تَرَ

2:87, 176; 3:178; 14:4; 16:108.

Important Words:

اشتروا (have taken in exchange) is derived from اشتری which again is derived from شری both having the same meaning, i.e. he purchased a thing or became owner of a thing by purchase. The word also sometimes gives the meaning of باع i.e. he sold a thing. The word اشتری is also used of a person who gives up one thing and lays hold on another (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The expression, who have taken error in exchange for guidance, means (1) that they have given up guidance and taken error instead; or (2) that both guidance and error were offered to them but they preferred error and refused guidance. Both these meanings apply here. According to the first, the verse would mean that originally everybody is endowed with a pure nature and the best of capacities (30:31; 95:5), but, owing to wrong training or wrongdoing, the original nature and capacities become lost. In this case "guidance" would mean the nature or capacities with which every man is endowed by God, and "exchange" would mean that, through improper use, people lose the God-given guidance, landing themselves in error instead. According to the second meaning, the verse would signify that through His Messengers, God communicates to man only truth and guidance, whereas Satan presents to him his own evil teaching. Wrong choice by man results in hisacceptance of error instead of guidance.

This traffic, however, brings the hypocrites no gain. They believe that by preferring the promptings of Satan to the guidance of God, they would reap a good profit in this life. But, says God, they will reap no such profit. On the contrary, they will be the losers and will suffer humiliation through their own wrong choice.

The words, nor are they rightly guided, point to yet another consequence of the wrong choice of hypocrites. They will not only suffer loss and humiliation in this life, but will also suffer punishment in the life to come, for being deprived of guidance they will not reach the goal. Thus the words, their traffic has brought them no gain, refer to the benefits that accrue to one in this life, and the words, nor are they rightly guided, refer to the end they will meet in the life to come.

The verse teaches an important truth. Every action of man is attended by two kinds of results, one immediate and the other deferred. A person who is detected in theft suffers punishment and humiliation in this life. This is the immediate consequence of his action. The deferred consequence is that, by the same action, he reduces his ability to find and accept the truth and guidance. Similarly, when a person does a good deed, the immediate result is that he is pleased with himself and rises in the estimation of others. The deferred consequence is that he increases his power of finding and accepting truth and guidance. It is the deferred consequences that are referred to in the expression, nor are they rightly guided.

6:40, 123; 24:41.

Important Words:

مثل (case) gives a number of meanings: (1) likeness or similitude; (2) state or condition; (3) reason or argument; (4) proverb, etc (Aqrab)..

اضاء (it lighted up) is derived from ضاء i.e. it or he became bright or lit up. اضاء is used both transitively and intransitively. Used transitively it means, it lit up or lighted up (the surroundings, etc.), and used intransitively it means, it became bright or lit up. الضیاء or الضوء means, light (Aqrab). In the verse under comment the word has been used transitively.

ظلمات (darkness or lit. darknesses), which is the plural of ظلمة i.e. darkness or absence of light, is derived from ظلم i.e. it became dark. The word ظلمة is also used figuratively to signify ضلالة i.e. error or ignorance, just as the word نور i.e. light is sometimes used to signify ھدایة i.e. guidance (Aqrab). ظلمة also means, affliction, hardship and danger. In the verse the word ظلمات has been used in the plural form in order to signify that the position or place spoken of is not only wanting in light, but is also ful1 of various dangers. In the Quran the word is always used in the plural and denotes different kinds of darkness, physical, moral or spiritual. In the moral and spiritual sense the plural form also signifies that sins and evil deeds do not stand alone, but grow and multiply, one stumbling leading to another.

Commentary:

The verse speaks of hypocrites who were unbelievers at heart but outwardly formed part of the Muslim community. The light of the Holy Prophet or the light of Islam touched their outside, but owing to the diseased condition of their hearts it could not penetrate their inside, which is essential for true religious conversion; so they remained virtually deprived of that light. "The kindler of fire" in the verse can mean either: (1) the class of hypocrites who kindled a fire for themselves, i.e. they accepted the light of Islam but when the light grew in intensity and lit up the surroundings, their hidden disease got the better of them and they lost the light and were left in utter darkness. In this case the Arabic text would read somewhat like this: مثلھم كمثل الذین استوقدوا نارا فلما اضاءت ماحولھم۔الخ i.e. their condition is like the condition of those who kindle a fire, etc. This reading would be quite correct according to Arabic idiom and the style of the Quran itself. Or, (2) it may mean the Holy Prophet of Islam who, under God’s command, kindled a fire or a light but then the class of hypocrites came into being, whom the light touched but did not penetrate. Though apparently in light, they were really deprived of it, and owing to the disease of their heart their deprivation grew as the light increased. In this case the Arabic text would read somewhat like this: مثلھم كمثل بعض اصحاب الذی استوقد نارا فلما اضاءت ماحوله۔الخ i.e. their condition is like the condition of some of those surrounding a person who kindles a fire, etc. This reading is also correct according to the Arabic idiom. In either case the people deprived of light are the hypocrites.

By 'a fire' is meant, the light of divine teaching and heavenly signs. This is corroborated by other passages in the Quran. In 28:30, 31, it is said that Moses saw a fire near Mount Sinai and, approaching it, he heard a voice, saying, O Moses, verily I, even I, am Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Elsewhere in the Quran divine revelation is compared to "fire" and it is stated that some human beings possessing extraordinary spiritual potency are near to being lit up even without divine revelation (24:36). Thus, according to the Quran, the word "fire" sometimes signifies the light of divine teaching and heavenly signs, and in the present verse the word has been used in this very sense.

According to Arab usage, the word "fire" is sometimes also used for war. In 5:65 the Jews are said to have lighted the fire of war. In this sense, the verse would mean that hypocrites conspired with disbelievers to wage war against Islam. But the war only served to increase the power of Islam, leaving the hypocrites utterly confounded.

The words, Allah took away their light, may mean that the wars tore away from the hypocrites the bright mantle of Islam with which they had disguised themselves. The wars not only failed to bring the expected victory to the disbelievers, but also helped to expose the hypocrites who betrayed themselves by failing to join up with the Muslims and share the perils of the wars with them. The gradual extension and elaboration of the teachings of Islam also helped the exposure. The more commands there were to obey, the more burdensome did obedience prove to the hypocrites.

The expression, left them in thick darkness; they see not, means that the hypocrites had fomented the wars in order to re-establish their influence but the actual result of these wars was the exposure of their hypocrisy and their consequent confusion and perplexity.

If the word "fire" means the light of Islam, the verse would signify that though the light of Islam touched the hypocrites on the outside, yet their hearts remained unaffected by it. God deprived them not only of the light of revelation with all its blessings but also of the light of conscience which He has implanted in the nature of man.

Commentary:

After considering the vices of the Jews in general in the previous verse, the Quran addresses the Jews of Medina in particular in verses 85 and 86. It is pointed out that in face of the clear injunctions to the contrary, the Jews of Medina had been killing one another and turning one another out of their homes. As explained under 2:18, there lived in Medina in the time of the Holy Prophet three Jewish tribes, the Banu Qainuqa‘, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Quraizah; and two pagan tribes, the Aus and the Khazraj. Two of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qainuqa‘ and Banu Quraizah, sided with the Aus, and Banu Nadir with the Khazraj. Thus, whenever these pagan clans were at war with each other, the Jewish tribes were automatically involved. But, if during a war any Jews were taken prisoner by the pagans, the former would collect money by subscription and ransom them. They considered it improper for a Jew to remain in bondage with a Gentile. The Quran objects to this course by saying that their faith not only forbids the enslavement of Jews, but also prohibits mutual warfare and murder in which they were openly indulging, and there could be nothing worse than to accept a portion of the Scriptures and reject the rest; for, when one accepts a portion of the Scriptures, it is proof of the fact that one is convinced of their truth. Thus rejection of a portion is clear evidence of a perverted mind. As regards the prohibition of the enslavement of Jews, the reader is referred to Lev. 25:39-43, 47-49, 54, 55; Neh. 5:8; and the Enc. Bib. iv, 4657. In accordance with these injunctions, the Jews of Medina used to have Jewish slaves redeemed, but it was absurd on their part to do so, because they themselves created the circumstances which led to their enslavement.

Verse 87 points to the fact that the Jews who opposed the Holy Prophet had entirely become worldly-minded, forgetting all about the next life. So they deserved no mercy, and there being no extenuating circumstances, their punishment would not be lightened.

3:113; 5:61.

Important Words:

بغیا (grudging) is derived from بغی. They say بغی الشیء i.e. he wished or desired or sought the thing. بغی الرجل means, the man transgressed or turned away from the truth, or he disobeyed or revolted against a lawful authority. بغی علیه means, he wronged him and continued long in the act (Aqrab). بغی علی اخیه means, he envied his brother; he wished that a blessing might become transferred from his brother to himself (Lane). In the text the word has been translated as "grudging" which is the same as "envying".

باؤا (they incurred) is derived from باء which means, he returned. باء به means, he returned with it. باء بغضب من الله means, he returned with anger from God, i.e. the anger of God came upon him; he incurred His anger (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

In this verse, we are told that the Jews rejected the Holy Prophet solely because he was of different nationality. The verse means that the Jews upon whom the truth has dawned and who have come to recognize the Quran as the very Book mentioned in their Scriptures are, out of sheer pride and obstinacy, impiously rejecting it, little knowing that, by so doing, they are hastening the ruin of their own souls. The truth is that they cannot bear to see a Prophet raised from among any people other than their own. They fail to realize that all alike are the creatures of God and there is no earthly reason why Prophets should appear only from among the Israelites.

The words باؤا بغضب translated here as, they incurred wrath, literally mean "they returned with (God’s) wrath" which points to the fact that though God called them to His presence in order to bestow on them His favours, they, instead of receiving favours, returned from His presence loaded with His displeasure and anger.

The words, wrath upon wrath, are used to signify that even before the coming of the Holy Prophet the Jews had incurred the anger of God by their rejection of Jesus and other iniquities; so when they rejected the Holy Prophet, they incurred wrath upon wrath, i.e. they added to their previous load of God’s anger.

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.

2:17; 3:178; 4:45.

Commentary:

The words ما اصبرھم علی النار i.e. how great is their endurance of the Fire, and similar other expressions are used in the Arabic language to express wonder on the part of the onlooker and tenacity and intensiveness of the relevant quality in the object. The expression, therefore, means that though the deeds of disbelievers are sure to bring down upon them the great punishment of Fire, yet they so tenaciously persist in their wicked course as to indicate that they are, as it were, possessed of great endurance of its torment.

4:12, 13, 177; 5:107.

Important Words:

خیر (much wealth) means: (1) good as opposed to evil; (2) wealth acquired or collected by fair and praiseworthy means; (3) much wealth or abundance of wealth; (4) a thing that all desire; (5) welfare and good fortune (Mufradat); (6) the existence of a thing in abundance and perfection; (7) horses, etc. (Aqrab).

حقا (obligation) is derived from حق and has been used in the verse in the accusative case, having something understood before it, the complete expression being حق ذالك حقا (Kashshaf). الحق means: (1) equity or justice; (2) right mode of acting; (3) an obligation or a duty; (4) a debt or anything that is owed; (5) a thing suitable to the requirements of justice, truth, duty, etc. (Lane). See also 2:148.

Commentary:

As disputes about inheritance are a fruitful source of quarrels, murders, etc., the Quran here suitably turns from the subject of retaliation to that of inheritance.

The word used here for "wealth" is خیر and not مال which is the ordinary word used in this sense. خیر means, "wealth acquired by fair and praiseworthy means". Thus by substituting the word خیر for مال, the Quran has also emphasized the necessity of being very circumspect in the acquisition of wealth which should be acquired only by fair and lawful means. Incidentally, therefore, it has been hinted that it is not lawful for a Muslim to make a will with regard to property that has been acquired by unlawful means; for such wealth does not really belong to him.

In 4:12, 13 the Quran fixes the shares of all those persons who should succeed to a deceased person’s property, according to the Islamic law of inheritance, and these in the first instance include parents, children, and wife or husband. In the presence of this law, the injunction given in the verse under comment would, at first sight, appear to be uncalled-for and unnecessary. As a matter of fact, those who believe in the abrogation theory, have actually declared this verse to be abrogated by the ones referred to above. But they are clearly mistaken; for the verse under comment makes an additional and necessary provision in regard to inheritance. Not seldom there come forward claimants who allege that a deceased person had bequeathed such and such portion of his property to them, and even witnesses are not wanting to support their claims. The rightful heirs, not knowing anything about it, naturally suspect the claim. The result is quarrel and litigation. Every Muslim is, therefore, enjoined to make a proper bequest at the time of his death that his property be divided among his heirs, i.e. parents, children, wives, etc., according to the Law of Islam, stating therein also the portion of any other individual who is not legally entitled to inherit from him but to whom he may wish to bequeath some of his wealth. Such a declaration made with the knowledge of his heirs and relatives is calculated to put a stop to much litigation. Such a provision is all the more essential in cases when the property or wealth is considerable.

The verse also throws out a hint that a Muslim should, before his death, bequeath a part of his property, not exceeding one-third, to such of his relations as have been debarred by Law from inheriting from him, for instance, distant but deserving relations, non-Muslim parents, non-Muslim children and so on. In such a case the remaining two-thirds will go to his lawful heirs. As to the restriction relating to one-third, it may be noted that the Holy Prophet has made it clear that no testator can bequeath more than one-third of his wealth to others than the lawful heirs. At least two-thirds of the property must go to the heirs (Bukhari).

Islam excludes non-Muslim relatives from the category of heirs to avoid complications. For instance, the near relatives of a deceased person might belong to a people who are at war with the Muslims or in open hostility toward them. In that case, to put money into their hands would be to damage the cause of Islam and injure one’s own interests. Non-Muslim relatives have, therefore, been excluded from lawful heirs so that they may not claim their part of the inheritance as of right. The Quran, however, instructs Muslims to leave to them a part of their property by a special will, so that, in case such property is not likely to be used against the interests of Islam, the former may in this way discharge the obligations they owe to the latter as kinsmen. Another reason for excluding non-Muslim relatives from the category of heirs is that generally non-Muslims do not in practice allow their Muslim relatives to succeed them as heirs. There is no sense, therefore, in allowing Muslim wealth to flow to non-Muslims where no such flow takes place the other way.

The verse serves yet another purpose. According to the Law of Islam, as generally accepted, the grandchild of a deceased Muslim is debarred from inheritance in case the former’s father has predeceased the latter. The Quran, therefore, directs that a portion of the property may be left by a special will by a dying Muslim for such of his relatives as are otherwise rightful heirs but cannot inherit owing to some of their near kinsmen having predeceased them.

The verse must not be understood to lend itself to the interpretation that the heirs whose portions have been definitely fixed by the Law, can be given more than their prescribed share. This is expressly forbidden by the Holy Prophet (Tirmidhi, ch. on Wasaya).

Important Words:

یؤلون (vow) is derived from the root لاآ meaning, he fell short; or he fell short of doing what he ought to have done; or he was remiss. آلی means, he swore. آلیت علی الشیء means, I swore to do the thing. آلیت لا افعل کذا means, I swore that I would not do such a thing. آلی من زوجه شھرا means, he swore he would not go near his wife (i.e. not go in unto her) for a month. ائتلی also gives the same meaning as آلی i.e. he swore, as in 24:23. ایلاء means, an oath or the act of swearing; and technically it means, a vow taken by a husband not to go near his wife (Aqrab & Lane).

تربص (waiting) is derived from ربص. They say ربص به i.e. he waited for a good or an evil to befall him. تربص means, he waited or he awaited, or he tarried waiting. تربص عن الامر means, he remained waiting and did not do the thing, i.e. he abstained from doing it (Aqrab).

Commentary:

After the two introductory and intervening verses in which the subject of taking oaths has been dealt with, the Quran now reverts to the original subject of conjugal relations. The verse under comment speaks of those men who vow abstinence from their wives without actually divorcing them. It is, in this connection, interesting to note that while approaching the subject of divorce, dealt with in the succeeding verses, the Quran first speaks of menstruation (2:223) which is a sort of temporary and partial, though unreal, separation. Then (as in the present verse) it speaks of real though indefinite separation. And then, as in the succeeding verses, it speaks of real though revocable divorce. And finally (2:231) it speaks of irrevocable divorce. A really wonderful order designed to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of divorce which Islam recognizes and retains as a sort of necessary evil.

As clearly stated in the verse under comment, Islam allows four months at the most to a person who swears not to approach his wife. During this period, he must either get reconciled to his wife and restore conjugal relations, or separation will be effected between the two. Islam would in no case permit indefinite separation without divorce, leaving the woman "suspended" as it were.

The words if they go back from the vow, surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful indicate that swearing abstinence from one’s wife is reprehensible in the sight of God Who loves to see reconciliation between husband and wife. The verse thus abolishes the custom of ایلاءwhich was prevalent among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and by which it was sought to deprive women of their conjugal rights for long and indefinite periods.

2:235; 65:5.

4:35.

Important Words:

قروء (courses) is the plural of قرء which is derived from قرأ. They say قرأ الشیء i.e. he collected or put together the thing. قرأت الناقة means, the she-camel became pregnant. قرأت الحامل means, the pregnant woman gave birth to a child. قرات المرأة or اقرأت المرأة means, the woman became pure from menstrual discharge. اقرأت المرأة also means, she menstruated, thus giving contrary meanings. قرء (Qur’un or Qar’un), means: (1) a time, and this is the primary significance of the word, as we say ھبت الریح لقرئھا i.e. the wind blew at its fixed time; (2) menstruation; (3) period or state of purity preceding and following a menstrual discharge, i.e. the period between two menstruations; thus the word gives contrary meanings; (4) termination of a menstruation (Aqrab & Lane). The word قرء is also sometimes applied to the period of menstruation and that of purity taken together, i.e. the whole month (Muhit). According to Raghib قرء means the time or state when a woman leaves her state of purity and enters that of menstruation (Mufradat).

ارحام (wombs) is the plural of رحم (rihm or rahim) which is from the verb رحم. They say رحمه i.e. he showed him mercy, he was tender towards him. رحمت المرأة means, the woman had complaint of the womb after childbirth. رحم (rahim) or رحم(rihm) means, (1) womb; (2) relationship, particularly by the female side. The expression اولواالارحام or ذوالارحام means, relatives or kinsmen. In Muslim jurisprudence the expression signifies such relations as are not direct heirs (Lane).

بعولة (husbands), like بعول, is the plural of بعل. They say بعل الرجل i.e. the man became a husband. بعلت المرأة means, the woman married and had a husband. بعل is like زوج meaning, both a husband and a wife, i.e. a partner in life; but the significance of husband is more common. The word also means, lord, master or owner of a thing; or a person in authority. The Arabs sometimes gave the name بعل to their idols also (Lane & Mufradat).

المعروف (equity) is a common Arabic word which has been freely used in the Quran as well as the Hadith. The word is derived from عرف. They say عرفه i.e. he knew it either by means of the five senses or by mental perception, as by reflection, or by consideration of the effect of a thing on the mind; he recognized it. المعروف means, (1) a known or commonly known thing; (2) an action or thing the goodness of which is known by reason, i.e. equity; (3) an action or thing the goodness of which is known by the law of Shari‘ah; (4) goodness, kindness and beneficence; (5) liberality coupled with moderation; (6) good fellowship with one’s family and others; (7) sincere and honest word of advice, etc. (Lane). It may be noted here that while taking the oath of allegiance from would-be Muslims, the Holy Prophet always used the word المعروف asking them to solemnly affirm that they would obey him in all معروف things, i.e. not only in such things as formed part of the divine law of Shari‘ah but also in those which the Prophet held to be good by his own reason.

درجة (rank) means, (1) the various steps forming a set of stairs; (2) rank; (3) eminence (4) degree (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In view of the fact that divorce is the most hateful of all lawful things in the sight of God (Dawud), it has been hedged round by many checks and limitations. One of these checks is that a husband can divorce his wife only when she is clean i.e. in a state of purity, and he has had no sexual knowledge of her in her period of purity. After the pronouncement of divorce the wife must wait for three menstruations, i.e. about three months, which period is called عدة(‘iddah) or the period of waiting. This is another check, because this period of waiting gives to the husband sufficient time to consider the pros and cons of his action and to allow his love for her, if there is yet a dormant spark lying smouldering somewhere, to reassert itself. The third check laid down in this verse is that a divorced woman, if pregnant, must not conceal this fact from her husband, for the expected birth of a child is calculated to go a long way in bringing about reconciliation between the couple. The fourth check, as mentioned in the succeeding verses, is that for complete and irrevocable separation there should be three divorces. After the pronouncement of the first as well as the second divorce, and before the expiry of the period of waiting, the husband enjoys the privilege of taking his wife back, if he so desires. Even after the period of waiting is over, the couple can become reunited in the case of the first and second divorce by renewing the marriage tie.

The verse adds that as far as personal rights are concerned, the husband and the wife stand on a par, but in matters relating to discipline, the husband has superiority over the wife, i.e. in case of difference, the final authority is vested in him. The reasons for this are given in 4:35.

The divine attribute Mighty added at the end of the verse contains a reminder and a warning to the husband that he must not misuse the authority he has been given in household affairs, for there is the Almighty God over his head to Whom he is responsible for his actions. The attribute also provides a reason for vesting authority in the husband, who is the stronger of the parties. The attribute Wise brings home to the husband the fact that the vesting of the final authority in him is based on just and wise considerations, because wherever two or more persons live together, it is necessary that the wisest among them be appointed the Amir or the chief for the efficient running of their affairs and the uniformity of their actions.

A word here about the significance of قرء seems essential. As explained under Important Words, this word gives two distinct and contrary meanings, i.e. (1) menstruation; and (2) the period of purity between two menstruations. This has given rise to much difference of opinion among scholars of Muslim jurisprudence; Abu Bakr and ‘Umar among the Companions of the Holy Prophet and Abu Hanifah and Ahmad bin Hanbal the Imams of jurisprudence have held the view that by using the word قرء

the Quran means menstruation and not the period of purity. On the contrary, ‘A’ishah (wife of the Holy Prophet) and Ibn ‘Umar among the Companions, and Malik and Shafi‘i among the Imams of jurisprudence have held the opposite view (Muhit). Opinions being so balanced, it would be open to a Muslim to take either of the two views, but a collective survey of relevant arguments, which need not be stated here, leads one to the conclusion that the first-mentioned view is perhaps the more reasonable of the two. If, however, one should desire to be on the perfectly safe side, it is open to him to take the word قرء to signify the periods of menstruation and purity taken together, i.e. the whole month.

Important Words:

یتراجعا (return to each other) is derived from رجع i.e. he returned; the word is used to indicate the coming together of people after their dispersal or separation, as they say تراجع القوم i.e. the people returned to the place from where they separated or left (Aqrab).

یقیما (observe) is derived from اقام which means, he made a thing stand upright; he observed or duly performed a religious commandment or duty, etc. (Lane). See also under 2:4.

تنکح (she marries) is derived from نکح. They say نکح or نکحت meaning (1) he or she married a spouse; (2) he or she had sexual intercourse with his or her spouse. In the present verse the word is used in the latter sense. See also 2:222.

Commentary:

This verse refers to the third and final pronouncement of divorce after which the husband loses all right of reunion with his wife unless the divorced woman marries another man and establishes conjugal relations with him, and is then formally divorced by him or he dies, leaving her free to marry another man. By the inclusion of this provision in the law of divorce, Islam has, on the one hand, enhanced the sanctity of the marriage tie which must not be trifled with and has declared unlawful the evil practice of حلالة (halalah); and, on the other, it has afforded yet another opportunity to the couple who once had lived as husband and wife to become reunited if they so desired. The practice of halalah referred to above consists in a divorced woman marrying a man, other than her former husband, with the object of obtaining divorce from him and thereby making herself lawful for the former husband. Islam condemns this practice as a thing accursed (Tirmidhi ch. on Nikah) and enjoins that marriage with and divorce from another husband must both be genuine.