قَآئِمٌ

19:13.

19:8; 21:91.

3:46; 4:172.

Important Words:

یحیٰ (Yahya or John) is the name of the Prophet who appeared before Jesus to serve as his harbinger in fulfilment of the Biblical prophecy (Mal. 3: 1 and 4: 5). The Hebrew form is یوحنا which in that language means, God has been gracious (Enc. Brit.). The name Yahya was given by God Himself and was meant to point to a distinctive characteristic of his (19:8). In Arabic, the word is derived from the root حیاة (life) and means, he lives or he shall live. The implication in the name was that he would not die in childhood but would live to the age of manhood or that he would lead a righteous life. The fact that Yahya did not die a natural death but was killed (Matt. 14:10) shows yet another implication in the name, i.e. that he would die the death of a martyr and would thus live forever in the sight of God. Says the Quran, Think not of those who have been slain in the cause of Allah as dead. Nay, they are living in the presence of their Lord and are granted gifts from Him (3:170). Yahya is probably the only known Israelite Prophet who was actually killed, as hinted in the Quranic verse, We have not made anyone before him of that name (19:8; cf. Luke 1: 61).

حصور (chaste) is derived from حصر i.e. he was or became unable to express his mind by reason of shame, etc. حصرعنه means, he became impeded and was unable to do it. حصر عن المرأة means, he abstained or kept away from sexual intercourse with the woman, whether intentionally or through impotence. حصرالسر means, he concealed the secret and refrained from divulging it. حصرہ means, he prevented or restrained him. حصور therefore, means, one who has no sexual intercourse with women, though able to have it, abstaining from them from a motive of chastity and for the sake of shunning worldly pleasures; or one who is prevented from having it by impotence; or one who does not desire them; one very careful and cautious, who abstains or refrains from a thing through fear, etc.; concealer of a secret or secrets; one who abstains from evil passions and frivolous games and sport (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The description of Yahya (John) given in the verse, i.e. سید (noble or great), and حصور (chaste or refrainer from evil passions), and نبی(Prophet) and من الصالحین (righteous), agrees with that given in Luke (1: 13-17, 76). In Luke we have, "he (John or Yahya) shall be great in the sight of God…he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink…he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost...and he shall be called the prophet of the Most High." The Quran also describes Yahya as one who shall testify to the truth of a word from Allah (3:40). And John came in exact fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy: "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (Mal. 4:5). The Quranic expression حصور in the sense of "concealer of a secret" also points to the above description, for Yahya (John) was the bearer of the hidden news of the coming of Jesus.

20:100.

Important Words:

قری (cities) is the plural of قریة and means, (1) the people of the towns; or (2) the towns themselves (Aqrab).

حصید (mown down like the harvest) is derived from حصد. They say حصد الزرع i.e. he reaped or cut the harvest with a scythe. حصد القوم بالسیف means, he mowed down the people with the sword. The proverb من زرع الشر حصد الندامة means, he who sows evil reaps remorse. حصید means, reaped seed-produce; mown down with the sword like reaped seed-produce; an harvest that is cut or mown down; also the lower part of the harvest which remains after the latter is cut down (Lane & Aqrab). See also 6:142.

Commentary:

In the first mentioned sense of the word قری the word قائم (standing) would mean that the progeny of these peoples lived after them and thus, as it were, continued to stand; and in the latter sense it would mean that the remains of some of these towns are still to be found while others have become totally extinct. Similarly, in this sense the word حصید (mown down like the harvest) would mean "a people who have become totally or nearly extinct." If, however, the word قری is taken in the sense of "towns," the word حصید would signify, "towns whose traces have become wholly or nearly extinct."

The verse means that the remains of some of the towns mentioned are still extant, while others have become wholly or nearly obliterated. Consequently, if the ruins of some of the towns mentioned in this Surah cannot be found, the truth of the Quranic narratives cannot be called into question, because the Quran itself uses the word حصید (mown down) with regard to them. If, however, in some future time, archaeologists succeed in discovering the ruins of some towns now extinct, the Quranic account would still be beyond doubt, for the word حصید (mown down) is also used with regard to a harvest that has been cut down with a scythe, the lower part of which still remains visible. See also 10:25.

6:101; 10:67; 13:17.

17:98; 39:24, 37.

Commentary:

The words, Who stands over every soul to note what it earns, contain another reason why God delays punishment. The argument is that as God is keeping close watch over every soul and nothing, however remote and secret, is hidden from His knowledge and He is also All-Powerful, He needs no hurry to punish the disbelievers; for if only punishment were the object, He could bring the offenders to book whenever He liked. The postponement of punishment is not therefore a thing to be scoffed or wondered at. The wonder rather is that disbelievers do not ponder over the fact that they are offenders against God’s Kingdom and yet they do not fear His punishment and desire to hasten it.

The words, they ascribe partners to Allah, mean that if disbelievers pondered over their own beliefs and actions they would readily discover that they were sinning against God by ascribing co-partners to Him and have therefore rightly incurred His displeasure.

The simple words, Say, Name them, embody a mighty argument against shirk. Idolaters are called upon to describe what function their gods perform. The word "name" in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Quran itself (71:24). The demand that idolaters should name the functions of their gods is such as cannot fail to bring home to them the absurdity of their beliefs. Suppose, for instance, the idolaters say about one of their gods that his function or attribute is that he can or does bestow children. Now the possession of such a power by a god would imply that he has control not only over the birth of children but over numberless other things which have direct or indirect bearing on geniture. Thus, in order to bestow children, the god to whom this attribute is ascribed must have control over diet and medicinal drugs and must have control over even the working of man’s physical system. He must also have knowledge of hidden things so that he may know the genital defects of the parents and also know what medicine will suit the special circumstances of the case. Besides, he must be able to impart the knowledge of hidden things to others. For instance, he must be able to inspire the physician or the patient as to what medicine and what food will remove the defect. In short, until a god possesses an all-comprehensive knowledge and unlimited powers, he will not be able to perform even one single function. On the other hand, if it be supposed that each and every god possesses all the powers required for his special function, then the existence of so many gods would become superfluous, besides being a potential source of discord and disorder; for in that case each one of these gods would be the Supreme Being, a position which is impossible to imagine.

The words, Name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.

The words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth?, contain yet another powerful argument against shirk. If there had been any other gods, argues the verse, the fact ought to have been made known by God Himself through a Prophet or through angels, or the alleged co-partners of God should themselves have made that announcement, but no such communication or announcement has ever been known to exist. Hence, the verse takes idolaters to task by telling them that by ascribing co-partners to God they presume to inform Him of something of which He Himself has no knowledge.

The expression, or is it a mere empty saying?, means that idolaters say these things only with their tongues and have no real faith in them. The verse asks disbelievers whether they really believe in what they allege. In this way, an appeal has been made to human nature, which often proves a very successful way of bringing home the truth.

It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to procure worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a prey to his own imposture which, by and by, begins to appear attractive to him. Thus man’s design is made to look fair to him not by God, but by man himself. Some men ascribe divine powers to certain creatures, not because they really believe them to be gods beside Allah, but to impose upon simple-minded people and to cheat them of their possessions. But, as time goes on, their own trick begins to appeal to them, and they become the dupes of their own fraud. This is the significance of the words, Nay, but the design of the disbelievers has been made to appear beautiful in their eyes.

The expression, and they have been kept back from the right way, signifies that when a man severs his connection with God, he becomes involved in shirk, whether hidden or visible. Man cannot remain without a companion. When he leaves God, the inevitable result is that he begins to seek the support of petty things, which gradually gives rise to shirk.

Here the Quran differs from the students of comparative religion. According to the latter, polytheism preceded the belief in one God. According to the Quran the reverse is true, and history supports the Quran. We see that Muslims and Jews were worshippers of one God in the beginning, but afterwards many of them virtually reverted to polytheism and idolatry. The case of Christians is still worse. They were first believers in the Unity of God but took to deifying Jesus afterwards and the whole community became stuck in the quagmire of shirk. Why should we not assume that the same was the case with the peoples of remote antiquity?