سُلۡطٰنٍ

3:152; 7:34; 22:72; 53:24.

10:21,103; 11:123.

Commentary:

This verse shows that one may follow one’s forefathers only if one has the support of reason and not otherwise. Blind and unthinking following is condemned.

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.

14:6; 23:46; 40:24.

Commentary:

As already stated, the present Surah discusses the history of only those Prophets whose peoples were ultimately destroyed. The present and the following few verses deal with Moses’ mission to Pharaoh and his people who rejected him and therefore met with destruction. The Surah makes no reference to the Israelites, for the obvious reason that they believed in Moses’ and became heirs to Divine blessings.

Incidentally, it may be noted here that the Biblical account of Moses as given in Exod. chapters 2, 3 & 4, differs from the Quranic description in several points:

1. According to the Bible, Moses was not cast into the river, but was concealed under a basket in the bushes by the side of the river (Exod. 2:3). According to the Quran, however, he was cast into the river (20:40). The name Moses, as explained in Exod. 2:10 supports the Quranic version, for Moses was so called because he "was saved from water." See also note under 2:54.

2. According to the Bible, the Egyptian who died at the hands of Moses was killed by him intentionally (Exod. 2:11,12), while according to the Quran, Moses did not strike the man with the intention of killing him. The man died only accidentally (28:16). Thus the Bible represents Moses as a wilful murderer, while the Quran acquits him of this heinous act.

3. According to the Bible, Moses saw two Hebrews quarrelling with each other (Exod. 2:13,14); while the Quran says that one was a Hebrew and the other an Egyptian (28:19).

4. The Quran differs from the Bible in the details of the incident at the well. The Bible says that there were as many as seven daughters of the priest of Midian at the well. (Exod. 2:16), while according to the Quran there were only two (28:24). Again, according to the Bible, the girls filled their troughs to water their father’s flock, but the shepherds came and drove them away (Exod. 2:16), while according to the Quran the girls kept themselves and their flock away owing to modesty (28:24). Again, the Bible represents Moses as standing up against the shepherds and helping the girls (Exod. 2:17), while according to the Quran, there was no standing up against the shepherds on the part of Moses; he only watered the flock of the girls (28:25).

5. According to the Bible, Moses was bidden to take his people out of Egypt without apprising Pharaoh of their flight. He is, in fact, represented as playing a trick on Pharaoh and deceiving him (Exod. 3:18). But the Quran represents him as being bidden by God to go to Pharaoh and ask him to let the children of Israel go with him (20:48).

6. According to the Bible, Moses bade the Israelite women to borrow from their Egyptian neighbours their ornaments, their gold, their silver and their raiment with a view to robbing them of their valuables (Exod. 3:22). According to the Quran, they were not bidden by God to take the ornaments from the Egyptians; they did so deceitfully and were themselves responsible for the deceit (20:88).

7. The hand of Moses, says the Bible, was white and its whiteness was due to leprosy (Exod. 4:6). According to the Quran his hand was indeed brightly white, but its whiteness was not due to any disease. It constituted a Divine sign (20:23).

8. The Bible represents Aaron not as a real brother of Moses or his brother from the side of his mother, but a brother in the sense that he was a member of the Levite family (Exod. 4:14). The Quran, however, represents him as a real brother of Moses, or at least his brother from the side of his mother (20:95).

9. According to the Bible, Aaron took part with the Israelites in taking the calf for an idol; nay, it even represents him as the very author of the calf-worship (Exod. 32:35). But the Quran exonerates him of this charge (20:91).

It is unnecessary to remark here that both reason and recent research in history agree that of the two versions the Quranic one is correct.

In fact, Christian writers themselves have admitted the inaccuracy of the Biblical account (Enc. Bri. under "Moses"). The writer of this article declares that a great part of the Hamurabi teaching has been incorporated in the Pentateuch. He also considers the Biblical account showing Aaron as having taken part in calf-worship as spurious and a later addition, and infers that there have been other similar interpolations in the Bible.

The word Harun (Aaron) has no significance in Hebrew. According to modern scholars, the name is to be found in the languages of North Arabia (Enc. Bri.). This shows that the Hebrews had, till then, some connection with Arabic, their original tongue.

7:72; 53:24.

6:58; 12:68.

2:84; 17:24; 41:15.

30:31; 98:6.

Commentary:

The verse draws attention to the great principle that the things which claim to be from God must be accompanied by some evidence of Divine authority and power. It is by this criterion that the claim of different religions to be of Divine origin must be tested. The religion which claims to be from God must show on what Divine authority it bases its claim. It does not stand to reason that a divine religion should depend on human and purely rational arguments for the demonstration of its truth. That religion which claims to come from Heaven must have heavenly evidence to support its claim. This is what is hinted at in the words, Allah has sent down no authority for that.

In the expression الدین القیم meaning "the right religion" i.e. a religion which puts into a right state the affairs of this world and of the next, the principle has been laid down that only that religion can be said to be a true religion which satisfies both the physical and the spiritual needs of man. It also points out that only that religion can be called "the right religion" which saves men from shirk or setting up equals to God. There is no doubt that shirk has proved a great hindrance in the way of human progress. How can a people who look upon elements which God has created for their service as objects of worship, examine and analyse them and put them to their service?

6:15; 12:102; 35:2; 39:47.

11:28; 23:25.

Important Words:

فاطر (Maker) is the active participle from فطر. They say فطرہ i.e. he clove, split, rent or cracked it; He (God) created it, or produced it or brought it into existence, namely, for the first time, it not having existed before; originated it; commenced or began it. فاطرالسموات means, the Originator or Creator of the heavens. Ibn ‘Abbas says, "I did not know what was the meaning of فاطرالسموات until two Arabs of the desert came to me, disputing together respecting a well, and one of them said, انا افطرتھا i.e. 'It was I who originated or began it.' " فطرالعجین; means, he made the dough into bread, or baked it, without leavening it, he kneaded the dough and made it into bread or baked it immediately (Lane & Aqrab). From the Quran it appears that there are four stages of creation: (a) the stage when nothing existed and the process of creation began for thefirst time, nothing having existed before; (b) the stage when matter had come into existence but had not yet taken a definite material form; (c) the stage when, as the result of combination, matter began to acquire diverse properties, the consummation of this process being known by the name of the law of nature; and (d) the last stage when, in accordance with the law of nature, the process of procreation or repetition in creation began, viz. man was born out of man and grain out of grain, etc. The attribute of فاطر (Maker) points to the second stage.

Commentary:

The verse gives the creation of the heavens and the earth as an argument to prove the Divine origin of the teaching given to the Prophets. The Prophets are here represented as saying to their opponents: "It is by the command of Allah that we preach. We say nothing of our own accord. How can you entertain doubt about the fact that God can send down revealed guidance? He is the Creator of heaven and earth, and it is unreasonable to think that, after having created man, He should have left him without guidance. Equally, it is inconsistent with reason to think that, whereas God has made ample provision for the material welfare and advancement of man by creating heaven and earth, He should have neglected to provide for his spiritual welfare."

The words, He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term, refute an objection of disbelievers that God was too dignified and exalted to invite humble beings like themselves to Him. They are told that it is indeed inconsistent with the dignity of God to call humble beings to His aid, but it is not at all below His dignity to come to their help. Nay, such an act is quite in keeping with His supreme dignity. God had therefore sent His Messengers that, through them, He might satisfy the moral and spiritual needs of man and grant him a new and higher life.

The expression, you are but men like ourselves;…Bring us then some clear proof, contains another objection of disbelievers that, if God at all was to have raised Messengers, they should have been beings befitting His dignity and not weak and humble men like themselves. The answer is given in the succeeding verse.

18:111; 41:7.

3:165; 6:125.

Commentary:

This verse constitutes a reply to the objections of disbelievers mentioned in the preceding verse.

The reply is to the effect that a Messenger of God who is sent for the guidance of men and to serve as a model or exemplar for them must be a man like themselves; for, without being a human being like themselves, he could not be a model for them. If he were a "co-partner" of God or a so-called "son" or an angel or any other superhuman being, he could not be a model for men. So God chooses of His servants whom He pleases. There is none to set limits to His powers and choice.

The words, And it is not for us to bring you a proof except by the command of Allah, do not mean that the Messengers of God could not adduce a proof in support of their claim. They are meant only to answer the demand of disbelievers that the Prophets should prove their power and superiority over them. They are told by the Messengers that power and victory all come from God and that, as human beings, they (the Messengers) possess no superiority over them.

15:43; 16:100; 17:66.

Important Words:

مصرخکم (succour you) and مصرخی (succour me) are both derived from صرخ which means, he called or called out; or he cried or he cried out vehemently; he called or cried for aid or succour or, transitively, he succoured or aided someone. اصرخ also means, he succoured or aided; he came to the help of. مصرخ means, aiding or succouring; or an aider or succourer (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

By uttering the words, I cannot succour you, Satan disclaims the possession of any power to lead man astray. It is indeed true that Satan has no power over man. He is only an instrument for the manifestation of man’s weaknesses, just as angels are instruments for the manifestation of his good qualities. In reality man is led astray by his own baser self, for, as the verse puts it, Satan only calls and it is man who obeys. The function of Satan is merely to make evil suggestions, just as the function of angels is to make good suggestions. Angels cannot make a man good, nor can Satan make him bad. They only show the way, good or bad, and man does the rest.

It may appear paradoxical on Satan’s part to claim, as he has done in this verse, that he asserted the Unity of God and disclaimed association with Him. In a sense it is true, because he who is conscious of God’s glory and has actually witnessed it cannot be guilty of shirk (setting up equals to God). Shirk comes into being when man accepts Satan’s evil suggestions and disobeys God. Satan may thus be likened to arsenic. So long as arsenic does not enter the system of man in toxic quantity, it is a valuable drug, but when man makes a wrong use of it, it becomes a deadly poison. Similarly, before Satan enters the spiritual system of man he is but a test-question and nothing more. Indeed, Satan is only an agent deputed to expose human weaknesses and frailties.

But here arises a question. If Satan has no power over man, why will he be punished with Hellfire? This question is answered in 7:13, where Satan is represented as having been created of fire. How can a thing which is created of fire be said to be punished when cast into fire? A burning piece of coal is not tormented when thrown into a furnace. This is why perhaps some of the mystics in Islam have held the view that it is not Satan, but his manifestations and vicegerents that will be punished. Satan, they say, is but an agent meant to try the mettle of man and only performs his functions.

21:25; 25:4.

6:145; 7:38; 10:18; 11:19.

Commentary:

By using the words "our people" the verse shows that the people to whom the Dwellers of the Cave belonged were idol-worshippers. Such were the Romans who worshipped idols.

20:43, 44.