عَلَیۡہِمُ

3:113.

2:91; 3:113; 5:61.

2:88; 3:22, 113, 184; 5:71.

Important Words:

فومھا (its wheat). فوم means: (1) wheat; (2) any corn suitable for making bread; (3) garlic; (4) chick-pea (Aqrab).

مصر (a town) means:(1) a town or a city; (2) the frontier between two countries; (3) the thing that intervenes between two things (Aqrab).

یقتلون (would kill) is derived from قتل i.e. he killed. The infinitive means: (1) killing with a sword or with a stone or with poison or by any other means; (2) attempting to kill; (3) making up the mind to kill; (4) boycotting or cutting off all connections; (5) killing one’s carnal desires; (6) weakening the strength of a thing, as alcohol is "killed" with the addition of water, or hunger is "killed" with food, etc.; (7) humbling a person completely; (8) rendering a person like unto one killed either physically or morally or spiritually; (9) acquiring complete and certain knowledge about a thing; and (10) cursing a person or thing (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan)

Commentary:

In this verse another instance is cited to show how the Israelites made no effort to turn the favours of God to good account. When they were in the desert, God sent them Manna and Salwa. But soon after this they began to exhibit discontent with one kind of food and to clamour for a variety of grain, onions, salad and green-stuff (Num. 11:5-11). It may be noted that both Manna and Salwa taken together were considered one kind of food as they were taken continuously for a long time. It is further learnt from the Bible that the supply of Salwa was discontinued after a while and the Israelites were thus left to live on Manna alone (Num. 11:6). As the demand was not based on a right understanding of the wisdom of God Who wanted the Israelites to breathe the free air of the desert for a time, they met with disgrace and drew upon themselves the wrath of God.

God’s displeasure with the Israelites was not due to their demand for other food. The real cause lay elsewhere. Having lived for a long time in bondage and a state of dependence, they had become cowardly and indolent. So God wished them to stay in the desert for sometime, living on game and wild herbs, that they might get rid of their cowardice and indolence by living an independent life in the desert. Thus revitalized, they were to be led to the Promised Land and made rulers of Palestine. The Israelites, however, failed to understand the real purpose of God or having understood it, failed to appreciate it, and foolishly insisted upon living in a town. God pointed out their error, saying that they had asked for a life of agriculture in preference to what was to lead them to sovereignty. He wanted to prepare them for rule over the Promised Land, but they hungered for husbandry. So He indignantly ordered them to go down to a town where they would get the desired things.

The Israelites deserved punishment, because their impatience was the outcome of a want of faith in the promise of God. This lack of faith in God was due to their opposition to His Prophets and, disbelief in His Signs, and they opposed the Prophets because they were transgressors and evildoers. The Prophets invited them to guidance and virtue which they disliked, and, as a result, they opposed them. Thus the Quran admirably traces the causal sequence of every evil to its origin and strikes at its very root so as to prevent all possibility of recurrence.

The words, we will not remain content with one kind of food, contain a threat and are full of arrogance. If the Israelites had meant simply to express a wish, the words would have been "we are unable to remain content with one kind of food," and not as they stand in the Quran. The Bible gives a vivid picture of their insolent and almost rebellious attitude on this occasion (Num. 11:5-15).

The words یقتلون النبیین translated in the verse as "would kill the Prophets" do not mean that the Israelites actually killed the Prophets, because, up to the time of Moses, no Prophet is known to have been slain by them. As a matter of fact, Moses is the first Prophet who was sent to the Israelites as a nation. Thus Moses and his brother, Aaron, are the only persons to whom the words can be applied; but obviously these two Prophets were not killed by the Israelites, although the latter often opposed them and were sometimes even bent upon killing them (Exod. 17:4). Hence, the word قتل in the verse cannot possibly mean actual killing. Its only meaning here is that they severely opposed the Prophets and were even prepared to kill them. This interpretation finds corroboration not only in Arabic lexicons, for which see Important Words, but the Quran itself supports it in a number of verses where the word قتل has been used undoubtedly, not in the sense of actual killing but in that of attempting to kill or intending to kill (3:22 and 40:29). Bukhari also relates a tradition to the effect that once certain hot-headed Quraish youths brutally assaulted the Holy Prophet in the precincts of the Ka‘bah, whereupon Abu Bakr rushed to his rescue, saying, اتقتلون رجلا ان یقول ربی الله "Do you kill a man because he says Allah is his Lord and Master?" (chapter on Tafsir). In this hadith the word قتل is clearly used in the sense of attempting to kill or intending to kill and not actual killing.

It will not be out of place to point out here that the purport of verse 2:59 discussed above is altogether different from the one under comment. Though in both of them God apparently orders the Israelites to go to some habitation, yet the meaning is entirely different, rather quite the opposite in each case. As a matter of fact, whereas in verse 2:59 God Himself willingly commands the Israelites to go to some habitation, His ordering them to "go down into a town" in the verse under comment is expressive of definite displeasure and anger. In the previous verse the قریة or habitation meant only a habitation found in the desert by going into which the Israelites did not leave the free desert life but rather combined it with the facilities of a habitation. On the contrary, by "going down into" a مصر i.e. a town or city as mentioned in the verse under comment, they altogether abandoned the desert life and adopted a life of ease, as is led in towns and cities. Hence the difference. This is why the Quran uses the simple word ادخلوا i.e. "enter" in 2:59 and the word اھبطوا i.e. "go down", a term expressive of decline, in the verse under comment. Similarly, whereas in verse 2:59 the Quran follows up the commandment with the words eat therefrom plentifully wherever you like, in the present verse the commandment is followed by the words and they were smitten with abasement and destitution. The difference is apparent. The former expression is indicative of the freedom of life in the desert, and the latter of the suffocating atmosphere and mental slavery of towns and cities.

2:62, 67; 5:61; 7:168.

2:62, 92; 3:22.

Important Words:

حبل (protection). See 3:104.

المسکنة (wretchedness) is derived from سکن i.e. he or it was or became still or silent or motionless. مسکنة means, the state of مسکین; lowliness or submissiveness; lowness, abasement or humiliation; paucity of property; evil state or condition; weakness; poverty of mind, etc. (Lane). It also means disgrace and wretchedness (Aqrab) also loss of the power of movement (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse contains an important and far-reaching prophecy regarding Jews. They are forever doomed to disgrace and humiliation. They have ever to live in subjection to other powers. The history of the Jewish people from the time of the Holy Prophet up to the present day bears woeful testimony to the truth of this awful prophecy. In all countries and in all ages, the present age of enlightenment and toleration not being excepted, they have been the victims of bitter persecution and have been subjected to diverse kinds of disgrace and humiliation. Their practice of usury has also made them the hated of all nations.

The word حبل rendered here as "protection" is full of significance and is applicable in almost all its different meanings, for which see 3:104. Generally speaking, the divine rope, or in other words, "protection from Allah", refers to Islam; and "protection from men" refers to the protection of non-Muslim powers. The latter may be illustrated by the Treaty of Versailles, which afforded the Jews a temporary protection, while the former was made possible through a section of them accepting the Holy Prophet. In the present age, the Promised Messiah (Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam), whom God has raised as the saviour of mankind, is the emblem of protection for the Jews. They can save themselves by accepting him.

The word مسکنة rendered as "wretchedness" also signifies, humiliation, disgrace, and loss of the power of movement. All these have been the fate of the Jews. They have often been expelled from countries, and even today in Russia there are certain districts which they are not permitted to enter. The recent persecution of the Jews in Germany and other countries of Europe is only too well-known to need a reference.

The clause, kill the Prophets unjustly, refers not only to the attempt of the Jews to crucify Jesus, but also to their plots to kill the Holy Prophet of Islam.

The verse also serves as a warning to Muslims that if they rejected the Promised Messiah, who has come in the spirit and power of Jesus as well as of the Holy Prophet, and whose duty it is to preach and rejuvenate Islam, they would also be smitten with the same disgrace which has been the lot of the Jews for their rejection of Jesus and the Holy Prophet.

4:78.

Important Words:

الملاء (chiefs) is derived from ملاء. They say ملاء الاناء بالماء i.e. he filled the vessel with water. ملی رعبا means, he was filled with fright. الملاء means: (1) assembly of persons; (2) chiefs and nobles, for they fill the eyes and hearts of the commoners withawe and admiration; or because with them a meeting becomes full and appears to be properly attended. الملاء الاعلی means, the community of high placed angels (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The Quran now proceeds to give the story of how the different tribes of Israel were welded into one great nation, also noting incidentally the weaknesses displayed by them, so that their example may serve as a lesson to Muslims.

The incident mentioned in the verse under comment indicates an improvement in the condition of the Israelites in the time to which this verse relates over that of the time of Moses himself. In 5:25 the Quran relates that when Moses exhorted his followers to fight the enemy in the cause of Allah, they replied, Go thou and thy Lord and fight, and here we sit. On the contrary, in the present verse the Israelites are reported to have said, What reason have we to abstain from fighting in the cause of Allah when we have been driven forth from our homes and our sons? The improvement, however, was more verbal than real; for when the time of actual fighting came, many of these people wavered and refused to fight. The incident thus serves as a grim warning to Muslims to beware of treading the same path.

8:12.

3:169.

Important Words:

امر (government) means: (1) order or command; (2) matter or affair; (3) state or condition; (4) authority, government or management. اولوا الامر means, those who hold command or exercise authority (Aqrab).

قتل (fighting) being noun-infinitive means both to kill and to be killed. Another reading of the word قتل here is قتال(Muhit iii. 90 & Kashshaf) which shows that the word قتل (qatl) has been used here in the sense of fighting and not killing. The word has been used elsewhere also in the Quran in the sense of fighting (see 2:192). See also Jarir under 3:155.

Commentary:

The words, a slumber that overcame a party of you, refer to an incident connected with the Battle of Uhud. AbuTalhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and there was none among us on that day but was bending down his head with slumber." This incident has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others (see Kathir, ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a symbol of a peaceful condition, being a sign of hearts that are calm and at rest, the Quran refers to this incident as a sort of favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring height.

The reference in the words, the other party, is to the hypocrites who were at Medina and who had not taken part in the battle. When they heard of the reverse which overtook the Muslims and of the reported death of the Holy Prophet, they, in spite of rejoicing at the misfortune that had befallen the Muslims, became anxious about their own lives and feared what would happen to them in case the Meccans should attack Medina. The words cannot apply to the party of Muslims that took part in the battle, of whom the Quran says, He has surely pardoned you and Allah is gracious to the believers (3:153 above).

The words, Is there for us any part in the government of affairs? uttered by the hypocrites mean, "nobody listens to our opinion in matters of administration; we had advised the Muslims not to go out of Medina to fight, but our advice was ignored, with the result that they were defeated." The sentence might also mean, "now, (i.e. after this reverse) real government and power have gone into the hands of the idolaters and nothing has been left for us."

The words, All government belongs to Allah, signify that the decision in all matters rests with God; or that whatever might happen in the intervening period, God has ordained that eventually power and government shall be vouchsafed to Muslims, who will have dominion in the land.

The words, we should not have been killed here, mean, "If we had any voice in the management of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, our brethren would not have been killed in the battle," it being insinuated that while they were wise, the Muslims were simply foolish. The words may also be understood to mean, "if we were to have any government (as the Prophet had promised), we should not have been defeated in the battle." By saying so, the hypocrites hinted that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet regarding the triumph of Islam had turned out to be false.

It may be noted here that by saying, we should not have been killed here, the hypocrites did not evidently mean that they themselves would not have been killed. What they meant was that their brethren or comrades who were killed would not have been killed. This shows that by the slaying of one’s self is sometimes meant the slaying of one’s brethren or companions. This explains the words اقتلوا انفسکم in 2:55, and تقتلون انفسکم in 2:86. See also note on 2:55.

The Divine Words, If you had remained in your homes, refer to the hypocrites; and by the words, those on whom fighting had been enjoined, are meant the true believers. The injunction referred to is contained in 2:191.

In the clause, would have gone forth to their deathbeds, the word مضاجع (deathbeds) has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the true believers on the other. It reminds the hypocrites that whereas they returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the existing circumstances was sure death, such was the faith of the true believers that even if the hypocrites had kept back from the very beginning they would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield, or the place of death, as it was commonly thought to be. All this happened that God might purify and ennoble the Faithful.

2:247; 4:67.

14:45; 63:11.

9:38; 57:21.

See 4:50.

Commentary:

This verse refers to a class of men who show eagerness to fight when they are told not to fight, but when the actual time for fighting arrives, they refuse to fight or try to avoid it by various pretexts, thus showing that their former eagerness for fighting was either insincere or was only due to a temporary excitement.

The verse may also be regarded as referring to انصار (Helpers) of Medina who, before the advent of Islam to that city, were constantly at war among themselves. But when they accepted Islam, they were asked to cease fighting. When, however, they were called upon to take up arms to defend Islam, a section of them, who were always fighting among themselves before they embraced Islam, became afraid of fighting in the cause of God.

3:161; 5:12; 9:51.

Important Words:

علیھم (against them). The word علی as a particle has several meanings. Here it gives the meaning of "against" (Lane). The Quran says: ولھم علی ذنب i.e. and they have a crime or offence standing against me (26:15). In his Arabic Grammar, Wright says that the particle علی is sometimes used in "a hostile sense in which case it can be generally rendered as 'against' or 'upon', as in خرج علیه i.e. he went out against him or he rebelled against him."

Commentary:

The two "men" spoken of here are generally supposed to be Joshua, the son of Nun, and Caleb, the son of Jephunneh (Num. 14:6). But from the context Moses and Aaron appear more likely to be the two "men" here referred to.

The word رجل (man) is thus here expressive of manliness and courage. By using this word, the Quran means to say that of that big host of cowardly people there were only two men who were truly brave and courageous. That these two brave men were Moses and Aaron themselves may also be inferred from the fact that when these two "men" spoke to their people, and urged them to "enter" the land, the latter, in reply, addressed none other but Moses, saying, O Moses, we will never enter it so long as they remain in it (5:25), thus making it clear that it was Moses himself who had spoken to them the words contained in this verse. Again, when the people refused to obey Moses, he is reported to have prayed to God, saying, My Lord, I have power over none but myself and my brother, therefore make Thou a distinction between us and the rebellious people (5:26). Now, if the two "men" had been other than Moses and Aaron, they should have certainly been included in his prayer by Moses, because they had deserved it by boldly offering to enter the land in spite of resistance, exhorting others also to do so. But Moses prayed only for himself and his brother, which shows that the two men whom God praises as "men", (i.e. brave men) and of whom He speaks as His favoured ones were Moses and Aaron themselves. God does not name them but simply speaks of them as رجلان i.e. "two brave men" in order to praise their manliness and courage and at the same time to condemn by implication the cowardice of the other Israelites who were with them.

The expression, enter the gate advancing against them, possesses a spiritual connotation as well. For every person there is a "holy land", which is his goal and paradise. Allah has "ordained" this "holy land" for man (5:22) because he has been created for it. But the cowardly and the low-spirited are always afraid of entering it. They are too timorous to face "the rebellious ones", i.e. the evil ones and their own evil inclinations. They desire to enter Heaven without deserving it, without any exertion on their part, without facing and fighting their evil passions and without fighting those who stand in their way. They tremble and quail before the trials and tribulations that confront them. But here, too, God has created for every person "two men", i.e. two wise counsellors who encourage him and exhort him not to be afraid of difficulties and to follow undauntedly the path that leads to eternal happiness and everlasting bliss. These two counsellors are (1) human reason and (2) man’s pure and unsullied nature. These two go on telling man and urging him that he need only be up and doing and God will help him. He should boldly face trials and God will make everything easy for him, and he will come out of the struggle victorious and triumphant. Most men, however, wish that the power of their enemies should break of itself, but it cannot break without their using the weapon of self-sacrifice. "Forty years", as hinted in 5:27 below, is the time required by man to attain to perfect manhood. This is a sufficiently long time. If he does not mend his ways during this period and defies the dictates of reason and conscience, he is lost, and there is little hope for him. But if he makes up his mind boldly to meet the evil influences, he may be saved. He need only take heart and make bold to enter the struggle, and what appears to him to be a thick jungle of difficulties will turn out to be a garden, the seeming "Hell" assuming the form of a veritable "Heaven".

Important Words:

اَولیان (the two who were in a better position) is derived from ولی being the dual of اولی which means, one more worthy or more competent or more entitled or more deserving or better fitted or having a better claim to do a thing, etc. (Lane). See also 4:136.

استحقااثما (the two are guilty of sin) and استحق علیھم (against whom they sinfully deposed). The word استحق is derived from حقwhich means, it was or became suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right and truth; it was or became right, proper, correct or true; it became established as a truth. استحقه means, he demanded it as his right or due; he had a right or title or claim to it; he deserved or merited it. They say استحق اثما i.e. he did what necessitated sin; or he was guilty of a sin and deserved it being said of him that he was a sinner. The expression علیھم added the word استحق means "against them", the particle علی sometimes meaning "against". استحقھا علی المشتری means, he has a right to it in preference to the purchaser, i.e. he has a better claim to it as against the buyer. The words استحق علیھم therefore, would mean, they (the two witnesses who were in a better position to give true evidence) gave false evidence against their just rights, seeking to deprive them (heirs of the deceased) of their rights by giving false evidence against them.

Commentary:

See collective note on 5:109.

16:37; 22:19.

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.

43:50.

Commentary:

The words, according to that which He has promised to thee, may refer either to the promise which God made to Moses that He would listen to his prayers, or to the promise of God to forgive those who repented. The people of Pharaoh reminded Moses of these promises of God and asked him to pray to God in their behalf so that He might pardon them their sins and remove from them the punishments which had befallen them. The sentence may also mean, "pray for us to thy Lord, with the prayers which He has taught thee or in the way He has taught thee to pray."

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

5:13.

2:61.

2:58; 20:81.

Commentary:

See notes on 2:58 & 61.

The words, And they wronged Us not, mean that they did not harm the cause of the religion revealed by God

Important Words:

عرضا (gain) is derived from the verb عرض for which see 7:170. عرض means, any thing that happens to a man; an accident of any kind; a thing that is not permanent; frail goods of the world; worldly goods of whatever kind; property or wealth whether little or much; booty or spoil; an object of desire; a gain; a gift (Lane & Aqrab).

قاصدا (short) is the active participle from قصد. They say قصدہ i.e. he went to him or directed himself to him; or he made him or it his object; he sought or pursued him or it. قصد الطریقmeans, the way was direct or right. They say قصد الامر i.e. he pursued the right or direct course in the affair and did not exceed the due bounds therein; or he acted in a moderate manner. (qasd) قصد which is the noun-infinitive from قصد (qasada) means, the aim or course of a person; an object of desire; one’s intention or meaning; a right way or course; a right thing. قاصد means, near. طریق قاصد means, a direct or right way or an even road. سفر قاصد means, an easy and short journey; a moderately easy and short journey (Lane & Aqrab).

الشقة (hard journey) is derived from شق. They say شقه i.e. he cut or rent or split or broke it. شق علیه means, it (an affair) affected him severely; it was hard and distressing to him. شقة means, a piece of a garment; a far or long journey; a difficult road; a region or quarter in the reaching of which one is taken by difficulty and distress; distance (Lane).

9:106.

Commentary:

The reference here is to Ka‘b bin Malik, Hilal bin Umayya and Murarah bin Rabi‘a already referred to in 9:106. These were sincere Muslims but failed to join the expedition to Tabuk, and therefore the Holy Prophet, on his return to Medina, ordered their complete social ostracism. They continued under this interdiction for no less than fifty days, when on their sincere repentance, and after they had come out of this severe ordeal successfully, they were granted pardon, as mentioned in this verse. One of these three men, Ka‘b bin Malik, relates his own story, which may be summed up as follows "Hitherto it had been a custom with the Holy Prophet to conceal the object of an intended expedition to the very last. But the journey now to be undertaken was so distant and the heat of the season so excessive and the enemy against whom he was called upon to march so powerful that he thought it necessary to give his followers a timely warning so that they might be able to make the necessary preparation.

"I went to the market everyday to make the needful purchases, but came back without doing anything, thinking that I would do the necessary preparation next day, for I was well able to do so. In this way I went on postponing from day to day until the army started from Medina. Even then I thought I would be able to make the necessary arrangements next day and join the army on the way. But the next day also I did nothing and put off till the day following. The result of this procrastination was that the army had travelled such a long distance from Medina that I had to give up the idea of making any attempt to join it from behind.

"When I heard that the Holy Prophet was coming back to Medina, grief seized me. On his return to Medina, those who had remained behind came to him and offered false excuses for their absence. He accepted their excuses, pardoned them, and left their cases in the hand of God. I also went to him and saluted him and he smiled with the smile of one who is angry and asked me the reason of my absence. I replied, 'By God, if there had been another person in your place, O Prophet of God, I think I might have escaped his anger by offering an excuse, for I am clever in argument. But, by God, I know that if I tell you a false story, you will be pleased with me, but in that case the All-Knowing God will bring about circumstances which will make you angry with me; and if I speak to you the truth, you may feel angry, but I hope God will pardon me. 'By God, I have no pretext to offer for my absence; I was never stronger and never better off than I was at the time when I stayed behind.' The Holy Prophet said, 'As for this man, he has spoken the truth.' Then he said to me 'Go away, until God gives His decision about you.' On enquiry I learnt that the Holy Prophet had said the same thing to two other persons, Murarah bin Rabi‘a and Hilal bin Umayya. He laid all the three of us under an interdict, forbidding the Faithful to hold any intercourse with us. My two companions, who were old and weak, did not leave their homes. I was strong and healthy and went about from place to place but no one spoke to me. Everybody shunned me or regarded me with an altered mien. I sought the Mosque, sat down near the Prophet, and saluted him, but my salutation was not returned. While I was in this predicament, there came to me a messenger with an epistle from the King of the Banu Ghassan, expressing his sympathy with me in my present plight and inviting me to his court, where he promised to treat me with respect and honour. 'This is another trial', said I to myself, and repairing to a burning oven, I cast the King’s letter into the fire, saying to the messenger, 'This is my reply to the letter.'

"On the forty-first day came the further command that we should separate even from our wives, whereupon I sent away my wife to her parents, and was left all alone to undergo in its severest rigour the punishment meted out to us. My heart was dying away and the whole world appeared to grow narrow to me. My other companions also were in a pitiable condition. They kept weeping day and night in their homes. At last, on the fifty-first day, the Prophet of God received a revelation bringing the welcome news that God had turned to us with mercy and had accepted our repentance. A friend on horseback came galloping to me to be the first to convey to me the happy news, but another friend forestalled him by ascending the nearest hill and crying therefrom at the top of his voice; 'Rejoice, O Ka‘b bin Malik.' I concluded that I was pardoned and hastened to the Holy Prophet and found him in the Mosque. He received me with a radiant countenance and said 'Rejoice, O Ka‘b, for this is the happiest day that has ever dawned upon you since you were born.' My soul was lifted up from the depths of despondency and in the transports of gratitude, I offered my whole wealth in atonement of my error. 'Nay,' said the Holy Prophet, 'Keep a part of your wealth and give away the rest to be spent in the cause of God.' I also said to the Holy Prophet, 'It is through my speaking the truth that God has done me this favour. So I make a solemn promise that I will never speak but the truth so long as I live.' And by God, I have strictly adhered to this promise to the present day and hope God will help me to observe this promise in future as well" (Bukhari, ch. on Maghazi).

The above narration forcefully leads one to the conclusion that:

(1) The Holy Prophet kept strict discipline among his followers but this discipline was tempered with mercy;

(2) In spite of this discipline the Holy Prophet was loved and revered by his followers to an extraordinary degree;

(3) His true followers always strove their best to set an unparalleled example of sacrifice, devotion and piety.

25:61.

Commentary:

The previous two verses spoke of the people to whom God grants perfect peace of mind and who enjoy a truly happy end. By the words, Thus have We sent thee, the Quran means to suggest that God has raised the Holy Prophet so that he may, by his noble teaching and noble example, produce men of this type.

The verse draws the attention of disbelievers to God’s attribute of الرحمن (the Gracious) in a very striking manner. It says that whereas disbelievers demand immediate punishment, God continues to delay and postpone it. It is His attribute of Ar-Rahman which is at the root of this postponement, and yet disbelievers say that He is not Ar-Rahman. If God had not been Ar-Rahman they would have met their destruction long before.

The question also arises here, how could the Holy Prophet raise a stone-hearted people like the Arabs to the high standard of moral and spiritual excellence mentioned in the preceding verse? In reply to this natural misgiving, the Holy Prophet is bidden to say, "It is not my work, but God’s. In Him do I put my trust, and to Him will I repeatedly turn for help till this object is attained." The verse also draws our attention to the great spiritual lesson that real reformation, which is the purification of the heart, is brought about only through trust in God and constantly turning to Him in prayer. Those who seek to reform the hearts of men by physical and material means can never succeed. Material means can at best reform the exterior of men. It is only spiritual means that can engender conviction and purity of heart. This is why the so-called cultured and enlightened nations of the West have, in spite of their best efforts, failed to present that high standard of morality and spirituality to which the Holy Prophet raised his Companions, notwithstanding his utter lack of material resources.

39:26; 59:3.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that it was nothing new on the part of the leaders of disbelief in the time of the Holy Prophet to deceive their followers and thus to keep them ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. The same device was adopted by the opponents of former Prophets. But their machinations were never attended with success; rather they recoiled upon their authors.

The verse also implies an effective retort to the opponents of the Holy Prophet. They say that he merely repeats what was said by other Prophets before him. To this objection the verse retorts that the Holy Prophet’s disbelievers, too, are only copying and imitating what was said and done by the opponents of previous Prophets. Only they have chosen the wrong side, and have imitated the party which met its ruin.

It was not an ordinary ruin which overtook the opponents of past Prophets. They were destroyed root and branch. The very foundations of the edifices they had erected and the walls and the roofs thereof tumbled down upon them, that is to say, neither the leaders nor their followers escaped. So the leaders of disbelief are warned that they should not be proud of their following, because when the time came for Divine punishment, all their power and influence would be of no avail to them and their whole organization with all its firmly founded institutions would fall to pieces. So it actually came to pass on the Fall of Mecca.

The verse also adds that Divine destruction always comes in forms and from quarters most unexpected. The expression "coming of God" means the coming of Divine punishment. See also 13:42.

57:17.

13:42.

Commentary:

The verse gives the reason why disbelievers go astray and what leads them to forget and forsake the truth. It is this that when the time of the national prosperity of a people becomes prolonged, they come to labour under the misconception that their prosperity and progress will never see decline or decay and consequently they become arrogant and their hearts are hardened and they reject the message of their Prophet. Thus prolongation of the period of the prosperity of a people becomes the cause of their downfall. The verse warns disbelievers against wishful thinking and false complacency that their progress and prosperity will continue indefinitely and tells them not to shut their eyes to the patent fact that God is gradually but surely reducing and curtailing the land from all its sides i.e. Islam is making inroads into every home and all sections and strata of their society. The high and the low, the rich and the poor, the learned and the illiterate are daily joining its fold. It asks: "Does not this fact alone constitute an irrefutable proof of the truth of Islam? And in view of the sure signs of their decline and fall do they still entertain the false hope that they will continue to enjoy peace, prosperity and progress and will be able to arrest or retard the progress of Islam?" See also 13:42.

Commentary:

This verse alludes to two more significant facts: (1) Ages passed and a long line of Prophets appeared after Moses and they preached their messages, yet none of these Prophets ever claimed to be "that Prophet" about whom Moses had made the prophecy mentioned in Deut. 18:18, till the Quran was revealed and it claimed that the grand prophecy of Moses had been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet of Islam (73:16). (2) The words "And thou wast not a dweller among the people of Midian, rehearsing Our signs unto them" refer to a striking resemblance of the Holy Prophet with Moses. According to the prophecy (Deut. 18:18) the Promised Prophet was to be like unto Moses, and what greater similarity there could be between these two noble Prophets than that Moses had to flee for life from Egypt, where he was born and brought up, to Midian where for ten long years he lived among a strange people, and then went back to Egypt, armed with Divine authority to free and reclaim his depressed people, from the bondage of Pharaoh. Likewise the Prophet of Islam had to leave Mecca where he was born and brought up and then for ten years he lived in Medina among a people who were not of his kith and kin, and again in pursuance of Divine command marched forth to conquer Mecca at the head of an army of ten thousand saints to fulfil another prophecy of the Bible (Deut. 33:2).

7:39, 40; 14:22; 33:68-69; 34:32-33; 40:48-49.

10:29; 16:87.

Commentary:

The words, "those against whom the sentence will have become due," refer to the leaders of disbelief whom the misguided people blindly follow. Or the words may apply only to those associate-gods who themselves will be under Divine punishment and not to all those whom the idolaters worshipped because some of the righteous and God-fearing men have also been made the object of worship by their misguided followers.

The words, "it was not us they worshipped," mean that the leaders of disbelief would say that their so-called followers did not worship them but only their own ideas and fancies, i.e. it was because of their own false and foolish beliefs that they were led astray from the path of truth and righteousness.

Important Words:

عمیت (will become obscure) is formed from عمی which means, he was or became blind; he was or became spiritually blind; he failed to see a thing; he was or became stupid or ignorant. They say عمی علیه الامر i.e. the affair became obscure or confused to him. عمیت الاخبار عن فلان means, news or information became hidden to such a one (Aqrab & Lane).

انباء (excuses) is the plural of نبأ which means, important news; information; message; excuse (Lane, Aqrab & Kulliyyat). See also 6:6.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that at the time of reckoning the disbelievers will be in utter confusion and despair and will be completely at a loss how to defend themselves. The untenability of all false pleas and excuses will become manifest to them, and they will not be allowed to consult each other for the sake of preparing their defence.

3:138; 7:39; 13:31; 46:19.

Commentary:

The words, who made to appear attractive to them, signify that the evil companions of disbelievers admired and praised their evil acts so as to make those acts appear commendable to them. These evil associates, the verse says, will be made to share the punishment with those whom they beguiled and deceived.

The words, "what was before them and what was behind them," may mean, the deeds which they did in consequence of association with their bad companions and those they did in imitation of the bad deeds of their forefathers.

21:103; 46:14.

Commentary:

The present and the next verse show that it is in this very life that angels descend upon the Faithful to give them consolation and comfort when they exhibit perseverance in the midst of severe trials and tribulations. It is when the Faithful are beset with dangers all round, when they are threatened with loss of life, property and honour in the path of God, and whatever is consoling and comforting forsakes them, so much so, that God tries them by closing the door of heartening visions and revelations for a time; it is when they are surrounded by all these dreary conditions—and though the last ray of hope passes away, yet they show perseverance—that the angels of God descend upon them, giving them the message of hope and good cheer. It is then that God reveals His beautiful Face to them.

Commentary:

Mark the pathos of these words! The ill-fated people of Pharaoh enjoyed all sorts of comforts and luxury. They had wealth, power and influence. A Prophet came to them. They rejected his Message and opposed his mission with the result that heavenly punishment came down upon them sudden and swift and they went to their doom unwept, unhonoured and unsung. The ill-fated monarch who, in his conceit and arrogance, called himself God, went to the depths of the sea (20:79), with the memorable words, "I believe that there is no God but He in Whom the Children of Israel believed," on his lips. He who wanted to have a peep at the God of Moses in the heavens (40:38) had a taste of His might in the depths of the sea.

3:138; 7:39; 13:31; 41:26.

46:25.

Commentary:

For the story of ‘Ad see 11:51-61 and 26:124-141.

21:45.

2:75; 6:44.

Commentary:

The verse seems to refer to the latter-day Muslims when as a result of neglecting the teachings of Islam they will have become spiritually corrupt, morally depraved and politically impotent. The verse means to bring home to them the realization of their all-round degradation and makes to them a pathetic appeal. "Has not the time arrived yet," it seems to say to them, "now that they have sunk to the lowest depths of degradation, they should turn to God and act upon the teachings of their religion which once raised them to the highest peaks of greatness, grandeur and glory."

Important Words:

الجلاء (the banishment) is derived from جلا (jala). They say جلا عن بلدہ i.e. he migrated from his home. جلا عنه الھم means, he removed the grief from him or banished him. أجلاہ means he exiled (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse means that by their persistent evil designs and treachery the Jews of Medina, particularly the Banu Nadir, had incurred God’s wrath. Their exile from Medina was a very light punishment. They had deserved a much heavier punishment, and had they not been exiled they would have been severely punished in some other form.