دَّمَ

62:8.

Commentary:

In verses 95 and 96 Jews are invited to join with Muslims in what is termed a مباھلة or prayer contest. They are called upon to pray to God in the company of Muslims for the death or destruction of the party with which God is displeased on account of its espousal of the cause of falsehood. If Jews are really the favourites of God and Muslims are under His wrath, the latter, as a result of the prayer contest, will surely meet with ruin, and thus it will become clear which of the two parties is on the side of truth. The only evidence which in this world can prove the truth of any of the conflicting claims regarding the next life made by the different religious systems is that the promises held out about the next life should in part at least begin to fulfil themselves in this very life. If, in such a prayer contest as the above, God were to show His favour to the Jews, it would furnish a clear proof that His favours would accompany them also in the next life.

The Quran adds that Jews will never venture to accept the challenge, for they are well aware of their actions and the motives that guide them.

For a fuller description of the institution of Mubahalah or prayer contest see under 3:62.

5:4; 6:146; 16:116.

Important Words:

المیتة (that which dies of itself) is derived from مات i.e. he died. میتة means: (1) an animal that has died a natural death (Aqrab); (2) an animal that has not been slaughtered in a manner prescribed by Law (Lane & Mufradat).

الخنزیر (swine). Authorities differ as to the derivation of this word, some deriving it from خنزر and others from خزر. The word الخنزرة means, hard and rugged land; or a clumsy, badly-finished axe. خزر الرجل means, the man looked with the hinder parts or outer angles of his eyes (Lisan). خزرت العین means, the eye was or became narrow and small. خزر الرجل means, the man looked from the outer angle of the eye; or he had a distortion of one of his eyes. The Arabs say: کل خنزیراخزر i.e. all swine look from the outer angles of their eyes. خزر المرء means the man affected or pretended to be cunning. الخنزیر means, the swine, the hog, the pig; a certain well-known foul animal the eating of whose flesh is said to be forbidden by every Prophet (Lane). The Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement says of the word خنزیر: "The very name of this foul animal contains an allusion to the prohibition of its flesh. It is a combination of خنز and ار, the first part meaning, 'very foul' and the second, 'I see'. The word thus literally means, 'I see it very foul'…What is yet more remarkable is that in Hindi this animal is known by the name سؤر which is similarly composed of two words, i.e. سوء and ار, the latter part being identical with the latter part of the Arabic word and the former being the exact equivalent of the first part of the Arabic form. The Hindi word, therefore, exactly means the same as the Arabic, viz. 'I see it very foul'…In Hindi this animal is also known as بد meaning bad or foul which is probably a translation of the original Arabic word" (Teachings of Islam).

أھل (invoked) is derived from ھل meaning, it (the moon) made its appearance; he (the man) cried aloud. اھل also means, it made its appearance; he called or cried aloud. اھل بالتسمیة علی الذبیحة means, he invoked or pronounced the name of God while slaughtering an animal. اھل السیف بفلان means, the sword cut into him ( Aqrab). اھلال which is the infinitive-noun from اھل means, to raise one’s voice aloud by way of exclamation, on seeing the ھلال or the moon of the first night (Mufradat). Thus اھل به لغیر الله would mean, on which the name of anything besides God has been invoked at the time of slaughter; or which has been cut or slaughtered for a being other than God.

اضطر (driven by necessity) is derived from ضر which means, it did harm. ضرہ الی کذا means, it forced him to resort to that. اضطره means, he compelled him against his will. اضطره الی کذا means, he compelled him against his will to have recourse to that (Aqrab).

باغ (disobedient) is derived from بغی meaning, he rebelled; he disobeyed; he committed a wrong. باغ is really باغی being the active participle from بغی meaning, one who disobeys; one who is rebellious (Aqrab).

عاد (exceeding the limit) is the active participle from عدا i.e. he exceeded the proper or the prescribed limit. عدی علیهmeans, he transgressed against him. عاد is really عادی meaning, one who exceeds the limit (Aqrab).

اثم (sin). The verb اثم means, he did a thing which was unlawful for him; he did a thing which made him deserving of punishment. Thus the noun اثم means: (1) anything unlawful, i.e. a sin; (2) anything which makes a person deserving of punishment (Aqrab); (3) anything that pricks the mind as something evil (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse speaks only of food that is حرام or unlawful. It makes no mention of طیبات or pure and wholesome things to which reference has already been made in the preceding verse. It should not be supposed that the four things mentioned in this verse are the only things prohibited in Islam. As a matter of fact, Islam prohibits the use of many things; but they are divided into grades or classes, some of them being حرام or unlawful and others being ممنوع or simply forbidden. The verse under comment mentions only the former class. The forbidden things have been stated by the Holy Prophet and are mentioned in Hadith. They must not be used by the Faithful but they cannot be called حرام or unlawful. In fact, there is a great difference between unlawful (حرام) and forbidden (ممنوع) things. Islam recognizes due difference in the importance of different things, and so all prohibitions cannot be classed together and treated as of equal importance. The use of حرام or an unlawful thing has a great and direct bearing on the moral and spiritual development of man but it is not so with a ممنوع or forbidden thing which stands on a lower level of importance, though both are prohibited.

Among the things declared حرام or unlawful in this verse, the injuriousness of consuming blood and the flesh of a dead animal as food has been recognized by most authorities on medicine. The use of the flesh of swine has also proved to be injurious not only to the physical health of man, but also to his moral and spiritual health. The swine eats filth and takes delight in living in dirty places. It has indecent habits and possesses the evil trait of sex-perversion. Tape-worms, scrofula, cancer and encysted trichina are known to be more prevalent among pork-eating peoples. The use of pork also causes trichinosis.

The clause, and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked, refers to that animal at the time of whose slaughter the name of any deity other than Allah is invoked or that animal which is slaughtered with a view to winning the pleasure of an idol or a saint etc., even though the name of Allah may have been mentioned while slaughtering it. Hence, all such animals as are sacrificed in order to propitiate a false deity or a saint, or any food that is cooked as an offering to a deceased person have been condemned as unlawful. Such foods are spiritually harmful. The incentive to these offerings is شرك (i.e. idolatry) and شرك is tantamount to rebellion against God.

In spite of the fact that the above mentioned things have been declared to be unlawful, the verse goes on to say that if for want of food the very life of a person should be in danger, considerations of the preservation of human life must temporarily prevail over other considerations. This is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Hence the verse very wisely makes an exception in case of a real and urgent necessity when no other food is available and one is in real danger of losing one’s life if one does not use the unlawful food. In fact, of the four unlawful things, the first three have been declared unlawful mostly on the basis of the fact that they are injurious to physical and moral health, and it is certainly wise to permit their use in case of urgent necessity when there is real danger to life. As for the fourth thing, i.e. a food consecrated to any other being beside Allah, it is evident that it is not injurious intrinsically. It is injurious only from the point of view of faith. Therefore when such a thing is used merely to save one’s life, which may be so usefully employed in the service of religion, there can be no real objection in eating it, because this extremely rare act cannot be considered as involving شرك or idolatry, particularly when it is performed with the sanction of God.

Permission for the exceptional use of such things is, however, qualified by two important conditions: (1) that one who resorts to this use must not be باغی (i.e. disobedient). There should be no lurking spirit of revolt or disobedience behind the act. The circumstances must be real and the condition genuine, and nothing should be done out of design and wilfulness; (2) that the user of unlawful food under exceptional circumstances should not become عاد i.e. he should not exceed the limit. He should confine himself to such quantity only as is absolutely essential to save life. Thus the exceptional use is permissible only at a time when one is under bona fide constraint and is in real danger, and then only to the extent which is absolutely necessary for saving life.

Though it has been declared in this verse that there is no sin in partaking of a prohibited food when no revolt or transgression is intended, yet as one might err in judging what is revolt or transgression and what is not, and thus be unconsciously guilty of breaking a divine commandment, the Quran adds the words: surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful, meaning that an unintentional deviation will be forgiven by the Merciful God. The clause also reminds a Muslim that though it has been made permissible for him to take unlawful food in exceptional circumstances, yet such circumstances may be due to certain hidden shortcomings of his own for which he should seek God’s forgiveness, and that if he does so he will find God Forgiving and Merciful. In this connection see also 5:4; 6:146 & 16:116.

8:52; 41:47; 50:30.

Commentary:

The expression, Allah is not at all unjust to His servants, falsifies the inference to which the statement of the disbelievers mentioned in the previous verse gives rise. They seem to say that if Islam had been true, God Himself would have helped it and would not have asked others to help it with their money. To this objection the answer is given that if the Prophet is an impostor and yet God is helping him to thrive and prosper, it means that God is doing a great wrong to the people by granting respite to an impostor and by allowing the people to be led astray by helping a wrong cause. But as God cannot be unjust, so the cause of Islam must be, and is, a right cause.

Important Words:

توفیقا (reconciliation) is noun-infinitive from وفق (waffaqa) which is derived from وفق (wafiqa). They say وفق امرہ i.e. his affair or case was right or agreeable with what was desired. وفقه لامر means, he disposed or adapted him to a thing or made him fit for it.

وفق بین الشیئین means, he effected an agreement or harmony or reconciliation or adjustment between the two things. وفقت بین القوم means, I effected an agreement or harmony between the people; made peace between them (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse may also be taken as generally applying to the case of hypocrites generally. An incident, however, is related in traditions in connection with this verse which, though not reliable, may be mentioned here. There was some dispute between a Jew and one who hypocritically professed to be a Muslim. The latter, thinking that the Holy Prophet would decide the case in his favour, proposed to the Jew that they should go to him for decision. The Holy Prophet, however, contrary to the expectation of the hypocrite, decided the case in favour of the Jew who happened to be in the right. Being disappointed there, the hypocrite proposed to the Jew that they should go to Abu Bakr, hoping that though the Holy Prophet had shown him no favour, Abu Bakr at least would favour him. But Abu Bakr also decided in favour of the Jew. Being disappointed a second time, the hypocrite thought that ‘Umar, who was a jealous Muslim, would never decide in favour of a Jew. So he proposed to his rival that they should go to ‘Umar for decision.

But ‘Umar, says the tradition, on learning from the Jew that the case had already been decided in his favour by the Holy Prophet, cut off the head of the hypocrite, because he professed Islam and yet would not accept the Prophet’s verdict. Thereupon the hypocrites gathered together and went to the Holy Prophet and told him that in going to ‘Umar the object was only to bring about a compromise and reconciliation (Muhit, iii. 279).

The words, We meant nothing but the doing of good and reconciliation, reported to have been uttered by the hypocrites, show that there was an intrigue. The incident, however, is highly improbable and lacks proper authority.

3:163.

Important Words:

سخط (is displeased). The word سخط means, he was or became displeased or discontented; he was or became angry. They say سخط علیه i.e. he was or became displeased or discontented or angry with him. سخط الشیء means, he disliked or became discontented with the thing (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this verse the word "disbelievers" stands for "idolaters". See note on 5:58. The clause بئس ماقدمت لھم انفسھم (evil is that which they themselves have sent on before for themselves) may also be rendered as "evil is that which their souls have brought forward, or brought to the forefront, for them", i.e. that which their souls have made to appear fair in their sight is really evil and foul.

17:102; 43:49.

Important Words:

القمل (lice) is derived from قمل. They say قمل رأسه i.e. his head became infected with lice or the lice abounded in his head. قمل القوم means, the people multiplied and increased in number (like unto lice). قمل فلان means, such a one became corpulent and big-bellied. So القمل (al-qaml) means, lice, etc., that infect the head or body of a person as a result of uncleanliness and filth. القمل (al-qummal) means, small ants; small insects like flies or mosquitoes having small wings and infesting vegetation and animals and men; the word has also been taken to mean lice, etc. (Aqrab & Lisan).

مفصلات (clear) also mean, separate, distinct, etc.

Commentary:

This verse explains the two kinds of punishment mentioned in 7:131 above. Locusts and storms bring about famine, whereas lice and frogs and blood may cause disease resulting in loss of life.

The Bible mentions 10 signs, besides the signs of the rod and of the white hand:

(1) the turning of the water of the river into blood; (2) frogs; (3) lice; (4) swarms of flies; (5) the murrain of beasts; (6) the plague of boils and blains; (7) the plague of hail; (8) locusts; (9) the plague of darkness; and (10) the death of the firstborn (Exod. Chaps. 7–11). All these signs are included in the signs mentioned in the verse under comment. Thus the word طوفان (storm) comprises the plague of hail and the plague of darkness; جراد (locusts) expresses the plague of locusts; قمل (lice) comprises lice, the swarms of flies, the murrain of beasts and the death of the firstborn, because all these may be caused by infection carried through lice, flies, mosquitoes, etc. The sign of الدم (the blood) comprises the turning of the water of the river into blood as well as boils and blains. The sign of blood may also comprise the death of the firstborn. The turning of the water of the river into blood may also mean that the water of the river became vitiated so that it spoiled the blood of those who drank of it. That the river was actually turned into blood is negated by the Bible itself, for we read there that the water only became blood when it was sprinkled on the land (Exod.4:9). This only means that the water of the river became unfit for drinking purpose and it vitiated the blood of those who drank it. Similarly, the storms raised dust which in turn gave rise to lice. These signs seem to have been greatly exaggerated in the Bible.

3:183; 22:11; 41:47.

Commentary:

This verse further explains and provides a reason for the idea expressed in the preceding verse.

2:174; 5:4; 6:146.

Commentary:

See notes on vv. 2:169,174; 5:4; 6:119,120 & 146.

2:8; 6:26; 17:47; 41:6; 47:17.

Commentary:

These scoffers and mockers treat lightly the word of God and turn away from it and do not pause to consider that their plans, contrivances and designs have created only moral chaos, economic disruption and international rivalries. They have destroyed the peace of the world. But though all their schemes and plans have ended in complete failure and have added to the world’s chaos and disruption, they pay no heed to Divine guidance and thus belie their own experience that the rejection of Divine guidance never produces good results. What do these people who persistently refuse to see reason and do not make use of their God-given faculties expect except that these faculties should become rusted and corroded and that they should be left to their fate floundering in sin and iniquity?

3:183; 8:52; 41:47.