فْتَرَىٰ

Commentary:

The word ذالك (this) refers to the statement made in the preceding verse. To say that such and such parts of food were disallowed by God whereas He had not forbidden them, or even without directly attributing any commandant to God persistently to abstain from partaking of a lawful food without just reason virtually amounted to forging a lie against God which only wrongdoers could resort to.

4:117.

Important Words:

یشرك (associates partners) is derived from شرك . They say شرك فیه i.e. he shared or participated with him in it; he was or became his co-partner in it. أشرك بالله means, he attributed to God or associated with Him a partner or co-partner, whether in His person or attributes or dominion, etc. شرك means: (1) participation or co-partnership; (2) the attribution of a co-partner to, or associating a partner with, God, i.e. belief in the plurality of Gods (Lane & Aqrab). شرك in its wider sense is not confined to worshipping idols or looking upon certain beings or things as partners with God or possessing His attributes or sharing in His dominion, etc. It extends to loving a thing or a being as one should love God, or trusting in a thing or a being as one should trust in God, and so on. This latter kind of شرك is known as شرك خفی i.e. the hidden شرك being not easily discernible.

Commentary:

The reference in the verse is not only to idol-worship, but also to such idolatrous practices as are in vogue among common people, even among present-day Muslims, such as the adoration of saints and offering prayers and oblations to them. All such abominable practices are shirk in the sight of God. Butشرك خفی (hidden shirk), i.e. loving or trusting in a thing or being as one should love and trust in God, may be forgiven, if done in ignorance and through lack of proper care, provided one is a sincere believer in God and His Prophet and strives to do good works.

The expression, Allah will not forgive, does not mean that an idolatrous person can never repent or that his repentance cannot be accepted even in the present life. The expression relates to the time after death, i.e. one who dies in a state of shirk will not be forgiven.

6:94; 7:38; 10:18; 11:19; 61:8.

Commentary:

This verse mentions the third way by means of which God bears witness. This kind of testimony is based on human reason. Every sane man will testify that if a person claims to speak in the name of God while God has not spoken to him, and he forges lies against Him, such a person is one of the greatest culprits and God must bring him to naught; for if impostors are allowed to prosper like true Prophets, there will remain no criterion to distinguish the true from the false, and the truth will be lost. So, in order to distinguish between the true and the false, God must bring to naught the false claimant. Thus the hard fact that God is helping the Prophet of Islam and causing him to prosper in the teeth of all opposition and against heavy odds is a clear testimony from God to his being a true Prophet.

On the other hand, those who reject true Prophets and treat them as impostors are also among the greatest culprits who, by reason of their opposing God’s Messengers and leaving no stone unturned to bring to naught the movement set on foot by them, must incur God’s anger; and, instead of being permitted to destroy the heavenly movement, must themselves be destroyed. Thus, not only by granting success to the Holy Prophet but also by bringing about the destruction of his enemies God is bearing witness to his truth.

6:22; 7:38; 10:18; 11:19; 61:8.

46:21.

Commentary:

The verse gives another reason of the fact that the Quran is the revealed Word of God. If this Book, says the verse, is not the Word of God, then he who has forged this lie against God is the most guilty of men and cannot escape Divine punishment. But the verse also reminds deniers or rejecters that if the Quran is not a forged Book but the Word of God, as it actually is, then they are as great offenders as the one who forges a lie against God. In this case, it will be they who will be visited with Divine punishment.

The second sentence, i.e. or says, It has been revealed to me while nothing has been revealed to him, may be taken as an explanation or elaboration of the first sentence, i.e. who forges a lie against Allah; or the first sentence is general, while the second is particular. For instance, falsely to ascribe any teaching to God will come under the first category, and to claim falsely that God has spoken to him particular words will come under the second.

By saying, I will send down the like of that which Allah has sent down, a disbeliever only borrows the phraseology of those whom he addresses, viz. believers. Being a disbeliever in Divine revelation, he does not believe that God sends down anything, so he only quotes the expression made use of by believers concerning Divine revelation. Another instance of such usage is to be met with in 5:44.

The words, if thou couldst only see, signify that if anyone should witness the torment which the deniers of Prophets undergo when their souls leave their bodies, he would at once realize how severe is the torment of those who reject a Divine Messenger. This torment is not to be identified with the ordinary agonies of death, which are shared, under the general law of nature, by righteous and unrighteous alike, but to the specific punishment that clings to the rejecters of Prophets from the very moment of their death. The "punishment of disgrace" mentioned in the latter part of the verse refers, as the words "this day" indicate, not to the punishment of Hell but to the punishment which sinners begin to undergo immediately after death and before the Day of Resurrection. This is known as عذاب القبر (‘Adhabul-Qabr), i.e. punishment in the grave, in Islamic religious terminology, قبر or grave being the name given to the place where souls are kept after death but before Resurrection. Says the Holy Prophet: "When anyone dies, a window is opened out for him in the grave facing Heaven or Hell as the case may be" (Majah, ch. on Qabr). This is, of course, not the final retribution but only preparatory to it.

6:22; 7:38; 11:19.

Commentary:

Speaking of the laws devised by man, the Quran had referred to some pagan customs with regard to animals (6:140, 141). Now it gives its own laws with regard to them.

While speaking of sheep and goats in 6:144 above, the Holy Prophet is made here to ask the idolaters to inform him if these animals were unlawful, i.e. not fit for eating, and to bring forward (as hinted in the words نبٔونی بعلم i.e. inform me with knowledge) some rational argument or scientific reason to show that they should not be eaten. When, however, it speaks of oxen and camels in the present verse, the Quran asks idolaters whether they were witnesses when Allah forbade the eating of these animals. In other words, the verse here calls upon them to produce a religious authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because the cow and the camel are looked upon as forbidden by some on religious authority. For instance, the Hindus think it unlawful to eat beef for religious reasons and the Jews look upon the camel as forbidden by their scriptures.

This restriction is, however, unjustified; for, as regards beef, it is clearly allowed by the Vedas and was freely used in ancient India not only as ordinary food but also as an essential part of many religious ceremonies (Indo-Aryans by R. Mitra, LL.D., C.I.E.; The Review of Religions for 1923). As regards the camel, it is indeed forbidden by the Bible, but that prohibition is not meant for all time, for the Bible announces the advent of another Lawgiver whose Law was to abrogate the Law of the Bible (Deut. 18:18).

The words, Were you present when Allah enjoined, signify that when pagans do not believe in any revelation, they cannot possibly know that anything was forbidden by God.

6:22; 10:18; 11:19; 61:8.

6:23; 40:74-75.

6:131.

Commentary:

The verse gives the reasons why the rejecters of Divine Messengers deserve severe punishment. People incur the wrath of God because they treat His Messenger as a liar and reject the heavenly signs he brings with him. Indeed, impostors and the rejecters of true Messengers are equally doomed and can never escape the punishment ordained for them.

The words, who shall have their lot as ordained, mean that the rejecters of God’s Messengers will see before their very eyes the fulfilment of the prophecies foretelling their defeat and discomfiture and shall taste of the punishment promised to them for opposing God’s Messengers.

6:22; 11:19; 61:8.

Commentary:

This verse brings to light two eternal truths. The first of these is that both those who fabricate lies against God and those who reject and oppose His Messengers are highly unjust and can never escape God’s punishment. The second is that impostors and false prophets cannot succeed in fulfilling the object of their mission. It is indeed possible that a false prophet may temporarily succeed in securing a number of followers or in amassing wealth. But even in this case he will not be regarded as having succeeded in fulfilling his mission, because the amassing of wealth or the securing of a number of followers has never been the mission of a Prophet of God. The true mission of a Divine Messenger is either to introduce and establish a new Law or to strengthen the old one, and unless he succeeds in achieving this object, he cannot be said to have been successful in his mission. This is a criterion the truth of which cannot legitimately be disputed or denied. The apparent failure of a true Prophet like John the Baptist or the apparent success of a claimant like Baha’ullah can be fully explained with the help of this touchstone. John came with the mission of announcing the coming of the Messiah, which was in the nature of strengthening the old Law, and he was successful in that mission. On the other hand, Baha’ullah, even if he be taken to have come only as a Divine Messenger and not as God’s incarnation as he declared himself to be, claimed to have brought a new law that was to replace the Quranic Dispensation and therein he utterly failed, for his law has not been truly established even in a single household, not to speak of a whole people or country.

12:112; 16:90.

Commentary:

The previous verse dealt with the subject that it was necessary for God to have sent down revelation for the guidance of mankind and that it is not in the power of anyone else to provide such spiritual guidance. From a discussion of the subject in principle, the Quran in this verse turns to the particular question, whether the Quran could be the word of man. It answers this question in the negative and gives five very cogent reasons to show that it is indeed the revealed word of God.

The first argument hinted at in the words, except Allah, is that the Quran comprises such subjects as are beyond the power of man to know and as can be revealed by God alone. Now among the things which are known to God alone are matters which pertain to the unseen, viz. prophecies about great events of the future; and there can be no doubt about the Divine origin of a book which contains things which are known to God alone.

The second argument given here to prove the Divine origin of the Quran is that not only do its own prophecies contradict the idea of its having been forged and fabricated by a man but the prophecies of the previous Prophets also establish its Divine origin. This is hinted at in the words, it fulfils that which is before it; and obviously no man-made book has the power to fulfil in itself prophecies foretold in previous Scriptures.

It is a peculiar characteristic of the Quran that, instead of speaking of former Prophets as bearing witness to the truth of the latter Prophets, it represents the latter as fulfilling what the former Prophets have said, the reason being that whereas former Prophets do indeed predict the advent of the Prophets that are to come after them, the latter Prophets establish the truth of the former Prophets by making their appearance exactly at the time and in the manner foretold. The best way of expressing this idea is the one that has been followed by the Quran. For, to say that the former Prophets bear testimony to the truth of such and such a Prophet or of such and such a revelation, is not so effective as to say that it is only by means of the present revelation or the present Prophet that the truth of the former Prophets can now become established. This is a line of reasoning which the followers of the former Prophets dare not reject.

The third argument embodied in this verse is hinted at in the words, an exposition of the Law, i.e. the Quran explains and expounds the teachings of previous Scriptures. This also constitutes a very strong proof of the truth of the Quran. The previous Scriptures require the help of the Quran for the exposition and elucidation of their teachings. The Torah, the Gospels, the Vedas, the Zend-Avesta, all discuss such great spiritual problems as the Unity of God, revelation, Divine attributes, prophethood, life after death, moral and spiritual conditions, etc., but none of these books deals with these questions in such a manner as to make them perfectly clear and understandable, and their ambiguities and obscurities have to be explained with the help of the Quran. So in the verse under comment the claim is made that the Quran explains and clarifies those parts of previous Scriptures about which so much vagueness and obscurity exists and disbelievers are told that, if they deny the Divine origin of the Quran, they will have to admit that the All-Knowing God Himself was unable to put so much spiritual knowledge in all the former revealed books as this human being (the Prophet of Islam) has succeeded in placing in this small Book, the Quran. So the followers of other faiths will have either to admit the Divine origin of the Quran or deny previous Scriptures also.

The fourth argument given in this verse is contained in the words, There is no doubt about it, which means that the Quran contains all the reasons and arguments needed to prove its Divine origin and does not require the help or support of any outside person or book for that purpose. It deals with various social, moral and spiritual problems in such a perfect and exhaustive manner that he who ponders over it dispassionately can readily see that the Quran makes no claim which it does not support with cogent reasons and powerful arguments. This constitutes irrefutable evidence of the fact that this Book has indeed proceeded from God; for the Quran demands our belief in many unseen things and it is not in the power of man to prove unseen things by intellectual reasoning alone without the help of observation and experience. But obviously man cannot provide bases of observation and experience for things unseen. Only God can do it.

The fifth argument of the Divine origin of the Quran as given in this verse is contained in the words, It is from the Lord of all the worlds. This is to hint that by means of the Quran the Divine attribute of Rabbul ‘Alamin (Lord of all the worlds) has been made manifest to all mankind. The Quran is not meant to satisfy the need and requirements of a particular people or a particular period only, as were the previous Scriptures, but is meant for all nations and all ages. Now it is impossible for a human being to produce a book which should satisfy the requirements of all mankind for all time. Man is naturally influenced by his environment and ordinarily foresees and seeks to meet his immediate needs only. It is God alone Who can give such teachings as are equally useful for all times and all peoples and as are unaffected by changes in time and in the conditions and circumstances of man. The Quran embodies such teachings.

2:24; 11:14; 17:89; 52:34-35.

Commentary:

Notwithstanding the great excellences of the Quran mentioned in the preceding verse, disbelievers had the hardihood to allege that it was a fabrication of the Holy Prophet. The verse under comment asks, if a book with such excellences as the Quran possesses could be a human fabrication, then why do disbelievers not produce a similar one themselves? Similar challenges have been made in the Quran at different places, in different words. At one place the Quran calls upon disbelievers to produce a book like the whole of the Quran; at another it challenges them to produce ten chapters comparable to the Quranic Surahs; at yet another place it requires them to produce even a single Surah like those of the Quran. This shows that each of the passages containing these challenges deals with the subject from a different standpoint and offers a different challenge. In the verse under comment, for instance, the pronoun "it" in the expression مثله (like unto it) does not refer to the whole of the Quran but only to the previous verse of the present Surah. As we have seen, the previous verse has advanced five arguments to show that the Quran is the revealed word of God and in the present verse disbelievers are told that if they still persist in looking upon the Quran as the word of man, then let them produce a book which, let alone all the five arguments embodied in the previous verse, should possess only one of them. It is a patent fact, however, that not one of these five arguments about the Divine origin of the Quran is to be found in any work of man. This is a claim which nobody has ever dared to contradict, nor is there a possibility of future contradiction. The challenge stands for all time. The heavens and the earth may pass away, but no man will ever be able to produce a book like the Quran.

If the word Surah in this verse be taken to mean a chapter, then the verse would mean that disbelievers are called upon to produce even a chapter comparable with the Quran. But then the challenge will not be so pointed. For, in that case disbelievers would be called upon to bring a full chapter characterized by all the five qualities mentioned in the previous verse, while in the other case they are required to produce any composition containing only one of the five qualities. For a detailed treatment of this important subject see 2:24.

2:24; 10:39; 17:89; 52:34-35.

Commentary:

This verse corroborates the interpretation put on the previous one. The latter gave two answers to the disbelievers’ vain hope that the Holy Prophet might abandon a portion of the Quran for fear of their objections, viz.: (1) that the Holy Prophet was only a Warner; he did not lay claim to Godhead that he might be required to have with him treasures and angels; (2) that he was only the bearer of a Message from God and his duty was confined to delivering that Message to the people. Now disbelievers could have replied to these arguments by saying that his claim to have come from God was but an empty assertion and that he was an impostor, as he was not attended with any special power. The verse under comment answers this objection by saying that although the Holy Prophet did not possess treasures of gold or silver, yet he possessed vast spiritual treasures the like of which were not possessed by the whole world collectively; and that those treasures were embodied in the Quran. So if they objected that the Holy Prophet was not a true Prophet and that certain portions of his Message were defective and needed to be altered, then let them bring forward a work comparable not to the whole of the Quran, but only to ten such chapters of it as they deemed to be defective. If, however, they could not produce a book comparable even to these so-called defective portions, which they thought needed to be changed, then they would have to admit that the Prophet of Islam did indeed possess a treasure the like of which none could produce. For full discussion of this subject, see under 2:24 where all similar verses of the Quran have been collectively treated.