قَوۡمُ

6:41; 10:51; 12:108; 43:67.

Commentary:

The word "suddenly" signifies the coming of the Divine punishment without warning or previous indication. The Fall of Mecca belonged to this class of signs.

The word "openly" implies giving a warning beforehand so that such people as still retain inward light and have a desire to follow the guidance may become warned and may accept the truth without further delay, lest they should also perish along with the wrongdoers.

6:6.

39:42; 42:7.

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in the words "rejected it" refers either (1) to the matter under discussion, i.e. it is God alone Who can send down punishment, or (2) to the Quran, or (3) to punishment. Taking the last meaning, the words "it is the truth" would mean that the promised punishment is sure to come.

The words, I am not a guardian over you, imply that if now, when I have conveyed to you the Divine Message, the punishment of God comes, I cannot help it. I will not be able to protect you from it. It is worthy of note that whereas disbelievers are demanding punishment, the Holy Prophet is expressing sympathy for them.

7:90.

Commentary:

This and the following two verses definitely show that the incident related in vv. 77-80 above was purposely used by Abraham by way of argument; otherwise he himself was a staunch monotheist and had dived deep into the depths of Divine love and knowledge.

Commentary:

As stated under 7:98 above, the Quran mentioned the fate of peoples that had opposed the Prophets of God in times gone by in order to warn opponents of the Holy Prophet that they also could not expect to escape a similar fate if they persisted in their opposition. The Prophets who have been mentioned in the preceding verses lived either in Arabia itself or in the neighbouring countries and stories of the fate that befell their opponents were still current among the contemporaries of the Holy Prophet.

The home of the ‘Adites was in Yemen, but their conquests extended over the whole of Arabia. Arab tradition represents them as conquerors of the whole world—of Persia, India and China, but history furnishes no proof of this claim.

The territory of the tribe of Thamud lay between Medina and Syria. The Holy Prophet passed through the ruins of their dwelling places during his expedition to Tabuk. The tribe of Thamud were worshippers of idols, among them being the Lat and the ‘Uzza.

The Midianites also lived in the north of Arabia near the coast of the Red Sea. The history of all these peoples was current among the Arabs who were well-informed of their power, designs and machinations as well as of their subsequent destruction as a result of the opposition offered by them to their Prophets. The reference in the verse to the people that perish is, therefore, straight and pointed.

28:6.

32:25.

Important Words:

یعرشون (they erect) is formed from عرش i.e. he constructed or erected a structure for grapevines to rise and spread upon; or he erected or built a shed or an enclosure or a house, etc. (Lane). See also 2:260; 6:142.

Commentary:

The words, the eastern parts of the land and the western parts thereof, signify, according to Arabic idiom, the entire country.

The words, which We blessed, refer to the Holy Land which had been promised to the descendants of Abraham and Jacob (5:22). It was blessed because it was the land where the Israelites were to thrive and prosper and grow into a great nation. The words, And the gracious Word of thy Lord was fulfilled, mean that the promise which God had made to Abraham and Jacob came to pass.

The words, We destroyed all that Pharaoh and his people had built, mean that the great buildings and memorials erected by Pharaoh by unjustly exacting hard labour from the Children of Israel fell into ruin in the time of the dynasty that ruled Egypt after him.

2:52, 93; 4:154; 7:153; 20:89.

20:90.

Commentary:

The calf is discarded and condemned as a deity, because it does not speak to its votaries nor guide them to any way. This shows that God can remain a true deity only as long as He speaks to His servants and provides for their guidance. So those are manifestly in the wrong who think that, whereas God used to speak and reveal Himself in the past, He has ceased to do so now. It is foolish to say that there is no harm if God has ceased to speak now when He spoke to His chosen servants in times gone by. If this argument possessed weight, worshippers of the calf could also advance a similar argument with regard to it. The fact is that no attribute of God can be supposed to have ceased to operate or become extinct. The gift of Divine revelation is attainable even now as it was attainable in the past, and those who look upon it as a thing of the past are grievously mistaken. God speaks at all times, and those who possess the capacity and quality to hear His voice, can and do hear it even now. Take away the power of speech from God and you leave Him no better than a calf. It is absurd to argue that as the Law of Islam has been made perfect, so no revelation is needed after the Holy Prophet. Revelation does not come merely to bring a new Law. It is primarily meant to grant freshness of spiritual life to man and bring him near unto his Lord and Master.

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

3:12; 7:183; 8:55.

Commentary:

The words, This is of the tidings of the unseen, are intended to hint that the Quranic accounts of the various Prophets are not meant as mere stories of the ancient peoples. They are given in the Quran because they contain a prophetic allusion to the analogous events that were to occur in the life of the Holy Prophet himself. This is what is implied in the words "the tidings of the unseen". The concluding words of the verse, i.e. "the end is for the God-fearing," lend further support to this inference. These accounts also serve to warn Muslims that they too will have to pass through the experiences of the followers of former Prophets and they warn disbelievers that they too shall meet a fate similar to that of the rejecters of past Prophets.

The words, So be thou patient, mean that just as the people of Noah were destroyed, so will a section of the Holy Prophet’s people be destroyed; and then of their seed and of the seed of their companions God will raise a people who will bear the standard of piety and righteousness in every age.

The story of the Deluge with some variations is to be found in the traditions and literature of various countries (see Enc. Rel. & Eth. Enc. Bib. & Enc. Brit. under Deluge). The importance which is attached to it and the widespread credence it commands points to its being an historical event of very great importance. It cannot be denied that a great flood did take place sometime in the remote past, that it was of an extraordinary nature and that it affected many nations of the earth. Its description as given in the Quran, however, shows that there was nothing unnatural about it.

The catastrophe seems to have taken place somewhere at the dawn of human civilization. The Holy Prophet of Islam spoke of Noah as the first Messenger of God, i.e. the first organizer of a religious community (Bukhari, ch. on Anbiya’).The Bible also represents him as such (Gen. 6:8). Hindu traditions, too, corroborate this fact, for they speak of Manu (who is the same as Noah), the Hindu hero of the Deluge, as the first man (Enc. Brit. under Manu). But they add that seven others were saved with him, which points to the fact that he was not the first man absolutely but only the first man of the first cycle of human civilization. These statements made in the Scriptures of three great religions of the world leave no doubt about the fact that Noah laid the foundations of human civilization and culture. In fact, with the progress and advance of a people in civilization, their numbers also begin to grow with a corresponding decrease taking place in the numbers of less civilized communities living with them in the same land. It is a well-known historical fact that whenever a people, comparatively more advanced in culture and civilization, have come to settle in a country, they have either blotted out of existence the less civilized inhabitants of the land or have greatly weakened them. Thus it appears that when the descendants of Noah and those of his companions, who were the founders of human civilization, spread to other lands, because they were more powerful than the people already living there, they either exterminated them or absorbed them by breaking their power. In this way they must have introduced into all the countries they subjugated their own traditions and customs; and consequently the tradition about the Deluge which naturally impressed the subjugated people must also have come to be introduced into other lands. With the lapse of time, however, the immigrants ceased to have any connection with their original home and the catastrophe consequently came to be regarded as a local occurrence, with the result that local names of persons and places came to be substituted for the original names.

In short, the Deluge was not a universal visitation, nor should the traditions of different lands be taken to point to separate floods. It was confined to one land, but owing to the immigration of the descendants of Noah and his companions to other lands, the story spread far and wide and finally the Flood came to be regarded as a local occurrence in every country.

As for the place where the Deluge occurred see note on al-Judi in v. 45.

15:68.

7:81; 29:29.

15:72.

Important Words:

یھرعون (came running trembling with rage) is derived from ھرع. They say ھرع الیه (hara‘a) i.e. he went to him quickly and in a perturbed state of mind. ھرع الرجل (huria) or اھرع الرجل (ahra‘a) means, the man went quickly; and اھرع الرجل (uhri‘a) means, the man was made to tremble with rage, fear, cold or weakness; he was made to go fast. The Arabs say, اقبل الشیخ یھرع (yuhra‘u) i.e. the old man came fast and trembling or came running in a perturbed state of mind. (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In ancient times, generally every town had a separate government of its own, which was carried on by the chiefs of the place by mutual consultation as a sort of republic: or by a king whose authority was confined to one village or a number of villages. The two towns, Sodom and Gomorrah, with which Lot was connected had such a government. They possessed no established government in the modern sense of the word (Gen. ch. 14).

The inhabitants of these two towns had adopted the calling of the road and used to plunder wayfarers (Jew. Enc. under "Sodom"). A people who thus molested their neighbours naturally had to be on their guard against them and to be constantly apprehensive of reprisals. Besides, the people of Sodom were practically in a state of war with their neighbours (Gen. 14). Therefore they would not allow strangers to enter their towns, lest the latter should open the gates at night and let in the enemy. Lot, like all Prophets of God, being an hospitable man, naturally used to look after the comfort of strangers and entertain them (15:71). His people, apprehensive as they were, repeatedly warned him to give up that practice. So when, on this occasion, he brought strangers into his house, his townsmen became infuriated and hastened to him with angry faces, because they thought they now had a suitable opportunity to punish him for giving shelter to strangers in defiance of their protests.

Some commentators say that these visitors had come in the form of handsome boys and that Lot’s people came running to him with evil intent. But there is nothing in the context to warrant such an inference. On the contrary in 15:71 we read that on seeing the strangers with Lot, his people demanded of him why he had brought these strangers when they had already forbidden him to do so. If they had come with an evil intention, they should have rejoiced at the sight of the strangers and not been displeased at seeing them. Moreover, vv. 15:68-70 signify that Lot’s people rejoiced at having an opportunity to punish and disgrace him because he defied their protests. They were angry with him because he had brought in the strangers against their protests and were glad that they now had an opportunity to settle old scores with him once for all.

The words, before this too they used to do evil, show that in view of their past mischievous behaviour Lot feared lest his people should do any mischief and thus disgrace him in the presence of his guests. There is no reference here to any particular mischief. They were wicked people, therefore Lot was naturally afraid that they might do harm.

When the townsmen came to Lot running, he referred to his two daughters who had been married in the town and said, they are purer for you, meaning that if his people insulted his guests and turned them out, they would thereby disgrace themselves; but if they really entertained fear that he might do them harm in league with the strangers, they had his daughters in their custody and they could wreak vengeance on him by punishing them. That was a better and purer course for them to adopt, for in that way they would also avoid the disgraceful act of insulting the guests.

There can be nothing more absurd than to say that Lot offered his daughters to his wicked people to satisfy their lust. Even the meanest of men would not do such a shameful and dishonourable act; then how could a noble Prophet of God, who must possess a far greater sense of honour than ordinary men, stoop to such a mean course? The absurd story given in the Bible seems to be responsible for so stupid an interpretation of this Quranic verse by some commentators.

Some other commentators have suggested that Lot offered his daughters in marriage, but this explanation also seems unsatisfactory. It appears from the Bible that Lot had two daughters who were married. But if it be supposed that they were unmarried, they could be married only to two of the townsmen. How could then this offer give satisfaction to a large number of people? And how was it relevant to their demand?

There is, however, one explanation which seems plausible, if it be supposed that the people came with the intention which these commentators ascribe to them. A Prophet is, as it were, the father of his people, so he can speak of their women as his daughters.

So when Lot said to the people, "these are my daughters; they are purer for you," he, as a Prophet and an old man, must have referred to their own wives as his daughters, who, of course, were purer for them, He thus asked them to follow the lawful course rather than satisfy their lust unnaturally.