قَضَىٰ

20:41; 26:20.

Important Words:

وکزہ (struck him with his fist) means, he struck or beat him; he beat or struck him with his fist; he pushed or impelled or repelled him; he goaded him (Lane).

Commentary:

Being of a very noble nature and having been inspired by high ideals, Moses was always ready to help weak and oppressed people and so when a poor and weak Israelite sought his help against an arrogant and cruel Egyptian, he at once went to his rescue.

The expression, "this is of Satan’s doing," according to Arabic idiom means that some evil thing has happened, i.e. "Satan had caused an Egyptian and an Israelite to fight and I had to come to the assistance of the oppressed Israelite which resulted in an evil thing i.e. the death of a person." Or the words might have been addressed to the dead Egyptian meaning, "this is the outcome of your satanic deed," i.e. "your death is the result of your own wickedness and transgression." The fact that Moses used no lethal weapon and only repelled the Egyptian or at best struck him with his fist shows that the latter’s death was accidental. Clearly there was no intention on Moses’ part to cause it.

The Quran has not mentioned the wicked deed of the Egyptian to which Moses refers in this verse but from Jewish Encyclopedia we know that the said Egyptian had forced an Israelite woman to commit adultery with him and that was indeed a devilish deed. It apparently led to the quarrel referred to in the verse and ultimately to Moses’ interference and the death of the Egyptian (Jew. Enc. under "Moses").

6:102.

3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.

Important Words:

بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.

Commentary:

This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.

19:21.

See 2:118.

Commentary:

The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).

Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.

Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).

There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).

6:61.

Commentary:

It appears from this verse that the soul of man is taken away both at the time of death and in sleep. In the former case, it is kept back and not allowed to return, while in the latter case, it comes back. The verse thus shows that the dead never come back to life. It also has an implied reference to the immortality of the human soul and man’s accountability for his deeds. In v. 41 above it was stated that as a result of the rejection of Divine Message, the disbelievers will suffer disgrace and humiliation in this life and will be subjected to an abiding punishment in the life to come. In the present verse we are told that with his death, man’s soul does not die or disintegrate but is taken away from its mortal habitat and is kept in other regions to account for man’s actions in due course.

15:27; 23:13; 32:8; 37:12; 38:72.

71:5.

Commentary:

The creation of man referred to in the words, Who created you, is meant as an illustration of the light mentioned in the previous verse, while the decreeing of a term, i.e. the ordaining of death, is meant as an illustration of "darkness". The verse ascribes both these acts to God as acts of mercy, thus refuting those who believe in two separate Gods, one of evil and the other of good.

The words, there is another term fixed with Him, refer to the Day of Judgement or of Resurrection when men, after passing through the gate of death, will receive their rewards from their Lord.

Important Words:

نحبه (his vow). نحب (nahbun) is derived from نحب (nahaba). They say نحب الرجل i.e. the man vowed; he put himself under an obligation to do a thing; he laid a bet or wager. نحب (nahbun) means, a vow, or a great vow; a great bet, a wager; an important matter; a great danger; death; the soul; sleep; violence; fatness; ambition; avarice; purpose; a game of chance. They say قضی نحبه i.e. he died; he fulfilled his obligation; he redeemed or fulfilled his pledge or vow; he was slain in the way of God (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse constitutes a great memorial to the fidelity, sincerity and steadfastness in faith of the Holy Prophet’s disciples. Never did the followers of a Prophet receive from God such certificate of good conduct and faithfulness. Just as the Master was unique among all Divine Messengers in discharging his prophetic duties, so were his Companions matchless in fulfilling the role assigned to them.

Important Words:

وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.

Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.

The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.

The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.

Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:

"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").

Commentary:

The desire of Jacob alluded to in this verse is the same to which reference has been made in the preceding verse viz. that they should not be suspected as spies or that, being informed by revelation that the official who distributed the grain was none other than Joseph, Jacob wanted Benjamin to meet him separately from the others.

2:84; 4:37; 12:41; 41:15.

6:152; 29:9; 31:15; 46:16.

Important Words:

اف (a word expressive of disgust) is derived from اف (affa) which means, he said اف (uff) by reason of anxiety or disquietude of mind, or by reason of vexation, distress of mind or disgust. اف is a word expressive of vexation, distress of mind or disgust, dislike, displeasure or hatred; dirt of the ear or paring of the nail; alas, woe or fie. They say اف لك i.e. fie upon thee! The Quranic expression فلا تقل لھما اف means, And say not thou to them اف i.e. do not thou deem anything of their affairs burdensome nor be contracted in bosom thereby, nor be tough or harsh or coarse to them; or do not thou say to them anything expressive of the least disgust (Lane & Aqrab).

ولا تنھرھما (nor reproach them). نھر means, he chid him; he checked him, restrained him or forbade him, with rough speech. (Lane & Aqrab).

کریما (excellent) is derived from کرم which means, it was or became highly esteemed or valued; excellent, precious or rare. They say کرمت ارضه i.e. his land was or became productive or fertile. اکرمه means, he treated him with honour or courtesy. کریم therefore means, generous; noble; high-born; highly esteemed or valued; excellent, precious or rare. It is the contrary of لئیم which means, ignoble; low-born, etc. (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

With this verse begin those principles and rules of conduct by observing which a people can preserve the integrity of their organization and make it safe against disintegration and decline.

In this connection pride of place is given to the maintenance of belief in the Unity and Oneness of God and refutation of shirk (setting up equals with God), because it is in the heyday of their glory and splendour that a people fall a prey to superstitious ideas and idolatrous practices. In fact shirk is at the root of all sins. Man sins because he lacks true faith in God and His attributes. Belief in the Unity of God is like a seed out of which grow all virtues. It is the pivot round which the teachings of all religions and codes of morality revolve. This belief constitutes the basis and the foundation for both the law of nature and the Law of Shari‘ah. That the Law of Shari‘ah is based on belief in the Unity of God is too patent a fact to need any explanation; but even the law of nature and all scientific progress are also based on it. For if it be supposed that there are more gods than one, it necessarily follows that there is more than one law of nature. But in the absence of one fixed and uniform natural law all progress of science will have come to an end, because all the discoveries and inventions made by science are due to the belief that an ordered, fixed and unchangeable system pervades the whole universe. Without such a belief man could never have devoted his attention and labour to fathom the secrets of the unknown. The second most important precept laid down in the verse under comment concerns man’s moral conduct. His obligations towards his parents form the most important part of it, because it is the parents who first of all direct our attention to God. It is in the parental mirror that the Divine attributes of Mercy, Compassion, Love and Providence are reflected and on a minor human scale are given practical expression. They point to the Being from Whom all things take their origin. The long chain of man’s parentage shows that his existence is not the result of mere accident or chance. It turns our thoughts to the Great Originator and Creator. It also shows that a great and noble purpose underlies the creation of man.

The commandment given in relation to God is negative. Man is told that as it is not possible for him to make a return of God’s favours, he should at least refrain from shirk (setting up equals with Him). In the case of parents, however, he is given a positive commandment, because he is in a position to return their love and kindness, though only very inadequately. So he is commanded to be generous to them.

The words, with thee, are significant. They show that when the parents of a person are dependent on him and live with him, he must be specially on his guard against using any harsh words about them. The words have been added because when a man’s parents are living with him, there is always the likelihood for differences to arise and consequently for the embitterment of mutual relations. Moreover, when a person spends his money for another he is inclined to think that he has a right to exercise his authority over him. The Quran therefore has emphasized that extra care should be taken in our relations towards our parents.

In Arabic the word اف (uff) is used to express one’s disgust by words of mouth and نھر (nahr) is used to express it by an actual deed. So by the combination of these two words in this verse the Quran means to say that we should never speak harshly to our parents, much less act unkindly towards them.

10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.

Important Words:

ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.

Commentary:

The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.

Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.

The Bible says:

(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);

(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);

(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);

(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);

(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);

(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);

(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);

(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);

(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).

The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.

It says:

(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);

(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);

(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);

(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);

(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).

The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.

Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.

According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.