Search Results for "شُبِّهَ"

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.

Important Words:

البقر (cows) is the plural ofالبقرة (a cow). The word is used for both male and female (Aqrab).

Commentary:

See under 2:72.

6:38; 20:134; 21:6; 43:54.

This verse refers to two very unreasonable demands of the People of the Book—Jews and Christians: (1) That God should speak to them directly and tell them that the Holy Prophet was His true Messenger; (2) That they should be shown Signs of their own devising.

In reply to the first demand, the Quran says that only ignorant people, unacquainted with the ways of God, make such a demand. This demand was made in the time of all the previous Prophets and was rejected as foolish. So it was unreasonable on their part to demand from the Holy Prophet something which their own Prophets had not complied with.

In reply to their demand for a Sign, they are told that signs are sufficient for the guidance of right-minded people have already been shown and they could, if they so desired, profit by them, but nothing could avail an obstinate and perverse person. The fact that a demand for a Sign was made from the Holy Prophet does not show that no Signs had been shown by him. Indeed, if such a demand be considered as proof of the absence of Signs, no Prophet could be proved to have shown any Sign; for a similar demand was made from every Prophet of God, notably Jesus (Matt. 12:38, 39).

It may be also noted here that whenever disbelievers are spoken of as demanding an آیة or Sign, the word means either a Sign of their own devising or a Sign in the form of divine punishment (see 21:6, 7; 6:38-51; 13:28-33; 20:134, 135; 29:51).

11:2.

39:24.

7:54; 18:79.

4:163.

Important Words:

محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).

متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).

زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.

الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.

What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.

Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.

This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.

According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).

The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.

It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.

As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.

The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.

Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.

The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.

Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.

10:37; 53:29.

Important Words:

ماقتلوہ (they slew him not). قتله means, he slew him by striking him with a sword or with a stone or by poison or by any other means. See also 2:62 & 4:158.

ماقتلوہ یقینا (they did not convert this conjecture into certainty) is a peculiar Arabic idiom. The Arabs say قتل الشیء خبرا (lit. he killed the thing with certainty of knowledge and proper examination), i.e. he acquired full and thorough knowledge of the thing so as to dispel all possibility of doubt. So the words ما قتلوہ یقینا would mean, their knowledge regarding it was not comprehensive, or they did not know it for certain that he had been killed, or they did not convert this (conjecture of theirs) into certainty, meaning that they were not sure and they did not make sure whether Jesus died on the cross or not. In this case, the pronoun in قتلوہ would refer to the noun ظن (a conjecture) immediately preceding it (Lane, Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan).

In plain English, the words would mean that their knowledge about the death of Jesus on the cross was not so full and comprehensive as to have attained the stage of certainty. The expression may also mean that they certainly did not slay him or that they did not kill him as a certainty, i.e. they did not execute him in such a way as definitely assure themselves that life had indeed become extinct in him.

ما صلبوه (nor crucified him). The word صلبوا is from the root صلب. They say صلب الشیء i.e. he burned the thing. صلب العظامmeans, he extracted the marrow out of the bones. صلب اللص means, he crucified the thief, i.e. he put him to death in a certain well-known manner (Lane & Aqrab). In crucifixion one was nailed to a framework made in the form of a cross and, being kept without food and drink, slowly died of pain, hunger, fatigue and exposure.

شبه لھم (he was made to appear to them like one crucified). شبھه إیاہ means, he made it or him to be like it or him, or he made it or him to resemble it or him. شبه علیه الامر means, the matter was rendered confused, obscure or dubious to him. شبه علیه الامرmeans, he rendered the matter confused to him (by making it to appear like some other thing); he rendered it confused, obscure or dubious to him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This and the preceding verse mention two main objections of the Jews against Jesus: (1) his alleged illegitimate birth, and (2) his supposed death on the cross which, according to Jewish Law, was an accursed death (Deut. 21:23). The words, We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary—the Messenger of Allah, are spoken ironically and tauntingly, meaning, "we have killed Jesus who posed as the Messiah and a Messenger of God."

The argument of the Jews was that because Jesus died on the cross, he could not be a true Prophet according to Jewish Law. The inference was based on their sacred Scriptures; for, according to the Bible, he who is hanged is accursed of God, and a false Prophet shall meet with destruction. Says the Bible: "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance' (Deut. 21:23). Again: "My hand shall be upon false prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies" (Ezek. 13:9). Again: "Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in My name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land, by sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed" (Jer. 14:15).

On the strength of such verses of the Bible, the Jews claimed that, as Jesus had been crucified and met with destruction, he could not be a true Prophet of God, but was a false claimant and an accursed one.

Regarding the charge about the alleged death of Jesus by crucifixion, the Quran says that the act of crucifixion having not been completed, and Jesus having been taken down alive from the cross, the charge carries no weight. It should, however, be noted that the Quran does not deny the mere hanging of Jesus on the cross; it only denies his death on it.

Two different views prevail among the Jews regarding Jesus’ alleged death by crucifixion. Some of them hold that Jesus was first killed and then his dead body was hung on the cross, while others are of the view that he was put to death by being fixed to the cross. The former view is reflected in Acts, 5:30 where we read "which ye slew and hanged on a tree." The Quran refutes both these views by saying, they slew him not, nor crucified him. The words may also signify that the Quran first rejects the slaying of Jesus in any form, and then proceeds to deny the particular way of killing by hanging on the cross.

The verb شبه (in the passive voice) means, he was made to appear like, or was made to resemble. Now the question arises, who is the person who was made to appear "like one crucified." Clearly, it was Jesus whom the Jews tried to crucify or slay. Nobody else can be meant here, for there is absolutely no reference to any other person in the context. Hence, the theory invented by certain commentators that Judas or somebody else was made to appear like Jesus and was then crucified in his place is simply absurd. The context cannot be so twisted as to make room for somebody else of whom no mention at all is made in the verse.

To what then was Jesus made like? The context provides a clear answer to that question. The Jews did not kill him by crucifixion, but he was made to appear to them like "one crucified", and thus it was that they wrongly took him for dead. It was thus Jesus who was made to resemble "one crucified." This interpretation is not only in perfect harmony with the context, but is also clearly borne out by all relevant facts of history.

The second meaning of the expression شبه لھم is, as explained under Important Words, that "the matter became confused to them." This interpretation is also clearly borne out by history; for, although the Jews asserted that they had put Jesus to death by suspending him on the cross, they were not sure of it and the circumstances being obscure, the matter had certainly become confused to them. The fact that the Jews themselves were not sure whether Jesus had actually died on the cross is supported by the Bible and by all authentic historical facts.

The statements made in this verse are clearly substantiated by the following facts narrated in the Gospels:

(1) Jesus had himself predicted his escape from death on the cross, saying, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40). Now it is an accepted fact that Jonah had entered the whale’s belly alive and had come out alive; so, according to his own prophecy, Jesus was to enter the heart of the earth, (i.e. his tomb) alive and was to come out of it alive.

(2) The trying magistrate (Pilate) believed Jesus to be innocent and, being sympathetic, was anxious to save his life (Matt. 27:17, 18; Mark 15:9, 10, 14; Luke 23:4, 14, 15, 20,22; John 18:38, 39); and he must have secretly tried to save him or at least connived at the attempt of others to do so.

(3) Pilate’s wife had seen a vision concerning the innocence of Jesus: "When he (Pilate) was set down on the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, 'Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him'" (Matt. 27:19). This message must certainly have influenced Pilate, and his wife must have also done her best to save Jesus.

(4) Pilate held the killing of Jesus in such horror that he actually washed his hands with water, saying that he was innocent of the blood of that just man (Matt. 27:24).

(5) Pilate did all he could to help Jesus; and the soldiers in charge also treated Jesus with kindness, apparently under Pilate’s directions. The following are some of the special favours shown to Jesus: (a) Every malefactor carried his own cross but another man was made to carry that of Jesus (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21); (b) Jesus was given wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh. This was intended to render him less sensible to pain. The two thieves who were crucified with him were not given this drink. When after sometime the effects of the drink were wearing off and Jesus cried with pain, the drink was administered again to render him unconscious of pain (Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; John 19:29, 30).

(6) The unconsciousness which followed the administration of vinegar was mistaken for death (John 19:30).

(7) Jesus remained on the cross for only about three hours (John 19:14. cf. Matt. 27:46) and according to Mark only for six hours (Mark 15:25, 33), and either of these periods was by no means sufficient to kill a young man like Jesus on the cross.

(8) When Joseph of Arimathaea came and craved the body of Jesus, Pilate "marvelled if he were already dead", and calling to him the centurion asked him whether he had been any while dead (Mark, 15:44).

(9) The soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, but the legs of the two malefactors who had been crucified with him were broken (John 19:32, 33).

(10) Jesus was not buried in the earth with the two malefactors but was laid separately in a spacious sepulchre hewn out of a rock and situated in a garden which was private property (Mark 15:46; John 19:41, 42).

(11) The Jews themselves were not sure that Jesus was dead; for they came to Pilate and besought him that his legs be broken (John 19:31).

(12) The doubt that Jesus was alive and might, with the aid of his sympathizers, escape from the sepulchre rankled in the minds of the Jews. They remembered also the prophecy of Jesus that he would show them the miracle of Jonah and would come out of the heart of the earth alive. So, influenced by such misgivings, the chief priests and Pharisees went together to Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, while he was yet alive—'After three days I will rise again.'—Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day. Pilate told them to make their own arrangements; "so they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch" (Matt. 27:62-66).

(13) In spite of the watch and despite the sealing of the stone, Jesus had left the sepulchre before the third day had dawned, when Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, came to see the sepulchre and found the stone rolled away and the sepulchre empty (Matt. 28:1-6 Mark 16:1-6), which shows that the men set to watch were also in league with, and won over by, the friends of Jesus.

(14) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus moved about secretly, lest the Jews should have him arrested again (Mark 16:12 John 20:19, 26; 21:4).

(15) Mary Magdalene and other disciples actually saw Jesus in this body of clay (Mark 16:9, 12).

(16) Jesus showed them his wounds to assure them that he was not a spirit but a man of flesh and blood and that the body they saw before them was the same physical body that had been nailed to the cross (Luke 24:39, 40; John 20:27).

(17) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus felt hungry and partook of food with his disciples (John 21:5, 13; Luke 24:41, 42, 43).

The above references among others make it abundantly clear that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he was alive when he was taken down from the cross, and also when he was laid in the sepulchre, and that he came out of it alive on the third day at early morn, as he had himself prophesied, and that later he appeared to his disciples in secret and assured them that he was not dead.

(18) Jesus had said, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16). In these words he was obviously referring to the lost ten tribes of Israel who had scattered in Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc. In search of these Jesus came to the East after his miraculous escape from an accursed death on the cross, and among these he now lies buried in Khan Yar Street in Srinagar Kashmir. Conclusive historical evidence has established the fact that the holy occupant of the tomb in the Khan Yar Street in Srinagar is no other than Jesus, son of Mary. For further discussion of this important subject, see Masih Hindustan Meiń (Jesus in India) by the Promised Messiah, and R. Rel. Vol. II Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 published from Qadian, and the "Tomb of Jesus" by Dr M. M. Sadiq of Qadian.

14:33; 16:11; 22:64; 35:28.

6:142; 13:5.

Important Words:

متراکبا (clustered) is derived from رکب. They say رکبه i.e. he rode it or mounted it; it got upon it or it became superincumbent upon it. تراکب means, it lay one part upon another; it was or became heaped or piled up. So متراکب means, piled or clustered together one above another (Aqrab).

طلع (sheaths) is from the verb طلع (tala‘a), i.e., he or it rose or appeared or came forth. طلع is what comes forth from the palm tree and becomes dates; the spathe or flowers of the palm tree (Lane).

قنوان (bunches) is the plural of قنو which is derived from قنا . They say قنا المال i.e. he acquired and amassed property for himself. قنو means, a bunch of dates (Aqrab).

ینعه (the ripening thereof). ینع is from the verb ینع (yana‘a). They say ینع الثمر i.e. the fruit became ripened and fit for gathering; it (fruit, etc.) became red. یانع means, the ripe fruit. ینع is both the noun-infinitive from the verb ینع (yana‘a) in which case it means the ripening of a fruit, and the plural of یانع in which case it means the ripe fruits (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this verse revelation is likened to rainwater and the verse answers the question why there is discord and strife at the advent of Prophets, if revelation is indeed a blessing. The verse says that just as by rainwater all kinds of vegetation grow up, both bad and good, according to the seeds lying concealed in the earth, similarly at the advent of Divine revelation, men, so far remaining mixed up, become divided into good and bad. The good ones accept the Messenger of God, help him and become pious and holy, like trees which bear good fruit or like shrubs which bring forth beautiful flowers or like herbs which give out a sweet odour; but there are others—the bad ones—who oppose the Prophet, persecute his followers and act corruptly in the earth. These are like trees which bear bitter fruit or like flowerless and thorny bushes or like plants and herbs which give out a bad smell.

The words مشتبھا و غیر متشابه (similar and dissimilar) imply that whereas some fruits resemble each other, some differ from others. This may apply either to fruits of different kinds, which resemble one another in certain respects and differ in others, or to fruits of the same kind which, although resembling one another in the main points, differ from one another in minor details, some tasting sweeter than others and some varying in colour or size. The same is the case with those who believe in the Prophets and follow Divine guidance. Although they bear great resemblance to one another, yet there are differences between them, some being morally and spiritually more advanced than others. Again, some are advanced in one phase of spiritual growth, while others are advanced in another. Among the Companions of the Holy Prophet, too, we see that one became an Abu Bakr, another an ‘Umar, and another an ‘Uthman and yet another an ‘Aliand so on. They attained to different stages of spirituality and developed different phases, according to their respective natural capacities and dispositions.

The words, the ripening thereof, refer to an implied objection that might be raised by the deniers of revelation––namely, that even those who accept Divine revelation do not all become pure and holy. The above-quoted words answer this objection by pointing to the analogy of the ripening of fruit. The people are asked first to note the condition of fruits when they are yet unripe and then see how sweet and delicious they become after becoming ripe. Just as it is unfair to judge a fruit by an unripe specimen, similarly, it is unfair to find fault with the fruits of revelation on the basis of such individuals as are yet in the process of development and have not attained to perfection. The verse points out that in the beginning there are bound to be weaknesses and shortcomings even in believers, just as there is bound to be sourness in the taste of an unripe or undeveloped fruit. So it is not just to deny the usefulness of revelation on the basis of weaknesses that are to be met with in believers whose spiritual condition is not yet fully developed.

The verse most beautifully draws attention to three important points that can be deduced from the analogy of the various kinds of vegetation that grow as a result of rain: (1) that rain brings forth both good and bad vegetation (believers and disbelievers); (2) that even in good fruits (believers) some variety is to be found, i.e. points of similarity and dissimilarity; and (3) that in the early stage of development even good fruits are not sweet and may even be sour.

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

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

23:87.

25:4.

11:25; 35:20.

Commentary:

The words, who have no power for good or harm even for themselves, spoken about false deities point to a strange coincidence. Generally, the lives of all those persons who later came to be worshipped as deities were full of hardship and privation. Jesus, Imam Husain, Rama, etc., all led very hard lives. This fact seems to entail a strong warning to their misguided worshippers that they could expect no benefit or help from those who could not even protect themselves from harm or danger.

In the words, Can the blind and the seeing be equal?, disbelievers are told that they, being spiritually and morally blind, should not be deceived by their power and their numbers against the Holy Prophet, as even an army of blind men is powerless against one person who has eyes. The Prophet and his followers possess sight, while disbelievers are blind.

The powerlessness of the disbelievers is further brought home to them in the simile of light and darkness referred to in the words, can darkness be equal to light? Disbelievers are told that as darkness possesses no independent existence, being only the negation of light, it must flee before light. So disbelievers cannot stand against the Holy Prophet. In the last part of the verse disbelievers are challenged to produce anything which they think has been created by their false deities.

The Quran has used two different words to express the Unity of God, viz. (1) احد and (2) واحد. Whereas the former denotes the absolute Unity of God without relation to any other being, the latter means only "the first" or "the starting point" and requires a second and a third to follow it. The Divine attribute of واحد (One) is thus intended to show that God is the real "source" from which all creation springs. Although none of His creatures is similar to Him in perfection and He is Independent of all, yet everything does point to Him, just as a second or a third thing necessarily points to the first. The attribute واحد (One) has therefore been used here as an evidence of the truth of the previous statement, viz. Allah alone is the Creator of all things. As against this, where the Quran seeks to refute the doctrine of the son-ship of those who have been falsely given that status, it uses the word احد i.e. He Who has ever been One and alone and has begotten no child (112:2).

The addition of the attribute of "Most Supreme" to "One" signifies that God does not need the help or assistance of any being for the control and governance of the universe He has brought into existence, because He is not only the source of all things but is also Supreme and Powerful over them. Hence it is useless and absurd for disbelievers to worship their false deities.

15:88.

17:98.

Important Words:

متشابھا (mutually supporting) is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. See also 3:8.

مثانی (repeated in diverse forms) is derived from ثنی. They say ثناہ i.e. he doubled it, or folded it. ثناہ (thanna-hu) means, he made it two or called it two; he repeated it (Lane & Aqrab). See also 15:88.

تقشعر (creep) is aorist from اقشعر which means, he or it quaked, shuddered or tumbled; it (the skin) dried up. اقشعر الشعرmeans, the hair stood upon end on account of fear or cold. They say أخذته قشعریرة i.e. a tremor of the skin seized him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The Quran is the last heavenly Message. Divine revelation has found completest and most perfect expression in it. In the verse under comment the Quran has been described as کتابا متشابھا which means that it is a Book which is susceptible of different interpretations but these interpretations are consistent and support each other. There is no contradiction or inconsistency anywhere in the Quran. This constitutes one of its inimitable excellences. Another excellence of the Quran lies in the fact that it has made extensive use of metaphors, allegories and parables. This greatly adds to the beauty and grace of its style and assures vastness of meaning in the fewest possible words. Again, the Quran is called مثانی which signifies that it describes its basic beliefs and principles repeatedly and in various ways and forms, in order to emphasize their importance, necessity and purpose.

The word also signifies that some of the teachings of the Quran resemble those of other revealed Scriptures and some are new and unapproachable and incomparable in their excellences and beauties.