وَلَدًا

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

30:27.

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:57.

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

18:5; 19:36, 93; 25:3; 72:4.

Commentary

This verse which is the last of the present Surah, contains an implied reference to the subject of اسراء (the Night Journey) mentioned in v. 2 of this chapter. It means to say that God would bring about the fulfilment of the promises implied in the Prophet’s Vision. The cause of Islam would triumph and idolatry would disappear from Arabia. This glorious triumph of Islam and the inglorious discomfiture of disbelief and idolatry would completely demolish the false doctrines of the Trinity and plurality of Godhead. The ultimate and complete defeat of these false doctrines, prophesied by an unknown and poor man of Mecca without means and power, at a time when there were no ostensible prospects of such a prophecy being fulfilled, would show that God Who had made this prophecy through His Prophet was the One True God Who had no son or partner.

17:112; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 72:4.

Commentary:

It is worthy of special note that the Quran is first spoken of as 'giving warning', next as 'giving glad tidings' (v. 3) and then again as 'giving warning' as in the present verse. Disbelievers have been warned twice and in between these two warnings the believers have been given glad tidings. This seems rather strange and the words appear to have been used haphazardly. But it is not so. They serve a very useful purpose. The two 'warnings' and the one 'glad tidings' point to three important periods of the history of Islam. The first 'warning' mentioned in v. 3 pertains to the disbelievers of Mecca and all those people in the time of the Holy Prophet who had rejected his Message and were punished for their rejection and opposition. The 'glad tidings' spoken of in the same verse applies to Muslims who after their enemies had been destroyed enjoyed Divine favours for a very long time and this fulfilled the Divine promise embodied in the words, "Wherein they shall abide forever." For long centuries Muslims ruled over a large part of the globe and enjoyed great power and prestige. The 'second warning' embodied in the present verse refers to Christian nations of "the latter days" and implies a prophecy that after Muslims had enjoyed power and dominion for a long time, their glory would depart and Christian nations would again come into their own and spread over the entire world and would prove as a bar sinister to the expansion of Islam. These present-day Christian nations of the west have been warned of a severe punishment that is in store for them in the words, that it may warn those Who say, Allah has taken unto Himself a son. Thus this giving of warnings twice and interspersing these two warnings with glad tidings for Muslims implied three great prophecies viz. (a) the discomfiture and destruction of the Holy Prophet’s opponents in his own time; (b) the phenomenal rise of Muslims to power and glory and, after the departure of Muslim glory, (c) the punishment that is in store for the nations who say that Allah has taken unto Himself a son. The signs of this Divine punishment are already becoming too manifest to be overlooked.

Commentary:

The verse bespeaks the sympathy the Muslim has with his Christian companion. The heart of a true Muslim is full of the milk of human kindness.

18:35; 74:13-14.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that the disbeliever sets great store by his wealth and children and takes great pride in them. "The disbeliever" in the verse represents the disbelieving proud nations of the west.

2:117; 4:172; 6:101-102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that the so-called followers of Jesus think that he will intercede for them. How could this be possible when he was a strict believer in the Oneness of God and they ascribe partners to the Almighty which is a heinous sin. They possess no likeness with him while one of the most important conditions of intercession is that the person for whom intercession is sought must be like him who is to make the intercession.

2:117; 4:172; 10:69; 37:152-155.

Commentary:

The Surah contains a most emphatic and clear denunciation of Christian dogmas, particularly the basic doctrine that Jesus is son of God, from which all other dogmas flow. In the present and preceding four verses special stress has been laid on the refutation and condemnation of this dogma. It is worthy of special note that the Divine attribute "Rahman" has been repeatedly referred to in this Surah—it has been mentioned as many as sixteen times. As the fundamental dogma of the sonship of Jesus and its corollary, the dogma of Atonement, involve a denial of the Divine attribute "Rahman" and as the central theme of this Surah is the refutation of this dogma, this attribute inevitably has been repeatedly referred to. The dogma of Atonement implies that God cannot forgive the sins of men whereas the Divine attribute "Rahman" implies that He can and actually often does forgive them, hence its repetition in this Surah.