Heaven each garden will have its own stream exclusively meant for itself. See also 10:10.

It is wrong to conclude from the words, This is what was given us before, that in Heaven the believers will be given such fruit as they will have enjoyed in this world, because, as already explained, the two are not the same. The fruit of the next world will, in fact, be the image of the quality of their own faith. When they will eat it, they will at once recognize and remember that it is the fruit of the faith they had in this world; and it will be out of gratitude for this that they will say: This is what was given us before.

The expression rendered as, was given us, may also mean, 'was promised us'; and in this sense it would mean, this is what was promised to us in the world.

The word متشابھا (mutually resembling) refers to the resemblance between the acts of worship performed by believers in this world and the fruits thereof in Heaven. The acts of worship performed in this life will appear to believers as fruit in the next. The more sincere and the more appropriate a man’s worship, the more will he enjoy his portion of the fruit in Paradise and the better in quality will it be. It, therefore, lies in one’s own power to improve the quality of one’s fruit as one likes.

The expression, mutually resembling, also implies that in Paradise one spiritual food will completely harmonize with the other, so that the possibility of spiritual disease will be eliminated altogether. It also means that the food in Heaven will be suited to each and every individual and to his stage of progress and degree of development.

The words, they will abide, signify that the believers will go on abiding in Heaven and will not be subject to any change or decay. Man dies only when he cannot assimilate food or when someone kills him. But since the food of Paradise will be perfectly suited to every individual and since man will have pure and peaceful companions, death and decay will automatically disappear.

The Faithful will also have pure mates in Heaven. A good wife is a joy and a comfort. The Faithful try to have good wives in this world, and they will have good and virtuous company in the next. Yet these joys of Heaven are not physical.

A typical Christian comment on this subject is made by Sir William Muir: "It is very remarkable that the notices in the Coran of this voluptuous paradise are almost entirely confined to a time when, whatever the tendency of his desires, Mohammad was living chaste and temperate with a single wife of three score years of age. It is noteworthy that in the Medina Surahs, that is, in all the voluminous revelations of the ten years following the Hegira women are only twice referred to as constituting one of the delights of paradise and on both occasions in these simple words: 'And to them (believers) there shall be therein pure wives'. Was it that the soul of Mohammad had at that period no longings after what he had then to satiety the enjoyment of? Or that a closer contact with Jewish principles and morality repressed the budding pruriency of the revelation, and covered with merited confusion the picture of his sensual paradise which had been drawn at Mecca?" (Muir, page 76).

It is amazing how these Christian critics with pretensions to culture and learning will draw on sheer speculation to attack the honour of a Teacher who is held in the deepest reverence and devotion by many millions of men and women all over the world. They seem emboldened to do so, because Christians today hold political sway over the Muslims. A few centuries of power have made them forget that Muslims ruled over Christendom for a full 1,000 years, and during this time they never said anything unbecoming about Jesus. They respected Christian susceptibilities when Christians were quite unprotected and were much weaker than Muslims are today. Would to God Christians did not feel so elated!

Sir William conveniently ignores the fact that there are other things besides women which are mentioned in the Meccan chapters and to which there is no reference in the Medinite chapters. We read in the Meccan chapters that there will be wine, honey and rivers of milk in Paradise. Was the Holy Prophet deprived even of these things at Mecca that he should have compensated himself by imagining them in Paradise? Nothing could be more absurd than this. Personally the Holy Prophet was much better off at Mecca than he was at Medina. His rich wife Khadijah was then alive and she had placed all her wealth at his disposal. By the time he reached Medina, most of this wealth had been spent in good works and the Holy Prophet was left a poor man with little to live on. If the picture of Paradise was an imaged compensation for his wants, it should have emerged at Medina instead of at Mecca.

Supposing Sir William is right, cannot critics of Christianity say justifiably that Jesus imagined himself the king of the Jews because he was persecuted everywhere? Could they not also say that as Jesus saw nothing of sex life in this world, he remained obsessed with the idea of a second advent and imagined himself a bridegroom taking no less than five virgins for wives? In the words of the New Testament, he is reported to have said: "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps…And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut" (Matt. 25:1-10). A bridegroom surrounded by a bevy of virgins—is not this the Heaven of Jesus’ imagination?

But to revert to the subject; the disbelievers at Mecca used to taunt the Muslims about their poverty, saying they had nothing of the good things which they had, so God took over their own phrases and said that the rewards which believers would have in Paradise would be even better. When Islam was established at Medina, the disbelievers gave up their taunts. So God also dropped the earlier descriptions of Paradise. The descriptions in their deep significance, however, hold for all time.

At Mecca, moreover, it was necessary to explain and emphasize the basic belief of Islam. Therefore, greater detail of doctrine is found in the Meccan chapters, and as Paradise, the abode of believers in the afterlife, is an important item of belief, it is dealt with in detail in them. At Medina, on the contrary, practical matters like personal ethics and social legislation became more important. Therefore, greater attention was given to them in the Medinite chapters. The Meccan Surahs also abound in descriptions of Hell. What are they a compensation for?

Sir William Muir also suggests that the Holy Prophet changed his views about Paradise under the influence of the Jews and the Christians of Medina. But he forgets that the stock criticism made by Christian writers is that some Christian slaves had taught the Holy Prophet the Christian scriptures, the substance of which was incorporated in the Quran. Sir William himself alleges that the Holy Prophetlearnt Christianity from Suhaib, a Roman slave at Mecca (The Life of Mahomet, p.67). If the Holy Prophet at Mecca already knew the Christian teachings, he need not have waited for their influence until his arrival at Medina. In point of fact, in the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, there are no descriptions of Paradise. The Jews and the Christians have remained so engrossed in the affairs of this life that their Books do not say much about the life to come. The promises made by their Prophets about the next life have always been taken by them to pertain only to this life. It cannot be imagined that anybody could be influenced by such a teaching.

7:20, 23; 20:117, 118.

Important Words:

شجرة (tree) is the singular of شجر (trees). It is derived from the verb شجر. The Arabs say شجرالامربینھم i.e. the affair or case became complicated and confused so as to be a subject of disagreement and difference between them. شجرة means, a tree, because of the intermixing or confusion of its branches. شجرة also signifies, the stock or origin of a man. They say, ھومن شجرة طیبة i.e. he is of a good stock or origin (Lane).

ظالمین (wrongdoers) is the plural of ظالم being derived from ظلم which means: (1) he put a thing in the wrong place or in a place not its own; (2) he made one suffer loss; (3) he transgressed or committed a wrong. A ظالم is thus one who does an inappropriate or improper thing; or one who commits a wrong; or one who makes someone suffer a loss (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The word جنة (garden) occurring in this verse does not refer to Heaven or Paradise but simply to the garden-like place where Adam was first made to live. It cannot refer to Heaven: firstly, because it was on the earth that Adam was made to live, as the words, I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth, occurring in 2:31 clearly indicate.

Secondly, Heaven is a place from which no one who once enters it will ever be expelled (15:49), whereas Adam was made to quit the جنة (garden) spoken of in this verse. This shows that the جنة or garden in which Adam first dwelt was a place on this very earth which was given this name on account of the fertility of its soil and the abundance of its verdure. Recent researches go to show that the place where Adam was made to dwell was the garden of Eden which lay near Babylon in Iraq or Assyria.

According to the Bible, the forbidden شجرة (tree) was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). But we learn from the Quran that after having eaten of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became naked which means that, unlike knowledge which is a source of goodness, the tree was a source of evil, making Adam exhibit a weakness. The Quranic view is evidently correct, because to deprive man of knowledge was to defeat the very purpose for which he had been brought into being. The Quran and the Bible seem, however, to agree on the point that the tree was not a real one, but only a symbol, because no tree with either of the above characteristics, i.e. making a man naked or giving him knowledge of good or evil, exists on the face of the globe. So the tree must represent something else.

As explained above, the word شجرة also means a quarrel. Says the Quran: But no, by thy Lord, they are not believers until they make thee judge in all that is in dispute between them (4:66).

Elsewhere, the Quran makes mention of two kinds of شجرة (1) شجرة طیبة (good tree) and (2) شجرة خبیثة (evil tree) for which see 14:25 & 27. Pure things and pure teachings are likened to the former, and impure things and impure thoughts are likened to the latter. In the light of these explanations, the verse would mean: (1) that Adam was enjoined to avoid quarrels; (2) that he was warned against evil things, because although the verse does not specify evil or good, yet the prohibition cannot but refer to impure and evil things.

The expression, eat therefrom plentifully wherever you will, indicates that the place where Adam lived had not yet come under the jurisdiction of anybody and was what may be termed "God’s land" which was given to Adam who was thus made lord of all he surveyed.

The concluding clause, lest you be of ظالمین or wrongdoers, means that the result of approaching the prohibited شجرة would be that Adam would become one of those who do not observe propriety in their actions for, as explained under Important Words, ظلم means, putting a thing at a wrong place.

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.

2:241.

2:229.

Important Words:

یتوفون (who die) is derived from توفی which is derived from وفی (wafa). They say وفی بالعھد i.e. he fulfilled his promise; he was faithful in his word. وفی فلانا حقه (waffa) means, he gave him his right in full. اوفی gives both the meanings ascribed to وفی and وفی(waffa) above. توفی means, he took something in full, as they say توفی حقه i.e. he got or obtained his right in full. توفی الله زیداmeans, God took away the soul of Zaid, leaving the body behind; God caused Zaid to die. توفی فلان means, his soul was taken away, i.e. he died. In this case God is متوفی (mutawaffi) and the man who dies is متوفی (mutawaffa). الوفاة means, death (Aqrab). The Quran says: الله یتوفی الانفس حین موتھاوالتی لم تمت فی منامھا i.e. God takes away the souls of men at the time of their death; and He also takes away the souls of men that have not died, during their sleep (39:43). The Arabic idiom, which has the support of the Quranic usage, definitely shows that wherever God is فاعل (i.e. subject) and a being having a soul is مفعول به(i.e. object) the word توفی invariably means, the taking away of the soul.

Commentary:

After having dealt with the question of the remarriage of divorced women, the Quran in this verse proceeds to issue commandments regarding widows. The عدة i.e. the period of waiting in the case of widows, is four months and ten days which roughly corresponds to four alternate periods of menstruation and purity combined. Islam has prescribed a longer period in the case of a widow as a mark of respect for her feelings at the death of her husband and has thus added to the dignity and sanctity of the marriage tie.

This verse also implies a rebuke to those who are opposed to widow remarriage, thinking it to be an insult to the family and a disgrace to the widowed woman. The words, what is fair, show that it is not only lawful, but preferable and desirable, for a widow to remarry. The words, in anything that they do with regard to themselves, obviously refer to remarriage. Elsewhere the Quran says, And marry your widows (24:33).

2:235.

Commentary:

The middle verses, which came in like the middle Prayer, having ended, the Quran reverts to the original subject of conjugal relations. The verse under comment is erroneously believed by some to have been abrogated by 2:235 and 4:13. Apart from the fact that the abrogation theory is based on lack of the knowledge of true teaching of the Quran, there is nothing in the verses referred to above which contradicts the provision contained in the present verse. The period of waiting laid down for a widow in 2:235 is four months and ten days in which time she can, as of right, claim residence and maintenance from the heirs of her deceased husband. The period of one year mentioned in the present verse has nothing to do with the above-mentioned period of waiting, as the words, but if they themselves go out, there shall be no blame upon you; clearly show. The present verse only contains a concession or a favour for a widow in addition to her right of residence and maintenance mentioned in 2:235. One year is about the time conveniently required by a widow for making suitable arrangements about her future. It is also the requisite time for a pregnant widow to be delivered of the child and relieved of the encumbrances attending thereto. Nor has this verse anything to do with the share of a widow in the property left by her husband as stated in 4:13. The concession about residence and maintenance for one year mentioned in the present verse forms no part of her share in the inheritance. The verse contains no obligatory injunction, but only an additional exhortation to the heirs of the deceased person to show special kindness to the widow for a period of one year, just as the following verse embodies an identical exhortation in favour of a divorced woman.

18:47; 19:77.

See 2:26.

3:163, 175; 5:3; 9:72; 48:30; 59:9.

Important Words:

رضوان (pleasure) is derived from رضی i.e. he was pleased; he was well pleased; he was satisfied or contented; he regarded (him) with good-will or favour. رضوان which is the noun-infinitive from رضی means, the state of being well pleased; satisfaction; good-will (Lane). As رضوان signifies abundant pleasure or satisfaction, the word has come to be used in the Quran in connection with God only (Mufradat). رضوان is also the name of the keeper or guardian angel of Paradise (Lane).

Commentary:

Though Islam does not object to the acquisition of the good things of this world, yet the good things of the life to come are far greater and nobler for man. And greater still is the pleasure or good-will of God which the Quran mentions as the greatest blessing (9:72). For one who succeeds in attaining it, even worldly things become a source of peace of mind. The Companions of the Holy Prophet attained it (9:100) and so they have been rightly called "the best people" (3:111).

33:71; 59:19.

7:190; 16:73; 30:22; 39:7.

Important Words:

رقیبا (Watcher) is derived from رقب. They say رقبه i.e. he watched him; or guarded him; or waited for him; or he kept or preserved it. رقیبis one of God’s attributes meaning, Watcher, Guardian, Keeper; One from Whom nothing is hidden.رقیب also means, an observer; a spy (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The words نفس واحدة (single soul) may signify: (1) Adam; or (2) man and woman taken together, because when two things jointly perform one function, they may be spoken of as one. For instance, 2:62 speaks of one food, while it consisted of manna and quails; or (3) man and woman taken individually, because mankind may be said to have been created from one "single soul" in the sense that each and every individual is created from the seed of man who is "one soul" and is also born of woman who is likewise "one soul".

The expression, and created therefrom its mate, does not mean that woman was created out of the body of man but that she belonged to the same kind and species as man, having the same nature and the same propensities. The meaning of this expression becomes clear when elsewhere we read in the Quran: And Allah has made for you mates from among yourselves (16:73); and He has made for you pairs of your own selves, and of the cattle also pairs (42:12). This means that, like other human beings, a wife was provided for Adam from his own species. And just as other men’s wives are not created from their ribs, so was the wife of Adam not created out of his ribs; and just as our wives have been made from ourselves in the sense that they are of the same kind as ourselves, so was the wife of Adam created from his rib in the sense that she belonged to the same race as Adam did. The preposition من (from) which has given rise to this misconception has been used in the Quran not only about Adam but about other men as well (e.g. 4:60; 9:128; 10:3; 62:3, 4), and in both cases it should mean the same thing, i.e. belonging to the same kind or species. The Quran lends no support whatever to the view that Eve was actually created from the rib of Adam, as is clear from the following verses: We have created you in pairs (78:9); And of everything have We created pairs (51:50), which means that, just as God created a mate for every living thing, so did He make one for Adam. He did not need to depart from this law in respect of Adam and to create a female for him out of his own body.

The idea of Eve having been created out of the rib of Adam seems to have arisen from a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect "Women have been created from a rib, and surely, the most crooked part of a rib is the highest part thereof. If you set yourself to straighten it, you will break it" (Bukhari, ch. on Nikah). This hadith is, however, an argument against the above view rather than in favour of it, for it makes no mention of Eve, and speaks of all women, and it is clear that every woman has not been created from a rib.

The expression "created from a rib" is evidently figurative and must not be taken literally. What it means is only that, like unto a rib, there is a sort of crookedness in the nature of woman and that this very crookedness lends charm to her. An analogous Quranic expression, viz.: خلق الانسان من عجل i.e. "man is made of (lit. from) haste" (21:38) helps to illustrate the point. These words clearly do not mean that man has been created out of a substance called عجل or haste. They mean only that man is hasty by nature. The above view has been supported by Majma‘ul Bihar, Bahrul-Muhit and Sirajul-Wahhaj, which all agree that in the above hadith the Arabic word ضلع means a certain crookedness of manners, the word itself meaning crookedness.

In fact, this hadith refers to a certain peculiarity of woman, viz. her affectation of displeasure and coquetry. This "crookedness" has been spoken of in the hadith as the highest or the best trait in her character, and those, who take affectation of anger on her part as an expression of her real anger and begin to deal harshly with her for that reason, in fact destroy woman’s most attractive and winning feature.

The verse places "the fear of God", side by side with "respect for the ties of relationship", thus emphasizing the importance of good treatment of relatives, on which the Quran lays so much stress. The Holy Prophet used to recite this verse when delivering a marriage sermon in order to remind the parties of their duties to one another.

Important Words:

بھتان (lying) is the noun-infinitive from بھت. They say بھته i.e. he slandered him or accused him falsely; or he did so in such a manner as to make him confounded at the falsity of the charge. بھتان therefore means, a calumny, slander or false accusation; falsehood by reason of which one is perplexed or confounded and is rendered unable to see his right course; a false accusation of adultery against a woman (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that man can divorce his wife at will. Anas, a Companion of the Holy Prophet, relates that once Abu Ayyub and Abu Talha wanted to divorce their wives (without valid reason) and asked the Holy Prophet about it. He counselled them not to do so, characterizing their act as an act of injustice. Thereupon, they abandoned their intention of divorcing their wives and retained them. This does not mean that a husband cannot divorce his wife without obtaining the permission of the authorities; he can do so, if he so desires; but he will certainly be accountable before God if he does so without valid reason. Elsewhere the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "Surely of the things sanctioned by the Law of Islam the most hateful in the sight of God is divorce" (Dawud, ch. on, Talaq).

If for some special reason a man wishes to divorce one wife and marry another, he is not allowed to take back from the former what he has already given her, no matter however big the sum may be. If he does so, he will be guilty of infidelity and sin.

4:123; 16:30; 14:24; 22:24; See lso 2:26.

13:36; 56:31.

Commentary:

The word مطھرة (pure) does not literally mean "pure" but "made pure," signifying that the spouses whom pious believers will have in Heaven will be made as highly pure as the environment of Heaven demands.

The expression, pleasant and plenteous shade, signifies an atmosphere of peace and calm, free from all pain-giving element. Elsewhere the Quran says: They will know there (in Heaven) neither extreme heat nor extreme cold (76:14).

Commentary:

The verse refers to another absurd custom of the Arabs. The Divine attributes "Wise" and "All-Knowing" have been mentioned here to point out that the people got entangled in these foolish beliefs and practices because they turned away from the Wise and Knowing God and followed false deities and their foolish devotees.